NationStates Jolt Archive

Note, I wrote it in with the {code} tag to keep the numbers and ()'s from turning into smileys. Put on my site, as well - www.geocities.com/gaizme/explored.html - to keep confusion out and to stop anyone from claiming that I stole this from someone else. I wrote it, sorry. :)
A little boy is shamed for playing with Barbie dolls. A teenage girl is shut out of her church. A young man away at college is financially cut off. An accountant divorces his wife after thirteen years of living a lie; the court grants sole custody to his wife and her new boyfriend. A man drifts to death in a hospital, and his brother won't come near to say goodbye. To discriminate love, to condemn love, to hate love; thought it was no big deal, think again. It is time to end the injustice, to dispel the ignorance, to curtail the hatred. Homosexuality is not just a minor social issue covered by the mound of more important, or less taboo concerns. It pleads to be given another look, another connotation. Homosexuality, with it's many facets, should not be overlooked or hastily judged, but rather explored.

Some of history's renowned figures include: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Tchaikovsky, Alexander Hamilton, Sir Francis Bacon, Amelia Earhart, Nathaniel Hawthorn, James Dean, Janis Joplin, Susan B. Anthony, Hans Christian Anderson, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo. Most educated people know of these names; however, what most do not know is that there are considerable reasons to believe that none of these people were solely heterosexual. Alexander the Great, the King of Macedonia had a Persian male lover. Alexander Hamilton, one of America's founding fathers, is said to have been with John Laurens. Nathaniel Hawthorn, author of The Scarlet Letter was certainly intimately in love with Herman Melville, author of Moby Dick. Michelangelo, with his many priceless and astounding works of art, was in love with his male model Gherardo Perini, male model Febo di Poggio, lover Andrea Quaratesi, and most likely a boy named Francesco de Zanobi Bracci. As is evident, homosexuality is not a new phenomenon, but rather a sexual chronicle and a continuing veracity.

So what exactly does the term homosexual mean? It is not an obscure word nor is it a bizarre term. Homo is Greek for same, and sexual means relating to sex. A modern homosexual person is therefore an individual whose sexual attraction is to the same gender. Prussians arguing for the repeal of anti-homosexual laws first used the word homosexual in 1869. Many other terms such as gay, lesbian, queer, etcetera are used to describe this sexuality or a person who holds this orientation. The word lesbian comes from the Greek island Lesbos, where one of the earliest acclaimed lesbians, Sapphos, founded a school for girls. Gay is a term that originated in the 1920's as slang term and was later espoused in the 1960's by homosexual men who thought the word homosexual sounded too clinical.

In modern society, there exists a detrimental habit to classify people into specific groups. This is indubitably evident when it comes to sexuality. To many, a person is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, with many who will merely say "straight" or "gay". These classifications are simply not accurate because they are not comprehensive of the total range of human sexuality. Human sexual orientation cannot be divided into simply two or three categories, because, it is not that finite. A better way to view sexual orientation is on a continuum, a scale from x to y with x being one hundred percent heterosexual and y being one hundred percent homosexual. Most people are not completely heterosexual or homosexual. However, more individuals likely fall closer to the heterosexual end of the spectrum, and estimates for the percent of the human population that is principally homosexual are only between 3 and 10 percent. It is also significant to note that sexual orientation is not mandated by incidental experiences. As Eric Marcus states in his book Is It A Choice?, "Plenty of heterosexual people have had homosexual experiences, and plenty of homosexual people have had heterosexual experiences. These experiences have not changed anyone's basic sexual orientation, although they may have broadened a few horizons."

One of the greatest debated facets of homosexuality is over its cause. These arguments usually stem from scientific research, deeply held moral beliefs, or the fear/hatred of homosexuality. Many people, especially scientists, hold that the roots of homosexuality lie in genes, or in biology. Similarly, many religious fundamentalists insist that homosexuality is purely a choice, and an evil one at that. They may point to environmental conditions that make an individual more prone to "become' gay. Homosexuality is most likely the result of several ingredients rather than one cause. Biological evidence is found in the high degree of correlation between homosexuality and androgen (male sex hormone) exposure of the unborn baby during prenatal development. This same unique fetal condition also suggests that the homosexual male's brain may be more efficient than the heterosexual male's brain. Genetics is believed by some to determine this amount of androgen exposure, and therefore indirectly, determine homosexuality. The many similarities in homosexuals in areas of development such as family atmosphere during childhood and adolescence provide support to the social-environmental standpoint. It is said by one doctor that, "I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm, loving relationship with his father." In the words of author Tineke Bodde, "Sexual orientation is likely to be the result of several different factors including genetic, hormonal [biological], and environmental. None of these factors alone are responsible for determining sexual orientation. Psychological and social influences alone cannot explain homosexuality." After noting the biological, environmental, and perhaps genetic influences on sexual orientation, it is imperative to note that homosexuality is not a disorder. The American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association released the following statement in 1994, "Homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality."

So what is different for this three to ten percent of the population, besides whom they feel sexually attracted to? The answer is unquestionably enough to write a stack of books reaching at least to the top of the Washington monument. Life is much more facile for heterosexual individuals due to the congruence between their inner feelings and social expectations. "For heterosexual people, feelings [of attraction] are reinforced by family, society, culture, and religion from the earliest age. For example, how many times have you heard loving relatives ask a young child if he has a girlfriend, or she has a boyfriend? Even if it's asked in the most playful way, this question reinforces that boys have girlfriends, and girls have boyfriends." Unfortunately, this support is hardly present for homosexuals. From before birth, life is different for most homosexuals. After introduction into this world, non-heterosexual individuals are subjected to the mercy, or lack thereof, of the predominately heterosexual filled, and biased world. As one homosexual enlightens, growing up is a very different emotional journey for homosexual children. He says that even before these children are fully aware of their sexual orientation, they know that what they are feeling is not what they are supposed to be feeling according to the society. Eric grasps, "There is confusion of not knowing the reason you are different from other kids, and also in a parent telling you you'll outgrow it. Gay and lesbian kids often get regular negative reinforcement of their feelings. Sometimes it's religious condemnation; sometimes it's kids using words like fag, or dyke".

For gay teenagers who are ascertaining who they are, the experience is only more adverse. As Cathy McMullen proposes, "So imagine what it would be like if, on top of all that [teenage struggles], you realize that not only are you inherently different from your peers, but that difference is regarded by society as perversion". With a life often devoid of support for homosexual inner feelings, and even sometimes contempt and condemnation for them, many non-heterosexual adolescents (as many as seven million and two hundred thousand in the U.S. alone sink into depression and despair. As Eric recalls his own adolescence, "When I was a teenager, I thought my life was over. How could I be something that was considered so disgusting, so loathsome, so awful? How could I be what people called a homo, a queer, a pansy, a sissy, a child molester, a fag, for God's sake?" Homosexual teens are two to three times as likely to commit suicide as their heterosexual counterparts. A 1988 national survey uncovered that only twelve percent of males from age fifteen to nineteen felt that they could befriend a gay male. Presently, the percent is improved, but still not notably great. There are, in some cities, support groups for non-heterosexual teens. One homosexual from North Carolina spoke of the experience, "It gave me friends, because I didn't have any friends that were like me, that I knew about, because I was pretty much isolated". Still, the leading cause of death among non-heterosexual youth is tragically suicide, as they account for about thirty percent of all completed teenage suicides. This is substantially more than the expected three to ten percent. Life is arduous when it is not okay to be whom one feels that they are deep inside. While it is easy to label and judge, it is wise to attempt to fathom how another feels and show empathy for them beforehand.

Marcus says that when homosexuals mature into adulthood, these people often, "feel angry about being lied to by religious leaders, judged by their parents, misled by [some] psychiatrists, and condemned by [much of] society in general. They're angry about their lost adolescence [or sometimes for] having "˜wasted' their lives living a lie". Others, due to negative reinforcement from society and loved ones may hide their true sexuality, opting to repress their sexuality pretending to be straight. These adults may marry, have children, grandchildren, and possibly die without speaking of their feelings to another soul (28). The fourth amendment states that; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."("U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights"). Even so, non-heterosexual men have been arrested and taken into custody for having consensual sex within the privacy of their own bedrooms. Since the release of my research, The Supreme Court has recently declared that what two people, including of the same gender, do in their own bedroom is not an affair of the state. All sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional, and though two men/women cannot marry, they can legally have sex. The ninth amendment holds that; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" ("Bill of Rights"). The fourteenth amendment clearly sets forth that; "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" ("Amendment XIV"). Clearly, homosexuals are deserving of rights equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts.

A poll from the Wall Street Journal of Fortune Five Hundred executives shows that sixty-six percent of them would be hesitant to give a management job to a gay man or a lesbian. When homosexuals are able to hold a job, they have been shown to be underpaid, eleven to thirty percent below their average heterosexual counterparts. David Haugrud tells of his teenage job at a fast food restaurant. Some homosexual people came in one day and, "The manager said something about them being disgusting and I stuck up for them. She asked, "Are you gay, too?" I said yes. Later that day she fired me. She said I was mopping the floor wrong." Contrary to popular belief, non-heterosexuals are not specifically protected by civil rights laws along with other minorities (such as ethnicity) in many states within the United States of America. In some states and cities, a gay person can legally be denied housing, employment, and public accommodation simply because of their sexual orientation". All that America's non-heterosexual population want are equal rights! Unlike affirmative action programs, they simply want anti-discrimination laws, which the Supreme Court has ruled not to be "special rights" (Williams, 82).

A contentious topic that is certainly pertinent to homosexual rights is the issue of homosexual marriage. Certainly gay couples can, and many do, live together forming an unconventional, but nonetheless, home. For the time being, same sex couples are often devoid of many of the financial benefits of traditional marriage. They may not have access to their partners' employee health insurance, retirement, or death benefits. They are not eligible for the tax break given to heterosexual couples filing jointly, or to insurance discounts. Same sex partners do not always have the automatic right to make medical, legal, or financial decisions on behalf of their loved one should the need arise. They do not have the right to make funeral arrangements, or to assume ownership of jointly owned property if the other passes away. They do not even have the guaranteed right to visit their loved one in the hospital, even if the loved one is dying. The essential gay rights predicament is that despite all the love, commitment, and goodwill in the world on behalf of homosexuals must show, they cannot resolve their lack of rights dilemma alone. It is going to take increased love, commitment, and goodwill on the part of the heterosexual majority.

Many people hold obdurately that homosexuality is just plain wrong, immoral, evil, etcetera. In our Christian dominated society, this view is highly subscribed to. Christianity may have achieved many positive things for our nation, but it has certainly done many hurtful things for us as well, most notably promoting traditional, rigid thought, regardless of anything and everything, and in more areas of life than just the question of God's character or the Ten Commandments. In particular, is the negative view of homosexuality perpetuated by many branches of the church, most adamantly by Christian fundamentalists. Eric Marcus illustrates the dangers of such fixed, negative attitudes toward homosexuality in telling the actual account of a Christian boy named Bobby. Here he paints the picture of Bobby's reaction to his innermost feelings of sexuality and the harsh religious dogma fundamentalist Christians teach. He was told that if he prayed hard enough, he would become heterosexual, Bobby prayed, all the while fearing he would be punished by God for his homosexuality. He wrote in his diary, "Why did you do this to me, God? Am I going to hell? That's the gnawing question that's always drilling little holes in the back of my mind. Please don't send me to Hell. I'm really not that bad, am I? I want to be good. I want to amount to something. I need your seal of approval. If I had that I would be happy. Life is so cruel and unfair."

After a year and a half more of unnecessary inner turmoil due to strict religious teachings, Bobby jumped off a bridge just before an eighteen-wheel truck passed under. Bobby's mother, Mary Griffith later wrote, "I firmly believe now though I did not back then, that my son Bobby's suicide is the end result of homophobia and ignorance within most Protestant and Catholic churches, and consequently within society, our public schools, our own family". Bobby is not alone.

Historian John Boswell says in his 1980 book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality that up until the end of the twelfth century, the Christian church often remained silent on the issue of homosexuality; that it is not until after a diatribe from Saint Thomas Aquinas that the church began to accept it's overall current connotation of homosexuality as dangerous and unnatural. Dr. Gregory Herek summarizes, "For most people who are biased against gay people, homosexuals 'stand as a proxy for all that is evil' such people see hating gay men and lesbians [or their sexuality] as a litmus test for being a moral person". One homosexual shares of her family relationship due to their rigid, unnecessary beliefs, "I say that they believe in a cookie cutter with sharp edges and I will not submit to the cutting. Their cookie cutter book is far more important to them than I am. They pray all the time for me to change. So I live thousands of miles away and we write letters about the weather". Today, fundamentalist Christians often cite verses like Leviticus 18: 22 which says that homosexuality is a sin, as a basis for their stance on the issue. The phrase "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is popular among their jokes, and some take it to the extent of seriously stating, "God hates fags". What they fail to consider is that as Alice Bellis says, "Biblical teaching must be viewed in light of its cultural context". The book of Leviticus also says not to eat pork, and that even to bury the dead body of many animals would make one 'unclean' until evening (Lev.11.7, 24). Also, Leviticus forbids wearing clothing made of more than one fabric (Lev.19.19). Today anyone wearing a cotton-polyester blend would be in the wrong! As stated in his hilarious faux letter to a fundamentalist reverend, "If a mixed fabric wearer wanted to become a foster parent, the Commonwealth would allow it. There are no questions on the application referring to this sin. No one asks if the child will be exposed to mixed fabrics or might even be forced to wear them. We should spend some tax dollars to study the effects of mixed fabrics on children, though I am sure it has a negative impact."

Leviticus also states that a woman having her period is a sin, for which she must offer a sacrifice (Lev.15.28-30). On top of all this is perhaps the oddest rule which notes that it is not a sin for a man to have more than one wife, as long as the wives are not sisters, mother and daughter or granddaughter! (Lev.18.17,18). Clearly these laws are of a different period for a purpose at that time, and are no longer applicable to today's society. Paul also speaks negatively of homosexuality, but Christians must remember that he was just a man, not a God. He described a "thorn in the flesh" ailment from which he suffered that many writers and religious leaders believe refers to a sexual sin, though Paul refused to marry. Episcopalian bishop John Spong believed that Paul himself was a self-condemning, suppressed homosexual. In addition, Paul validated slavery, a greed-induced piece of our history that is not at all Christ-like! Christians should be focusing instead, on the teachings of Jesus Christ, which are teachings of love, faith, and acceptance. Although Jesus did speak of ungodly ways, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals or homosexuality.

Here in the land of the free, where all men are created equal, a twenty-one year old college student was brutally beaten in a hateful massacre, tied to a fence, and left to die in October of 1998. He was found eighteen hours after the inhumane assault in freezing temperatures in a comma, his face covered in dry blood, except where tears had cleaned a path. This was the third time the young man was beaten in those last few months. He picked up and kept working toward the American dream, only this time he could not, this time the wicked crime was planned murder. His name was Matthew Shepard. He was a political science major at the University of Wyoming who dreamed to work in foreign relations. He was an actor, skier, a swimmer, a runner, an Episcopalian, a dancer, a son, a friend, a human being with emotions and a soul. However much love, talent, and intellect he possessed, Matthew was honest, and Matthew was homosexual. Matthew Shepard is a martyr.

Mournfully Matthew was not alone. Hate rooted in ignorance has killed many other homosexuals. Marcus says, "A number of government reports have concluded that gay and lesbian people are the most frequent victims of hate-motivated violence." In 1991 alone within only five large U.S. cities, one thousand, eight hundred and twenty-two hate crimes against non-heterosexuals were reported. In addition, Marcus notes that, "Only a small percentage of the victims of antigay attacks report these incidents, because people fear that their sexual orientation will be made public, or that their reports won't be taken seriously by police. Among the victims was Barry Winchell, a twenty-one year old young man who was an excellent marksman in the army with dreams of becoming an army helicopter pilot. He was "bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat" by a fellow soldier in his platoon. In 1999, a thirty-nine-year-old Billy Gaither's throat was cut before his body was crushed with an ax handle and then thrown in rubbish and set on fire. Benjamin Williams entered into the home of Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder and shot them, while they were asleep in their bed. He said, "I'm not guilty of murder. I'm guilty of obeying the laws of the creator," and that his only regret is that his crime against humanity did not motivate others to emulate him.

Not all homophobia is as violently manifested as in the hate crimes, but all hate-crimes are detrimental, and no perpetrators are doing society any favor by hating the homosexual minority. A junior at a local high school, who wishes to remain anonymous, admits that a homophobic party at his own school placed homemade bombs under his car the previous year. He is only glad he investigated the source of the unusual smoke that morning before the bombs could have fatally injured him. Many people are also deeply wounded by anti-homosexual jokes, by vicious name-calling, by sexual harassment, and by condemnation directed at them. One gay teen said of his school in Dallas, "Since the very first day, some kids have called me sissy or fag in the halls. They try to trip me all the time, and someone wrote 'AIDS victim' on my locker. It's been absolute hell". Worse, this hate is not simply an ignorance that young people grow out of. Administrators at Ohio University were surprised by the horrific homophobia displayed on campus. Student Paul Patton says he knows of at the least three on campus attacks against non-heterosexuals that went unreported in his one year of attendance there. Students defaced, with malicious anti-gay graffiti, the artwork of several homosexual students on campus. However, as Patton says, "Becoming active [in on campus homosexual rights] means becoming a verbal target".

What exactly is at the root of the unhealthy fear and hostility toward homosexuals called homophobia? While many say it is strict religious beliefs, or lack of knowledge or compassion for people who are different, many psychologists point to a deeper core. The Adams et al. study took sixty-four younger white male students, thirty-five of which were homophobic, and twenty-nine who were not. They were subjected them to heterosexual and male homosexual visual-audio erotica, measuring their penile size increase with a gauge for each. The result was that eighty percent of the homophobic group showed arousal to the homosexual male erotica, while only about one third of their non-homophobic counterparts did, and showed arousal only to a significantly less amount. In addition, the homophobic men were significantly less aroused by the heterosexual erotica than the non-homophobic heterosexual males. When questioned about the amount of arousal they felt, the homophobic men went to much greater lengths to deny their arousal resulting from the male homosexual erotica. This study indicates that about forty percent of young adult males (with an eight percent margin of error) are either not aware, or not telling the truth about their inner sexual feelings. Many physiatrists and other educated individuals point to Freudian ideas saying that, "Homophobes are really self-hating homosexuals". A theory of repressed homosexuality and focus on heterosexuality for a homophobic individual indeed is a worthy notion. Many homosexuals likely have a homosexual aspect about their own inner feelings, and they are probably targeting this thing about themselves that they cannot accept in others. Author Pierre Tremblay says, "Most homophobic males have detectable homosexual component in their psyche and their homophobia reflects the concept called "projection' in psychiatry, but this human behavior has been recognized for thousands of years".

For depressed, confused, and tormented non-heterosexuals there can be hope. Happiness cannot be defined solely upon one's environment. Love can be found. Devotion and intimacy can form bonds strong enough to endure a lifetime. Don Clark says, "I believe it is a testimony to the good sense and goodwill of today's surviving gay people that our joys will survive and bloom amid the toxic pollution of rampant prejudice".

The current bleak situation for homosexuals is not invariable. Society is able to change their dilemma. Education is a vital step towards reducing ignorance about and hostility toward homosexuality. High schools could provide the information homosexuals and homophobic persons need to hear, and support groups are beneficial. Authority figures could begin to set an example of how to love and accept non-heterosexuals. The word "gay" is not needed to describe something that is not pleasant; the jokes do not have to be laughed at. The list goes on, with liberal education, and discouraging homophobia as the key ingredients toward a brighter, healthier society for people of all sexual orientation.

Embracing homosexuals, as friends of the social majority, will not set into motion Armageddon. Attempting to explore and understand homosexuality is a wise option. As one of the local high school's junior students says, "Maybe I am different, and maybe my plan in life is to help other people, tell them about God, and that He'll love you. You may be different from other people, but He'll still love you because you're made in His vision". Indeed we are all unique and valuable. No one soul is of lesser value, or of any degraded status simply because of for whom they feel passion and love.

*sniff* lovely.

Not your average start to a Thread of this name.

Unfortunatly it'll end the same as all the others

Great thread! You truely do put a lot of work into your arguments.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

i read about half of it - i don't have time to read the entire thing.

God, I hate that. It cut out several numbres and made them smileys. :x :x :x :x

Good post, Doujin - thank you.

Anyone who believes that committers of hate crimes should have their crime done unto themselves, say aye.

aye.

God, I hate that. It cut out several numbres and made them smileys. :x :x :x :x

thats because eight bracket is 8)

There are two threads up with this same title.

quite long, but extremely well thought out and compassionate...
it's nice to see some degree of sanity exists on these boards

I could easily use Bible quotes to show the Bible advocates anarchism.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I have mystical powers which allow me to see into the future:

I foresee a christian person bringing up gay marriage and saying something about pedophiles, god, bibles and perhaps bestiality...Ending his/her post with the words "where is it going to stop???"

There are two threads up with this same title.

Well I think this one is better thought out.

I agree with Letila, awesome thread!

I'll rename it then. "Homosexuality Explored", better?

Very good thread.

Nice copy and paste.

Couldn't you have just provided the link? (http://www.geocities.com/gaizme/explored.html)

Not to mention given the author the credit that they deserve?

-Z-

Ooo. You cheat D

Zeppistan, want me to edit that site? I own it. My name is michael sievers, 16/m bloomington illinois. I could have gave you the link to the site I am designing, but I opted not to.

You have entirely too much time if you're writing something like that. I hate you. GOOOO HOMOSEXUALITY.

Very good essay... but its very biased... so im gonna go through and pick some important points that you might have mentioned, specifically on the stance you took towards the cristian religion in relation to homosexuals.

I have never said that homosexuality is right, and i never will. The reason for this is mainly that the bible says that homosexualty is wrong. This however does not mean that i condone the negative treatment of homosexuals. Yes they are sinning, but noone is perfect. The bible is just as harsh about those who lie, and those who steal, and if you can say that you have never done both of these things then you are lieing. The bible never condones discrimination against anyone, other than those who are trying to corrupt you.

You have also stated that todays "christian culture" is negativly impacting gays. You are obviously very misinformed here because even though this country was founded on christian principles, christianity is quickly becoming a smaller and smaller minority thanks to the athiest teachings of pleasure and political correctness, which is inheretantly discriminatory against all religions which completely opposes the original intentions of political correctness. Heathen religions are rising up as well, because people are attracted to anything that promotes pleasure above all and sexual promiscuity.

Even though i am against the discrimination against anyone, even homosexuals, I myself could easily be accused of being homophobic. I do not agree with discrimination against homosexuals but i do not feel comfortable around those who are openly homosexual. It is impossible to feel comfortable around them because, you cannot know whether what they do is normal behaviour or whether they are hitting on you, because often gestures between those of the same sex can be attributed to either.

I am definatly not as eloquent as you, but i hope you may consider this the next time you write an essay on the subject.

-Acaykath...

P.S.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)

There are good reasons for heterosexuality. Mostly procreation and raising of family in a balanced household. both mother and father have been proven to play an important role in the development of children.

There, check it right now

Zeppistan, want me to edit that site? I own it. My name is michael sievers, 16/m bloomington illinois. I could have gave you the link to the site I am designing, but I opted not to.

Edit it... or don't.

Just don't expect people not to view with suspicion when somebody posts a copyrighted article from a source - but doesn't credit that source.

Because normally people WANT traffic to their sites.

-Z-

Zeppistan, want me to edit that site? I own it. My name is michael sievers, 16/m bloomington illinois. I could have gave you the link to the site I am designing, but I opted not to.

Edit it... or don't.

Just don't expect people not to view with suspicion when somebody posts a copyrighted article from a source - but doesn't credit that source.

Because normally people WANT traffic to their sites.

-Z-

Seen the edit. Point taken. As I hope you understand why finding the same article elsewhere raises screaming red flags.


Still... why not just provide the link? Surely you set up that site for the reason to get people to read your writing?

-Z-

Yes, I set it up but it isn't finished - so I don't give the link out to people yet.

christianity is quickly becoming a smaller and smaller minority

?
82% of Americans are Christian.

have been proven

Ok. Doesn't really mean much.

P.S.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)

There are good reasons for heterosexuality. Mostly procreation and raising of family in a balanced household. both mother and father have been proven to play an important role in the development of children.

Mankind (or our particular tribe/culture/society) no longer needs to keep society numbers up. The Hebrews (later Isrealites) did need to because they were a relatively small tribe.

You are also seem to be assuming that heterosexuals don't produce homosexuals (I'm sure you don't though).
Mother and Father have also been proven to have a negative impact (smaller I know but still present), if they are abusive etc.

Claim to be christian... 60% or more of them are actually athiests who claim to be christian because thats what their parents were ( religion is not hereditary despite what some people believe ) and other religions who claim to be christians, (mormans, jehovah's witnesses, etc) to steal members from christian congregations.

Claim to be christian... 60% or more of them are actually athiests who claim to be christian because thats what their parents were ( religion is not hereditary despite what some people believe ) and other religions who claim to be christians, (mormans, jehovah's witnesses, etc) to steal members from christian congregations.

Source? Evidence?

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

That's mine.

Stop these dang threads, reallly.

father and father and mother and mother also have a positive impact on children. It's their family, the people that raise them.. the poeple that love and care for them, doesn't matter wether they are gay or straight..

Acaykath: A Christian can be Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists (albeit some). It is far from a declining minority, Christianity is. But a rather large majority.

Mankind (or our particular tribe/culture/society) no longer needs to keep society numbers up. The Hebrews (later Isrealites) did need to because they were a relatively small tribe.

You are also seem to be assuming that heterosexuals don't produce homosexuals (I'm sure you don't though).
Mother and Father have also been proven to have a negative impact (smaller I know but still present), if they are abusive etc.

0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0

Due to our longer lives thanks to medical technology, our population is remaing fairly stable at the moment... and thanks to automation in business, noone notices the lack of young people. When world war three comes around and all we have for defense are a bunch of geezers in wheelchairs because we dont have enough young people to run the country and still send dome to fight, then youll see... Plus the huge drop in population thats gonna happen once the baby boomers start kicking the bucket...

Claim to be christian... 60% or more of them are actually athiests who claim to be christian because thats what their parents were ( religion is not hereditary despite what some people believe ) and other religions who claim to be christians, (mormans, jehovah's witnesses, etc) to steal members from christian congregations.

Source? Evidence?

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

That's mine.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html proves exactly what i said and on your site too...

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)
Thats moronic. Do you live on an island? Is that test in any way pertinent to modern, western life?

father and father and mother and mother also have a positive impact on children. It's their family, the people that raise them.. the poeple that love and care for them, doesn't matter wether they are gay or straight..

Acaykath: A Christian can be Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists (albeit some). It is far from a declining minority, Christianity is. But a rather large majority.

They can claim to be christian but that doesn't make them christian. Christianity is based on certain beliefs that these people just dont share... (like who jesus was... who happens to be the center of the religion).

dammit to many people are against me i dont have the time to respond to everyone....

0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 <- what does this have to do with anything?

What I saw on your link Acaykath was that the population of Protestants is declining.. not christianity, just protestants..

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)
Thats moronic. Do you live on an island? Is that test in any way pertinent to modern, western life?

This is just to point out the fact that society could survive without gays but culd not without strait people...

No, Christianity is based in the belief of Jesus Christ and following the teachings of Jesus. And therea re many interpretations of that as well, you can be Mormon and Christian at the same time, and Jehovah's Witness and Christian at the same time..

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)
Thats moronic. Do you live on an island? Is that test in any way pertinent to modern, western life?

This is just to point out the fact that society could survive without gays but culd not without strait people...Well thats a stunningly astute observation. And yet, completely irrelevant given that society can also survive perfectly well with both straight and gay people, and that gay couples often do have children via artificial insemination, AND that no-one is suggesting that everyone should be gay.

0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 <- what does this have to do with anything?

What I saw on your link Acaykath was that the population of Protestants is declining.. not christianity, just protestants..

this is what the 0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 means
You are also seem to be assuming that heterosexuals don't produce homosexuals (I'm sure you don't though).


Read into it it says that alot of people claiming to be christians do not believe in basic christian values, therefore they cannot possibly be christians.

No, Christianity is based in the belief of Jesus Christ and following the teachings of Jesus. And therea re many interpretations of that as well, you can be Mormon and Christian at the same time, and Jehovah's Witness and Christian at the same time..

You can interpret fuck off as i love you but that doesn't make it right. The bible is quite clear on the basic issues though it does leave grey areas in minor areas, when it comes to jesus it is 100% clear... Learn greek and read it if you dont believe me...

Why does that matter? Straight people bear gay children, they don't raise children to be gay, and according to the American Psychological Assocaition homosexuality is a born trait, not a mental state.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)
Thats moronic. Do you live on an island? Is that test in any way pertinent to modern, western life?

This is just to point out the fact that society could survive without gays but culd not without strait people...Well thats a stunningly astute observation. And yet, completely irrelevant given that society can also survive perfectly well with both straight and gay people, and that gay couples often do have children via artificial insemination, AND that no-one is suggesting that everyone should be gay.

Id like to see you do artificial insemination with two men...

0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 <- what does this have to do with anything?

What I saw on your link Acaykath was that the population of Protestants is declining.. not christianity, just protestants..

this is what the 0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 means
You are also seem to be assuming that heterosexuals don't produce homosexuals (I'm sure you don't though).


Read into it it says that alot of people claiming to be christians do not believe in basic christian values, therefore they cannot possibly be christians.

What does that have to do with the above quotation? And if it's all about procreation then what about the sterile? Or those who choose to not have children?

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)
Thats moronic. Do you live on an island? Is that test in any way pertinent to modern, western life?

This is just to point out the fact that society could survive without gays but culd not without strait people...Well thats a stunningly astute observation. And yet, completely irrelevant given that society can also survive perfectly well with both straight and gay people, and that gay couples often do have children via artificial insemination, AND that no-one is suggesting that everyone should be gay.

Id like to see you do artificial insemination with two men...

There's also this little thing called adoption...

Amazing essay Doujin. I can't begin to express how impressed I am.

Why does that matter? Straight people bear gay children, they don't raise children to be gay, and according to the American Psychological Assocaition homosexuality is a born trait, not a mental state.

Psycology is not a science, and alot of it is complete bull... Homosexuality may have somthing t do with genetics that cause a slight chemical imbalance in the brain that causes an unnatural attraction to people of the opposite sex, but there are other factors, environment and the way they were treated as children affect it too (or else yo gotta change that paragraph in the essay). I hate to do this, but sex ed in school also teaches that we are not sure what exactly causes homosexuality. And there have been many cases where homosexuals found that they are much happier with the right person of the opposite sex. None of what we know about it is concrete.

I wish mods would make like a few stickys about these common topics.

0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 <- what does this have to do with anything?

What I saw on your link Acaykath was that the population of Protestants is declining.. not christianity, just protestants..

this is what the 0-3% of 50-300 > 100% of 0 means
You are also seem to be assuming that heterosexuals don't produce homosexuals (I'm sure you don't though).


Read into it it says that alot of people claiming to be christians do not believe in basic christian values, therefore they cannot possibly be christians.

What does that have to do with the above quotation? And if it's all about procreation then what about the sterile? Or those who choose to not have children?

So now you are comparing homosexuals to people who are sterile?? They have a medical condition. They can adopt or use artificial insemination.

I've been kicked in the balls too many times, I'm surprised I'm not.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)
Thats moronic. Do you live on an island? Is that test in any way pertinent to modern, western life?

This is just to point out the fact that society could survive without gays but culd not without strait people...Well thats a stunningly astute observation. And yet, completely irrelevant given that society can also survive perfectly well with both straight and gay people, and that gay couples often do have children via artificial insemination, AND that no-one is suggesting that everyone should be gay.

Id like to see you do artificial insemination with two men...

There's also this little thing called adoption...

Amazing essay Doujin. I can't begin to express how impressed I am.

Taking in an unwated child is admirable... but that is not them having a baby...

I didn't know artificial insemination was approved by the Bible.

I've been kicked in the balls too many times, I'm surprised I'm not.

They shoulda kicked harder... just kidding... being kicked in the balls is no laughing matter, no matter what orientation you are...

I didn't know artificial insemination was approved by the Bible.

why wouldn't it be?? the bible does say go forth and multiply. :)

Psychology and Pschiatry is the exploration of the human mind and explanation of mental illnesses. When a Psychologist, the person who knows more about what goes through the mind of an individual says that homosexuality is not a learned trait then I am going to believe him. When almost all psychologists say it .. well I believe them more. When scientific evidence points to the fact that people are born gay (there are studies that are coming lcoser and closer to linking homosexuality and genetics) then I am going to believe it even more. Now, I'm off to watch a movie.

the bible also says to not pray in public, what is your point?

Also, thank you guys for the compliments on the 'essay' I guess you could call it.

Psycology is not a science

Well done. You've just made it entirely clear how little you really know about what you're discussing. When you are educated and intelligent enough to write an essay as well considered and factually balanced as the one that begins this thread then you should come back and present it to us. Until then, stop offering anecdote and opinion disguised as "evidence" and take a little time to think about why you actually care what complete strangers do in the privacy of their own homes.

for a second I was like, huh? Then I realized that you were complimenting me while telling Acaykath to go away. :oops:

Doujin, an amazing post. I hate to add further to the praise you seem to be basking in, but I roundly applaud your essay's clarity. You rock, I'll visit the site you linked later when I have time.

wow.. didn't expect to get these responses, expected tons of flames :oops:

wow.. didn't expect to get these responses, expected tons of flames :oops:

Well thought out an clearly written..2 thumbs up

to add my 2 cents gays are just like anyone else they can be your Sons/Daughters/brothers/sisters/mothers/fathers,just because they are gay doesn't make them bad

wow.. didn't expect to get these responses, expected tons of flames :oops:

Flamers typically fear big words, and by extension big posts (though RA's posts might be an exception ;) ). Moreover you did a good job covering your bases, this leave previous few detractors to read your article, find the flaws, get the proper argument arrayed against it, and post it.

Doujin, I have to ask......what with your nation having a big navy, and your obvious approval/acceptance of homosexuality.....


.....have you ever heard of a film called Top Gun? :wink:



I'm glad to see somebody making well-thought out points in General....I never knew that happened.

In summation: Christians need to gain common sense and insight... cause they suck.

Please- that's overly simplistic and close-minded. Personally, I'm not a christian, and I don't much care for religion, but I don't understand the hatred of christianity that a lot of people have.

In summation: Christians need to gain common sense and insight... cause they suck.ergh, damn it all! go look at nodea's post

Boring

zzzzzzzzzzzzz........

Dear Doujin, You are incredible,

I hope you don't mind, but I printed your essay out and showed it to a local Gay Club at my college, they all agreed
A: you have incredible talent
B: you need to publish this thing,

Honest, its truely amazing. I got goose bumps reading over certain parts. It is so well scripted, so concise, so incredibly thought-out, it is truly entertaining watching people try and continue their backward attacks on you and gays,

Also, please not 'Too' much Christian bashing, IM gay.. but also Catholic, I goto a rather nice, progressive church, there Are Christian groups that DO do good in this world and don't only spread hate and closed minded thinking.

That said, anyone who uses the Bible as their entire argument against Homosexuality is an idiot, you cannot use Religion to wage war against a group of people... Its called Extremism, its when done in this nasty Islamic nations (note not a slam against Islam, just being sarcastic)

In Summary, You Rock... Spread your intelligence and destroy small-minded fools

This is one of the most well thought out and executed threads on gay society I've seen in a long time...

Myself, I'm a straight male, who personally doesn't care what gay folks do. I don't care what a church does, they shouldn't be held to the same "equal rights" standard as the government since most churches don't get public money. What a person, straight or gay does in their own house, with the windows closed with other consenting adults (a couple, or more) is none of my business and definately none of the governments. (They must be consenting ADULTS, otherwise it's child rape, or normal rape).

That being said, I don't like it when couples are making out in public, a simple kiss is fine, but groping in public, straight or gay is something that should stay in private quarters.

If a church wants to ban homsexuals, heterosexuals, etc that's their right. Same deal with any group that doesn't get signifigant public money. The Government (since they are public money) should do the best they can to be fair, but NOT put in some BS quota system on who to hire. I'd much rather see a building filled with competent people, than a quota of incompetent dolts. If the Boy Scouts want to ban homosexuals, that's fine, they don't get public money for their OPERATING costs.

Tho I think everytime some gay rights group says their fight is like the Black American struggle for voting rights, they are putting the gay rights fight back many decades. Gay people are not being beat up in the streets, nor do they have firehoses aimed at them. Anyone who tries to make that argument has lost the argument. Gay people should get the same hospital rights as hetero couples if the insurance companies agree to it. That would force the insurance market to adapt, and that's a much better way to do it than using the hand of government, which many times messes things up.

If someplace like Geico started giving "married couple" status to gay couples, then other ins. companies would see their share of gay people go down, and that would help equalise things out.

If anyone wishes to debate me or call me on what I wrote, please email me. Thanks

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Free-Virginia

thank you doujin

:shock: YOU DID WHAT CROSSROADS? THAT IS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. I WANT YOUR NAME, PHONE NUMBER, ADDRESSS AND THE WORKS. I AM PRESSING CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!


:lol:

You didn't do that thought, did you? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Kilean: Top Gun.. ahh mr. cruz :P

I'll send it to my local paper, see if they print it ( They are conservative generally, though :P)

I'll send it to my local paper, see if they print it ( They are conservative generally, though :P)
Doujin, thank you for such a well thought out essay (though you're probably getting tired of all the plaudits now). I cannot believe you are sixteen and have enough life experience to develop such a rational and well thought argument, please don't take that as patronising though. When I was 16, I was still deeply ashamed and embarrassed to be gay.

I look forward to learning more of your ideas and not just about Homosexuality. I wish you the best of luck if you do manage to get your essay printed, though why just stop at your local paper?

:)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Kilean: Top Gun.. ahh mr. cruz :P

That film is one of the greatest love stories in human history....

El Ipmerio de Espana, I will just pretend that you didn't exist, ok?

Kilean: :)

Joe Stalin: I am going to send it to Time Magazine as soon as I send a copy of it to myself in the mail (poor mans official copyright, since it actually isn't in the copyright office.. yet, not totally sure how copyright law works.)

You didn't do that thought, did you? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: Oh... Don't worry, I only printed one copy out and passed it around for them to read. I got it back when they were finished with it... And then of course consumed the material and disposed of the evidance :wink:
Shouldn't be embaressed though, you should of seen thier responses when I said you were 16, now they think your some child genius or something :)

del pst*

I played with Barbies once as a kid. Actually, we conscripted them into our GI Joe Army. :lol:

I played with Barbies once as a kid. Actually, we conscripted them into our GI Joe Army. :lol:

I played with Barbies once as a kid. Actually, we conscripted them into our GI Joe Army. :lol:

I am going to send it to Time Magazine as soon as I send a copy of it to myself in the mail (poor mans official copyright, since it actually isn't in the copyright office.. yet, not totally sure how copyright law works.)

That wouldn't stand up in court. Envelopes can be steamed open, so you gotta get it copy-written the official way.

:lol:

It's stood up in court before, S.H. Since it is timed and dated by the government -> and tomorrow me and my attorney are going to have it copyrighted (I have an attorney, apparently)

First, Doujin. I was quite impressed with your post. It is well thought out, you present your points clearly and concisly *without* belaboring the point to exhaustion and it is quite appearant that you have done as much research as you possibly could before laying out your arguments. Well done.

Next for those who will wonder where I am coming from I am female, 31 years old, Hispanic white, married with two children and one on the way, a freshman in college with a double major of Theatre Arts and Languages with a minor in Teaching, my husband is RLDS and I am Wicca(however I was raised Roman Catholic).

One of my mother's best friends when I was growing up was a openly homosexual gentleman in Mexico, a country where being 'the man' in the family is a *BIG* deal. He was probably one of the nicest people I have ever come across and he respected the fact that many of the people he came across would not appreciate him making passes at them.

On to some of the points that have been raised by several poeple.

First on the subject of the bible. As has been stated before, if you know where to look you can use the bible to prove just about any point. As a matter of fact if I felt the inclination to, I could pull out any one of the three different versions of the bible that I have in my personal collection(just becuase I am Wicca doesn't mean I discount all other religions as wrong) and find passeges that show not only that homosexuality is *not* a bad thing and was practiced by various people but that God-Supreme Power-Cosmic Unity(however you wish to see it and name it) doesn't punish someone for it. It's all in the interpretation and since we can't ask the people who actually wrote these things down what they meant when they wrote them then it will have to stay that way, in the *interpretation* of the ones reading it.

Next, on the view of the fight for Homosexual rights being like that for African-American Rights. No homosexuals aren't being washed down with fire hoses and such but - they are asking for the same things that were asked for by African-Americans, Women, and just about any other minority group out there. Fairness in job situation, pay and promotion. Equal rights to housing, medical care, and family needs. And the freedom to simply be *themselves*.

Now, on to the subject of children. Has anyone looked at the statistics for adoption? As in how many children there are in orphaneges and foster care and the such available for adoption? And how many actually are adopted? First the requirements for adoption are stringent, *very* stringent. Second most people looking to adopt want a young child(BTW for those who are wondering 6 years old is considered too *OLD* for adoption) and very seldom are willing to adopt siblings. Take one hundred couples, 50 traditional man-wife and 50 same sex, and ask them if they would be willing to adopt a child and at what age(this is assuming that all 100 couples want a child BTW). Of these couples about three-quarters of the traditional and about a quarter of the same sex would ask for a newborn or close to. Of the rest the remaining quarter of the traditional would most likely ask for nothing older than 8 or 9 and the remaining same sex would say any age. I personally know of three same sex couples with children. The first couple adopted a newborn, in their case there was a couple who had 7 children already(they were Christian and would not use preventative measures) and said 'if you will pay the expenses you can have this one as we can't afford another child'. They not only told their child who her biological parents were but spend time with that family. Thier daughter is now a 16 year old *heterosexual* young lady who told me on one occasion that she actually had asked her parents' opinion on the looks of more than one gentleman she had considered. The second couple used artificial insemination, the sister of one of the partners not only offered one of her eggs for it but carried the child to term for them(before anyone raises a stink they used the other partner's biological material). That child is now a very happy and, from what I can tell, a very well adjusted 10 year old whose interests include playing in a local baseball league, transformers and GI Joe. The third couple adopted a (at the time) physically abused 12 year old young man. After much counseling and other care these two women now have a 21 year old young man who is not only going to college(he is studing as a business major) but recently got married to a young lady he had been dating for almost two years. The point I am trying to make here is that not a single one of these children suffered(and in one case actually prospered beyond what was expected) for having been raised in a non-traditional environment.

Finally, marriage for same sex couples and the views of religion on the such. Recently two Fundamentalist ministers over the course of three days conducted marriage ceremonies for 25 same sex couples after the mayor of the town had been legally barred from performing the same ceremonies. Therefore it is obvious that some religious leaders are beginning to see that there is nothing wrong with it. Whether or not this trend will continue we will have to see. I for one see it simply as the next step, after all it wasn't all that long ago that for two people of different religions or race getting married was a difficult if not impossible proposition.

Again Doujin, well done. *standing ovation*

Thank you, K Treva.

Thank you, K Treva.

A bump couldn't hurt, I'm bored.. so :P Any suggestions on -who- I should send this to? Since people seem so intent on suggesitng me to get it published.

Damn, that was a good little piece.

I have never said that homosexuality is right, and i never will. The reason for this is mainly that the bible says that homosexualty is wrong.

This always fascinates me, when Christians view the Bible as existing in some vacuum and then use it to justify rather un-Christian views. While the arguments specifically relating to the King James version have been well illustrated many times before (everything from the inherant contradictory nature of the Bible to the fact that the word "homosexual" never once appears in the Bible and is, in fact, never actually referenced except in later corrupted translations, such as the KJV, to the numerous passages that seem to give permission for everything from slavery to child murder), I am interested to find out why many Christians claim to worship a living God, yet don't seem interested in hearing what he might be saying today.

No matter how you feel about the Bible, you must acknowledge that it was written nigh onto two thousand years ago. Indeed, parts of it were theoretically written even before that. God himself sent Jesus as a sort of revision editor to change his original text. Yet here we are, two thousand years later, treating God as if he wrote an amazing best seller all those years ago and then disappeared from the face of the Earth like some sort of divine J.D. Salinger.

One of the central tennants to Christianity, regardless of the stripe or flavor you practice, is the fundamental, personal relationship that can be developed with a living God. How can we develop this relationship with a God who is either absent or, seemingly, "dead"? It would seem to make Christianity very moot.

If we accept the premise that the Christian concept of God is indeed an alive, vibrant, personal diety, then does it also not make sense that he is aware of our situation and willing to make adjustments as we grow and develop as a species and as a society? One of the initial prohibitions the Bible speaks against is shellfish. This makes a certain sense if one assumes that, during the time when the book was supposedly written, methods of food preservation and purification were not as advanced as they are today and the idea of keeping crabs safe to eat in the middle of a dry and hot land was, at best, iffy. The prohibition makes sense, under those circumstances. Don't eat shellfish because there's a good chance you'll die. However, today we can, at least with a certain amount of confidence, enjoy crab, lobster and shrimp in even the most landlocked of areas. Does this mean that the prohibition should still stand and God will still send me to hell because I enjoy a good shrimp scampii? If so, is a god so petty and nonsensical still relevant and worthy of worship?

To my way of thinking, if one assumes the concept of a living, personal God, one must also assume that God is capable of not only communication, but of revision, in order to stay relevant and important in society. He's already theoretically proved that he has no trouble with changing his image and even sent his only begoten son to serve as a spin doctor for the Old Testiment. Is it too much to assume that, now, as we move forward as a progressive society, God's presumed (I say that because I have still not heard a convincing reference to homosexuality from the Bible that in any way, shape or form, definitively proves what God's stance on homosexuality is) views on same-sex relationships may change?

Society progresses forwards or it stagnates, fractures and crumbles. There is a sort of civilization inertia that can only be denied at the threat of dissolution. We will change. We will evolve. What we demand of ourselves and our interpersonal relationships will also change and evolve. In order for God to stay relevant, alive and, most importantly, personal, he must be willing to come on this journey with us. God must change. To muddy the waters a bit and because I like the way it sounds, by His observation, we change as a species. However, as He observes us, so we change Him. As we move forward, why do we as Christians not expect a personal, loving and living God to change to fit our needs? Instead, we try and lock ourselves into a form of behavior and a social intolerance that, while perhaps more palatable two thousand years ago, is completely unacceptable by today's social standards. We should not think so little of our God as to think Him incapable of change, understanding and benevolence.

We are at a crossroads in faith. Will Christianity endure as a vibrant, useful, comforting and applicable faith in the future or will it simply become a harbor for those who are afraid of change, slowly splintering and fracturing until it has gone the way of so many other faiths before it, using the abused and lifeless body of it's dead God as a wedge to further seperate and divide what it once sought to unify?


This however does not mean that i condone the negative treatment of homosexuals. Yes they are sinning, but noone is perfect.

But why is homosexuality a "sin" or an imperfection? Why is it not regarded as simply an expression? It is found in the natural world. Animals without our mixed blessing and curse for higher reasoning practice it as common place. Yet for us it's a sin? Why the double standard? Also, there are direct harms from lies and theft as well as most of the common prohibitions in the Bible (violence, licentiousness, etc.). Where is the harm from an expression of love between two people? Who does it hurt and why should it be condemned and not celebrated and welcomed? You must demand accountability from your faith. If it is going to make such a demand, there must be a reason and, so far, the only rationale I've seen put forward is all too human in origin. People are afraid of what's different, new or outside their experience. All too often over the course of Christianity's history, it has been insideously used by people to limit the expression of that which is different. Why must we fall back into this old trap when history and experience have not only warned us of it's existance, but also shown us the safe path around it?


You have also stated that todays "christian culture" is negativly impacting gays.

It is. It can not be argued any other way. While homosexuals struggle to secure the same rights and freedoms granted to any Tom, Dick and Harriet with enough sense to come flopping out of the birth canal, my fellow Christians are actively seeking to deny them these rights and privelledges. This makes me ashamed, not of my faith and my religion, but of our heinously it has been abused for the basest of Man's passions, the desire to control.


You are obviously very misinformed here because even though this country was founded on christian principles,

Actually, no, it wasn't. At least, not any more so than you could claim it was founded on Jewish principles, Islamic principles or Hindii principles. Furthermore, the express intent of the founding of this country was a society free from persecution for, among other things, religious expression.


christianity is quickly becoming a smaller and smaller minority thanks to the athiest teachings of pleasure and political correctness,

Actually, here you are misinformed. Christianity, in one form or another still comprises most of the theists in the US and is the fastest growing religion in the world today (although with our recent actions, Islam may be catching up).


which is inheretantly discriminatory against all religions which completely opposes the original intentions of political correctness.

Why has 'political correctness' become the pariah for theists? The purpose of political correctness, in it's broadest sense, was an understanding and tolerance for difference and a sensitivity to the uniqueness of every member of a population. While there are indeed cases of it's ideals being taken to the extreme, you can make this same claim about any school of thought out there. One cannot judge the whole by the ends. Any idea taken to fanatical ends becomes suspect. Isn't one of the central tennants of Christianity, the entire thesis of the mission of Jesus, the love and acceptance of your fellow man, not the exact same thing political correctness tries to achieve only in a secular fashion?


Heathen religions are rising up as well, because people are attracted to anything that promotes pleasure above all and sexual promiscuity.

Oh dear, I'm not even going to touch that. Again, though, why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow man?


Even though i am against the discrimination against anyone, even homosexuals, I myself could easily be accused of being homophobic.

Would it be a true acusation? If so, how are you living in the example of Christ by renouncing your fellow man? Jesus didn't walk with the priests, he walked with the common man and women, the one's who needed to know they were loved and cared about. How can we, as Christians, do less and be surprised when people from other paths accuse us of intolerance and hypocracy?


I do not agree with discrimination against homosexuals

But do you actively oppose it and condemn it as a crime against the brotherhood of humanity as Jesus would have done?


but I do not feel comfortable around those who are openly homosexual. It is impossible to feel comfortable around them because, you cannot know whether what they do is normal behaviour or whether they are hitting on you, because often gestures between those of the same sex can be attributed to either.[quote=Acaykath]just plain silly. If you yourself are not homosexual and are propositioned, all you need to do is say, "Thank you for the complement, but I'm not attracted to you." Do you also feel uncomfortable around women who you aren't attracted to (I assume you are male) for the same reason or are you just trying to nail anything that moves? Your maturity level is attested to by your actions and if you can not be graceful in a rejection, then you have issues that go far beyond any religious importance. Don't crouch your personal inability to deal with situations in some sort of religious trapping and claim a righteousness that is not only incorrect, but is flat out offensive.

[quote="Acaykath"]
P.S.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)


What would this prove, exactly? You somehow confuse the ability to reproduce with the focus of love. If you assume that reproduction is the only function of sex and love, then both groups, assume that there is an equal mixture of both men and women and assuming that both groups understand that their purpose is only to pass genes on to the next generation, are perfectly capable of existance. A much more interesting and fair test would be to put 50 gay men and 50 straight men on separate islands and see how sexual paradigms change.


There are good reasons for heterosexuality.


There are also good reasons for homosexuality. However, even if there are not, the case is we are sapient, aware creatures capable of rising above our base instincts to form a different and, at least in my opinion, superior culture. To claim that homosexuality is not "natural" and therefore should be invalidated is not only incorrect, but reduces us to the level of common beasts, capable of no more than the 3 F's: Fighting, Feeding and I'll let you fill in the last one.


Mostly procreation and raising of family in a balanced household. both mother and father have been proven to play an important role in the development of children.

Do you have a source for this? Recent findings indicate that children raised in same sex households are no more developmentally challenged that children raised in opposite sex households.

Wow, right on Berkylvania... Thanks very much for breathing fresh life into this… An excellent point by point case.

I am Gay, AND Catholic.. So I have a good perspective of both sides of the argument... My one beef is how many 'Christians' seem to think Their religion is some 'Heteros-Only' club Or that somehow, Tolerance of people you don't like translates into explosive growth of what that person does.

Heres’ a few things I'd like to remind all the 'Christians' out there...
God=Love: No where does God ever.. EVER Say 'Hate' your fellow man if he’s not doing what you want. I.E. All you Homophobes are NOT Following the Will of God.

Currently Catholic doctrine actually accepts Homosexuality as no longer being a choice but an immutable fact of life. Why? Because things CHANGE!

I would LOVE to ask some of those out there, who proclaim that the Bible as the 'absolute Truth' and immutable, to explain why, if that is so… Why…
Why do we not allow Slavery of those captured in War? The Bible Clear states this is ok.
Why are we allowed to charge interest on loans? This was stated to be punishable by stoning in the Bible.
Why isn't polygamy allowed? Almost everyone was allowed to have multiply wives.. Shouldn’t that be allowed today?
And now… my favourite.. Why, if we wanted could we do 199 things in the Leviticus section that will get us stoned... but not the 200th thing... Man on Man Love'n!

Honestly now, I spend a lot of time listening to people who don’t like gays/homosexuality. I can tell you, I’ve never met an Atheist Homophobe… Anyone who tells you their reasons for hating gays is not religious based is lying. Which makes me even more mad as I then see Religion slammed for spreading hate... When will you guys get it though your heads you cannot use My religion to justify your lame-ass arguments

I have never said that homosexuality is right, and i never will. The reason for this is mainly that the bible says that homosexualty is wrong.
The same passage you refer to also includes passages against eating certain meats and wearing clothing made of multiple fibers. The latter one means that many, many people are sinners according to the Bible for wearing cotton/poly blend clothes!<snip>

political correctness, which is inheretantly discriminatory against all religions which completely opposes the original intentions of political correctness.

There's also something called a Constitutional principle of separation of church(es) and state, which is getting trampled over repeatedly by our RL government. There are many people who do not have a Judeo-Christian belief system. Let's not paint all of them with the same brush.

Even though i am against the discrimination against anyone, even homosexuals, I myself could easily be accused of being homophobic. I do not agree with discrimination against homosexuals but i do not feel comfortable around those who are openly homosexual. It is impossible to feel comfortable around them because, you cannot know whether what they do is normal behaviour or whether they are hitting on you,

This is EXTREMELY ignorant on your part. It's absolutely absurd. Don't flatter yourself into thinking that homosexuals will automatically be attracted to you. Gay community members have standards! Not everyone who is openly gay is "flaming" or conforms to the representations the media seem to like to portray of the gay community. You never know if your next door neighbor is a homosexual or if your best friend is gay these days.

There are good reasons for heterosexuality. Mostly procreation and raising of family in a balanced household. both mother and father have been proven to play an important role in the development of children.
You don't think gay men or lesbians HAVEN'T procreated? Gay men and lesbians have been known to get married and have children, you know.

Good post.

I'm bisexual and yet I use the word "fag" all the time.

Sarzonia, there are a couple parts people use against homoesexuality. Leviticus is just one of those, Romans 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:9-10, and 1 Corinthians 6:9. I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. Romans 1:26-27 is taken out of its original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other.

Great essay, Doujin! I saved a copy of it at once!

Sarzonia, there are a couple parts people use against homoesexuality. Leviticus is just one of those, Romans 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:9-10, and 1 Corinthians 6:9. I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. Romans 1:26-27 is taken out of its original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other.
First off, great post. Took some reading though.
All the Bible stuff gets a bit whooly for me. Yes Leviticus was written a long time ago and some of the teachings (mixed fibres etc) are seen as wierd today. But others, e.g. not having sex with animals and not having sex with your mother or sister are still followed by most. So this is where the problems start, if you follow some and not others, who makes that determination?
I am also pretty sure that most of these teachings (an assumption so happy to be corrected) are still followed by some part of the Jewish faith.
I am not what I would consider a practicing Christian so my knowledge of the Bible is that of some one who has laboured to read the thing (still not finished). So again I might have a different understanding than a devoute Christian.
I am happy to accept everyone at face value and not to judge them (at least I try) but the whole gay Christian thing does not appear to work. But if that's what makes people happy then who am I to disagree.
Once again, good post.

Well, you can't pick and choose what you believe in but everyone seems that you can. Loose interpretations of the Bible, and different translations say different things. All in all, the end result is what people believe the Bible says to them, and their own personal "translation" and "belief". So, the whole "normal" Christian thing couldn't work either, if the "gay" Christian thing couldn't work :P Like I said, you can't pick and choose. You must follow all God's laws equally.

DP. And, I'll say it again, I don't believe in a hell for people, but I do believe in a hell for servers and this one is going there.

Well, you can't pick and choose what you believe in but everyone seems that you can. Loose interpretations of the Bible, and different translations say different things. All in all, the end result is what people believe the Bible says to them, and their own personal "translation" and "belief". So, the whole "normal" Christian thing couldn't work either, if the "gay" Christian thing couldn't work :P Like I said, you can't pick and choose. You must follow all God's laws equally.

Er, there are about a million fractionations and schisims within the Judeo-Christian church that would probably disagree with this. That's why we have more "types" of Christianity than Baskin-Robbins has flavors of ice cream. :D

Well, you can't pick and choose what you believe in but everyone seems that you can. Loose interpretations of the Bible, and different translations say different things. All in all, the end result is what people believe the Bible says to them, and their own personal "translation" and "belief". So, the whole "normal" Christian thing couldn't work either, if the "gay" Christian thing couldn't work :P Like I said, you can't pick and choose. You must follow all God's laws equally.

Er, there are about a million fractionations and schisims within the Judeo-Christian church that would probably disagree with this. That's why we have more "types" of Christianity than Baskin-Robbins has flavors of ice cream. :D

lmao, true though.. so true :P

Speaking of which, Baskin-Robins has 31 flavors.. right? Or no..?

Good post.

I'm bisexual and yet I use the word "fag" all the time.

There are many gay and bisexual men who hate that word. Be careful when using it, especially on NationStates. (I personally have no problem with it.)

i got in on the thread late, but kudos, it was excellently well thought-out and had enough objectivity to justify your subjectivity.

i am straight, and conservative, but i really have no idea why homosexuals get so much flak. these times don't bring any more gay people than there ever have been, it's just the publicity that they get, and the intolerance of this era.

in archaic societies, everybody knew who was gay and who wasn't, but they were treated with enough respect that if they wanted to be open with it they could and if they didn't nobody would pull them out of the closet.

i also support gay marriage. Bush went wrong when he so passionately opposed the inexorability of fact: whether he wants it or not, it's going to happen. in my opinion, the sooner gay marriages are legalized the better. it would definitely score Bush some points to back off on that policy, it would make lots of Americans much happier, it would get the ball rolling on an American society that treated homosexuals like human beings, and if that's not enough for Bush he could at least take comfort in that he could tax it like straight marriages and use the money to help close the case in Iraq after we empower the Iraqis on June 30.

and as for God...i don't think he really cares if you're gay or not. i find it hard to believe that if you love people of the same gender he's going to throw you into Hell to suffer torture for all eternity.

Good post.

I'm bisexual and yet I use the word "fag" all the time.

There are many gay and bisexual men who hate that word. Be careful when using it, especially on NationStates. (I personally have no problem with it.)

yeah, it's like calling women "chicks" or "broads." i do so in a friendly or mocking context when i am around people i know, but i modify my language around females i don't know well because there's really no point in pissing them off over something so easily avoided.

All relative. I doubt many things in the Bible, and if he were to throw us gay peoples to hell for loving one another, then surely he will throw the other billion or so christians to hell for wearing clothes with mixed fabric.

All relative. I doubt many things in the Bible, and if he were to throw us gay peoples to hell for loving one another, then surely he will throw the other billion or so christians to hell for wearing clothes with mixed fabric.

interesting trivia: more words in the Bible are spent condemning left-handed people than gay people. i guess my straight, south-paw brother will be joining us fruit-loops in Hell.

heh :P

OOC: Bump for the new server.

yeah, it's like calling women "chicks" or "broads." i do so in a friendly or mocking context when i am around people i know, but i modify my language around females i don't know well because there's really no point in pissing them off over something so easily avoided.

No, it's not like calling women "chicks" or "broads." It's like calling a black person the n-word.

And I for one have a real problem with the word (as Doujin found out).

There's a difference between a gay person and a fag, just as there's a difference between a black person and a ******, and a difference between a white person and a cracker.

All 3 are derogatory terms, but they're not neccesarily aimed at the entire group of people.

You left out Baberaham Lincoln.

Amazing Obs, Truly amazing. Of course society cannot continue with just homosexuals, but it will never be a homosexual-only society.

Just a message to all you homophobes out there::
homophobe--> :headbang: :mp5: <--- Me

Yndurain = puppet of Hogsweat

Death to homophobiasexuals!!!!

Trivia time: What formerly opressed religious cult rose to power and common acceptance shortly before the fall of the Roman empire?

Penis worshippping homosexualians?

Christians? :P

Simply amazing post Doujin, and many of the responses have been amazing.

I'm definatly bookmarking this whole thread. Doujin, would you mind if I linked your website and, more importantly, essay to other places?



The only racial or sexist or whatever comment I ever use is cracker. And the only person I use that against is myself :p

You made quite a few mistakes in your accusations of Chrsitianity. For example: Leviticus is a book in the Old Testament. It is not an accurate representation of Christian beliefs (it is not part of the new Covenant). A better verse that accurately depicits Christians' beliefs on homosexuality would be 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (in the New Testament): No one who...behaves like a homosexual will enter the kingdom of God!

Your comment about Christians saying "God hates fags" is simply not true. God does NOT hate homosexuals, that is the teaching of the Catholic church (I'm using this Church because it's the one I belong to so I know best, but I'm sure the same goes for most Protestant churches). Notice the Corinthians verse I quoted earlier, does not say anyone who IS a homosexual will not enter heaven, just who ACTS like one will not enter heaven. So all this crap about God hating homosexuals is just not true. Unfortunately there are many Christian fanatics who go around confessing this, and screwing it up for the real ones.

I thought I'd clear up for everyone the Catholic teachings on homosexuality. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're going to hell.

Hate to correct you, but it does.

If you die with sin, you go to hell. Simple as that. The only way to stop this is to accept Jesus as your savior.

I used to do that, but I no longer accept him as my savior. Therefore, I'm hell bound, at least in the eyes of many religions :p

... Just to long... way to long...
You might grip the attention of those who have time or care enough for the subject... But the long text just kills the reading spirit...

I can hardly see how you can spend that much text proving a point or something... cant you shorten it?

How about this: read it and don't be lazy.

Goed, if you die with sin, yeah you go to hell, but being gay, in itself, is not a sin.

That was a well thought out essay and I am glad to see it in this forum.
I am a bisexual atheist of mixed descent so discrimination annoys me. Christians weren't always the big dogs of the neighborhood and they had to endure a great deal of prejudice and whatever to get to where they are. That's why seeing them attack everyone and their brother makes me rather upset. Christians are suppose to be about love, yet history has shown them doing the exact opposite. In the case against homosexuality the bible is often quoted which seems stupid to me. The bible isn't a whole text it's two seperate and different collections of stories stuck together. The old testament isn't even really revelent to Christianity. Yet it's the part being used against homosexuals. That seems idiotic to me. Besides isn't it also listed in the bible that one should not judge least they be judged in returned? Whatever sorry for going off on a tangent... Anyway great essay Doujin.

Anadan, your post would have validity, except read what I just posted here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6576012&postcount=118

Wow... I don't know what to say... Wow... *mouth hangs open in disbelief*

Whatever translation of the Bible you are using, Eastern Newfoundland, obviously is wrongly translated. First off, the original King James Version says this:


6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(6:10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Where in there does it say "homosexual" / "homosexuals"? The word(s) malakoi and arsenokoitai(the words translated into that) could mean a bunch of things. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexuals, he would have and should have used the word "paiderasste". Malakoi in other parts of the Bible has been translated into "soft", or "fine". It could also mean "loose", or "pliable". Malakoi was used most often, however, to the effect of [Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." In the context it is used, it means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Also, even if the word were meant to be 'effeminate", our present culture has many different connotations that are now associated with the word "effeminate" that, simply, do not apply to Paul's era. In reality, the word effeminate could be only considered, well, a mistranslation.

Blah, how come all the other homo topics get 30+ pages and I only get 3? :|

I'm still perplexed by the perpensity of those so eager to discuss what they find so disgusting.

I'm still perplexed by the perpensity of those so eager to discuss what they find so disgusting.

Meh, people are weird :)

Doujinm, according to www.biblegateway.com, almost every other translation, including the Contemporary English Version, the version widly used in Catholic churches, says:

(6:9)Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual (6:10)will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.

You can check out the website, put in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and in almost all of the translations, it's stated either directly, or implied.

or behaves like a homosexual (6:10)

Well then, I'm safe. I don't behave like a homosexual - I am one. I behave AS a homosexual.

In other words: be true to yourself. If you're straight, behave as a heterosexual, not like a homosexual. If you're homosexual behave as a homosexual not like a heterosexual.

You know, for a topic that Jesus didn't bother to utter even one word about, it certainly does get the Christian church in an uproar. As if there weren't more important things to worry about!

Has anyone here thought of asking the more fanatical Christians here if they believe slavery should be reintroduced if bound by the rules that Jesus Himself laid down?

Well then, I'm safe. I don't behave like a homosexual - I am one. I behave AS a homosexual.

In other words: be true to yourself. If you're straight, behave as a heterosexual, not like a homosexual. If you're homosexual behave as a homosexual not like a heterosexual.

You know, for a topic that Jesus didn't bother to utter even one word about, it certainly does get the Christian church in an uproar. As if there weren't more important things to worry about!

Has anyone here thought of asking the more fanatical Christians here if they believe slavery should be reintroduced if bound by the rules that Jesus Himself laid down?

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." ~Lynn Lavner

I'm not gay myself and I have no plans to be gay but that was one damn good essay. Maybe I should show it to my dad, who knows, maybe he would shut up with all his ranting about 'fags' and their 'disgusting behaviour'

Doujinm, according to www.biblegateway.com, almost every other translation, including the Contemporary English Version, the version widly used in Catholic churches, says:

(6:9)Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual (6:10)will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.

You can check out the website, put in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and in almost all of the translations, it's stated either directly, or implied.

And this shows only that mankind is fully capable of attributing his own personal biases to the word of God. The fact is, if it is being translated as "homosexual" then this is a clearly incorrect translation as there was no concept of homosexuality as we currently understand the word in either Greek or Hebrew.

It's also interesting to note that, by this quotation, Bush is going to hell. (Drunkard, one who curses and cheats others, greedy person).

Doujinm, according to www.biblegateway.com, almost every other translation, including the Contemporary English Version, the version widly used in Catholic churches, says:

(6:9)Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual (6:10)will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.

You can check out the website, put in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and in almost all of the translations, it's stated either directly, or implied.

You know, you totally missed what I said when I said it wasn't correclty translated. And bringing in Catholics, you do realize that it is the belief ot the President Bishop of the Episcopal Church that homosexuality was not known as an orientation when the Bible was written, only as an act of lust and prostitution?

And this shows only that mankind is fully capable of attributing his own personal biases to the word of God. The fact is, if it is being translated as "homosexual" then this is a clearly incorrect translation as there was no concept of homosexuality as we currently understand the word in either Greek or Hebrew.

It's also interesting to note that, by this quotation, Bush is going to hell. (Drunkard, one who curses and cheats others, greedy person).

I had something I was going to add to that but i totally forgot what it was.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)




I didn't realise 'right and wrong' was the ability to procreate or not. This is a total logic shutdown. I could used similarly crap logic. And I will.

Nazi's could procreate, but the Jews they murdered couldn't. This means Nazi's are right and Jews are wrong.

See?

How about this- put 50 homosexual couples on one album, but 50 straight couples on another. See which team spends their whole time making babies, and which paints the Sistine Chapel, invents computers, colonises half of Asia, beats Rommel in desert combat [ad nauseum].

Anyway, if God made all man, and homosexuality is wrong, isn't that like saying... well, God got it wrong? And as far as I know, saying 'God got it wrong' isn't a very Christian attitude.

Even though i am against the discrimination against anyone, even homosexuals, I myself could easily be accused of being homophobic. I do not agree with discrimination against homosexuals but i do not feel comfortable around those who are openly homosexual. It is impossible to feel comfortable around them because, you cannot know whether what they do is normal behaviour or whether they are hitting on you, because often gestures between those of the same sex can be attributed to either.



Why? Even if someone of the same sex is "hitting" on you, you always have the option of turning them down. Are you equally uncomfortable around members of the opposite sex who you find completely unnattractive or who you would not for other reasons (say they are married or something) consider engaging in sexual relations?

Clear and obvious unease around someone just because of that person's sexual orientation is a form of discrimination, whether you wish to admit that fact to yourself or not. It may not be as harmful as others, but it is still very hurtful. Just think about it.

Why? Even if someone of the same sex is "hitting" on you, you always have the option of turning them down. Are you equally uncomfortable around members of the opposite sex who you find completely unnattractive or who you would not for other reasons (say they are married or something) consider engaging in sexual relations?

Clear and obvious unease around someone just because of that person's sexual orientation is a form of discrimination, whether you wish to admit that fact to yourself or not. It may not be as harmful as others, but it is still very hurtful. Just think about it.

Pfft, if you switched that and said same sex I would be uncomfortable if they were making passes at me. I find that annoying and aggrivating. *shrug* Although I'm not that superficial, the definition of "ugly" to me is much different than that to others so...

so many people are so ignorant and caught up in what people tell them what is right or wrong. if people would just start thinking for themselves and looking at all sides of the issue, stuff would be a lot better. but im not that naive and im pretty sure this won't happen anytime soon

I know a lot more straight people who should be banned from procreation than i know homosexuals who should be. and im not saying that i support making laws against loving one another. that's ridiculous. the last thing we all need right now is a ban on love, whatever that involves for each individual. be it marriage or sharing their love with a child.

Wow, that was awesome. So, Doujin, you seeing anybody right now?

Kidding. But really, that was beatiful, I will henceforth worship you as god and use this piece as my holy scriptures, and none shall ever deny them lest they burn in the eternal fires of damnation (the purple and pink fires, just so they know who it is that's punishing them.)

Wow, that was awesome. So, Doujin, you seeing anybody right now?

Kidding. But really, that was beatiful, I will henceforth worship you as god and use this piece as my holy scriptures, and none shall ever deny them lest they burn in the eternal fires of damnation (the purple and pink fires, just so they know who it is that's punishing them.)

OOC: I'm single, who would want to date my ugly arse :P

Pfft, if you switched that and said same sex I would be uncomfortable if they were making passes at me. I find that annoying and aggrivating. *shrug* Although I'm not that superficial, the definition of "ugly" to me is much different than that to others so...

For me it depends on what you call "making passes at." I can be fairly clueless unless someone is blunt. What *does* make me uncomfortable and annoyed is not so much someone making a pass, but that person making a repeat pass after I have clearly said no. Still there is a huge difference between being uncomfortable when a person who you are unattracted to is making passes at you as compared to being in the same place with a person that you are not attracted to because (to quote the person I was originally replying to) you cannot know whether what they do is normal behaviour or whether they are hitting on you, because often gestures between those of the same sex can be attributed to either. Here I would like to add the obvious that gestures between those of opposite genders can just as easily be attributed to either.

I was merely trying to point out that avoiding one group of people that you are not attracted to because someone might be making a pass at you (or just might be making polite conversation) but not avoiding different group of people that you are not attracted to, even though the same possiblity exists that a member of that second group might make a pass at you is blatant discrimination, even though the original poster claims to be against discrimination.

Nice essay, Doujin, but I'm going to refrain from lavishing praise on you like so many before me. There were quite a few sentences that could have been rewritten to get your message across better, and several that needed to be corrected for grammatical mistakes.

You developed your arguments quite nicely, and the essay had a very structured feel. I'd encourage you to read through it again and consider changing a few bits around, in order to perfect it. Good stuff for a 16-year-old, though - you show lots of promise. You also address the issue pretty well, and provide a very comprehensive summary of the liberal viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality. Work on a few of your arguments and lay off of Christianity a bit - it isn't completely evil! - and you should have a very fine essay.

Acaykath: do you mind my asking how old you are? It's just a matter of interest. Also, what part of the world did you grow up in, and in what social and religious context? Again, this is just out of personal interest.

You know, for a topic that Jesus didn't bother to utter even one word about, it certainly does get the Christian church in an uproar. As if there weren't more important things to worry about!

The problem with your objection is that you view the Gospels as the fullness of Christ's teaching when they are not. I forget which Gospel, but at least one of them mentions that it would take a long time to write down the entirety of Jesus's teachings. The Gospels are inerrant in that everything they say is true, but they do not claim to possess the entirety of Jesus's teachings. Thus, the argument that 'Jesus never mentioned homosexuality' doesn't really hold much weight.

You know, you totally missed what I said when I said it wasn't correclty translated. And bringing in Catholics, you do realize that it is the belief ot the President Bishop of the Episcopal Church that homosexuality was not known as an orientation when the Bible was written, only as an act of lust and prostitution?

Why should Anglican teachings be binding on the Catholic Church? The Anglican Church broke away from Catholicism and denied many of its doctrines, so why should Catholicism pay any attention to the Anglican spin on homosexuality?

If you wrote that yourself - I'd be interested in asking you to write a few columns for the Political Site I am making. It is aimed at Teenager's aged 15-18 and aims to condense (not simplify) Politics and make it accessible to younger people.

The site is currently in the development stages as I am asking a friend (who has produced many sites in the past - most recently for a health spa) to make it using Flash and Dreamweaver. Once it is done (2005) - And we pay the rental for Forums and the domain name (www.politique.co.uk) maybe you would be interested in donating this column?

The problem with your objection is that you view the Gospels as the fullness of Christ's teaching when they are not. I forget which Gospel, but at least one of them mentions that it would take a long time to write down the entirety of Jesus's teachings. The Gospels are inerrant in that everything they say is true, but they do not claim to possess the entirety of Jesus's teachings. Thus, the argument that 'Jesus never mentioned homosexuality' doesn't really hold much weight.

So you're saying that, halfway trough writing down the f***ing Words of God Almighty Himself, people said "meh, I'm bored, forget this" and left?

Well let's see... I'm an Episcopalian, a moderate Republican (Bush in '04), a sports loving nut, a beer drinking lush, a cigarette chain smoker, an airline employee, and a fantastic tennis player... oh and I'm gay, big freakin' deal. I bet it was the "airline employee" part that gave it away, HaHA! In all seriousness, if someone wants to try and put me down for being gay so be it, I will not and have not ever lost any sleep over it. Do I flaunt my sexuality, no, I think there is a time and place for that, and I for one keep it behind closed doors (though the windows do stay open when it is nice outside)! Do I have a problem with others that do, of course not, they are free to do whatever it is they wish to do within the confines of federal law! So in all honesty, I don't care if you are a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, transexual, or an asexual (if there even is a such thing), just be who you are and don't let anyone change you for what you are! I have friends from "both sides of the aisle", and am as comfortable around them as they are with me. So the main point of my post is basically to say "To Each His Own!".

Regards,
Drew

PS: For those of you that will condemn me for this post b/c of some ideological belief so be it, just don't start up with the polygamy/beastality/pedophilia arquement... or else I may have to go for the throat and bring the Catholic Churchs' faults into play!

The Gospels are inerrant in that everything they say is true, but they do not claim to possess the entirety of Jesus's teachings. Thus, the argument that 'Jesus never mentioned homosexuality' doesn't really hold much weight.

Convienent escape clause there.... I guess you would agree that a Christian can be a slave holder? After all, Christ DID mention a couple of rules about how one should treat you slaves. Maybe Christian Identity or the World Church of the Creator has got it right after all.

@Doujin

I´m most amused by your comment. You wrote a lot but presented little arguments for your position. Instead of you used girlish sentimentality and non-scientific statements.
I was most amused about that part:

"What exactly is at the root of the unhealthy fear and hostility toward homosexuals called homophobia? While many say it is strict religious beliefs, or lack of knowledge or compassion for people who are different, many psychologists point to a deeper core. The Adams et al. study took sixty-four younger white male students, thirty-five of which were homophobic, and twenty-nine who were not. They were subjected them to heterosexual and male homosexual visual-audio erotica, measuring their penile size increase with a gauge for each. The result was that eighty percent of the homophobic group showed arousal to the homosexual male erotica, while only about one third of their non-homophobic counterparts did, and showed arousal only to a significantly less amount. In addition, the homophobic men were significantly less aroused by the heterosexual erotica than the non-homophobic heterosexual males. When questioned about the amount of arousal they felt, the homophobic men went to much greater lengths to deny their arousal resulting from the male homosexual erotica. This study indicates that about forty percent of young adult males (with an eight percent margin of error) are either not aware, or not telling the truth about their inner sexual feelings. Many physiatrists and other educated individuals point to Freudian ideas saying that, "Homophobes are really self-hating homosexuals". A theory of repressed homosexuality and focus on heterosexuality for a homophobic individual indeed is a worthy notion. Many homosexuals likely have a homosexual aspect about their own inner feelings, and they are probably targeting this thing about themselves that they cannot accept in others. Author Pierre Tremblay says, "Most homophobic males have detectable homosexual component in their psyche and their homophobia reflects the concept called "projection' in psychiatry, but this human behavior has been recognized for thousands of years".

So what you are saying is that homosexuals are mean towards homosexuals: It is really most amuzing to me and the most silly argument after all.
By the way: 64 persons are not enough for any survey which ought to be about the entire US. That´s like asking 10 people in Texas who they would vote and claim that would be an appropiate number to draw conclusions from. That´s complete nonsense. Even in smaller countries like the US you need at least 500 - 1000 people to make a survey which may have - it is prepared right - some valuable results - although still with a huge margin of error. But to take 64 people as a basis is only ridiculous.

So what you are saying is that homosexuals are mean towards homosexuals: It is really most amuzing to me and the most silly argument after all.
By the way: 64 persons are not enough for any survey which ought to be about the entire US. That´s like asking 10 people in Texas who they would vote and claim that would be an appropiate number to draw conclusions from. That´s complete nonsense. Even in smaller countries like the US you need at least 500 - 1000 people to make a survey which may have - it is prepared right - some valuable results - although still with a huge margin of error. But to take 64 people as a basis is only ridiculous.

what he was saying is that people (primarily men) who are homosexual but have not come to terms with it are the most hostile towards homosexuals; this is a routinely documented phenomenon in psychology, in many other areas of human interaction, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody with basic psych understanding. further, the study he referred to is currently supported by at least 5 attempts to reproduce it with other populations; so far, not a single reproduction or similar study has even found reason to question the results. you're right that one sample isn't enough for a solid conclusion; half a dozen start to make for a pretty nice picture, though :).

what he was saying is that people (primarily men) who are homosexual but have not come to terms with it are the most hostile towards homosexuals; this is a routinely documented phenomenon in psychology, in many other areas of human interaction, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody with basic psych understanding. further, the study he referred to is currently supported by at least 5 attempts to reproduce it with other populations; so far, not a single reproduction or similar study has even found reason to question the results. you're right that one sample isn't enough for a solid conclusion; half a dozen start to make for a pretty nice picture, though :).

I know your notorious homophil comments. However you have never ever backed your statements with sources and facts.

Therefore I conclude: Bottle empty, hehehehe.

@Doujin...you used girlish sentimentality

Dearie me...first you try and accuse someone else of using poor arguements, before resorting to Governator tactics.

I know your notorious homophil comments. However you have never ever backed your statements with sources and facts.

Therefore I conclude: Bottle empty, hehehehe.

erm, huh? i think i have probably posted more source lists and links than any other single player on this forum, with the possible exception of Incertonia. your insults need to at least have some grounding in reality for them to be effective, otherwise it's like you trying to insult me by calling me a milk carton; it's just not true, so there's no sting to it, and therefore it's not a good insult.

Dearie me...first you try and accuse someone else of using poor arguements, before resorting to Governator tactics.

yeah, he seems eager to insult others without providing a single shred of evidence to support himself...i'm wondering why any of us should care what he thinks?

The problem with your objection is that you view the Gospels as the fullness of Christ's teaching when they are not. I forget which Gospel, but at least one of them mentions that it would take a long time to write down the entirety of Jesus's teachings. The Gospels are inerrant in that everything they say is true, but they do not claim to possess the entirety of Jesus's teachings. Thus, the argument that 'Jesus never mentioned homosexuality' doesn't really hold much weight.

So? If God has a hand in every random event and neuron that fires, he can dictate what ends up in the Gospel. So what if Jesus isn't recorded as saying anything on homosexuality, he's never said anything on record about blueberry muffins either, that doesn't prove anything. He obviously didn't see homosexuality and blueberry muffins as big issues that needed his time and skills in rhetoric to put a view down on.

As for people who are homophobic in the sense of fearing us as unknowns, why is that relevant? That's an entirely personal issue, and I frankly don't care. I don't like people who eat pork, it doesn't affect how I treat them. There are bigger problems in the world. We're not asking for everyone to like us, we just want people like us to have a decent chance and equal rights. It's easy for the majority to um and err about giving rights to minorities, but we're here and we need support.

Frankly I'd happily give up the whole gay-marriage guff for a hundred years if we could just get some education about who we really are and how we don't do anything heterosexuals don't do. I have never seen one single random queer in a mainstream TV show or film, someone who's utterly 'normal' and isn't playing up the fairy schtick. There's nothing wrong with flamboyance and 'tis bona to aunt nell a bijou snippette of Polari, but we never see the mostly normal queers who make up the majority of the community.

So you're saying that, halfway trough writing down the f***ing Words of God Almighty Himself, people said "meh, I'm bored, forget this" and left?

Teaching at that time in history was largely oral. The Gospels were written at least 30 years after Jesus's death, and they were based in large part on the oral tradition of the early church. Why would you expect them to contain every word that Jesus ever said?

Convienent escape clause there.... I guess you would agree that a Christian can be a slave holder? After all, Christ DID mention a couple of rules about how one should treat you slaves. Maybe Christian Identity or the World Church of the Creator has got it right after all.

What I find ironic is that time after time I hear pro-homosexual marriage people claim that they don't want to hear religious arguments against it, and then many of them turn around and claim 'Jesus never mentioned homosexuality'. If, however, you want to hear why I do believe homosexuality to be a sin, I can do so. But it will be more than a few Bible verses that some people claim are translated incorrectly.

erm, huh? i think i have probably posted more source lists and links than any other single player on this forum, with the possible exception of Incertonia. your insults need to at least have some grounding in reality for them to be effective, otherwise it's like you trying to insult me by calling me a milk carton; it's just not true, so there's no sting to it, and therefore it's not a good insult.

No you haven´t. I haven´t seen any links by you, any sources, or anything else. Just one example: you don´t back your claim you give at one of your last posts regarding servays. You have never ever backed some of responses to my comments with evidence nor have I seen you doing that in other comments of you.

Bottle empty - empty Bottle.

Teaching at that time in history was largely oral. The Gospels were written at least 30 years after Jesus's death, and they were based in large part on the oral tradition of the early church. Why would you expect them to contain every word that Jesus ever said?

Well, I'd say that the Word of God(tm) are pretty damn important.

No you haven´t. I haven´t seen any links by you, any sources, or anything else. Just one example: you don´t back your claim you give at one of your last posts regarding servays. You have never ever backed some of responses to my comments with evidence nor have I seen you doing that in other comments of you.

Bottle empty - empty Bottle.


Erm, I've seen him link up to several sites.

Unlike you, who sticks to juvinile insults and forced ignorance. ;)

Nazi Weaponized Virus, I already have my own projects to take care of - mainly drumming up funding for a site that is costing about 70,000 dollars to launch and is targeted towards 13-25 gay 'youth', similar to the already existing www.XY.com and www.mogenic.com

Erm, I've seen him link up to several sites.

Unlike you, who sticks to juvinile insults and forced ignorance. ;)
Don't you mean "I've seen her"? :p

Well, I'd say that the Word of God(tm) are pretty damn important.

I agree with you. But nowhere do the Gospels claim to contain the entirety of Christ's teachings.

I know your notorious homophil comments. However you have never ever backed your statements with sources and facts.

Therefore I conclude: Bottle empty, hehehehe.

While Bottle hardly needs to defend her evidiciary record or needs me to do it, a simple google search will do wonders for your mind.

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm

http://www.geocities.com/plusg1/facts_04.htm

No you haven´t. I haven´t seen any links by you, any sources, or anything else. Just one example: you don´t back your claim you give at one of your last posts regarding servays. You have never ever backed some of responses to my comments with evidence nor have I seen you doing that in other comments of you.

Bottle empty - empty Bottle.


frankly, if you haven't seen me post sources then we all know how much you AREN'T reading. as several people have already pointed out, i post sources plenty often. but please, continue posting your silly, childish insults...it only makes me look better, after all, since you continue tossing slurs rather than coming up with any refutations at all. i love when people like you do all the works for me, it saves me the time of having to expose you for the trolls you are :).

nd no, i won't provide sources for you, because you are a rude little child who won't read them anyways, and i don't see any reason to go out of my way for you. read the sources Berk posted, or do a simple search for yourself.

I agree with you. But nowhere do the Gospels claim to contain the entirety of Christ's teachings.

Well they should, Him being the Son of God and all that.

Well they should, Him being the Son of God and all that.

Well, not necessarily. When you consider how thick the current editions of the Bible are...that's about 80 books (give or take).

When the original list of "included texts" was put together all those many centuries ago, there were more than 400 texts under consideration...including no less than 7 Gospels (and possibly more).

Now, they could have included it all, but I think they were both prudent and wise to select a representative sample that reduced the number to something a little more manageable without destroying the core of the message.

:D Aiera

While Bottle hardly needs to defend her evidiciary record or needs me to do it, a simple google search will do wonders for your mind.

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm

http://www.geocities.com/plusg1/facts_04.htm

All your links refer just to one survey: the one by the university of Georgia. And this was made just with 64 persons. That is not representative. It´s like I would go around and ask 64 people in Texas how they vote and claim that would be a representative survey for the US. It wouldn´t even be enough for Texas.
You need several ten thousand people to give a somehow representative survey or you need to pick and select people on an representative basis. But even then you need at least 500 to 1000 people to draw any conclusions from it. The numbers of this survey are ten times lower. It is completly meaningless. From this no conclusions could be drawn. It simply lacks the solid basis for an representative survey.

Well they should, Him being the Son of God and all that.

Well, you're assuming that all of Chrisianity is based on the Bible, which it is not, contrary to popular belief. The came from the early church, not the other way around.

Well, you're assuming that all of Chrisianity is based on the Bible, which it is not, contrary to popular belief. The came from the early church, not the other way around.

Actually I don't give a fuck, but that's just me.

All your links refer just to one survey: the one by the university of Georgia. And this was made just with 64 persons. That is not representative. It´s like I would go around and ask 64 people in Texas how they vote and claim that would be a representative survey for the US. It wouldn´t even be enough for Texas.
You need several ten thousand people to give a somehow representative survey or you need to pick and select people on an representative basis. But even then you need at least 500 to 1000 people to draw any conclusions from it. The numbers of this survey are ten times lower. It is completly meaningless. From this no conclusions could be drawn. It simply lacks the solid basis for an representative survey.

A small group such as this is enough to conclude that further study is needed. However, until further studies are carried out, this is the most significant experiment so far. Unless you have a link to an experiment with contrary evidence?

You forget that there were originally way over a hundred epistles and books of the Bible, and now there are less than 80 in the current Bibles.

GREAT REPORT!!!! That is a awsome report you are a great person for writing that.

Nice opening post.


Someone said: (working on the quote features here. )


You have also stated that todays "christian culture" is negativly impacting gays. You are obviously very misinformed here because even though this country was founded on christian principles, christianity is quickly becoming a smaller and smaller minority thanks to the athiest teachings of pleasure and political correctness, which is inheretantly discriminatory against all religions which completely opposes the original intentions of political correctness. Heathen religions are rising up as well, because people are attracted to anything that promotes pleasure above all and sexual promiscuity.


To this I say, (even if you call it 'politically correct and atheist to say so,) ... you've at least proven that Christian culture negatively impacts people of Heathen religions, since you obviously learned nothing about the actual beliefs and practices of Heathen and Pagan religions (if you even know the difference.)

In fact, you've learned and were taught to spread the exact same stereotype about people of *these religions* as you were taught to spread about gays.

That anyone different from you has no morality, valid viewpoint, or even cultural validity, cause you were *told* that we're simply people who are promiscuous and put selfish hedonistic pleasure above all else.

Lies.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Most Heathen and Pagan religions don't *see* pleasure as evil, unnatural, or profane.

Quite the contrary.

That's why we're not *obsessed with pleasure, stopping it, and who may or may not be having some.*

Actually, it's not that big a deal with most of us, as long as you keep your promises and don't hurt people.

That's actually a more exacting standard than most Christians hold themselves to.

And, though a few loudmouthed people who don't last long in most Heathen and Pagan communities may come in with the wrong idea, we're not *all about sex, especially not sex as your Bible sees and represses it,*

And it's an insult, and willful ignorance at best for a church to say otherwise.

It's propaganda.

Just like, I assure you, *negatively affects gays* all their lives.

Heathen and Pagan religions cover that.
Christianity, well, track record not so good.

A few thoughts on homosexuality, all sources from the center for arizona policy.

"For years we’ve been told homosexuals should have the right to marry because they are just like heterosexuals. But despite the weakening of heterosexual marriage through high divorce rates and cohabitation, this is still simply not the case. More than half of traditional marriages last at least 20 years; in the Netherlands where gay marriage is legal, the average length of those relationships is 1.5 years. In heterosexual marriage, more than 8 of 10 married couples never has sex outside marriage. In steady gay relationships, couples have an average of eight sexual relationships outside the partnership per year. This is more evidence that changing marriage to include homosexuals will change our view of the permanence of marriage more than it will change the behavior of homosexuals. I’m Len Munsil, urging you to think about it."


"Author Maggie Gallagher has written a column describing her interview with a 27-year-old woman who opposes same sex marriage. In the interview, this mother of two children expresses particular concern for the children of gay couples. Some might consider her to be intolerant, even bigoted and full of hatred. But this woman was raised by two lesbian women, and loves her birth mother dearly. Yet she explains that even as she grew up, she felt like she was “unnatural.” About same sex marriage, she says, “It’s not something a seal of approval should be stamped on. We shouldn’t say it’s a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they’ve been cheated.” In the debate over same sex marriage, who will speak for the children? This is Len Munsil, urging you to think about it."

More?

Harms of Homosexuality


Highlights

Homosexual acts use the excretory and sex organs in acts contrary to their natural purpose, and the health consequences of such misuse are well documented and undeniable.

A key study on male homosexuals indicated that at age 20, they had a life expectancy that was as much as 20 years less than for all men. Even with the most conservative figures used, they would have a life expectancy comparable to men living in 1871. Half of all gay males were not expected to reach their 65th birthday.1

AIDS is not the only risk to the health of homosexuals. Other sexually transmitted diseases ore more common in the homosexual community, substance abuse and mental health issues are widespread and even certain types of cancer are more likely to occur in gay and lesbian populations.2

The suicide rate is considerably higher among homosexuals. Contrary to activists’ assertions, this is not likely to be due to societal pressures or “homophobia” as a study in the Netherlands found a similarly high suicide rate in a society where homosexuality has found widespread acceptance and “gay marriage” is now possible.3

The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has published a 488-page volume on the unique health needs of homosexuals. The very need for such a document contradicts the assertion that homosexuality is just another “healthy alternative lifestyle.” 4

We have long recognized the benefit to society of restricting behaviors that are destructive to the health of one’s self or others. Restrictions on smoking or drug and alcohol use are some obvious examples. Homosexual behavior is far more destructive and deadly than these, and policies that encourage homosexual conduct are irresponsible.


Specific Medical Risks

Listed below are some of the physical consequences of engaging in “gay sex,” some minor, others fatal. Some are found almost exclusively in homosexuals:5

AIDS
Hemorrhoids

Anal cancer
Human papilloma virus (HPV)

Anal fissures
Herpes simplex

Anorectal trauma
Herpes Type 8 (HHV-8)

Chlamydia
Hepatitis types B & C

Cryptosporidium
Kaposi’s Sarcoma (result of HHV-8)

Gonorrhea
Syphilis

Giardia
Typhoid




Lesbians are also at increased risk for STDs:

Bacterial vaginosis
Genital warts

Hepatitis B & C
Pelvic inflammatory disease




Rampant promiscuity and the physiological realities of “gay sex” account for the spread of infections and STD’s beyond their normal presence in the general population. One study found that 75% of gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different partners.

Interestingly, lesbians are more likely to have more male sexual partners than heterosexual women, also putting them at increased risk of STDs. They were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 male sex partners than heterosexuals. They were three to four times more likely to have sex with an HIV infected male than heterosexual women. Only 7 percent of lesbians never had sex with men.6

“Evidence suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people may disproportionately utilize mental health services.” Homosexual men have higher rates of panic attacks and major depression. Homosexuals have a higher reported incidence of alcohol and drug abuse. Gay men have elevated risk of bi-polar disorder, and one study found that homosexual men were at elevated risk for most mental disorders.7

Homosexuals are also four times more likely to have attempted suicide. Between one-quarter and one-third of homosexuals are victims of “gay on gay” domestic violence.8 Few crimes against homosexuals are actually hate crimes. (See Center for Arizona Policy Issue Brief “Homosexual Hate Crimes”)

For further information, the reader is encouraged to down load the white paper entitled “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by Dr. John R. Diggs from the Corporate Resource Council web site: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Robert S. Hogg, et al., Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26 No. 3, 1997.

2 John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., The Health Risks of Gay Sex, Corporate Resource Council.

3 Diggs

4 Healthy People 2010 Companion Document for Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Health, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 2001.

5 Diggs

6 Diggs

7 Healthy People

8 Healthy People

MAS?

Since the early 1990’s, a number of studies have been touted in the popular press as proving that homosexuality is predetermined by one’s genetic makeup.1 Having such a trait inborn would, it is argued, equate homosexuals with racial groups who have suffered due to their skin color or other characteristics they were born with.

Evidence for a genetic link or “gay gene” is scanty, but even if a genetic marker is found which indicates a propensity towards homosexuality, it is hardly a case for creating special rights for homosexuals. Whereas race is based on physical, outward characteristics, homosexuality is a behavior, and behaviors can be modified or even extinguished.2

There is some evidence that alcoholics may have a predisposition towards alcoholism based on inherited characteristics3. This does not, however, offer an excuse for alcoholics to break drunk driving laws, or give them special protection from those who would urge them to stop engaging in a self-destructive behavior.

There are many documented cases of homosexuals modifying their behavior and becoming heterosexual through ministries such as Exodus International. This strengthens the case that homosexuality is a behavior based on choice, not on genetic fate.4 In addition, multiple prominent lesbians such as singer Sinead O’Connor and actress Anne Heche have gone back and forth between homosexual and heterosexual behavior.

Studies Cited by Homosexual Activists

The studies most often cited by homosexual activists are listed below with a summary of each:

The “Gay Gene” or Xq28 – Science magazine reported in July 1993 that a study found a genetic cause for homosexuality. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute noticed a preponderance of gay relatives on the maternal side of families of gay men they were studying. The researchers then found a genetic marker on their X chromosomes, called Xq28, was much more likely to be found in pairs of homosexual brothers than in the general population.

However, a study done six years later at the University of Western Ontario, also published in Science magazine, could not duplicate the results. The later study concluded that the results “ do not support an x-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.” Despite the larger sample size in this study, a statistical analysis ruled out the possibility of Xq28 having a major genetic influence on a male becoming a homosexual.

Dean Hamer, the homosexual lead researcher in the original but faulty gene study, was asked whether homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He answered:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

The brain study – In 1991, Science magazine published the results of Simon LeVay, studied a specific cluster of neurons in brains of 35 male cadavers. He compared hypothalamuses of 19 homosexual AIDS victims to 16 men he presumed to be heterosexual, even though six of them had died of AIDS. His findings indicated that a certain region of the homosexual group’s hypothalamus was smaller than that of the presumed heterosexuals.

Even ignoring the lack of a properly determined control group of heterosexuals, this does not prove a cause for homosexuality. Behavior affects brain patterns, and any physical difference could be the result, not the cause, of homosexuality. A difference in the characteristics of the hypothalamus might also be the result of AIDS related brain damage.

A study of twins conducted in 1991 found that among homosexual males with an identical twin, the other twin was homosexual 52% of the time. Non-identical twins were found to have a homosexual brother 22% of the time, and an ordinary brother of a homosexual was only likely to have the same orientation 9% of the time.

There are several problems with this study, but the two major ones are the fact that the researchers recruited twins through advertisements in gay publications, and were not selected at random from the general population of homosexual men. This leads to “ascertainment bias” which describes a sample that is not representative of the whole population. Secondly, these twins were all brought up in the same household. For twin studies, usually twins who, through adoption, have been raised in separate families are sought out in order to eliminate the influence of the environment, and to isolate genetic factors.

An argument can be made that the twin study actually reinforces the argument that environmental factors in homosexuality are more important: identical twins raised in the same household have radically similar experiences, being dressed alike, often being mistaken for one another, etc. Next are fraternal twins, who experience the family at the same time, but are reacted to differently, based on their different appearance and other characteristics of individuality. Lastly are ordinary brothers who share the same family, but at different times.

The question ought to be, “why, if homosexuality is genetically determined, are 100% of the identical twin brothers, who share the exact same genetic material, not also homosexual?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Anastasia Toufexis, New Evidence of a "Gay Gene” , Time, Nov. 13, 1995

2 Linda Ames Nicolosi, Historic Gay Advocate Now Believes Change is Possible, http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer3.html, May 9, 2001

3 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, FAQ' s on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/faq.htm.

4 See the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) web site: http://www.narth.com.

5 Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, The Gay Gene? , Focus on the Family web site, http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0010620.html

6 Yvette C. Schneider, The Gay Gene: Going, Going… Gone, Insight, April 20, 2000, Family Research Council.

7 Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth? http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html , NARTH.

8 Schneider.

9 M. Bailey and R. Pillard. A Genetic Study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry 48:1089-1096 (1991)

10 Jon Beckwith, Nature’s Imperfect Experiment, La Recherch, July/August 1998. Found at http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/beckwith/twins.htm.

Want Sum mo?

“I want to have a daddy.” – Parker O’Donnell1

His adoptive mother, Rosie O’Donnell replied: “That would be great,” but “if you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.” In one sentence, Rosie sums up a major problem with homosexual adoption: the sexual “preference” of the homosexual and their desire to have a “family” trump the natural need and yearning of children to have parents of both sexes as role models.

Rosie and other homosexual activists will quote a figure of a “half million” kids in foster homes in the U.S. in need of adoptive parents. Homosexual parents are “needed” to take care of them. The truth is the number of children eligible for adoption is just a little more than 100,000.2

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorsed “Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents” in a technical report with that title in February of 2002. They concluded that there is “no risk to children” growing up in “families” with one or more gay parents.

The members of AAP, however, sent more messages to the leadership on this issue than any other in the organization’s history, “almost all of them critical.”3 Practicing pediatricians could plainly see the foolishness of concluding that children really don’t need role models of both sexes, after centuries of collective experience to the contrary. Children should not be allowed to become victims of social engineering in pursuit of a selfish political agenda.

The best interests of children should be the only factor in deciding who should adopt them. Research shows that the homosexual “family” environment is prone to instability, violence and disease, and is not suitable for raising children.

Homosexual “Family” Environment

Research shows that homosexual households are not the best nurturing environment:

Although they comprise less than 3% of the population, male homosexuals account for 20% to 40% of all child molestation perpetrators.4

Mental illness, including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, anxiety and mood disorders are much more common among the homosexual population.5

Substance abuse is more common among homosexuals.6

Editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network News letter admit that domestic violence is twice as prevalent in homosexual households as in heterosexual households.7 Other research shows that such violence is likely to be four to ten times that of married couples.8

Violence, suicide and STDs (especially AIDS) are so common in the homosexual community that the median age of death is substantially lower than in the married population. The median age of death for male homosexuals is 40, and 45 for lesbians. This compares to a median age of 75 for married men, and 79 for married women.9

Violence and murder among homosexuals is wildly disproportionate to their representation in the general population (about 2% to 3% of adults). In fact, the top six male serial killers were all homosexual: Donald Harvey, 37 victims; John Wayne Gacy, 33; Patrick Kearney, 32; Bruce Davis, 27; the Corll-Henley-Brooks murder-torture ring killed 27, and Juan Corona murdered 25 victims.10

A study of 6,714 obituaries in homosexual newspapers across the U.S. showed that 1.4% of male homosexuals and 7% of lesbians were murdered, murder rates over a hundred times those of non-homosexuals.11

Homosexual “committed relationships” are quite different from the monogamy of traditional marriage. For homosexuals, monogamy is defined as an “open relationship” where both partners “have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.”12
Impact on Children

There are few studies on the effects of homosexual parenting which do not have some methodological flaw which casts doubt on its conclusions. Many are not random, (adoptive homosexual parents volunteer for studies to “prove” how good they are), lack control groups, and use too small of sample sizes to be statistically significant.13

Studies of children of lesbian mothers, who, after divorce, make up the majority of homosexual parents, found that they were more likely to engage in homosexual relations, and be “more sexually adventurous” and less chaste than other children.14

Studies, experience and common sense show that children of traditional two parent families with a mother and father are better prepared for life. Mothers and fathers indisputably have different roles in bringing up children. Mothers nurture and protect, fathers roughhouse, encourage competition and risk taking. In discipline, mothers stress flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide consistency. Both roles are necessary for the balance they bring to the task and instill in the children, a balance not found with two “parents” of the same sex.15

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, author of The Divorce Culture, wrote in a 1993 article:

All this evidence gives rise to an obvious conclusion: growing up in an intact two-parent family is an important source of advantage for American children. Though far from perfect as a social institution, the intact family offers children greater security and better outcomes than its fastest growing alternatives: single-parent families and stepparent families.16

It would not stretch credibility to add “homosexual parents” to her list of alternatives.

Legal Status

Arizona currently allows “any adult of this state, whether married, unmarried or legally separated” to adopt. It also allows a husband and wife to jointly adopt children, but does not allow joint adoption in other situations.17

Florida is the only state to have a specific law protecting children from homosexual adoption, adding a prohibition of adoption by homosexuals in 1997.18 The statute withstood state court challenges, and the ACLU is now contesting it in federal court.

Mississippi, although not referring to homosexuality directly, has banned adoption by “couples of the same gender.” The governor of Mississippi signed the legislation in 2000.19

Utah passed a similar bill in 2000, banning adoption by anyone “cohabiting,” which is defined as “residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person.”20

New Hampshire had prohibited homosexuals from adopting and acting as foster parents, but repealed that portion of the law in 1999.21



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 As quoted by his adoptive lesbian mother, Rosie O’Donnell in a Primetime Interview, March 14, 2002.

2 Rosie v. the Facts about Gay Adoption, Family Research Council Press Release, 3/14/2002.

3 “Examining the Research on Homosexual Parenting” CitizenLink, undated. www.family.org/cforum/tempforum/A0020023.html

4 Paul Cameron, PhD, “Child Molestation and Homosexuality,” www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html.

5 G.M. Sandfort, PhD, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Arch Gen Psychiatry. 58:85-91. (2001)

6 Sandfort, supra.

7 Gary Glenn, “Even Rosie Knows Homosexual Adoption Puts Children at Risk,” Culture & Family Institute, http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2002-03-22/n_glenn.shtml.

8 “Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured,” Family Research Report, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec. 2001. www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html.

9 Paul Cameron, “Violence and Homosexuality,” www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html

10 Cameron, “Violence and Homosexuality,” supra.

11 Cameron, “Violence and Homosexuality,” supra.

12 Timothy Dailey, “State of the States: Update on Homosexual Adoption in the U.S., Family Research Council, www.frc.org/get/is02d2.cfm.

13 Peter Sprigg, “Gay Adoption Okay?,” Feb. 23, 2002, Family Research Council

14 Sprigg, , “Gay Adoption Okay?,” supra.

15 Kenneth L. Connor, “Adoption: Putting Kids First.” Family Research Council

16 Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "Dan Quayle Was Right," Atlantic April 1993, p. 19.

17 A.R.S. §8-103

18 Fla. Stat. §63.042

19 Miss. Code § 93-17-3

20 Utah Code §78-30-1

21 New Hampsh. Code §170-B:4

Im...Im sorry did you say more?

Homosexual Hate Crimes

Highlights

Hate crimes legislation gives special status to certain “protected groups,” such as racial or ethnic minorities, religious groups or homosexuals by giving stiffer sentences to criminals who commit crimes motivated by hatred or bias against a victim’s group.

Victims of crimes not motivated by hatred are not given equal protection under the law, a basic right guaranteed by The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. A victim may be just as brutally beaten, robbed, assaulted, maimed or killed as someone in a protected group, but the perpetrator will not be punished as severely.

To single out certain crimes as being motivated by hate is patently false. There are no crimes that are not an expression of hate or bias against the victim.

There is no evidence that crime motivated by hatred towards homosexuals (or any other group) is a growing problem or even common. In fact, these crimes are extremely rare.Defenders of hate crimes laws cite the intended intimidation of an entire group of people as reason for enhancing punishment of criminals. The entire population surrounding Washington, D.C. was intimidated to the point of terror during the recent D.C. sniper attacks. The victims, however, were of all races, ages and genders, and were clearly designed to frighten a group of people. Shouldn’t they be given extra protection?

Recent developments in Canada demonstrate that such a result is not far-fetched. A Saskatchewan man was fined $5,000 for inciting “hatred” against a protected group after he placed an ad in a newspaper quoting various passages from the Bible condemning homosexuality.1

Pennsylvania, the latest state to enact a “hate crimes” statute has taken the next step by creating a new “ethnic intimidation” crime. If a preacher is found to have caused a homosexual “substantial emotional distress” by repeatedly preaching on the biblical view of homosexuality, they could be found guilty of “ethnic intimidation.”2

State Law

The following 28 states and the District of Columbia have enacted hate crimes laws that give extra “protection” for “sexual orientation.” The first six also name “gender identity” as being a protected class.

CA, DC, MN, MO, PA, VT, AZ, CT, DE, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, LA,
ME, MA, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, TN, TX, WA, WI

No “hate crime” laws have been passed in AR, IN, NM, SC or WY. The remaining states have enacted legislation that does not cover “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”3

Current Arizona law (A.R.S. §13-702 and A.R.S. §41.1750) allows for increased sentences for people who commit crimes based on the victim’s real or perceived identity within one or more of the following groups: race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

“Hate Crimes” against Homosexuals

The latest hate crimes data, released November 25, 2002, reveal that in 2001:

Nationwide, there were 1,393 “hate incidents” which involved 1,592 offenses against homosexual victims. This represents .01% of all crime incidents reported in 2001.
In Arizona, there were 42 “hate incidents” motivated by bias against homosexuals, also representing .01% of reported crime in the state.
Of 15,980 murders in 2001, only one was a hate crime based on homosexuality, representing .00006% of all murders.
58% of the offenses classified as being motivated by “hate” are not assault, rape, murder or other violent crimes, but are classified as “intimidation,” burglary, motor vehicle theft, robbery or other crimes against property.4
Homosexuals, not heterosexuals, commit the majority of crimes against homosexuals. The number of “gay-on-gay” domestic violence cases is 14 times greater than the number of “anti-gay” attacks.5
92% of those polled believe that criminals should be punished for their actions alone, not their beliefs and that victims should receive equal protection under the law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Art Moore, Freedom of Conscience Debated in Ontario, World Net Daily, www.worldnetdaily.com, December 17, 2001.

2 Penn. House Bill 1493, Approved by the Governor, Dec. 3, 2002, Act No. 143, and Pa. Cons. Stat. §5504, Harassment and stalking by communication or address

3 Does Your State’s Hate Crimes Law Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? Human Rights Campaign Web Site, www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes/background/statelaws.asp.

4 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2001 and FBI Hate Crimes Statistics, 2001.

5 Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D. Talking Points: ‘Hate Crime’ Laws Means Unequal Protection, Family Research Council Web Site, www.frc.org/get/if02f1.cfm.

I could have sworn you said more

Homosexual Domestic Partner Benefits

Highlights

Advocates of domestic partner benefits seek to give the same employee benefits to cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual partners that employers have traditionally been providing to married employees, primarily health and dental insurance coverage for the spouse of an employee, but also including bereavement time, relocation assistance and similar “soft” benefits.

The need for domestic partner benefits for homosexuals is low. Research has shown that homosexuals make up about 1.9% of the population.1 Only one-half of one percent of households consists of same-sex couples.2 The actual percentage of participants in same-sex domestic partnerships is low. “[O]nly about .01 percent of General Motors employees (166 out of 1,330,000) had extended health benefits to their same-sex partners.”3

On the other hand, the cost of providing health insurance to domestic partners of homosexuals is high. In a review of a California health insurance pool, the loss ratio for same-sex couples was 17.1 percent higher than for heterosexual couples.4

The added cost is undoubtedly related to homosexual-related health issues like HIV and AIDS, which represent only a fraction of the health problems that disproportionately plague the homosexual population.5 For more information, see Center for Arizona Policy Issue Brief, Harms of Homosexuality.

Employers have good business reasons to reward married workers with premium benefits. They are, generally speaking, more productive, highly motivated, are healthier and longer-lived, making them good for business. Benefits for married spouses are a way of attracting and keeping particularly good employees.6

Government and business have a legitimate interest in encouraging and strengthening the institution of marriage. It is the foundation of civilization, providing the basis for stable relationships and the best situation for raising children. There are no sound reasons for encouraging homosexual relationships, which are inherently unhealthy, and do nothing to stabilize and strengthen society.

Legal Issues

Ten states and 141 local governments offer domestic partner health benefits. Of the Fortune 500, only 182 provide such benefits. Another 4,024 private and non-profit companies have done likewise.7

In September 2003, the City of Tucson enacted a domestic partner registry ordinance. Registered couples get “family” discounts at city facilities, and are granted visitation privileges at medical centers within the city limits. Registrants, who pay $50, may be either homosexuals or heterosexuals. The city requires that those who wish to be registered:

are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of Arizona;
are not married to another person in a marriage expressly recognized by the State of Arizona or in any domestic partnership and/or civil union with another person;
are both 18 years of age or older;
are both competent to enter into a contract;
both declare that they are each other's sole domestic partner;
both currently share a primary residence, are in a relationship of mutual support, and declare that they intend to remain in such for the indefinite future.8
In Arizona, the cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe and Tucson and Pima County all provide domestic partner benefits to partners of homosexual employees.9 Heterosexual cohabitating couples also may receive benefits, except in Tucson.

Various local governments, most notably San Francisco, have enacted ordnances which require companies having contracts with them to provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. About 76% of all the companies providing domestic partnership benefits in 1999 did so, not because of labor market pressure, but in response to San Francisco’s ordnance.10

Other cities have since followed suit, and now Seattle, Los Angeles, Berkeley and San Mateo County, California, as well as Broward County, Florida now require that companies providing them goods or services offer the same benefits.11

It is unlikely that a state or other governmental entity could mandate health or pension benefits for domestic partners other than those which want to do business with it. Currently, Medical and pension benefits are covered by federal ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) laws which have priority over any state or local laws which might be enacted.12

It is also unlikely that a state or local government could force a multi-state company to provide such benefits to employees in another state. This would most likely violate the “Dormant Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.13

Talking Points

Cohabiting Relationships Are Unstable. Social science research associates these relationships with a number of societal problems:

Higher rates (180%) of domestic violence when compared to married couples.14
Higher rates (45% to 90%) of divorce if the parties later chose to marry.15
Higher rates (300%) of depression when compared to married couples.16
Significantly more alcohol problems than married couples.17
More frequent disagreements, more fights and violence, lower levels of fairness in and happiness with their relationships compared to married couples.18
If children reside in the household, the children have more behavior problems, lower academic performance, and suffer exponentially higher rates of child abuse.19

Legal Benefits are Already Available. Legal benefits such as inheritance, guardianship, conservator, insurable interest and surrogate decision maker rights are already obtainable under existing law:
Proposed Legal Benefit
Method of Attaining Legal Benefit Under Existing Law

Inheritance
Inclusion in domestic partner’s will

Guardianship
Creation of durable power of attorney (POA)

Conservator
Inclusion in domestic partner’s will or creation of POA

Insurable interest
Already exists in A.R.S. §20-1104.C.1

Surrogate decision-maker
Creation of durable POA




Incremental Assault on Traditional Marriage. The creation of state recognized domestic partner registries and the automatic provision of legal benefits has a hidden agenda – to incrementally remove all distinguishing features of traditional marriage from Arizona’s laws. Even the pro-gay/lesbian/ bisexual/transgendered rights lobbyist Kathi Gummere admitted to this effect in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked whether a previous media quotation of her was accurate (i.e., “There are nearly 900 laws in this state that speak of husbands, wives and family – and all of them discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgendered people.”), she readily agreed. When asked to name some of the other 900 laws that she’d like to change, she quickly replied:
…community property…tax equity…sue for wrongful death…survivors benefits… workers compensation…social security and other governmental benefits. There are many, many laws that mention husband, wife, spouse or family that this [bill] does not cover.

State Recognized Domestic Partner Registry – Pro-Business?? Proponents label domestic partner registries as “pro-business” because of business’s desire for a uniform domestic partner definition. While many businesses do provide domestic partner benefits20, there has been a conspicuous absence of business lobbyists advocating for such legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Robert T. Michael, et al, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, Little Brown, 1994.

2 Maggie Gallagher, Why Supporting Marriage Makes Business Sense, Corporate Resource Council.

3 Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Business Sense? Corporate Resource Council

4 Michael E. Hamrick, The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits, Corporate Resource Council.

5 Healthy People 2010, Companion Document for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Health, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, http://www.glma.org/policy/hp2010/index.html

6 Gallagher.

7 Human Rights Campaign Foundation web site, http://www.hrc.org/worknet/dp/index.asp, accessed December 20, 2002.

8 City of Tucson Domestic Partner Registration Instructions, www.ci.tucson.az.us/hottopics/dprreg.html.

9 HRC web site

10 Human Rights Campaign Press Release dated Friday, June 15, 2001. http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2001/010615sfdp.asp

11 Ibid.

12 Jordan Lorence, Answers to an Employer’s Legal Questions about Domestic Partner Benefits and Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Policies, Corporate Resource Council.

13 Ibid.

14 Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 53, August 1991, pages 669-680.

15 DeMaris, Alfred and Rao, “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 54, 1992, pages 178-190; Bumpass and Sweet, “National Estimates of Cohabitation: Cohort Levels and Union Stability”, Demography, volume 26, page 621.

16 Popenoe and Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Couples Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage”, National Marriage Project, 1999, page 7.

17 Horwitz and White, “The Relationship of Cohabitation and Mental Health: A Study of a Young Adult Cohort”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 60, 1998, pages 505-514.

18 Brown and Booth, “Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, volume 58, 1996, pages 668-678.

19 Thompson, Hanson, McLanahan, “Family Structure and Child Well Being: Economic resources Versus Parental Behavior”, Social Forces, volume 73, 1994, pages 38-49; Whelan, “Broken Homes and Battered Children: A Study of the Relationship Between Child Abuse and Family Type”, London, England, Family Education Trust, 1993, table 12, page 29; Popenoe and Whitehead, “Should We Live Together?”, page 8.

20 According to a Human Rights Campaign June 15, 2001 press release, 76% of all employers currently offering domestic partner benefits in the United States are doing so in order to be in compliance with the ordinance of, and hence eligible to do business with, the City of San Francisco. Accordingly, only 24% of all employers are choosing to “voluntarily” provide domestic partner benefits for non-San Francisco business reasons.

Ill give you one guess of what I have!

Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA)

Highlights

Disguised as a logical extension of the civil rights laws, the ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) trojan horse would provide special rights to homosexuals in potential opposition to an employer’s deeply held, constitutionally protected freedoms of association, religion and beliefs. Providing such rights as a gesture of “tolerance” towards homosexuals will also carry unintended consequences and create new forms of employment discrimination.

Since 1975, homosexual activists have attempted to amend the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act1 in order to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. After decades of repetitive failure, homosexual activists have turned their sights toward state legislatures. ENDA legislation passed the Senate in 2001. No House vote was taken.

Supporters for treating sexual orientation as a protected employment classification seek to portray society as oppressive and actively denying to a minority group a basic civil right. This argument hopes to strike a sympathetic chord among Americans whose decency and sense of fair play demand that all people be treated fairly. However, a closer look at this issue reveals that homosexuals are not an oppressed minority and the rights being asserted bear no similarity to the reasons the civil right laws were created. Further, providing special rights to homosexuals is contrary to Arizona’s “at will” employment laws and encourages new forms of discrimination.

Talking Points

Homosexuals are not a true minority group. True minority groups satisfy three criteria (economic deprivation, political powerlessness and immutable characteristics) justifying the need for special rights. None of these criteria are met here.

Economic Deprivation. Homosexuals are among the most economically advantaged people in our country. Research by marketing firms show that homosexuals as a group2:

have higher than average per-capita annual incomes ($36,800 vs. $12,287) and higher than average household incomes ($55,430 vs. $32,144),

are more likely to hold advanced degrees (59% vs. 18%), and

are more likely to hold professional or managerial positions (49% vs. 16%).

Political Powerlessness. Homosexuals possess significant political power:

Political Action Committees. Homosexuals are represented by one of the largest and fastest growing national political action committees – Human Rights Campaign Fund – with an annual budget of $21 million3. A local political action committee, Arizona Human Rights Fund, also represents the political interests of Arizona homosexuals.

Democrat Party Support. The Democratic Party Platform adopted a plank in support of federal gay rights legislation in 1980. In 1982, the National Association of Gay and Lesbian Democratic Clubs was formed. By 1983, the Lesbian & Gay Caucus had become an established part of the Democratic National Convention4.

Immutable, Non-behavioral Characteristics. True minority groups share immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior. There is no reliable scientific evidence which shows that homosexual behavior is biological in origin. Further, since thousands of people have exited the homosexual lifestyle, homosexuality is certainly not immutable.
ENDA Is Bad for Employment Practices. Under Arizona law, white male heterosexuals can be fired at will and without cause. Under the ENDA proposal, in this age of litigiousness, the homosexual will not be fired without good cause. When employers are faced with a choice between laying off one of two white male employees, the heterosexual will lose his job and the homosexual will not. The law of unintended consequences will operate and promote a new form of employment discrimination.

ENDA Normalizes Homosexuality. The law is a moral teacher. For thousands of years, traditional morality has viewed healthy sexual relations as being exclusively between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage. Today’s trendy view of homosexuality as the moral equivalent of marriage is unfounded, ill advised and promotes bad public policy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The 1964 Civil Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color or religion.

2 Overview of the Simmons Gay Media Survey,” Riverdell Marketing Company, Plainfield, New Jersey, undated, p. 1. See also: Dennis Kneale, “Gay Consumer Spending,” The Wall Street Journal, February 10, 1989; Trish Hall, “For Gay Travelers, More Places to Go,” The New York Times, August 22, 1990, p. C-1; Iris Cohen Selinger, “Survey Verifies Affluence of Gays,” Adweek, February 27, 1989, p. 73.

3 Will O’Bryan, “Human Rights Campaign Heads into Third Decade,” The Washington Blade, October 20, 2000.

4 James W. Burton and Barbara Rienzo and Kenneth Wald, Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles over Gay Rights In American Communities. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 1997.


O my goodness...I cant believe there is more

Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

Highlights

Marriage has existed since the beginning of civilization and has consistently been viewed by every long-standing society as the union of male and female.

Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.

DOMA (Defense of Marriage) Statutes – Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have enacted DOMA statutes defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.1

Civil Unions – In 2000 Vermont became the first state in the nation to recognize same sex relationships as “civil unions” and treat such relationships as the virtual equivalent of marriage.

Portability – There is an issue as to whether the U.S. Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will require non-Vermont states to recognize the civil unions performed in Vermont (and as such, the civil union recognition will be portable to another state). A Georgia lesbian couple attempted to have their Vermont civil union recognized in their state and failed. The Georgia Supreme Court refused to hear a lower court ruling against them.

Transgendered Marriage – The appellate courts in two different states disagree on the proper determination of a transgendered person’s status as a marital candidate. Texas looks to a person’s gender status at birth while Kansas looks to gender status at the time of a contemplated wedding.

Traditional View of Marriage

Marriage is not an American invention. Marriage has existed since the beginning of civilization and has consistently been viewed by every long-standing society as the union of male and female. Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.2

Even a casual observation of nature reveals obvious physical and emotional distinctions between males and females. Gender distinctions are not artificial social constructs. The act of marriage creates a melding of the two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole.

Homosexual activists, seeking to expand society’s acceptance of homosexuality, have utilized various legislative and judicial tactics (with varying degrees of success) during the last decade. One of these tactics has been to seek state sanctioned legal protections for homosexual couples to marry.

Recent Developments

Defense of Marriage Acts. Being cognizant of the homosexual activists’ efforts in the early 1990’s3, many states sought to provide legislative clarity that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples. DOMA – Defense of Marriage Act – statutes were enacted in many states to prohibit “same-sex” marriages from being performed within their state. To a lesser extent, many of the same states also prohibited their state from recognizing same-sex marriages if performed in other states.

One of CAP’s first successfully drafted and lobbied laws was Arizona’s 1996 ban on same-sex marriage. (A.R.S. §§25-101 and 25-112)

State Constitution Amendment Initiatives. During the 1998 and 2000 elections, four separate states (Alaska, California, Hawaii and Nebraska) allowed citizens to vote on same-sex marriage constitutional amendment initiatives. In each instance, the pro-traditional marriage position prevailed.

Vermont Civil Unions. In 2000 the Vermont legislature passed H. 847 “civil union” legislation providing gay and lesbian couples with the opportunity to enter into a state recognized relationship that provides the same rights and responsibilities that are granted to heterosexual married couples. This action was in response to the prior year’s Vermont Supreme Court Baker v. State decision. In Baker v. State, the court found that forbidding same-sex marriages violated the state’s constitution and that the legislature must either allow same-sex marriages or create a system granting gay and lesbian couples all the benefits of marriage. While H. 847 provides same-sex civil union couples with over 300 rights and responsibilities, the most notable are tax benefits, health insurance benefits and the right to make decisions for their partners in a crisis.

In 2001 the Vermont House of Representatives, narrowly passed a proposal to repeal the existing civil union statutes in favor of a broader, non-sexual orientation based civil union system. The 2001 proposal subsequently failed to be considered by Vermont’s Senate.

Vermont Civil Unions – Nonresident “Portability”. While Vermont is within its authority to allow same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies to be performed in its state, a potentially larger problem occurs when non-Vermonters travel to Vermont and utilize the state’s civil union provisions. In this situation, it is possible, yet entirely unclear, whether the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV, Section 1, “Full Faith and Credit Clause” will require the nonresident couple’s home state to recognize the civil union. This is referred to as the “portability” issue.

Transgendered Marriages. Courts in at least two separate states have issued two opposing conclusions on the determination of a transgendered person’s male or female status for marital purposes. Each of the two states involved have DOMA statutes in place.

Texas – In 2000, a Texas state appeals court ruled that a person’s gender status as a marital candidate is determined with reference to the person’s chromosomes (i.e., gender status at birth) rather than their current transgendered status. Accordingly, when a Texas lesbian couple involving a woman and a transsexual who was originally born a man sought a marriage license, the couple utilized the court ruling and obtained a marriage license on grounds that they were really male and female. An attorney representing the transsexual was pleased with the appellate court ruling, stating, “why should transgendered people have to submit to drop-drawer inspections?”

Kansas – Contrast this with a 2001 Kansas appellate court ruling. In Kansas, a three-judge panel unanimously held that a person’s gender status as a marital candidate is determined with reference to the person’s gender status (transgendered or otherwise) at the time of marriage, not the sex status at birth. Accordingly, when a Kansas gay couple involving a man who was married for several years to a transsexual who was originally born a man died leaving his $2.5 million estate to his transsexual spouse, the court denied the decedent’s son’s request that he was the rightful heir to the estate.

Britain – A “Gay.com” July 21, 2001 article addressed a transexual marriage situation in Britain. A Britain male-to-female transsexual married a man 20 years ago. When the transsexual went to British court to require the state to recognize her so-called marriage, she was denied. A British three-judge court of appeals held 2-1 that a person’s gender status as a marital candidate is determined with reference to the gender status at birth. This followed the Texas logic identified above.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Human Rights Campaign web site, www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/background/statelaws.asp.

2 See J.D. Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior (London: Williams and Norgate, 1933).

3 As an example, homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile was quoted in the homosexual community magazine “Out” December/January 1994 issue as discussing ways to advance homosexuality. In so doing, he urges activists: "...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake -- and one that would perhaps benefit all of society -- is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely.”

Nice cut&paste. Do *you* have any actual points why *homosexuality* is bad?

So if gay people should be denied marriage rights because they're supposedly not ideal parents, why do we still allow convicted child abusers and molesters to marry at will? Or alcoholics, drug abusers, the destitute and homeless, violent felons, and other non-ideal parental types? Are we going to take kids away from single parents, or from parents who don't fit your standards of "ideal?" (Do Christians get to take away the kids of non-Christians, on the grounds that unless they're raised in Christian households, they run the risk of eternal, horrible torture after death because they weren't taught the "right" set of beliefs?)
As for parenting requiring two genders - there are differences between the genders - in GENERAL. But there is an immense amount of overlap among individuals- every individual is a mix of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics. There is no emotional or nurturant characteristic that every man can provide but no woman can, or vice versa. I know lots of gay and lesbian couples who have far more "balance" in terms of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics than many straight couples. And I don't know any gay or lesbian couple with kids who haven't gone out of their way to find their kids healthy role models of the "other" gender.
And saying that gay people are more promiscuous, and more prone to STDs - doesn't that argue that the government should try to encourage them into monogamous and committed relationships, not penalize them for doing so?
Oh, and please give me an example of _one_ society which has strayed from "the traditional ethic of marriage" and fallen apart because of this - and please explain how many cultures with quite different ideas of marriage have survived and thrived quite nicely? There are cultures where marriage is defined as "one woman and several men", "one man and several women," "one man with as many wives as he likes, each of whom may have as many husbands as she likes" - there are even cultures which recognize same-sex marriages.
And as for the "Traditional marriage has served us well and must be retained" argument - I'm sorry, "traditional" marriage as it has existed for thousands of years practically disappeared in the west a hundred years or so ago, on the grounds that it was wrong to sell 12-16-year-old girls to older men for their parents' political and/or financial benefit, wrong for husbands to be encouraged to regularly beat both their wives and children, wrong for a woman to be considered her husband's property, wrong for a couple to have no say in their choice of marriage partner...etc. What we call "traditional marriage" now is so far from what our great-great-grandparents knew as to be nearly unrecognizable. You cannot preserve "traditional marriage" - it is gone. And good riddance.
Heterosexual marriages have been completely redesigned, in ways that affect every existing individual marriage - and marriage survived, quite nicely, even improved. Whereas allowing gay marriage won't affect any individual heterosexual marriage at all, and yet you argue that it's a major threat to us all? Do you really believe that heterosexual marriage has so little value, that those of us in them will flee the moment government allows us any other option, even one by definition not attractive to heterosexuals?

P.S.

If you want a test to truely see which is right just try the following:
Take fifty gay couples and put them on an island.
Take fifty straight couples and put them on another.
Whichever group survives the longest wins.
(this is not a serious test it is just an example)


Dont forget these 2 aswell!!!
Take fifty bi-sexual couples and put them on an island
Take fifty trans-gender couples and them on an island

Remember this is the 21 century!

A few thoughts on homosexuality, all sources from the center for arizona policy.

*snip the cut and paste from hell*



Hey, how about next time you try actually posting your own thoughts? Assuming, of course, you actually have them.

You know i find it funny how when you give your personal opinion, people say "where are your facts" and now that I post the facts, they say "where's your opinion?" and acutal points? That is what my previous point was for, the facts, the actuality. odd double standard, but ill play your game. I think its wrong mainly as with all Christians because the Bible says it is. But knowing that arguement wont work for atheists and such I believe the previously stated facts. I believe it was Bill Rice III who said "The Rebellious heart can justify anything." so of course whatever I say will not matter to you.

O so you are admitting to the fact that homosexuality is the same as other substance abusers? No? if its not the same why try to compare it to that? Or are you condoning the fact that known convicted criminals are still allowed to? No one ever condones those situations at all. But if your asking why allow that and not homosexuality is really no arguement. See the difference is you dont have people condoning those wrong situations, and though those are heartbreaking situations no doubt, but that doesnt mean homosexual parents are any better.

And I am assuming you skim read that post because you obviously arent comprehending that sure many traits are overlapping, but that does not make up for the parts that dont. And again you are using examples of situations which are wrong, but that still does not condone what you are arguing for.

And your attack on Christians was really cute, pathetic and unfounded, but cute none-the-less. Its not the Christians job to take people the right way, its yours. Christians just try to point it out. I never heard about Christians taking away kids to raise them the right way...hmm must be part of your dillusional world, cuz thats not part of reality.
And what is with the quotation marks around "other"? What by other do you mean they used to be men?

"Freedom is allowing you to have the right to believe whatever you want, but freedom is also me having the right to tell you that you are wrong."

Sodom, Gamhorra, Greece, Rome, Nazi Germany. a little more than one, but ah well.
And originally that was a point I was trying to make, you have a better arguement for polygamy than you do for homosexuality.

And yes there do exist countries today that have homosexual marriage legally, but their marriages last a lot less. And mind you some of those countries are in the process of making reading of the Bible in public illegal.

On the grounds? That just means "from the perspective" and nothing more.
So "on the grounds" people dont fall in love and marry anymore? hmmm, I could have sworn thats why alot of married couples I know got married. But I suppose looking at it from way over here...your WRONG STILL.
Yea my parents tell me "marry someone rich" but they arent gonna do that for them, they are joking.
And you and I both know that arranged marriages for such purposes are, though existent, looked down upon by the majority of westernized culture. Left and Right wing look down on it. The right because they would see it morally wrong, and the Christian conservatives because they would argue "that is not what God would have" The Left because "you need to feel love, to feel that one, to find your soulmate." So neither side there looks favorably upon selling of wives. And as I recall that is illegal, in the U.S. anyway. Because they are minors.
And where in the world do you get the idea that men are encouraged to beat their wives? Any man who beats his wife is mentally speaking no man at all. And I dont know what "Western" nation you live in that encourages such behavior. Last I checked we have places where you go to get your anger and violence in check, not the other way around.
And never has a woman been considered a man's property. is she his? yes, but he is hers. They are a symbiote relationship. Now the man is supposed to take the lead, but if taking a leadership position really meant you own your wife, well the world would be worse off. If someone who led me owned me, I would have way too many masters. Hmm to say traditional marriage and family values are gone? thats just wrong.
Therefore Marriage has not been totally redesigned. Now mind you traditional marriage is on the downhill slope because of such a high rate of divorce and people who just live together and dont get married. But the Values arent gone, they never were.

I think its wrong mainly as with all Christians because the Bible says it is.

Yep, everything the Bible says is sinful is wrong - unless it's something that _you_ don't want to accept as a sin (like wearing mixed fibers, or failing to kill your non-Christian neighbors or your disobedient children, or permitting interfaith marriage or the remarriage of the divorced). Those aren't really sins, despite the Bible's clear opinion on the subject...it's only the sins that don't tempt _you_ that must be condemned, so that you self-righteous types have someone to feel superior to.

O so you are admitting to the fact that homosexuality is the same as other substance abusers? No? if its not the same why try to compare it to that?

No, not in the least. But you seek to bar homosexuals from marriage on the grounds that their situation is "less than ideal" for kids. And yet it's perfectly OK for others who are proven to be awful, even deadly dangerous, parents to marry at will, as long as they're straight. You accept the right of proven abusers to marry, while seeking to bar gays from marriage because they aren't "ideal" parents.

Or are you condoning the fact that known convicted criminals are still allowed to? No one ever condones those situations at all.

Of course we do - the government clearly condones the marriage of convicted felons and child abusers, giving them exactly the same privileges that you and I have in our marriages - as long as they're straight. Nor are the children of convicted felons always taken away - the government sometimes, indeed frequently "condones" those childrearing environments, too.

And I am assuming you skim read that post because you obviously arent comprehending that sure many traits are overlapping, but that does not make up for the parts that dont.

What parts don't ever overlap? What emotional and psychic traits are always present in every woman, but never in any man, and vice versa? Are you saying that I can or will _never_ roughhouse with my children, or that my husband will never nurture and protect them? Or that no man is more nurturing than the least nurturing woman, and no woman as capable of roughhousing as the least-roughhousing man?

Sodom, Gamhorra,

Not proven outside the Bible ever to have existed, and even in the Bible, were destroyed for inhospitality and homosexual _rape_, not homosexual love.

Greece,

Each Greek city-state had a different approach to marriage (Sparta, for example, bred men and women like cattle for physical and character traits, and raised the children communally outside of the family structure - and they were more successful in terms of survival and military success than many more "traditional" Greek states). And they fell not because of any of those, but because of political and military infighting (sparked by sheer greed, not sex). The culture itself, however, remained and remains influential to the present day.

Rome,

Lasted many centuries, and finally fell due to overextension of the empire and of the army. The fall of Rome had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
(For that matter, the sexual morals of Rome, measured by the faithful-heterosexual-marriage is the Only Way standard, were pretty screwed up during the first years of the Empire - and the Empire lasted many glorious centuries after that...)

Nazi Germany.

Sent gay men and lesbians (and any woman who refused to bear children) to concentration camps.

And yes there do exist countries today that have homosexual marriage legally, but their marriages last a lot less.

A trend that started long before homosexual civil unions were even considered. In fact, the heterosexual marriage rates in Sweden, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries with a legal "marriage-like" option for gays have gone up, not down, since gay civil unions were legalized. Also, the general trend towards less-lasting marriages is Western-civilization-wide, and is by no means restricted to those areas where gay civil unions or marriages are legal.

As for your arguments that nobody marries for money, that Westerners look down on arranged marriage, and that marrying in the early teens is now illegal, and all that, yes, that is the way things are NOW. The changes are so great, you don't even remember what came before.
Things were far different only a couple of centuries ago. Look at the Wife of Bath, married at 12 to a much older, richer man whom she did not love (the first husband she loved was her fourth). Look at Old Capulet in _Romeo and Juliet_ , furious because his daughter refuses the husband he picked for her - "An you be mine, I'll give you to my friend." (Juliet was 13, btw). Look at all of Jane Austen's works - full of poor girls having difficulty marrying, of women marrying men they didn't love for an "establishment," of parents being horrified because their child wants to marry someone without significant income, or because their child (or in Lady Catherine's case, her nephew) wants to marry someone other than the person _they_ chose for them, etc...For nonfiction examples, look at the Pastons in the fifteenth century, who disowned their daughter for marrying the steward, calling her a "worthless person" - or Sir Edward Coke in the Stuart era, one of the greatest English jurists of all time, who imprisoned and beat his daughter brutally until she agreed to marry the (mentally unstable) man he'd chosen for her - a choice he'd made not for his daughter's well-being, but because he was close to and had influence with the King. These were not isolated examples - marrying for romantic love alone was viewed with DEEP suspicion, considered irresponsible if not immoral, until past the Victorian era.

And never has a woman been considered a man's property.

Actually, through most of Western history a woman belonged to her father until he gave her to her husband. Wives could be sold like cattle in many Western countries up until near-modern times. Look it up. This whole "belonging to each other" is a sweet but newfangled modern invention, given to us first by the Puritans (of all people) in the late seventeenth century - but it took another hundred years or two to catch on fully. Sorry.

is she his? yes, but he is hers. They are a symbiote relationship. Now the man is supposed to take the lead, but if taking a leadership position really meant you own your wife, well the world would be worse off.

I agree that marriage is symbiotic (though I believe, and have seen in my parents' and grandparents' marriage and my own, that marriage is healthiest where both partners have equal status, where sometimes each in turn takes the lead, as the situation demands, and where sometimes both partners work communally as a team, with no "lead" needed). Nonetheless, male ownership of women was an established fact until the last century, whether you deny it or not.

Now mind you traditional marriage is on the downhill slope because of such a high rate of divorce and people who just live together and dont get married.\

Yep, in the "good old days" only poor people (the majority of the society) commonly lived together without marriage - this was true as late as the late nineteenth century, btw. Poor women, of course, even if they did get married could not expect their marriages to be honored if a rich man decided he wanted to have sex with them - peasant women were at the mercy of their lords, slave and servant women at the mercy of their masters, etc. Rich women were isolated, carefully supervised, and married off as soon as possible - rich men were also expected to marry, true, but also allowed pretty much all the sexual activity they wanted outside of marriage, as long as they only indulged with less-than-respectable women. Sure, divorce was uncommon, because it simply wasn't possible for most - but separation, adultery, loveless marriages, abusive marriages, even open marriages, etc. all happened, quite frequently.
We're not any less moral in our relationships than our Victorian or medieval ancestors - we're just less likely to put up a hypocritical facade of respectability.

But the Values arent gone, they never were.

No, the values associated with marriage are stronger and better than ever, because marriage has been redefined from an economic and hierarchical partnership of convenience and a breeding arrangement to a loving partnership between two mutually-chosen, equal individuals. And they are strong enough to survive, even be improved by, the existence of loving gay marriages. The true value of marriage is based on love, commitment, fidelity and truth - not on chromosomes, body shape, or breeding ability.

First of all, great text for starting this thread!.

Next, I'm not going to answer on everything Derion said - euh copied- that would take to much of my time. I'll just point out some stupidities in his arguments:


"For years we’ve been told homosexuals should have the right to marry because they are just like heterosexuals. But despite the weakening of heterosexual marriage through high divorce rates and cohabitation, this is still simply not the case. More than half of traditional marriages last at least 20 years; in the Netherlands where gay marriage is legal, the average length of those relationships is 1.5 years. In heterosexual marriage, more than 8 of 10 married couples never has sex outside marriage. In steady gay relationships, couples have an average of eight sexual relationships outside the partnership per year. This is more evidence that changing marriage to include homosexuals will change our view of the permanence of marriage more than it will change the behavior of homosexuals. I’m Len Munsil, urging you to think about it."

In the Netherlands, gay marriage became legal on April 1st 2001. How can they be married for an average of 20 years? Maximal three years with some divorces lowers the average enormously. More than half of the heterosexual couples divorce in the first two years of marriage (stats NIS Belgium). Filling these in your equation explains everything.
For heterosexuals the older couples raise the average seriously. So it's just foolish to make this comparison. Come back in 50 years.
Research in Belgium and the Netherlands 1/3 of all heterosexual married women have had sex outside marriage, for men is the number a lot higher.


"Author Maggie Gallagher has written a column describing her interview with a 27-year-old woman who opposes same sex marriage. In the interview, this mother of two children expresses particular concern for the children of gay couples. Some might consider her to be intolerant, even bigoted and full of hatred. But this woman was raised by two lesbian women, and loves her birth mother dearly. Yet she explains that even as she grew up, she felt like she was “unnatural.” About same sex marriage, she says, “It’s not something a seal of approval should be stamped on. We shouldn’t say it’s a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they’ve been cheated.” In the debate over same sex marriage, who will speak for the children? This is Len Munsil, urging you to think about it."

Testimony of only one woman. In a world where a lot of homophobia is, it's quite normal she had those feelings. However, not the victims (gays), but offenders (discriminating, hateful people) should be punished. As with rape and other crimes too, sounds normal, not?

A key study on male homosexuals indicated that at age 20, they had a life expectancy that was as much as 20 years less than for all men. Even with the most conservative figures used, they would have a life expectancy comparable to men living in 1871. Half of all gay males were not expected to reach their 65th birthday.

The high number of suicides taken into account? Without serious and proven cause of these figures, unusable argument. If you think of STD's, look below.


AIDS is not the only risk to the health of homosexuals. Other sexually transmitted diseases ore more common in the homosexual community, substance abuse and mental health issues are widespread and even certain types of cancer are more likely to occur in gay and lesbian populations.

Not true, all unsafe sex has the same risks, a little higher for gays having anal sex. For safe sex all figures are equal.


The suicide rate is considerably higher among homosexuals. Contrary to activists’ assertions, this is not likely to be due to societal pressures or “homophobia” as a study in the Netherlands found a similarly high suicide rate in a society where homosexuality has found widespread acceptance and “gay marriage” is now possible.

Laws aren't everything, it makes sure gays have rights, however certain forms of discrimination are still possible, look at one of the latest letters of the pope. In all day life, it's still more difficult than heterosexuality. This wil take a lot of time, however laws are a step in the right direction.


We have long recognized the benefit to society of restricting behaviors that are destructive to the health of one’s self or others. Restrictions on smoking or drug and alcohol use are some obvious examples. Homosexual behavior is far more destructive and deadly than these, and policies that encourage homosexual conduct are irresponsible.

To crazy for words. See last argument: laws won't change your hatred, they just protect gays against fools like Derion.


Listed below are some of the physical consequences of engaging in “gay sex,” some minor, others fatal. Some are found almost exclusively in homosexuals:

Sexual transmitted diseases can be transmitted in heterosexual contacts too. Once again: promote safe sex instead of denying rights to some people.


Rampant promiscuity and the physiological realities of “gay sex” account for the spread of infections and STD’s beyond their normal presence in the general population. One study found that 75% of gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different partners.

Interestingly, lesbians are more likely to have more male sexual partners than heterosexual women, also putting them at increased risk of STDs. They were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 male sex partners than heterosexuals. They were three to four times more likely to have sex with an HIV infected male than heterosexual women. Only 7 percent of lesbians never had sex with men.6

Statistics can prove anything. I'm gay, 22 years old and still haven't had sex with anybody. Don't start with the word 'exception', just weird study. And when there are more gays with more different partners, so what? Safe sex is again what you should speak of.

Stopping here, but I didn't have to copy/paste someone else's opinion, I just have my own.

--
There's this illusion that homosexuals have sex and heterosexuals fall in love. That's completely untrue. Everybody wants to be loved. ~Boy George

Well, I wish I would have known of Derion's post earlier. I would completely obliterate his copy/pasting, but I've been up all night and can't concentrate.

This is a little old, but I wanted to respond to this.


AIDS is not the only risk to the health of homosexuals. Other sexually transmitted diseases ore more common in the homosexual community, substance abuse and mental health issues are widespread and even certain types of cancer are more likely to occur in gay and lesbian populations.

Not true, all unsafe sex has the same risks, a little higher for gays having anal sex. For safe sex all figures are equal.

HIV/AIDS is the largest health risk to homosexuals. Then there is your traditional STIs, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphillis, Human Papillomavirus, Trichomoniasis, and Herpes Simplex Virus.

Gay males are at a higher risk for some sexual diseases, due to a high amount of crystal meth usage. But this isn't isolated only to the gay community.

When you said certain types of cancer are more likely to occur in gay and lesbian populations, you couldn't have been further from the truth...

In females infected with Human Papillomavirus, there has been known correlations between HPV and cervical cancer. But, HPV is transmitted through male/female sexual contact moreso than male/male or female/female contact. There are over 5,000,000 new infections of HPV each year, with 1:13 Americans who statistically should have it.

I volunteer doing HIV & STD Prevention, specifically targeting MSM Youth (which by the CDC would be persons between the ages of 13-19). Although I personally regard youth as persons between the ages of 13-24, heh. I certainly do not say that when I send in epidemiology reports.

Moving on to mental health issues, that is true. Depression among MSM and lesbians is something that is far from uncommon. When one is treated as an outcast by a good portion of the world, that is usually what happens.

Unfortunately, you were wrong about substance abuse. More heterosexual men and women abuse controlled substances than MSM or lesbians. It seems to be declining with certain drugs, but it is thriving with crystal meth - especially in rural areas.

Interestingly enough, when I was at the 13th Annual HIV & STD Conference, a psychologist from San Francisco did one of the sessions, and his name was Mike Siever. My name is Mike Sievers, and I am a psych major - and I also work heavily with the same audience he works with.. I can see myself as him, except not so scary looking. anyway, back to final studying. I have.. 4 hours.


Rampant promiscuity and the physiological realities of “gay sex” account for the spread of infections and STD’s beyond their normal presence in the general population. One study found that 75% of gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different partners.

Interestingly, lesbians are more likely to have more male sexual partners than heterosexual women, also putting them at increased risk of STDs. They were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 male sex partners than heterosexuals. They were three to four times more likely to have sex with an HIV infected male than heterosexual women. Only 7 percent of lesbians never had sex with men.6


Completely false. I don't know where your studies came from, but they obviously are full of shit. This is contrary to every single epidemiology report that I have read, or conducted myself. Total bullshit.

And thus the "Mommy make it go away!" Syndrome claims yet another victim... sad, so sad. :(

Great essay. I give it two thumbs up.

BUMP of righteous truth. This is the holy grail of true arguments; tops all the homo threads on Jolt

This is Bolol and I approve of this thread!

(Hands Doujin a Bolol Nuclear Cookie)

Enjoy! You deserve it for all the work you put into this, comrade!

Very cool. I'd like to argue with a certain cut and paster, but the brain died about two hours ago. :rolleyes:

Very cool. I'd like to argue with a certain cut and paster, but the brain died about two hours ago. :rolleyes:

Which cut and paster? heh