This is topic Gay Authors in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002553

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
www.gayauthors.org
 

---

Posted by JC (Member # 7091) on :
 
Thanks for the link to gay aouthors.
I really like OSC, and feel comfortable with him as if he were... well, like me. Is it my imagination that he seems to "get" it?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
OSC has really pissed off the gay community at hatrack with some of his articles.
 

---

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
 
Why? He is allowed to have an opinion, and voice it. It is his website.

[ December 04, 2004, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: String ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I agree. But people have still gotten *extremely* upset at him because of those opinions. Words like bigot, homophobe, close-minded, and hate-filled were bandied about quite a lot concerning him after he wrote this article.

While what he said doesn't bother me, there's nothing wrong with getting upset because somebody said something you think is wrong.

Just because somebody has a right to say something doesn't mean you have to like it.

[ December 04, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It has sort of frustrated me quite a bit....
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I had no idea the "hanky code" was so elaborate. And I have never heard of Twinkycode, with AppalachianTwinks, or Bearcode or Smurfcode.
http://alt.xmission.com/~trevin/hanky.html

Thank God hetro sexual signaling is so straightforward.
 

---

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
 
Yeah, I agree Mr.P.
 

---

Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
 
The worst thing about an elaborate code is the potential for miscommunication. Anyone ever been to an auction?
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Great link Porter!

Yah...I love OSC and his works so much, but he does sadden me with his apparently negative views of me and other gay/bi folk.

And the thing is I'm not sure exactly how he stands... because he can turn out a book like Songmaster with a beautiful and respectful view of gay love, and then put out these articles saying homosexuals are part of the doom of civilization.


I think his reasons are many...and complex... going from his love of civilization and the desire to save it no matter what. And for some reason he thinks that gay marriage would break down the traditional family and thus break down society. I agree that probably the mass collapse of the family would not be good, but I don't think gay folk living together and maybe or maybe not having kids will stop straight people from getting married and having kids. Hell, we're almost to 7 billion now...

I'm sure part of it too is just how he was raised. My Dad when I came out to him, for example... I thought my Dad would take it better than Mom, since Mom was a devote Catholic and Dad was an athiest and a philosopher... but in the end Mom took it better. Why? Because even though Dad was very very rational he was still raised with the sex-type roles, "Men do this and women do that and that's just how it is in the Big City."

In the end it came down to getting used to a new thing.

And of course OSC being very religious himself has been raised with the teaching that gays are wrong just because they are gay. I'm sure he's smart enough to be educated about religion, but it's hard to kick old indoctrinations.

Peace, love and harmony!
Long live OSC!
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think that the confusion comes from the fact that OSC believes that a) gays are people, and as deserving of love and respect as anybody else and b) living as a homosexual (I'll define this better later) is a sin and is not only destructive to the individual, but to to the larger fabric of society. I think you'll understand his view better if you read his book A Storyteller in Zion. Be forewared, though, that it is written to an LDS audience.

quote:

---

And of course OSC being very religious himself has been raised with the teaching that gays are wrong just because they are gay.

---

Let me give you (my) LDS perspective on this. It depends on what you mean by being gay. If it's just that you are attracted to your own sex and not the opposite sex, then you are mistaken. That is not a sin. The sin lies in what you do about that desire.

We believe that the law of chastity means that sexual realations are only correct between a man and woman who are married. Any other sexual realtion is a sin. Homosexual sex is another form of extra-marital sex, as is adulture or other forms of fornication.

In other words, having homosexual tendencies doesn't make you a sinner any more than having heterosexual tendencies. It's what you do with what you are given that matters.

[ December 06, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
It's interesting, your discussion. Eventually, in France, we have the same question about a gay mariage realised this summer. The fact is our constitution doesn't mention "a man and a woman". but "two persons".
But all of that disturb the political class composed essencialy by "good old catholics".
Personnaly, I haven't an opinion. I don't know if this mariage is bad or good for the society.

For 6 or 7 years, In France, we have the possibility to realise a PACS with another. It's a contract realise in city hall between concubinage and mariage. That permit to respond of differents problems like succession.

It's a complex topic so I can't judge somebody who are against or for this mariage.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
The problem with homosexuality is that it's different. Different things are bad.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
That's one way of looking at it. A tad simplistic, though.

[ December 07, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
The fact that you took that post seriously is sad.
 

---

Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
Change is bad. I fear change!

Not really the best attitude to take you through life with.

At the end of the day everyone is different and so long as they aren't hurting anyone else or infringing on someone's rights then i don't see why people can't express themselves in whatever way they choose.

I mean at the end of the day any religious notions come not from certain knowledge but belief, people might say otherwise but unless they are in the habit of divine conversation then they are just living their lives as they see best, which is fine.

But nobody really knows how their Deity REALLY wants them to live their life or if infact they really have an opinion on the matter either way, they can only take their beliefs and conscience as guidance.

So to say where or where not a sin may or may not lie when it doesn't infringe upon the lives of others seems like guesswork to me.

I would rather make the argument for the biological-incompatibility and that two x's or two y's can't pro-create rather than any use of the word 'sin.'

Then again I, like all, use my own beliefs and conscince to get by. Who says i'm any more right than the next person?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I still never understand why it is a sin.
It seems more of a cultural rule than anything, with a basis in reality...
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

The fact that you took that post seriously is sad.

---

quote:

---

That's one way of looking at it. A tad simplistic, though.

---

quote:

---

If the person believes that sexual relations are only appropriate between a husband and wife, then it's pretty obvious why they would have a problem with lesbians.

---

quote:

---

Good for them believing that, but I don't see it anywhere in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

And even besides that, the subject isn't about sex, it's about love.

---

quote:

---

Why would God create gays and lesbians if he hates it so?

---

I could easily ask why God creates heterosexuals with the sex drive they have if he wants them to live monogomously.

Or why did God create us with selfish desires if he wants us to be generous and unselfish?

Or why did God create many of us with violent tendencies if he doesn't want us to kill others?

[ December 10, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Why did God create mosquitos? You can go on and on with these questions, and that's my point. We're not meant to judge what is and what is not good or evil, and the Bible DOES specifically outline that in clear and simple passages. But the government's job is to protect people, not persecute people for doing things that don't even hurt themselves.

Therefore gay's rights should be preserved by both the government, and the people.
 

---

Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
It's God's worlds and OUR free will. Simple as that.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I can't help but be a bit irratated by that explanation. It is so illogical.
Why should millions of people suffer because of this difference which really doesn't harm society as a whole since it is limited to a small portion of the population?
No. I don't believe that.
That is just... to sound childish, completely unfair.
Especially when you look at how many people struggle to change their sexuality only to fall into depression and suicide.
I cannot believe in a God that would consciouly allow such a thing.
It just isn't right.
People are suffering needlessly over a handful of verse that don't even apply to these days.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
And might not even mean it in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
I can't believe in a God that would create a world where nothing bad could happen, where free will was destroyed just so nothing bad could ever happen. Becasue the world needs bad things to counter-balance good things, great acts of kindness and love must be counter-balanced by great acts of hate and violence - it is the nature of free will.

Unless we all took Soma and lived in Huxley's Brave New World, and even there free will still found a way.

Can you imagine anything more horrific than the removal of the ability to make choice. Despite the consequences, good or ill?

[ December 13, 2004, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Proteus ]
 

---

Posted by paramount thoughtlessness (Member # 7123) on :
 
did anyone ever think that it doesnt matter philisophically or moral but that biologically for reproduction purposes it is incorrect to be homosexual
 

---

Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
 
Yeah, take a look at the first post i made on this thread.
But just because something isn't easy or not in the statistical majority it doesn't make it wrong.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Not really...
Some gays do have babies you know... Either in previous marriages, through artificial insemination. If they want to have kids, they find a way.
I even watched a documentary about gay men adopting black babies.
I think it's more incorrect to force a person who is attracted to the same sex to go through tons of unnessasary "therapy" and prayer, electric shock treatments and any of these other things that they do to try to force a person to change who they are attracted to.
Why is it such a big deal if a portion of the population is gay? Does that really have that much of a negative effect on society?
I could see if it was, say... 3/4ths of the population, but even then at least half or more of them would still want to reproduce.
So, that isn't a very effective argument anymore than the biblical one is.
Yes, life is filled with conflict, but unnessary suffering?
Tornados are one thing, but what is done to these people is just vile...
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Homosexuality is perfectly natural. There are upwards of 100 animal species with recorded acts of homosexuality. If nature doing it isn't natural, then what the hell does natural mean?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah and a dog will hump my leg.

Out of curiosity, are these recorded "homosexual acts" or animals that show preference to their sex above that of the opposite sex? Also, are there any accounts of female homosexuality in animals? Female guinea pigs will "mount" each other, but it is about claiming dominance.

Syn, is anyone being forced to go through those things? I can believe that some feel pressured by society, but forced? I feel pressured by society to be both slender and buxom. Is that wrong?
 

---

Posted by paramount thoughtlessness (Member # 7123) on :
 
thank you proteus i apparentley didnt read that well enough my appologies but yes in some cases statistics do lets look at some stats here the majority of people say stealing is wrong some say it isnt that is an example if you dont like it i will come up with another
as for synethesia i never said that homosexuals couldnt raise children but that they couldnt birth children toghether yes they can aquire children in other ways but with one another not likely and in my opinion yes it has a negative affect on society i mean for all the people that are trying to raise their children "correctly" it causes problems i dont say punish people because their homosexual but there is a correct way to change them that probably hasnt been discovered yet and dont throw "they dont want to change" at me because i have known some homosexuals and they have thought at least once that they wish they could be heterosexual
archer in response animals do participate in homosexual activities but tests have shown that it is a sort of mental problem just as it is in humans
 

---

Posted by paramount thoughtlessness (Member # 7123) on :
 
beverly i posted before i had a chance to read you response and yes there are homosexual relations among females i did a search on altavista and read it but it showed as i stated above that there was a mental problem with them
and to yes some people are "forced" by family or freinds but not in my opinion by society but forced is quite harsh they do feel a bond to family but if they wanted they could flee from the people that are causing the pressure
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I agree that no one should be forced. That is just sad.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It's not always that simple.
A great deal of people who grow up in religious environments are pressured to either remain celibate or to try to change.
It really doesn't work.
Case in point-Exodus International.
Their poster boy was caught in a gay bar. A couple of the founding members reverted back to what they always were and ran off together. There are a ton of incidences of abuse in those organizations.
People sign up for these things because they want to be accepted by their community. Sure, they could choose not to, but if they feel that God thinks their attraction is wrong and their family and friends they will go through hell to change that.
It seems to lead to a lot more problems.
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, it's a variation. Society needs to accept this to make things easier and better for millions of gays and lesbians out there.
It's that simple.
Lives are being destroyed every day because a large majority of people just cannot accept that homosexuality is a variation. It's not a sin. It's not evil. Nor is it destroying society.

I read about a pair of gay penguins. They are so cute. They even gave them an egg and they took care of it.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Bev, I believe I've read anecdotal reports of animals expressing sexual attraction strictly toward members of their own gender, but nothing I could link to.

In answer to your second question, female bonobo chimpanzees will perform oral sex one one another.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Bonobos have same sex sex alllllllll the time..
It actually makes for a very conflict free society.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, they use sex as a conflict resolution tool.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I don't know much about animal same-sex sex. But I do wonder if they also have opposite-sex sex. My above comment about my dog was to suggest that an animal may not care all that much which gender they are mating with. As with my dog, if he was horny, he wasn't picky.

My question is, how much is this "homosexuality" and how much is this not caring the gender/species of the recipient?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Hmm...
I wonder if it's somewhat like that with me...
Male, female, both are beautiful... I suppose it's the individual that matters, whether or not they speak more than one language.. And if they have music skills, I am gone.
Intellect is so dreamy.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, I can totally believe that bi-sexuality is natural and fairly common, but that most people don't "develop" their capacity to be attracted to the same-sex. Just my own personal theory.

I think that being incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex is a sad thing.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It depends... The opposite sex is so beautiful and interesting, but, some just like one I guess..
Or, perhaps they might just think that sex with the opposite sex is distasteful.
Still, it is nice when people can see the beauty of both sexes...
Men for example sing in baritone which is just divine!
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 

quote:

---

Bonobos have same sex sex alllllllll the time..
It actually makes for a very conflict free society.

---

Yeah, bonobos are very perverted in practically every aspect.

But when I say animals participation in homosexual acts, I mean it. There are penguins at a zoo (I think the Bronx zoo, I could be wrong) that have been in homosexual couples for most of their lives. There are several of these couples, and they are just as monogomous as heterosexual penguins.
 

---

Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
 
Well, if so, than of course....

Michealangaelo and Socrates will go to hell.

Oh, such righteousness has not been seen for such a long time.

Well, I still like OSC's books, so it won't stop me from reading them... I simply won't appriciate his opinions about the gay society.

-Beanny
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I've totally lost patience with them.
It's difficult to be respectful of a person's opinions knowing that a group you belong to is being accused of being detrimental to society.
This really isn't the case. It's not true, it's not even logical.
And the language? Reproductive disfunction? How dehumanizing is that? These folks don't know a thing about homosexuality. They just think it's either a sin or a disfunction when there is more to it than that.
Folks will never, ever understand the millions of gays, lesbians and bisexuals out there if they approach people with this sort of mindset.
It's a form of bigatry and it's wrong. It's damaging, this is what really hurts society.
 

---

Posted by Nania (Member # 7144) on :
 
I don't read fiction books in order to get the author's view. I separate them, there's person and author. I tend to disregard the person because I'm usually disapointed and I honestly don't care to ruin my admiration for an author by looking at his 'person' side. I wonder if any of that made sense...
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
I agree.

I also think it's kind of funny that an author is critical of homosexuals when he's famous for his book with children running around naked half the time...
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Actually, for a long time was known and criticized for his positive portrayals of homosexuals in his books.

[ December 28, 2004, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Somewhat sensitive... but cringingly tragic... *Thinks of that fellow in that one book and what happened to him.* *Shudder*
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
That was one of the saddest things I've read in any book. It didn't feel like manulipative tear-jerking either -- as a reader you really come to love Josif, and mourn for what happened to him.

SPOILERS!!

Although it *might* be a little manipulative in that it sets the reader up to really want some revenge, so when Ansset attacks with song, it feels sooooooo good.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
That was so mean and extreme what they did..
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Saying that what they did was "mean" is like saying that getting burned alive is "warm".

[ December 28, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Understatement. It was intense unnessasary cruelty...
That poor guy...
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
I have to pipe in my own opinion here, as I am amazed at the duplicity I see on so many message boards regarding this topic.

OSC's opinions are his own. His has every right to have them, to share them, and publish them. They are not necessarily the opinions of his faith, nor are they necessarily doctrine of that said faith. Again, it is his own opinion.

What amazes me is that the same people who call him a "bigot" make such comments as "He's a Mormon, so what do you expect?" How can the very same people who decry negative opinions against a lifestyle they condone have the rocks to turn around and make false, sterotypical comments about a religion? Especially one they neither believe in nor understand?

We live in a society that is beginning to embrace every lifestyle under heaven, yet cannot accept the idea that others may oppose them. This double-standard always amazes me; true debate means understanding the other's point-of-view. These same advocates who decry Card's opinions have no clue as to his religion or its true doctrines, and commit the same foul they accuse him of making.

(And yes, I do believe OSC has a handle on the gay community's point of view. His comments are often directed toward the politically active members of that community, and their efforts to change our society at large.)

My two cents, and maybe some steam. The posts on this thread haven't been too bad, but MAN have there been doozies on other websites. The hypocrisy astounds me...

P.S. I can't help myself. I must insert a graemlin...


 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
This is something that has been frustrating me. I don't like certain aspects of certain religions, but by not liking them it means I am prejudiced and I do not want to be prejudiced...
I am just rather tired of having people assume that because I have a certain... proclivity...that it means I want to destroy society when really, I just want people to not get beat up or attacked or disowned by their parents or hurt in any way for being different...
But, in order to point this out... I end up having to sound like a bigot and that is horrible!
I don't know what to do...
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
It's a good question...so here's my own personal opinion on the matter: ultimately, one can say "I don't agree with that stance, and this is why" versus people making broad, emotionally-charged statements that are often false.

To disagree is not bigotry. To disagree with a value system, to actively oppose it, is not bigotry per se. But to oppose a group based solely on misinformation or the simple fact they exist is bigotry. It is ignorance made manifest.

I do not believe OSC to be a bigot, because he explains his contentions with what he believes to be truth. I agree with a lot of it; I disagree with some of it. They are his opinions, and he's free to express them. But when people assume his opinions are simply the "party line" of his religion, and dismiss him thereafter, that's ignorance. Especially when that may not be the case.

There is a general bigotry toward Christianity in general sometimes. Imagine what the reaction would be if someone wrote, "How can we blame Card for being a bigot? He's a Jew, after all."

Makes it feel a lot different, doesn't it?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
The most hate-filled speach I generally encounter is by people villifyiing others for being hateful.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I just get tired and frustrated with people attacking gays and lesbians all the time...
It's not that simple. Many gays have gone through a ton of pain trying to change. It hasn't worked for them and it's forced them to just lie...
I hate that sort of prejudice, so I want to fight against it somehow..
 

---

Posted by flipper (Member # 7176) on :
 

quote:

---

Nowadays, most efforts to boycott or ban books of mine stem from the fact that the Mormon Church openly opposes gay marriage and continues to regard voluntary homosexual behavior as sinful, and I have openly defended my Church's position.

---

quote:

---

I just get tired and frustrated with people attacking gays and lesbians all the time...

---

quote:

---

It's still totally ok to attack gays and lesbians.

---

quote:

---

How many times to you hear people joke about homosexuality in a cruel way?

---

quote:

---

The problem is that people label someone a "bigot" and imply harm and hate, then automatically associates that it's because of the religion. Calling a behavior a "sin" is not hateful. A "sin" is anything that draws us further away from God, that which can deny us growth and happiness and ruin lives. So when political groups actively attempt to change our laws and reshape our society based on what is considered "sinful," we have a right to oppose that which we feel will be determinental to society at large and have long-term negative effects on everyone concerned.

---

Let me be clear that I wasn't trying to call him a bigot. A bigot is a serious word for the most select group.

However, we are in agreement that the Mormon Church feels homosexuality is a sin. Christian religions also say, to the effect, "You're always going to sin sometime, so God will forgive you, but you have to go half way. At least TRY to lead the life that we have taught you is God's will."

So, if a Mormon were a openly practicing homosexual, living with another man or woman, then the Church would have to say, "Hey, you're not even trying here. Shape up or ship out." So, we can assume there are no openly practicing homosexuals within the Mormon Church.

If a Mormon were a 'closeted' homosexual, leading a good life by day, but sneaking off to have a romantic 'tryst' with another man or woman, and having no desire to change their behavior...well, why? Why not just find a different church that meets your needs better? So, there are no 'closeted' homosexuals within the Mormon Church.

This does leave people who have homosexual tendancies, but feel it is a sin, and therefore control it.

So, this leaves us with no group of Mormons anywhere that feel homosexuality is not a sin.

Therefore, by knowing OSC is a Mormon, we can also very, very safely assume he feels homosexuality is a sin. This should not have been a surprise to anyone if they knew that he was a Mormon.

Not that he is a bigot. If he were a bigot, he'd be out with the "God Hates Fags" crowd, waving signs and hurling insults. Somehow, I get the feeling that he's a few levels above that.

[ January 01, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: flipper ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
He still is assuming that heterosexuality is superior and wrongfully assuming that homosexuality is a threat.
That approach just leads to a backlash of rage, I know it makes me angry, and that's really not constructive.
Sure, he's not out there picketing funerals, but... still. That language hurts like so many stones.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Man, lots of great comments to respond to. I feel like I'm at a buffet. :-)

First, to Flipper: true enough, but other forums called OSC a bigot, vile, a scumbag...and some blamed such behavior on his religion. It was HIS opinion, regardless if they're similiar. They treat him with the same hate they profess to abhor, and it's THAT hypocrisy I dislike.

Second, to ArCHeR. IMHO, the belief that we cannot control our desires, and therefore shouldn't have to, is one of the most pernicious lies currently in our society. It is also totally inconsistent with the concept of God and faith in general.

To say humans cannot supress their desires? We are better than that. The Church of Jesus Christ declares that we are the offstring of God and can transend all things to reach our fullest potential. We ultimately CHOOSE to accept or reject desires by our behavior. Lifestyle is ultimately a choice. I choose to pay or shoplift, yell or whisper, overeat or exercise. Some desires are much stronger than others. Christ himself declared "I have overcome the world" and invites us to do the same.

The question then remains: by what path do we walk? This disparity is where conflict comes in, becasue we all define that path differently. You say certain things aren't sins. But millions believe God has established a pattern, and such behaviors are inconsistent with mental & spiritual success, long-term happiness and our eternal life beyond death. We therefore choose to follow someone with proper authority, such as a prophet, and trust that such guidance is in our best interest.

I write too much as it is, so I'll spare you on my opinion why people do not agree with gay marriage. But you're right: cheap & easy divorces, deadbeat dads & a lack of accountability, and many other issues are all eating away at the most important foundation for a healthy society--the traditional family unit.

History has shown that those societies that fundimentally altered that foundation never endured. Never. We can argue homosexuality until we're blue in the face, and I doubt no one's opinions would change, but when some see a lifestyle eroding a fundimental unit of a healthy society, they have the right to oppose it.

Bottom-line, we can all disagree. And we will. But we all have to play by that same rules. We have the right to oppose each other, and it's not "bigotry" to oppose it. And I think it's downright silly to boycott OSC's work simply because we disagree with his politics.

If that was the case, I'd never watch another Hollywood movie again (and I just put in a surround-sound system at home today, so that would be bad).
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
If he was not using this sort of language... if he sounded, perhaps a bit more polite about it, I would not be foaming at the mouth.
As it stands, it cannot be helped. I look at this sort of thing and think it is not much different then the sort of stuff my ancestors and relatives went through in the south.
It has to stop.
You have to understand that with homosexuality it's different.
Read what these ex-ex gays have to say, or books by E. Lynn Harris. Or Stranger at the Gates by Mel White.
You'd see that many gays and lesbians have tried to change, they have tried to stop being gay, they have tried being celibate and it's only led to pain and misery on their part.
There is a difference between something harmful like alcoholism and drug abuse and homosexuality. They are entirely different.
Gayness is not a threat to culture. A real threat is all these men marrying women knowing full well they swing more towards men. That causes a whole lot more pain than allowing someone to be gay because that is what they are...
Mainstream societies attitude towards gays is more harmful to society than homosexuality itself.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Well, since I'm not gay, and haven't experienced such a struggle, then I'm not qualified to contend on the subject. I imagine it's a painful process for some, and frustrating for others. I still feel it's ultimately a choice, but that's based on my view of the cosmos and how things work.

People are free to feel and act as they wish. But realize that when political groups push their agendas forward, often against the will of the majority, then we have a right to push back. I imagine OSC used strong language and was harsh (he's blunt, to be sure), but he's also a rare voice in a culture that is paralyzed in saying anything for fear of being called a bigot.

This may feel like the same issue as racism, and I contend it is vastly different. It is an issue, ultimately, of ideology and values. It's the whole catholics vs. protestants sort of thing, albeit based on lifestyle.

You're right in saying it's a tough issue to debate, because it's so emotional and it is easy to be considered anti-something in the process. All sides are easily offended. Heck, I got steam under my collar from other sites, enough to sign up to this forum and vent, but gladly it's been a great discussion with various POVs.

That's one great thing about such forums and people like OSC; they generate opinions, and encourage discussion and interaction. It's always refreshing to hear other points of view!
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It's the same. The only difference is that gays for the most part can conceal their gayness better than blacks, hispanics, ect can hide their race.
But, in some ways it's worse. Kids getting beat up in school over homosexuality, folks killing themselves, doing drugs, ect.
Parents abandoning their children as soon as they find out they are gay.
It shouldn't be like that.
If it makes these better for these people, I'll rage against the majority. The majority is not always right. At one time, some of the majority was against intergration.
Things have to get to the point where normality is expanded a bit to include others. I'm not saying start accepting molestation, divorce and things like that.
All I want is for gay people to be accepted as human beings. Not as evil, not as some destructive element, but as humans.
Read Stone Butch Blues. It's eye opening what she went through and painful.
IT SHOULD NOT BE LIKE THAT!
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 

quote:

---

Second, to ArCHeR. IMHO, the belief that we cannot control our desires, and therefore shouldn't have to, is one of the most pernicious lies currently in our society. It is also totally inconsistent with the concept of God and faith in general.

---

quote:

---

I still feel it's ultimately a choice

---

Then you must not pay attention to anything that has been said. It is most definately not a choice. If it were a choice, there would be no debate. You don't choose something like that. It's like choosing your race. Some people try it (Eminem, Michael Jackson, etc.), but it's still not gonna happen. You are who you are and you can't change that. The best you can do is pretend, and pretending causes much more harm than actually being what you are.

That is if society would get the stick out of it metaphorical butt.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Synesthesia: I must not have read the article OSC wrote that you refer to, because I never got the impression that he advocates abuse, hurt or open offense to homosexuals.

You may or may not have read what I wrote earlier, which is that we have a right to oppose social and legal change that is contrary to what we believe to be right...but I think everyone agrees that abuse of any kind, regardless of the reason, is uncalled for. But people are often defending lifestyle yet heap abuse on religion all the time, and that lack of playing by the same rules makes no sense to me.

And ArCHeR, yikes! I've read every post very carefully, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

To say we are slaves to our desires and we're just "who we are" is, to me, a social lie that excuses behavior and denies accountability. There may be many people who have strong inclinations to many things, but (I believe) God established a pattern by which we should use our feelings for the ultimate happiness and spiritual, mental and physical health.

But looking at it logically can never fully solve it, because we never have all the answers. Logic and science have their places, but spiritual truth must be gained and believed via spiritual means, and no amount of logic can provide a better witness. If you don't believe in God or trust a source by which His will can be delivered to you, then I can see why you'd think the way you do.

Unfortunately there are many religious faiths that have done and said some terrible things. I don't think OSC's faith is one of them. Just because they think differently than you doesn't make them wrong--the logic goes both ways.

EVERYBODY has that stick up the wrong end!


 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
The language, the tone, the use of phrases like "adolescent phase."
To me it's rather, well, demeaning, to put it mildly.
I am criticising that doctrine, but am I saying that people who believe it are stupid or childish?
No.
It can never be unraveled without facing it head on. We have made progress when it comes to racism and things like that.
But, there are still a lot of misconceptions around, like when it comes to homosexuality. People have all sorts of misconceptions about it. All sorts of wrong assumptions.
For OSC to assume that because gays want marriage, or at least civil union benefits that they automatically want to break down the social fabric of society is wrong and destracts from what REALLY hurts society.
Focus on tiny little knotholes and you miss the big gaping holes and real problems!
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
It's tough because advocate feel that changing the laws to include same-sex unions as a marriage does add to the growing weakening of marriage in general. Easy divorces, the famous "irreconcilable differences" clause, no accountability for deadbeat dads and a lack of sanctity concerning marriage in general have all contributed.

Why is is harder to get out of my cell phone contract than my marriage?

I can see why one's approach to the issue can be offensive. Unfortunately there are strong emotions on the subject. And no amount of understanding will change a church's doctrine on the subject (nor should they have to), but most certainly everyone can be nicer about it.

That's the tough thing about the internet--people turn into monsters and insult each other left and right, when they wouldn't say a thing if facing the person.

Do you have a link to the OSC editorial you're referring to?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html
And it's not just that one.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
I can see why that would be offensive to you, in his approach on describing homosexuality. I had thought you referred to something else more inflammatory, but I realized I had read this before.

And yes, I agree with about 98% of it.
The issue is about fairness and the inequality of the playing field when it comes to a basic social unit. I would love to hear a well thought-out contention against it, rather than people dismissing it with claims its hateful and hurtful.

Any links you know that offer a good rebuttal?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
No, but perhaps I'll work on one.
He has another one that bugged me even more than that one did.
Why do you agree with it?
In what ways does homosexuality weaken the family structure? Do you think that the existence of it encourages hedonism?
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Why rebutt? He's right. And Rock and Roll will corrupt our children, and those damn commies with spread all over southeast asia. Have you heard about those women trying to get the same jobs as men? Disgraceful! It will ruin the traditional family!

quote:

---

To say we are slaves to our desires and we're just "who we are" is, to me, a social lie that excuses behavior and denies accountability.

---

quote:

---

What I AM saying is that the church needs to realize that MOST people won't try very hard to resist these desires, and they really shouldn't.

---

quote:

---

I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms.
Why is that?

---

quote:

---

To me, this is as much of a lie as saying that we can't.

---

quote:

---

To say a church is wrong in encouraging such focus is something I do not agree; discipline does not always equal frustration.

---

quote:

---

But that's NOT what OSC and other critics are saying. A line must be drawn, and marriage must have a certain value system or it is meaningless, and allowing homosexual marriage (many believe) cheapens the concept of marriage. It weakens its place as much as all the other valid issues (such as easy divorces) previously noted.

---

(Note: I know you are not saying this)

The line is drawn here: Only two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. I don't know why some fundamentalist make the jump from gay marriage to... MARRYING A SHEEP! No one is saying anything like that. They see gay marriage as the first step to anything marrying anything. It's just not so. And how does two loving people getting married devalue marriage?

This comming from a man who practices a religion founded by a poligamist. Yes, I know it was controversial at the time and is generally a stereotype that represents a very small group within the mormon church. But can you really rail against others for devaluing marriage when the man you follow had several wives?

And now follows the pages of posts criticizing me for being unfair to attack a man's personal religion. But keep in mind he brought religion into debate about what the government should do.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
No, no attacks on you for bringing up polygamy. There's a big difference between bringing up a valid issue versus attacking it.

Note that A) the prophet who helped restore the Church of Jesus Christ wasn't a polygamous to start with and B) the faith accepts that the practice was ordained of God and was for a select few during a select time and was removed when the time came. Unlike today, the U.S. Government threatened to arrest all leaders, confiscate all church property and send in troops...so the Church of Jesus Christ (OSC's faith) knows full well what it's like for the government to intervene in one's personal life.

It sounds like there's confusion on the definition of what's considered a "safe" expression of sexual desire. You DID say that:

quote:

---

The Church needs to let people release that frustration in healthy ways instead of saying that that frustration is evil and you shouldn't have it unless you want to burn in eternal helfire.

---

quote:

---

Humans, and in fact all living things, have the inborn desire to procreate. That's the biological meaning of life.

---

..then you've supported what OSC says about marriage all along. It is FAR MORE than just loving someone. Marriage is never just about love. It's about establishing a family unit where children can be born and taught by both genders––a process proven time and time again to be the best way to raise the next generation.

I'm of the mind that a certain kind of civil union can be established for everyone––a personal contract between two people. A gay couple, two brothers, a parent/child, grandparent/child, two friends, whatever...anyone could do it. This contract would have some basic (and I mean basic) protections, but not on the level of a marriage.

My $.02
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Holy @$#%! my posts just keep getting longer and longer...


 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 

quote:

---

What church says frustration is evil? And why is the only "healthy way" to avoid such frustration have to be contrary to doctrine?

---

quote:

---

Abstinence IS healthy. So people have mental stress. Big deal! The "lie" does exist by saying the only way to avoid frustration is to indulge. I believe it's possible to be obedient and be happy. People do it all the time.

---

quote:

---

..then you've supported what OSC says about marriage all along.

---

quote:

---

I'm of the mind that a certain kind of civil union can be established for everyone

---

quote:

---

And WHY is homosexuality considered a sin in the bible? Is it taken out of context?
Is there a cleaer historical reason for it being prohibitted like the eating of pork and shell fish?

---

quote:

---

"It's a sin, it's abnormal, it's an abomination, deal with it."

---

quote:

---

KING: ... we were all people.

But as the mores have changed - for example, I know that the Church is opposed to gay marriage.

HINCKLEY: Yes.

KING: Do you have an alternative? Do you like the idea of civil unions?

HINCKLEY: Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way.

And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem.

KING: A problem they caused, or they were born with?

HINCKLEY: I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.

KING: Do you favor some sort of state union?

HINCKLEY: Well, we want to be very careful about that, because that - whatever may lead to gay marriage, we're not in favor of.

We - many people don't get married. Goodness sakes alive. You know that.

Many people who have to discipline themselves. If they transgress, they become subject to the discipline of the Church. But we try in every way that we know how to help them, to assist them, to bless their lives.

---

quote:

---

I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms.
Why is that?

---

This is a distinctively *male* problem. A weakness if you will. One that women do not suffer from.

"Go crazy" might be a bit much. It seems to cause stress on males to go without that release, seeing as they are constantly making spermies 'n' all.

I personally think that the media's message that all males must think about sex all the time and cannot control their desires does more harm than a church telling people to practice chastity. Not to mention providing plenty of fodder to increase the appetite for sex while lowering self-control. I think the young males growing up in this world barraged by sex have no idea that it is possible to be otherwise. That is bad, IMO. The young men who grow up being taught to control their thoughts may struggle with it, but they do seem to make great progress over their peers who don't try at all.

Granted, grown males *tend* to think about sex all the time, especially in their teens, but it seems to me that the more they focus on it the more likely they are to think about it. It is possible to put at least some of that energy into focusing on other pursuits and therefore think about it less than they otherwise would have.

But seeing as I am decidedly *not* male, I welcome the input of those who know better.

On the subject of homosexual sex, there is a bridge that members of the opposite sex must overcome in order to please each other sexually. There isn't such a bridge between members of the same sex. Women do not have the direct drive for orgasm that men have. They can both enjoy a very satisfying and fulfilling session of "cuddling" with no need to end in climax. This leaves men befuddled--waiting for the other shoe to drop. Men understand men's need for sex for physical reasons, and lots of it. If it weren't for the fact that most people are strongly attracted to the opposite sex, homosexual sex is more convenient and easy.

Whether you think this is a good thing to perpetuate in society or not depends on how you look at things.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Actually, for some women that isn't exactly the case...
I would not know, being that I am still out somewhere running around with unicorns but, I reckon there are a lot of hurdles folks have to go through when it comes to sex no matter what...
*thinks of reading Stone Butch Blues again sometime*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Syn, there are always going to be people who are irrational in their hatred of homosexuality. They are not likely to change their way of thinking either. But how many people are so extreme? Certainly some are, the most vocal to be sure. It seems your family is, and for that I am sorry.

You want to know reasons behind the church being against it. I have discussed this in depth before. They are not things that can be proven by science, they are doctrines of faith. But they make sense and are logical. If'n you want, I am happy to explain them again.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Syn, I agree that when women are newly in a relationship and sex is new, it will be more appealing. And women *do* have a sex drive. And it *can* be strong. I know, because I had a definite strong sex drive as far back as I can remember.

But the fact is, the physiological *need* for orgasm is not there. Benefits a plenty, something to be desired and longed for, but not a need in the same way.

Women don't need orgasm like they need to eat food or go pee. Men do. The fact is, if men aren't having sex or masterbating, they release in their sleep. It has to happen. That just isn't the case with women.

[ January 04, 2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms.
Why is that?

---

This is a distinctively *male* problem. A weakness if you will. One that women do not suffer from. [Wink]

---

quote:

---

I have heard my relatives say things like that more than 50 times. It's not really a strawman.
Just look at some of these pages. Read between the lines of them.

---

quote:

---

But sometimes, I feel like people dismissing it as a sin leads to that sort of thing.

---

quote:

---

The fact is that all that is a part of the Old Law.

---

Says you.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand any Christian/Jew/other OT believer seeing this way. I have my reasons for believing otherwise. And they actually make sense.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Nice to hear some other voices on this subject...

Ultimately it all goes back to my earlier posts that many people, especially OSC (seeing his opinions got all this started) trust a source of spiritual guidance above and beyond the Bible. Archer's posts on discrediting Biblical reasoning on such issues proves why the Bible cannot be the only source.

(Though ArCHeR I'm curious by what authority you presume to interpret scripture and assume God's will in such matters, especially when you contradict 95% of Christian faiths on the issue.)

OSC follows a faith that believes is headed up by a prophet of the Lord, one authorized to affirm God's will and guide its members with accurate doctrine. The words of those so authorized, additional scripture and other reliable (in his opinion) sources declare that the Lord has a Law of Chastity. This law is designed for the spiritual, mental, physical and emotional health and safety of His people, and we can ask WHY until we're blue in the face.

But it comes down to trust in God. You can manipulate scripture all you want, but accepting accurate doctine comes from personal revelation and being obedient FIRST––"Ye shall have no witness until after the trial of your faith." And no amount of explaining can replace the power of a personal testimony.

That's the problem with such debates. It goes beyond logic. It relies on spiritual means which is much harder to quantify.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I dunno. I think that while the discussions often stretch outside of revealed doctrine, there are still logical reasons for it. I am not against a little extrapolation to help something make sense to me. But I will easily defer to the fact that they are not doctrinal and could be incorrect.

But when you look at LDS doctrine:

We lived before this life as spirit children of God together with Him.

We decided to come into mortality and all that it entailed--in fact we shouted for joy at the prospect--because we knew it was the only way to become like our Heavenly Father.

Even in our spirit form we were already male and female--an eternal part of our nature.

Becoming like God included forming eternal family units that would continue eternally.

Marrying a member of the opposite sex and becoming parents is an important part of becoming like God. (Since God is married and a parent.) Even if we don't have the opportunity or ability to do so in this life, we will yet have the opportunity in the future.

Homosexuality is an obstacle to acheiving this goal, but far from the only obstacle. It is a part of the "test" of this life to see whether or not we will follow God, even if it is very difficult.

God requires chastity of those who would become like Him. He requires His children to master their earthly appetites and that sexual relations only happen between a married man and woman. This is the pattern that will extend into eternity--a procreating family unit going on to become Gods in their own right having their own children to pass through mortality in order to have the chance to become Gods themselves.

Homosexual sex cannot be chaste sex. It has no place in this pattern. Homosexual tendancies are a mortal obstacle that will not exist in the eternities any more than a sex change will be carried into the ressurrection. A male surgically altered to be female will be ressurrected male.

Even childless married couples will have the opportunity to procreate in the eternities. Not being able to procreate now does not make their sex unchaste because they are a valid family unit that can continue eternally and become parents as Gods. Sex does not just serve to procreate, it serves to bind husband and wife together in love and intimacy. Since they are a valid family unit according to the eternal pattern, their sex is chaste before God.

God understands when something is difficult for us and is merciful, taking it into consideration.

God is forgiving and patient with us.

If you remove all that stuff about the life before this one and eternal family units, I agree. Believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't make much sense.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Well said. People may not agree or believe such doctrine, but it can explain OSC's approach, and others can better understand where he's coming from. His conclusions and suggestions are his own, of course, but he comes from a mind-set that our society is trying to legitimize a standard that doesn't work.

What throws me is in insidious nature of some who condemn OSC with infernal logic of their own, based on their own twisted view of life...lies all wrapped up in a pretty bow.

The "Friendly Advice" thread recently posted is a perfect example of this...
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
People assuming that they are right and that there is no other valid way of looking at things really get on my nerves.

I don't care if someone believes differently as I do, though I might call them on it if it doesn't make sense. But as I try to understand where others are coming from, I appreciate the same in kind.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 

quote:

---

I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms.
Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Says you.

---

quote:

---

(Though ArCHeR I'm curious by what authority you presume to interpret scripture and assume God's will in such matters, especially when you contradict 95% of Christian faiths on the issue.)

---

quote:

---

Don't believe this... Any man you would want to be involved with at all would be able to restrain himself from going bonkers.

Yes, many men have a strong sex drive, but it's not like they need sex to survive.

---

quote:

---

Though, there are some gays that lead an unhealthy lifestyle. This is true...

---

quote:

---

As I've said before, if you want to want to know God's opinion on the matter, you need to seek after Him and be obedient to Him and, in time, I believe one can be guided to truth and receive strength to overcome anything.

---

quote:

---

Seeing it is condemned by nearly every major religion (being contrary to the design of humankind)

---

quote:

---

and is considered a dead-end by evolutionists (for any subspecies that cannot propogate will die out)

---

quote:

---

and since long-term, monogamous same-sex sexual relationships do NOT exist in nature

---

Now THAT one is just a bold-faced lie. They DO exist in nature. I know for a fact that there are several gay penguin couples in at least one zoo (I'm pretty sure there are more). And they're not the only ones either...

Try researching the things you sazy before you say them...
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Syn, of course you are going to find tons of stuff like that on the internet. It's the *internet*. Duh.

I bet you could find plenty more attacking Christians and giving misinformation there. People love to tear things down, and they figure the internet is a swell place to do it. You can't stop people from being stupid. (Of course, you will also find plenty of sites defending homosexuality/Christianity/whatever on the other side of the coin.)

If you want to influence the minds of people, start with the ones who are capable of rational thought. Quit worrying so much about the wackos.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Says you.

---

No, says Jesus Christ.

---

Where? Because he said the old law has passed away? That isn't very specific, is it? And it is awfully convenient to discount the words of Paul.

Christ condemned unchaste sex, and most Christians believe homosexual sex is part of that. I have given my reasons for why I believe that is the case. You may disagree with it, but you need to accept that there are other ways of looking at this situation than your own.

Your arguments just can't hold water with a religion that believes in living prophets who do speak to God on a regular basis and have made it clear time and time again that all homosexual sex is unchaste sex in God's eyes. For Mormons, their words carry just as much weight as any words in the Bible if not more so because they are specifically for our time. Not to mention Catholics who believe that the Pope speaks for God and who's words are scripture.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
I'd LOVE to see scientific proof that same-sex animals do indeed have long-term, monogamous sexual relationships. Same-sex play and dominance behavior certainly exists, and same-sex long-term relationships do exist (but are NOT sexual in nature). So since it's a "lie," I'd love to see the scientific study and the conclusions on its existence.

I mean, did these penguins pick out curtains together?

As for the rest, I don't even know where to begin to start. Since we seem to think we can pick and choose whatever we want from the Bible, it just proves we need another source. For OSC and others of the Church of Jesus Christ, that other source exists today.

(BTW, I think I knew one of those penguins. He was an art director at the ad agency I used to work at. Very cool. Great dresser.)
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
HILarious; I'm curious to read that book and get more info. Thanks for the link!
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Oh. My. God.

I hate this message board.

I spend so much time working on a post, and something goes wrong when I try to post it. I hit the back button and my entire response is gone.

Gone.


 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

Wendell and Cass, two penguins at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, Brooklyn, live in a soap opera world of seduction and intrigue. Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm. These birds mate for life. But given the disproportionate male-female ratio at the aquarium, some of the females flirt profusely and dump their partners for single males with better nests.

---

Okay, right off it looks like they're establishing that this isn't reflective of what actually happens in the wild. So saying "look at these penguins, they're in a long-term homosexual relationship. See! It does happen in nature!" seems a little off.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Also, it seems there isn't much sexual difference between male and female. I wonder how it is for animals that are more sexually distinct?

*doesn't know*
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
I'm curious to read that book and see more examples. Fascinating, to be sure...

Unfortunately, both sides of the issue will read into it as they will. Those who believe the human species to be animal in nature will use it as proof, and visa versa. As for me, since I believe we are children of God and not animals (though housed in mortal bodies with many of the same characteristics, a condition of this experience), it just shows we must transcend base urges and become greater than the animal plane.

I mean, some animals eat their young, and my cat tinkles on the carpet occasionally...

Bad kitty!


 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Homosexuality really isn't some sort of "base urge".
There's more to it than that.
 

---

Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
 
Rather than strictly being based upon "faith", this division has more to do with biblical interpretation and the projection of moral categories upon certain acts within a certain historical context that has been overgeneralized and stamped with the label of "homosexuality", for not all Christians believe homosexuality as a broad category to be morally wrong. Therefore it is not sufficient to hide behind strawdogs as when someone says, "But the bible says x." We leave it up to liberation theology and such to conceive of interpretations that better fit the real world that we live in today.

[ January 08, 2005, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
While Card does belong to a church that believes in the bible and interprets it in a way that is called conservative by society, he has specific reasons for personally advocating against permanent homosexual relationships. That is, people in homosexual relationships are cut off from succeeding generations. I supposed that if the biological barrier to have a biological child with a member of the same sex is ever hurdled, he may have to amend his opinion.

I take a more socialogical view, that women are still largely discriminated against and for it to be made permissable for men to dispense with them altogether seems unfair to me. This is assuming that there are more gay men than lesbian women- I'm working from the stats of 10% of men are gay and 3% of women are lesbian. I don't see how someone who says "I can't be attracted to a woman" can turn around and accuse others of discrimination. Especially since I believe the definition of discrimination contained in the film "Philadelphia".

Then there is the philosophical concern of chosen vs. congenital homosexuality. When I was young, I was taught to tolerate gays because America is a free country and people can do as they please provided they accept the consequences. But as I entered adulthood the "born gay" movement really got going.

The fact is, I don't think homosexual love is less than heterosexual love. I think they are the same, and therefore interchangeable. I still believe in the idea that everyone is potentially gay. This used to be considered quite avant garde, until people began to realize that it also means everyone is potentially straight as well.

I agree with the idea that lawless heterosexuals are damaging society much more (including the spread of AIDS) much more than homosexuals. The basic problem is that real love is almost lost from our culture, and replaced with infatuation. And where people are consumed with "what turns them on" I suspect it is infatuation. This could be members of the opposite sex, members of the same sex, Asians, blondes, well endowed people etc. It brings discrimination into the emotion of love, where I think it has no place.
 

---

Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
 

quote:

---

people in homosexual relationships are cut off from succeeding generations. I supposed that if the biological barrier to have a biological child with a member of the same sex is ever hurdled, he may have to amend his opinion.

---

quote:

---

We leave it up to liberation theology and such to conceive of interpretations that better fit the real world that we live in today.

---

quote:

---

we must transcend base urges and become greater than the animal plane.

I mean, some animals eat their young, and my cat tinkles on the carpet occasionally...

---

quote:

---

That was Jesus' contention against those so-called teachers of doctrine during his time--they perverted the truth to fit their own pride and greed and lusts.

---

quote:

---

So are we supposed to stop eating and using the bathroom?

---

quote:

---

So what are we to learn from this? If we learn anything, it is that we all have the capacity to be bi-sexual. Even those who are homosexual.

---

quote:

---

A lot of prominent right wingers have children that are gay.
How can they explain that?

---

Rebellion?

Seriously, I have no idea. I still believe that some causes of homosexuality are inborn. But I also think that humans are complex critters.

Either way, I look at the inability to be attracted to the opposite sex as a disability, like deafness. (I don't know how many homosexuals are unable to be attracted to the opposite sex and how many simply prefer the same sex of the two.)

Even if our society were kinder to homosexuals (while I am against encouraging homosexuality, I am firmly against cruelty and unkindness) it is still a society that is far easier to live in if you are hetero. Just as a hearing society is hard for deaf to live in. The deaf get along great when they only have to deal with other deaf, or in a society where everyone is fluent in sign language (like in Martha's Vineyard, the Deaf utopia of years past). But unfortunately, such a society just isn't realistic.

The big difference is that in our society we do not commit violence on the deaf. That is because while most people look at being deaf as undesirable, no one feels threatened by it. Might they be more threatened if deafness were a choice that might be attractive to the rising generation for some reason or other? Or maybe if subtle influences in one's childhood could trigger it?

If homosexuality will *not* increase in a homosexual-friendly society, then homosexuality will always be in the minority and society will always favor the majority. I agree that in this situation it doesn't make sense to be against gay marriage. If homosexuality does increase in a homosexual-friendly society, then it becomes more mainstream, more common, and thus more reflected in the society. Then I see a reason to be against encouraging/rewarding homosexual relationships.

And if we are like bonobos, I think the second is more likely.

[ January 08, 2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
 
My theory as to why rigid straights tend to raise gays is because they send their children the message that it's not okay for boys to express "feeling". The father thinks "Well, if I'm not allowed to express my anima (the female side of every male), then why should I let my kids do it?" Sending this kind of stringent demand upon kids causes an internal conflict that can only be balanced in two ways:

1) Homophobia
2) Homosexuality

The reason why homosexuality is less common in females than in males is because females are generally permitted to express both their emotive side and their rationality side, though the former faculty is emphasized and therefore often develops more strongly. Females, therefore, are more psychically balanced than males.

[ January 08, 2005, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
That's it. It really doesn't matter what causes gayness.
The Freudian model doesn't really hold true. I don't think it's child abuse that causes it, otherwise, sadly more people would be gay if that was the case.
Perhaps all humans are inherently bi, that does make sense. Women are obviously more fluid then men.
There is something called compulsary heterosexuality in which someone said that because people are surrounded by heterosexual images gayness is disencouraged. That could be true on a certain level.
There are men that find women revolting in a sexual way, same wome some women. Then you have folks that just think, well, whatever comes along and the sort of people who or bi because it's fashionable.
Really, I think it depends on a lot of factors. It is possible to be exclusively gay and still fall for someone of the same sex. There's a different between what a person has an attraction for and what they end up dating or marrying.
Once again, it's complex.
But does it even matter? Gay people just exist and have existed since there have been humans. We can either force people to conform which hasn't worked and causes more problems then it solves or accept the fact that some people are gay and perhaps there is a reason and pattern for that.
 

---

Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
 
It doesn't matter what causes it because there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay or bi, just as long as we realize that homophobia propagates homosexuality. Ironically, if the right-wing wanted to purge homosexulity, all they would have to do is send out the message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Sounds ridiculous? I think so too, but it's true!

I'm not using a Freudian model, since Freud seems to insinutate that there's something wrong with letting our primal urges run free.

I'm moreso holding up a Neo-Jungian model that says that who we are is who we are, independently of our social morality.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

We can either force people to conform which hasn't worked and causes more problems then it solves or accept the fact that some people are gay and perhaps there is a reason and pattern for that.

---

Certainly we cannot "force people to conform". That is pretty obvious when we really see what has happened and what is happening. My question is, can we accept the fact that some people are gay without encouraging homosexuality? I think we can. But it is a fine balance. It is one that I hope to find. The problem is, no one will be able to decide where the line is.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

just as long as we realize that homophobia propagates homosexuality. Ironically, if the right-wing wanted to purge homosexulity, all they would have to do is send out the message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Sounds ridiculous? I think so too, but it's true! [Wink]

---

Huh. I've never heard anyone say that before. I don't think it is true though.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
But how do you think homosexuality is being encouraged?
Writing books about it or making shows about it doesn't really encourage it.....
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Writing books about it or making shows about it doesn't really encourage it.....

---

I disagree. I think these are exactly the sorts of things that shape our thinking. I guess I say this because I know what a strong effect stories and TV had on my mind growing up.

I think one of the things that discourages homosexual tendancies is the inner feeling of "no, I won't think that". I really think this is how a lot of people who are capable of being bi-sexual grow to be entirely or almost entirely heterosexual.

[ January 08, 2005, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
It is encouraged with every bit of acceptance as being normal. It is encouraged when it is legally defined as being equal with heterosexual unions. It is encouraged when it is taught as acceptable behavior. It is encouraged when it is displayed as a majority when it is in the minority, when it is considered just another facet like gender and color.

Lines must be drawn, lines obviously marked in different places by different people. You may say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality; others say there's everything wrong with it, that it is contrary to God's design.

You may not understand it. But plenty of people don't believe my faith either, and I can deal with that. Why are some homosexuals so desperate for the world to agree with them?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Because it IS another facet like colour or gender.
It IS just another thing on the spectrum of humanity.
Gay people are tired of being considered sick or sinful all the time, they've had to put up with this for years and refuse to take it anymore.
Homosexuality is a variation.

At least books about it help to make a person who has homosexual feelings feel less like a freak. When I was young, I don't really think I had a sexuality, but I recall being more attracted to women than men, I had a little platonic crush on Jacklyn Smith as a kid but y'all really don't need to know that. *flees*
 

---

Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
 
Well, in order to make my counter-intuitive theory seem more intuitive we need to suppose that people have the potential to be bi. If they repress the gay part of themselves, they will either hate gays because they hate that part of themselves, or they will one day become gay to rebell against the persecution that caused them to repress it and therefore become completely gay as opposed to the more balanced "bi".

[ January 09, 2005, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Strawcatz wrote in reply to the comment "homosexuals are cut off from succeeding generations"

quote:

---

I fail to see how one can make a moral argument out of this astute observation. Surely straight couples who are either sterile or plan not to have children are not exempt from marrying each other. So, I ask, since when was marriage primarily about the propagation of the species: a species that is in no danger of running of steam now that the population has breached the 6 billion mark.

---

quote:

---

What bothers me is the law (in Utah) that permits first cousins to marry if they are too old to have kids (55). I just think that's jacked.

---

quote:

---

Hatrack is a great place for people to come to learn understanding and compassion. There are some who don't want to listen, though, and they rarely stick around here.

---

Heh, I wonder if that's why OSC doesn't post any more.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Naughty celia.

I don't think people choose their sexuality any more than they choose their weight. For some people, conforming to the norm is easy. For others it is not. For many, it is not possible because they feel it is not the most important thing to focus their creative energies on.

I think there is a variant within homosexuality where gays worship a particular woman, but because she is taken/old/dead they view all other women as second-raters. I could be wrong, no gays have told me this. But I'm thinking of the fixation on Judy Garland and Marilyn Monroe etc. They definitely find some women attractive, but I could be wrong about them finding them sexy.

[ January 10, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Many people *do* choose their weight.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Maybe it's because they identify with those women? Judy Garland did not have such an easy life, and neither did Marilyn Monroe, but I doubt it's sexual in nature.
Besides, not all gay men harp on Marilyn, Judy, Cher (Though, why Cher? She can't sing! They joke about her sometimes on Stupid Will and Dumb Grace)
I used to have little platonic crushes on men sometimes back in college. I still do. It's embarassing, but perhaps it's because they are SO INTELLIGENT and are where I would like to be right now.
 

---

Posted by Bowler (Member # 7272) on :
 

quote:

---

But nobody really knows how their Deity REALLY wants them to live their life or if infact they really have an opinion on the matter either way, they can only take their beliefs and conscience as guidance.

---

quote:

---

A good example-Isn't it foolish to discharge people from the military who can read and speak Arabic because they are gay?

---

So reading and speaking Arabic makes you gay?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You'd better watch out, SM. I'm thinking of calling the Honor Police on you.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
yixriib biitak, porter.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 

quote:

---

I think homosexuality is discrimination against the opposite sex.

---

quote:

---

In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 543 Arabic linguists and 166 Farsi linguists graduated from their 63-week courses, according to a DLI spokesman. That was up from 377 and 139, respectively, in the previous year.

---

quote:

---

It is impossible for a normal, healthy male to go a long period of time without an orgasm. If he goes too long, his body takes care of it in his sleep.

---

quote:

---

Men have orgasms in their sleep if they aren't having them in any other way because they *need* to have orgasms

---

There is no medical necessity to orgasm, strictly speaking. Nocturnal emissions when there has not been an ejaculation for some time are very common among men, but their frequency varies from person to person and from one age to another.

Common doesn't mean necessary. I happen to think that orgasms are generally good things, and there is evidence that having regular orgasms may be beneficial for both men and women (decreses risk of prostatitis, relieves uterine cramping, elevates mood, possibly extends average lifespan, etc.).

But if the sperm are not released by ejaculation (either intended or unintended), they can be reabsorbed by the body. This is exactly what happens after a vasectomy, when it works. After a successful vasectomy, there is no external outlet for the sperm, and that doesn't seem to be associated with any short- or long-term problems.

[I clarify this point in particular because I have heard men ask about increased risk of cancer after vasectomies, which does not in fact occur. Does seem to be an urban legend floating about, although it's a tangential issue for this thread. Carry on. ]

[ January 15, 2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Considering what is going on, it does. We need as many translators as possible.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
There was only 80-100 in 1991 (Arabic Linguists out of DLI) But they had started their course before Gulf War I.

P.S. It is possible that people are going in to get a great free education that they can use in the private sector and then announcing they are gay to get out of the rest of their commitment.

[ January 15, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
What is discrimination? Making a judgement about someone based on the category they belong to. Saying "I can never be attracted to any man" sounds pretty discriminatory to me.

I also believe that gays want the benefits of sociologic distinction without submitting to any kind of systematic study. I know many are willing to. I guess it's a standoff, because we can't understand them until the majority of them are willing to come out. But most who won't come out do so because they fear not being understood.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
They probably fear being ostracised, a very realistic fear to have, considering.
Straight men are waaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to discriminate against gay men because of their fear of being considered homosexual.
How many times do straight guys beat the crap out of a gay guy for coming on to them?
People do stuff like this all the time, it's not the same thing. Most straight women don't get attracted to other women, are they discriminating?
Discriminating is a conscious thing, like gripping your purse if a large black man passes. But as for being attracted to certain kinds of people, men, women, Asians, people with tattoos and piercings or died hair, that's entirely different.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Straight men are waaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to discriminate against gay men because of their fear of being considered homosexual.
How many times do straight guys beat the crap out of a gay guy for coming on to them?

---

quote:

---

If the numbers are up (by a lot) does 26 really make a difference?

---

quote:

---

P.S. It is possible that people are going in to get a great free education that they can use in the private sector and then announcing they are gay to get out of the rest of their commitment.

---

quote:

---

What is discrimination? Making a judgement about someone based on the category they belong to. Saying "I can never be attracted to any man" sounds pretty discriminatory to me.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if the word homophobia has been bandied around enough that people have accepted it without any real evidence.

---

quote:

---

David Sedaris is gay. And I think his books are funny. Very funny. I would use the word hilarious..........but I don't think I know how to spell it right, unless I just did.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. It is possible that people are going in to get a great free education that they can use in the private sector and then announcing they are gay to get out of the rest of their commitment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow.

Do you realize how stupid that is? You don't... you can't... what the... wow...

*blinks*

---