[psq34loam]

I was seriously considering taking a job and relocating to the Hartford area, and this sort of makes me feel better about it. More likely, as someone mentioned elsewhere, CT wants my excess gay dollars (haha!) If you saw what I drive, you'd have second thoughts... I'm 42, my partner is a 56 y.o. military vet, his coverage through the VA is actually better than the health plan I get through work now in many respects. I suppose if were were married we could combine our plans, except that the military is the most back-asswards part of the whole country, especially considering that the percentage of homosexuals in the career military is higher that most other professions, although perhaps some traditionally swishy professions have it beat out. My ex. was career navy, as was one former gay co-worker, so I have some inside confirmation of this.

I'd like to note that most people who I interact with on a daily basis know I'm homosexual and no one here in South Bend IN, or in Detroit, seems to care, or at least they are polite enough to be tolerant, as I am of what I might perceive to be failings or shortcomings of theirs. And I suspect that's the healthy adult attitude to an other adult's sexuality, it isn't any of my business, and assuming that I don't have any personal sexual interest in that person, I can't imagine why I'd want to know any of the details.

I do belong to a church that loves everyone but teaches that homosexual acts are sinful, although certainly not particularly sinful beyond any other sins, in the way in which some sects seem to obsess about it. It isn't a big issue, any more than any other way in which we as human beings fail to live up to the ideal of Christ, whether from choice, or from our natural inborn limitations, or whatever you like. God is the judge all of us as He is the One who made us. I have no right to judge but should instead worry about my own sins and my own soul, and pray to see my shortcomings rather than those of my neighbors.

But, since the church teaches that homosexual acts are a sin, I respect that, and will not marry my partner in obedience to that even though I would be otherwise inclined to. Actually I cannot marry anyone, male or female, outside of the church, so therefore it's largely irrelevant to me, except that it shows me that the government is willing to allow me to make up my own mind on the matter. I'll let your imagination fill in whether or not, and to what extent we actually do anything, because it's our business, God's business, when I go to confession my confessors business, and not yours. I don't see why we define ourselves by sexual role in any event, perhaps that's the weirdest thing about it all. I'm the same person that I was before I was aware of any sexual interest, and if it all were taken away, I would still be myself.

Anyhow, I'm always amazed at how upset everyone seems to want to get about sex, and how quickly the two big polarizing issues, politics and religion, immediately come into play. As someone else mentioned, I never see nearly as much bringing in of religion as in when homosexuality is discussed. I personally believe this is because it's a gut level reaction that comes as a consequence of us being over sexualized. Humans think about sex much more than is really necessary, and our society uses sex, or the fear of losing sex, as a way to sell just about everything we don't need, so it's constantly on our minds. In order to justify and rationalize the feelings that thinking about someone elses sexual activity (kind of voyeurism in our own minds) causes us to have, we need to invoke religion, sanctioning our own judgements as God's.

I'm going to be looking for cheap rental housing with space for a vegetable garden close to East Hartford, I might eventually be interested in buying, after my partner finds a job and we have two incomes again. I lived in one of the better sections of Detroit for 11 years, so crime isn't a big issue, as long as I don't feel in danger of being car-jacked when I stop at a light during daylight hours, sadly some parts of Detroit were like that when I lived there. South Bend seems pretty safe by comparison, although there are some parts of the city that I wouldn't feel safe walking around after dark, everywhere is safe enough during the daytime, although some places I'd rather not live. But there are places that are OK, and still very cheap, again, I don't have any children to worry about. I looked at overall crime rates and seems that Hartford itself is slightly worse than South Bend, but considerably better than Detroit, and East Hartford is pretty good in comparison to all three.

I really don't want to live somewhere I feel a need to have a gun for protection, although I am in favor of gun rights, and pretty much oppose any attempt by the government to tell me what I can or cannot do unless it interferes with someone elses rights in a definable and fairly tangible way. I wouldn't appreciate a neigh-boor-hood association that dictates what color I can or cannot paint my house, or how high my backyard fence is (although personally I prefer traditional house colors, I just want the right to paint it something awful if I so chose, and I wouldn't mind my neighbor doing it, as long as I don't have to come home to the monstrosity every day). I'm hoping I'll be able to find a fairly lassiz-faire neighborhood near Hartfor/East Hartford eventually. Where I live now I have one small lawn the size of a large oriental carpet and the rest is all vegetable and flower garden, patio and deck and paths, I hate mowing grass! But I can understand how some traditional suburban types aren't into that sort of thing. And I wouldn't want to live close to and offend them any more than they would be interested in offending me, live and let live.

I suppose this makes me a raving liberal.

Anyhow, I do hope I've only been moderately offensive, I wanted to try to take the high ground, and I am glad to be moving to a state that is tolerant, at least officially. Perhaps even though the Midwest is less tolerant at the official level, it might be more tolerant on the personal level, I suppose I'll find out soon enough. Or perhaps it's a Hoosier thing to not speak our minds because we are afraid to offend and be unpleasant, the South is a bit like that from what I saw of it (coastal SC). There they might be haters in the abstract but are kind for the most part to their friends and neighbors who happen to be gay, I like it much better than the other way around. And there is something to be said for being able to disagree politely.

Jay

[ScranBarre]

That was hands-down the most eloquent, thought-provoking, enriching reply I have ever read during my tenure here on City-Data, and I'm one of the "veterans." Thank you for writing so beautifully and for keeping such a level head in this matter. Perhaps my partner and I will see you and your partner someday in a few years milling around Downtown Hartford?

[skytrekker]

I agree Scran about the wonderfully honest and funny post from the gentlemen from north central Indiana.

We are here on the CT forum Jay and ScranBarre to help answer questions about living in greater Hartford.

[Coffeecake]

Jviello, Thank you for your words of clarity. Although it is not politically correct, it is refreshing to hear nevertheless. I can’t add very much to Jviello’s posts, but I do have some minor input.

With regards to Uconn97’s comment stating:

*yawn* Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." Slavery was also once considered ok.

First it should be clarified, that the idea and terms of slavery were quite different in ancient biblical times than how we view it today. When rereading the above quoted verse from (Mathew 18:25) you will find this is in fact in reference to a debt. Very often in biblical times, people would voluntarily give themselves over to “slavery” or service because they owed a debt. It only meant that until their debt was either paid off monetarily (as Paul’s father did) or it was worked off (as such was the case with Jacob) then you could be free of the debt you owed and free of slavery. Furthermore, the Law commanded that a slave could be freed after 7 years of serving as a slave. Slaves were also acquired when the Israelis conquered other civilizations . Families were known to sell members into slavery for money because they were poor. The Bible, although it doesn’t condemn slavery outright, it is very specific about owning slaves and how to handle them. Slaves were to be treated fairly and allowed a day of rest. If their owner mistreated them, the slave could be set free. There were domestic slaves (owned by individual families), state slaves (such as when the Israelites were owned by Egypt) and temple slaves (for temple service). Very often individuals remained years (voluntarily) as a slave since they were often living a better lifestyle than what they could earn on their own.

Jviello is right on the money. Prior to “no fault divorce” couples’ ability to divorce was much more difficult. Although, it could be argued that unhappy couples were forced to stay married, it could also be argued that couples with marital difficulties had to work it out and resolve their differences before opting for a divorce. Another consideration is that prior to the Supreme Courts 1964 ruling whereby prayer was removed from public schools, the divorce rate and teen pregnancy were much lower. Since that ruling, both have steadily increased alarmingly throughout the decades.

As psq34loam pointed out he belongs

"to a church that loves everyone but teaches that homosexual acts are sinful, although certainly not particularly sinful beyond any other sins."

which is very accurate. We (meaning Christians) sometimes forget that no one sin is more sinful than the other (opposed to Catholic beliefs). In the eyes of GOD, adultery, is the same as homosexuality as is the same as lying as is the same as stealing, etc. They are all sins and without repentance (meaning to change the behavior) and accepting Jesus, none of us can get to heaven. (Not my opinion, Jesus said it.) The people on this board that accurately pointed out asking why the church becomes so crazy-nutso over homosexuality and yet turns a blind eye to adultery, out-of wedlock pregnancy, etc. You're so right. It shouldn't be like that. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that State or Federal Legislation should be enacted to legalize a particular behavior.

To also clarify a post from 1979;

And actually, the Bible states nothing about homosexuality per se, because the word had not been invented yet. And during the times of its many translations those "man lying with man" verses were introduced.

In Hebrews 13:4 (in the NT) "Let marriage be kept honorable in every way, and the marriage bed undefiled. For God will judge those who commit sexual sins, especially those who commit adultery." As Jviello pointed out in previous posts the Biblical definition of marriage, the Bible also tells us that GOD doesn't change he is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8). Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven to us that the Biblical translation, which so often comes into question, has remained accurate to original writings throughout the centuries.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

We are here on the CT forum Jay and ScranBarre to help answer questions about living in greater Hartford.

Thanks. I may just take you all up on that offer sometime soon. I'm going to do some more research into opportunities for accountants in and around Hartford. Ideally I'm hoping to snag a position Downtown and then I'd like to live within walking distance in a SAFE neighborhood (there aren't many safe neighborhoods in Hartford proper from what I've been told). The West End of Hartford looks nice, but it probably wouldn't be safe to walk from there to work downtown.

[bibit612]

Scran - I can't help you much with the living arrangements with respect to walking to downtown Hartford. However, if you happen to land a job with Aetna, I would like you to know that they have a very active GLBT organization called ANGLE (Aetna Network of Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Employees) holding various events throughout the year. See page 18 of pdf file below. Best wishes on your possible conversion to being a nutmegger!

http://www.aetna.com/about/aetna/div..._english06.pdf

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Thanks. I may just take you all up on that offer sometime soon. I'm going to do some more research into opportunities for accountants in and around Hartford. Ideally I'm hoping to snag a position Downtown and then I'd like to live within walking distance in a SAFE neighborhood (there aren't many safe neighborhoods in Hartford proper from what I've been told). The West End of Hartford looks nice, but it probably wouldn't be safe to walk from there to work downtown.

The west end has been called Hartford's 'Gay Ghetto' and rightfully so- West Hartford is a short drive into downtown- and is really a nice place to live. With a very sizable gay population. West Hartford is a great place for a gay professional who works in Hartford.

I live over in Tolland county- east of Hartford which has gay people living in condo's and more rural situations. Eastern CT near the RI border has a sizable gay population- towns like Woodstock, Pomfret, Brooklyn and Putnam are Antique and art centers.

Also consider Glastonbury- just across the CT river. Old Wethersfield also has a sizable gay population, both are close to Hartford's business district and financial center.

[Uconn97]

Originally Posted by Coffeecake

Jviello, Thank you for your words of clarity. Although it is not politically correct, it is refreshing to hear nevertheless. I can’t add very much to Jviello’s posts, but I do have some minor input.

With regards to Uconn97’s comment stating:



First it should be clarified, that the idea and terms of slavery were quite different in ancient biblical times than how we view it today. When rereading the above quoted verse from (Mathew 18:25) you will find this is in fact in reference to a debt. Very often in biblical times, people would voluntarily give themselves over to “slavery” or service because they owed a debt. It only meant that until their debt was either paid off monetarily (as Paul’s father did) or it was worked off (as such was the case with Jacob) then you could be free of the debt you owed and free of slavery. Furthermore, the Law commanded that a slave could be freed after 7 years of serving as a slave. Slaves were also acquired when the Israelis conquered other civilizations . Families were known to sell members into slavery for money because they were poor. The Bible, although it doesn’t condemn slavery outright, it is very specific about owning slaves and how to handle them. Slaves were to be treated fairly and allowed a day of rest. If their owner mistreated them, the slave could be set free. There were domestic slaves (owned by individual families), state slaves (such as when the Israelites were owned by Egypt) and temple slaves (for temple service). Very often individuals remained years (voluntarily) as a slave since they were often living a better lifestyle than what they could earn on their own.

and thats not slavery huh? I guess i stand corrected

[kidyankee764]

Rell says she wouldn't vote to stop gay marriage

[Coffeecake]

.....and thats not slavery huh? I guess i stand corrected

I never said that it wasn't slavery. What I said was "the terms and ideas" that we use to define slavery have a different meaning from today's modern definition. In the Bible both types of slavery, voluntary and involuntary, are clearly reflected. However, as I stated, there were Laws one was to abide to when owning a slave, otherwise there would be penalities. Did people abide by them in Biblical times? Of course not. Does that mean GOD encouraged the practice because it was talked about in the Bible. No, it was more a matter of an acknowledgement of the practice but with tight regulations.

Also, consider this...........do you have a credit card with a zero balance? Do you own a house with a mortgage? Is your car paid off? If said no to any of those, then like the rest of us, we are what in ancient times would be considered the classic definition of a slave..........to the bank that is. The only difference is as a slave you'd be living at your Master's house. In this case probably in the guest room of the CEO of Bank of America's house working your debt off. Especially for such a large debt like the one given out for a house or a car. Without knowing it, you are already a slave to the likes of Wells Fargo or Chase Manhattan Bank. If we were living in ancient Jewish society, our debt would be forgiven after 7 years. A 30 year mortgage payment? Now that's slavery!