Merged Threads Gay Talk

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't turn to Leviticus, much of which Christ threw out along with the rest of the clean/unclean distinction. But I obviously believe in the divinity of Christ, so turning to Paul makes perfect sense. Now, I want to draw a distinction here: I don't want the law to be used to enforce Biblical morality - I don't think I have much responsibility to worry about the personal choices of non-Christian strangers. But I do think that increased social support for homosexuality will result in greater temptation to homosexual sex, and I think it makes sense to oppose government actions that will increase temptation to sin for an entire country.

 

I'm on a red eye and I can't sleep on these so what a wonderful way to kill some time.

 

I'm aware of your distinction and appreciate it. As for your contention that increased social support for homosexuality will result in greater numbers of people having homosexual sex, I see this as a feature not a bug, and think that you should, too. Apart from your desire to not sanction sin, this gets to the one valid argument about how gays and gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage. It's certainly not the way that conservatives usually speak of it - that it somehow diminishes the institution, or threatens your heterosexual marriage. I don't find these to be very persuasive arguments. But the way gay Americans do affect heterosexual marriage is fairly common and terribly sad, and it's when a gay man or woman feels the need to deny their own sexuality in order to try and live life as a heterosexual. This almost always ends in divorce and pain, and often includes children. Removing the stigma surrounding homosexuality and society's disapproval of homosexuality will allow more homosexuals to exist as they are and not feel they need to force themselves into an orientation that isn't theirs. And allowing gays the ability to marry provides them with their own path to the institution, and lessens the likelihood that these "fake" marriages will continue in numbers. In this sense, allowing homosexual marriage and encouraging acceptance strengthens heterosexual marriages.

 

More than that, I wouldn't be so worried about increasing the amounts of homosexual sex since the number of people who are homosexual or bisexual is static. The only increase would be in people who denied their sexuality and refrained from acting on it because of shame, or the type of religious condemnation you speak of. If this deterrent fades away and the incidence of homosexual sex rises to "meet demand" (so to speak), so be it. That's progress. There is no sin here.

 

Yes, as someone born in America after 1960, most likely educated at a large university, and living in CA after 2002, you are likely to hold that view. Of course, I think it's a gross exaggeration as well as a brutalization of the word morality, but you were born where you were born, so here we are. Which basic human needs are met by a piece of paper declaring two people to be married? I'm sure you dont think marriage certificates are necessary for commitment between lovers. And my claim is that all humans are instrinsically disordered.

 

I will accept being reduced to a thoughtless type shaped only by my surroundings since I did the same to you earlier, despite that not being my point. Touche anyway, though I'm quite certain I came to these opinions on my own since it was not how I was raised and I've lived for at least a year in five different states. My change of heart came largely from personal experience, watching people I knew and cared about go through this, and coming to the understanding that it was just as valid as any other type of love. I was all sorts of wrong.

 

I understand your preference is to get the government out of marriage. I'm not sure I share your preference, though it may make things easier. I actually think it's good for the state to (mildly) encourage marriage and sanction it, and to provide benefits to couples raising children. What the "piece of paper" does is grant you a certain set of rights, and indicates that the basics of your union are acknowledged by society. Whether or not you agree with it, I'd suggest talking to someone like Andrew about what it means, after all of these years, to feel that your state and your country finally don't consider you and your relationships to be second class. I'd be happy to put you in touch.

 

As for the claim that all humans are intrinsically disordered, I understand the theology but I think that's a bit of a cop out here. Or at least it doesn't sit well. You're putting homosexuals in a different class, with greater restrictions on their lives and behaviors, than you do with heterosexuals. You just feel powerless to do anything else because, hey, it's not up to you. All the things that I know provide you with such happiness - your wife, your children, I'm guessing sex - are simply not options that you think about 10 million Americans should be able to pursue. You're a Christian arguing against not just love, but love that, in kind, bears a striking resemblance to your own.

 

I think that is the word of God. I don't think God asks us to comply with it any more. Again, a topic long enough that we could be here for years at the rate I'm typing.

 

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Beats talking to people I agree with anyway.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, if a homosexual gets into heaven, does he/she get "cured" upon arrival? Is their burden lifted? Is that the reward for not acknowledging or acting on any emotional or sexual attraction they might have?

[We need Tom Tupa]

Also, if a homosexual gets into heaven, does he/she get "cured" upon arrival? Is their burden lifted? Is that the reward for not acknowledging or acting on any emotional or sexual attraction they might have?

I have to admit to having absolutely no clue what happens in heaven, and i dont just mean for homosexuals.

[We need Tom Tupa]

I'm on a red eye and I can't sleep on these so what a wonderful way to kill some time.

 

I'm aware of your distinction and appreciate it. As for your contention that increased social support for homosexuality will result in greater numbers of people having homosexual sex, I see this as a feature not a bug, and think that you should, too. Apart from your desire to not sanction sin, this gets to the one valid argument about how gays and gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage. It's certainly not the way that conservatives usually speak of it - that it somehow diminishes the institution, or threatens your heterosexual marriage. I don't find these to be very persuasive arguments. But the way gay Americans do affect heterosexual marriage is fairly common and terribly sad, and it's when a gay man or woman feels the need to deny their own sexuality in order to try and live life as a heterosexual. This almost always ends in divorce and pain, and often includes children. Removing the stigma surrounding homosexuality and society's disapproval of homosexuality will allow more homosexuals to exist as they are and not feel they need to force themselves into an orientation that isn't theirs. And allowing gays the ability to marry provides them with their own path to the institution, and lessens the likelihood that these "fake" marriages will continue in numbers. In this sense, allowing homosexual marriage and encouraging acceptance strengthens heterosexual marriages.

 

More than that, I wouldn't be so worried about increasing the amounts of homosexual sex since the number of people who are homosexual or bisexual is static. The only increase would be in people who denied their sexuality and refrained from acting on it because of shame, or the type of religious condemnation you speak of. If this deterrent fades away and the incidence of homosexual sex rises to "meet demand" (so to speak), so be it. That's progress. There is no sin here.

I completely disagree with you here, and am surprised to see that you hold the view I think you're representing. Gay and Straight are not two hardwired immovable options - they are two ends of a spectrum along which (almost) everyone falls. I agree that there are people who will never find happiness in straight marriage but pursue it anyway for the purposes of gaining social/family/religious acceptance. I think that number has already fallen considerably and will continue to fall as social norms change, without government intervention. The group that I am concerned about is the large group in the middle that could find a great deal of sexual satisfaction and/or emotional fulfillment with members of either sex. Government support for gay marriage will increase the number of people who, given by nature/God a choice between the sexes when choosing a partner who will satisfy them, will choose a partner of the same sex, thus increasing the incidence of homosexual sex without necessarily increasing the strength of anyone's relationship.

 

I understand your preference is to get the government out of marriage. I'm not sure I share your preference, though it may make things easier. I actually think it's good for the state to (mildly) encourage marriage and sanction it, and to provide benefits to couples raising children. What the "piece of paper" does is grant you a certain set of rights, and indicates that the basics of your union are acknowledged by society. Whether or not you agree with it, I'd suggest talking to someone like Andrew about what it means, after all of these years, to feel that your state and your country finally don't consider you and your relationships to be second class. I'd be happy to put you in touch.

 

As for the claim that all humans are intrinsically disordered, I understand the theology but I think that's a bit of a cop out here. Or at least it doesn't sit well. You're putting homosexuals in a different class, with greater restrictions on their lives and behaviors, than you do with heterosexuals. You just feel powerless to do anything else because, hey, it's not up to you. All the things that I know provide you with such happiness - your wife, your children, I'm guessing sex - are simply not options that you think about 10 million Americans should be able to pursue. You're a Christian arguing against not just love, but love that, in kind, bears a striking resemblance to your own.

 

Most of this only makes sense to me if addressed to someone who was opposed to legal gay marriage. Didn't this conversation start with me saying the opposite and giving a reason that matches quite well with those you give here?

[Legacy Fan]

I think that most people of faith are uninformed, yourself included. You said the New Testament was written by those who lived with and actually knew Jesus H. Christ, but all of them were written decades after Jesus allegedly got crucified. They're all stories that were handed down orally for years, except the Epistles that are actually attributed to Paul (who never actually met Jesus, even though he's known as an Apostle). If you compare what Paul said to what's written in the Gospels, they disagree on quite a bit, and in my opinion, Christianity should really be called Paulianity.

Speaking of uninformed-

 

Go read up on Saul->Paul. Seriously.

 

"Stories handed down orally for years"? Greek, Roman, & Hebrew written record keeping had been in use well before Jesus time. And they were fairly fucking precise about it too. Josephus' accounts of Masada have been used as a blueprint for the recent archeological digs over the past several decades.

[MLD Woody]

Well if the Bible says it then it must be true

 

except for that stuff I don't agree with, those parts aren't true

[We need Tom Tupa]

Well if the Bible says it then it must be true

 

except for that stuff I don't agree with, those parts aren't true

Is this in response to something or just boilerplate snark?

[MLD Woody]

Is this in response to something or just boilerplate snark?

 

Responsevto to Bunker.

 

I may disagree with you but you seem like an intelligent guy that's open to receiving others opinions without demonizing them. I'm happy you started posting because you give conservatives a good name, something that wasn't happening on this board. Many on here won't even acknowledge the other side without calling them libtards or fags or something. Like I said, I don't agree with you, but at least you make sense and respond in a reasonable way to other's posts.

 

If I were to respond to you I would give you a respectful, thought out response.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Responsevto to Bunker.

 

I may disagree with you but you seem like an intelligent guy that's open to receiving others opinions without demonizing them. I'm happy you started posting because you give conservatives a good name, something that wasn't happening on this board. Many on here won't even acknowledge the other side without calling them libtards or fags or something. Like I said, I don't agree with you, but at least you make sense and respond in a reasonable way to other's posts.

 

If I were to respond to you I would give you a respectful, thought out response.

Fair enough. Thanks.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I completely disagree with you here, and am surprised to see that you hold the view I think you're representing. Gay and Straight are not two hardwired immovable options - they are two ends of a spectrum along which (almost) everyone falls. I agree that there are people who will never find happiness in straight marriage but pursue it anyway for the purposes of gaining social/family/religious acceptance. I think that number has already fallen considerably and will continue to fall as social norms change, without government intervention. The group that I am concerned about is the large group in the middle that could find a great deal of sexual satisfaction and/or emotional fulfillment with members of either sex. Government support for gay marriage will increase the number of people who, given by nature/God a choice between the sexes when choosing a partner who will satisfy them, will choose a partner of the same sex, thus increasing the incidence of homosexual sex without necessarily increasing the strength of anyone's relationship.

 

Then I double dog re-disagree with you!

 

I think what you're wrote is a bit puzzling, pretty far off the mark, and ignores much of what we know about human sexuality. Yes, there is a spectrum of sexuality, but to suggest that there is a "large group in the middle that could find a great deal of sexual satisfaction and/or emotional fulfillment with members of either sex" is rather odd, and I'm not sure I've ever heard this argument attempted before. What you're essentially saying is that there is a large group of bisexual Americans who could marry and have a relationship with either sex and are only being held back by societal and religious norms, as well as the law. What's more, that should gay marriage be legalized we'd be looking at the potential for a run on gay marriages that extends well beyond the confines of the exclusively homosexual population. I don't want to sound harsh, but this strikes me as ridiculous. True bisexuality is fairly rare. You're talking about a fairly constant rate of somewhere between 2%-4% of the population whose orientation is homosexual. This is essentially the only market for gay marriages, plus the possibility of a small number of people who are truly bisexual - and even bisexuals tend to lean one way or the other. So, unless you mean something different by a "large group in the middle" this is an extremely slippery slope you're imagining (insert your gay joke here), and yet there's no reason to imagine it. There's no threat of anything like what you describe.

 

And this is why we can be sure that greater societal approval of homosexuals and homosexual relationships will lower the incidence of homosexuals who force themselves into straight marriages, not set off the suddenly liberated bisexuals masses. And if you want to another example of this dynamic at play, look at the prevalence of homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood. In short, closeted gays - ashamed gays - have been given institutions in which they can hide their homosexuality and pretend it isn't there. One institution is heterosexual marriage. Another is the church. We can't hope to change the policy of the latter, but the former we can do something about, and should.

 

Secondly, you seem to credit changing social norms for changing Americans' attitudes about gays, without wanting to acknowledge that government intervention would play and has played a role in helping change those norms. For instance, I can't imagine you don't believe that government intervention in, say, making abortion legal or giving women the vote had zero effect on social norms. So, if you agree with the direction of the change in the social norms, as I do, why wouldn't you want to propel and codify those changes with changes to the existing law? Now, I can see why you wouldn't, because you don't agree with the change. But you seem to be working too hard to dismiss the idea that government policy can't assist in driving social change, especially when you just acknowledged that the president's words seem to have already driven social change, and right above you're arguing that if government supports gay marriage it will increase the number of people who choose to marry someone of the same sex. A small point, but I think you're wrong on that one, too.

 

 

Most of this only makes sense to me if addressed to someone who was opposed to legal gay marriage. Didn't this conversation start with me saying the opposite and giving a reason that matches quite well with those you give here?

 

Perhaps you'd be better off reading Bunker's thoughts on the subject - they're very different from yours!

 

Oh, come on, Tupa. It's okay if we agree now and again. And more that that, the part you highlighted was more about your religious beliefs, not your political ones. Also, the idea that all humans fall short of perfection is not exactly a belief that is unique to Christians. I believe one only need eyes for that.

[calfoxwc]

Little Johnnie Woodpecker translation:

 

:"You are Heck's friend, so I want you to like me, and I want to lick your toes, too"

[MLD Woody]

Little Johnnie Woodpecker translation:

 

:"You are Heck's friend, so I want you to like me, and I want to lick your toes, too"

 

Someone is jealous.

 

I don't know how many more of these substance full posts I can take from you Cal

[MLD Woody]

I was gonna make this its own thread, but it would just end up here anyway

 

AIN'T NO HOMO GONNA MAKE IT TO HEAVEN

 

 

 

Lovely, huh?

[calfoxwc]

I'm not perfect in that, either, obviously.

 

But many times I am.

 

You never are.

 

Not the same thing, Little Johnnie Woodpecker.

[MLD Woody]

I'm not perfect in that, either, obviously.

 

But many times I am.

 

You never are.

 

Not the same thing, Little Johnnie Woodpecker.

 

The difference between me and Johnnie is I don't give a fuck about what you think or say about me. You aren't gonna get me to move away

[heckofajobbrownie]

Some truly wonderful people in here. See what you've missed, Tupa? You could have watched the Fox/Drudge-induced self-implosion of the Republican Party in real time.

[VaporTrail]

I don't hold them to that standard, I merely point them to it as an example. I sin every single day. We all fall short. I can't possibly find a Biblical standard that they could ever live up to - that's the whole point of the Bible (we can't do it ourselves. salvation comes through Christ's sacrifice).

 

I thought the whole point of the Bible was to understand things that we can't honestly have an understanding of.

[calfoxwc]

Another stupid asssssumption, Little Johnnie Woodpecker.

 

Nobody made Johnnie move away.

 

He was a lonely, friendless loser, and wanted to move away.

 

I reckon he was smarter than you, too.

 

Although, I must say, Little Johnnie Woodpecker - "I didn't start the fire"

 

But cheer up... one day you will grow up, and realize that you kept burning

 

your own self, and it's nobody else's fault, and you will stop starting the fire.

 

There, that's my best advice for you today. Learn to think, and then think about it.

 

As in, no emotional knee jerk reaction.

[MLD Woody]

Cal you're a moron. You represent everything that's wrong with politics. Congrats

[heckofajobbrownie]

Guess you're not alone, Tupa:

 

“In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or “homosexual,” the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. …Overall, “U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,” Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 …correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.”

[MLD Woody]

America! Fuck Yeah!

 

Disagree with me and your an anti American socialist fag!