gay Olympic athletes

While it shouldn't be advertised, at least it is normal behavior.

 

Hmmm.....

I am not sure what you mean by normal? If you mean more than 50% of people are heterosexual then I guess redhead or bald people should also be looked down on for not covering up their lack of conformity. If you mean natural, then I guess you don't realize that there are both hetero and homosexual animals. Animals presumably created by god which would make homosexuality just as natural as heterosexuality.

 

Re: Aunt Maud and Aunt Minnie, knitting and clucking

Ouch. Hey!

 

I think the Homo Sapien is supposed to be a higher class of animal.

I've heard this argument time and time again.

I once saw a pig eat feces as it was being eliminated by another pig.

I guess we should imitate that too! I mean, after all, the same God made the swine as made us!

 

Dave,
The fact is homosexual sexual behavior is abnormal...always has been and always will be.

I have a dog that has at times tried to mount a male dog, he has also tried to mount a female cat. I don't think either of those behaviors have anything to do with the dog's sexuality, but more to do with his intelligence level.

If homosexual sex is okay, what type of sex is not okay? For instance, would it be okay to set up a website where people that were into beastiality posted that fact? Would you consider that normal too, since some people are into it you know?

BLD

 

Here's a little perspective: In first-century Rome, they said the same thing about Judaism (including a growing denomination called Christianity).

Let's turn the question around: If homosexual sex is not okay, what kind of sex is okay, and why? The burden of proof is not on gays and lesbians to prove to you that their relationships are not immoral; the burden is on you to prove that they are. You're the one telling people to ditch their partners.

As far as I know, there are only three good arguments against homosexuality:

(a) "The Bible condemns it." We've been over this before (and can go over it again for all I care), but let's go out on a limb and assume for a moment that the Bible does condemn homosexuality. In that case, it's fine that you don't believe it's okay for you to be gay--since you're presumably heterosexual, it's not like it's a burning issue for you anyway. But why should your religious beliefs determine how other people are allowed to live? According to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, all laws must have a primarily secular purpose. All that really leaves you with, then, is the religious sphere. But anyone who believes that the Bible is infallible and condemns homosexuality is likely to be heterosexual anyway, and anyone who doesn't isn't going to be swayed by this argument.

(b) "Gay sex is unhealthy." Well, that depends. The chances of accidental pregnancy are zero, and that's worth considering. There are some health risks associated with sodomy, but both gay and heterosexual couples practice it, so that has less to do with homosexuality than it does with specific bedroom techniques that may be more common in the gay male (but obviously not lesbian) population. I won't get too graphic here (because I don't particularly like discussing this sort of thing myself), but the studies I've read indicate that most other forms of homosexual sex are remarkably safe when compared to heterosexual intercourse as long as the proper equipment is put into use (and, when no men are involved, even that doesn't seem to be necessary--the STD transmission rate among lesbians is close to zero).

(c) "It just isn't natural." This is a laugh-out-loud funny argument from where I'm standing because if there's one thing evolution by natural selection has taught us, it's that sexual morality isn't natural. The natural thing for a man to do is to go out there and impregnate as many women as possible, for as long as possible, through whatever means possible, so that his genes will live on. Abstinence is highly unnatural, as is monogamy; we advocate them anyway. Why draw the line at homosexuality? Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's right, and just because something is unnatural doesn't mean that it's wrong.


Cheers,

 

Jimmy's pig and Dave's dog

You guys have interesting pets.

 

Hi Jimmy

You and I may have very different concepts of God. My concept of God is a being that created everything perfectly. I see man as the upper most of his creatures, but still one of God's creations. As such he is also an animal. Many different kinds of animals exhibit homosexual behaviors; everything from insects to bulls (to man). From what I know of homosexuality it is not something that people choose at all. It is something that is mostly genetic based with a small environmental factor. When you think of psychological torture that most homosexuals go through, the chances that they "choose" it is almost zero. I am not suggesting any one should behave in a certain way other than trying to understand and accept others. When people denegrate gays and lesbians it seems very un-christian to me. Just my view and not ment to be argumentative.

 

Hi Dave,

I, too, believe God created everything and I, too, believe humans belong to the animal kingdom.

I, too, believe everything was created perfectly, before the Fall of Man.

Now, Dave, there is not one piece of empirical evidence in any controlled study that supports the theory homosexuality is genetic.

Let me now make it very clear I do not believe in any type of discrimination, hatred, hostility, etc., towards the gay community. I support full civil rights and liberties (except in the case of adoption) for this population.

I even believe gays have a legal right to marry in a democracy. I think the behaviors are sinful and I do not support denominational sanctioning of gay unions.

 

Agreed. Just as being bald, redhead, tall, or short is abnormal. There is nothing inherently wrong is being in a minority. In fact, America is based on, and has its strength in protecting, the minority. If you object to homosexuality, I would hope you have much stronger reasons than that.

P.S. Did you realize that only 1/3 of colonial America wanted to seperate from England?

 

1. I'll have to leave the theology discussion to others as I know what I believe much better than I know verses.

2. I think you are 100% incorrect about your beliefs on the basis on homosexuality.

3. I am glad you, for the most part, don't discriminate against gays and lesbian. My hope is at some point you would drop all support for discrimination against them.

 

No, they don't.

Walking down the street holding hands, kissing in public, etc. is not broadcasting. I see homosexual couples do this all the time, and I couldn't possibly care less.

What bothers me are the ones who find it necessary to make a huge event out of announcing their sexual preference to the world. Issuing a press release or having a news conference to announce your sexual preference annoys me. I don't care.

The most obvious example I can think of is the gay/bi-sexual group that forced themselves into the Boston St. Patrick's Day parade until the Supreme Court put a stop to the foolishness. Can you imagine people marching in a parade holding signs proclaiming their heterosexuality? It's beyond foolish.

 

I think we both can agree that gay pride marches are sometimes obnoxious; I don't understand how having a bunch of men dancing around in jockstraps on a float is supposed to promote anyone's dignity, much less the dignity of gays and lesbians. The conclusion I've reached is that the more flamboayant displays are really more about the people in the floats than the people outside of them--that having an excuse to be flamboyantly and "dangerously" gay, overcoming social shaming mechanisms, rather than keeping it all tucked away neatly, is probably liberating. Of course those watching who are gay and lesbian might vicariously overcome some of the shaming mechanisms themselves just by seeing somebody else doing it, and when this sort of behavior is done in a context where it isn't an embarrassment to the larger LGBT community, I'm all for that; but I'm concerned that there is a tiny minority of gay men and lesbians who behave in a way that reflects very poorly on other gay men and lesbians just to make themselves feel better, and I think that's pretty shortsighted.

As for holding a press conference to announce sexual orientation: Depends on the level of celebrity, but press conferences are a great way to control information flow--and if you're a public figure concerned about the effect coming out might have on your career, that's crucial.

Regarding the previous thread and how mankind was created: I'm not a biblical literalist, so my argument would be that mankind is still being created. I believe it took us billions of years to evolve into humanity and 200,000 years to evolve anything close to a global ethic (which we're probably at least another few hundred years away from); maybe it'll take us another few thousand before we accurately reflect anything close to the imago Dei.


Cheers,

 

You don't care or it annoys you, which is it? The thin veneer you are using to hide your willingness to grant heterosexual couples rights but not homosexual couples is just that -- thin. It's obvious that you do care. Until you are willing to support the closeting of heterosexual relationships, your objections are nothing but an obvious diatribe against homosexuality.

 

Not all acts of 'therapy' should be public. Not all social shaming mechanisms are bad. Anybody who parades around in public wearing only a jockstrap *ought* to be ashamed of himself. Gaiety is no excuse.

Of course, if the point is to offend others and then complain about their being offended, in order to make oneself feel righteous, what we have is the moral equivalent of Fred Phelps, or a Klan rally: public shock for private glee.

I call it Leonard Bernsteinism (not a compliment).

Dimitri Mitropoulos died for their sins.

 

The press conferences annoy me, because I don't care what someone's sexual preference is.

You don't know a thing about me, JoAnn, and I resent the implication. The fact that you would make such a sweeping statement about someone you know nothing about speaks a lot more to your prejudices than mine.

 

But they're not ashamed, and that's the point. They "ought" not to feel compelled to conform to other's ideas about the way in which they should live their lives. BLD calls their lifestyle "sinful" and "abnormal." I imagine that after listening to claptrap like that, I might consider whooping it up a little myself - sort of like a dance in the end zone, so to speak.

Again, I don't think the point is to offend others and then take umbrage at their being offended. The point is to one day live in a world where people really don't care, and gays are accepted just like everyone else. Instead, we live largely in a world where a minority care a great deal, and think homosexuality is a sin of the highest order. And then there are those (like some on this thread) who say they really don't care, but it's obvious that they do.

Often groups have to break the norms in order to be heard and for there to be an ultimate healing and acceptance. I wonder what was said in the South during the 60's when all those uppity blacks were making noises and marching and generally stirring things up? Probably there were some whose hatred was set free and who donned white caps and robes. And then there were probably a lot of people who would say something like, "you know, I'm all for equal rights, but do they have to make such a display and shove it in our faces all of the time?"

Yep, they do.

 

It's obvious that it's YOU that thinks it's perverted, and the only shame to be felt is your own. It should be also be obvious that gays don't share your feelings - at all.

As one of my old coworkers used to say, you're trying to piss up a rope.

 

Totally agreed. To go back to Unc's point: I hope most of us would be ashamed if we were dancing around in the streets in jockstraps, but as a clear in-your-face response to homophobia I think is completely understandable under the circumstances. I think it does damage to the cause of LGBT rights, but I'm not going to shake my finger at these folks.


Cheers,