Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I apologize. Love between two consenting adults is what I meant. However, that just didn't sound as eloquent.
Same sex relationships are not creepy. If you find them creepy - the problem is within you. Perhaps there are some issues that you need to work out. Some of my closest friends and family members are gay. They are some of the best people that I know. And they have some of the most loving, wonderful relationships. If you are already prejudiced against something - then you will see what you want to see.
Obviously to you it is a religious issue, but come on, homosexuals are not any more defective or abnormal than left handed people are.
Being left-handed is abnormal. Is it defective? I don't know, but certainly people have thought that. The idea that people should express being left-handed, rather than learn to be right-handed, is something I support but I don't know that I can totally prove I'm right. Or that people who believe left-handers should learn to do things with their right-hand should be castigated.
I'm basically left-handed, but I had enough arm fractures I can use both hands. I type mostly with my right-hand as my left has some weakness due to my last arm fracture.
Still I think left/right hand doesn't get into concepts of gender and morality as sexuality does. Until quite recent times even secular ways of thinking (Freud, Ayn Rand, etc) tended to consider homosexuality to be disordered in some way. Modern psychology shows that it doesn't make one dysfunctional or a danger to themselves and others, but the idea that everyone must embrace that standard and that 40 years can or should overthrow many centuries overnight is a tad unrealistic. Logical rational people may work that way, but for the 90% of us who aren't that there's a reluctance to just throw values away with every new study.
Being left-handed is abnormal. Is it defective? I don't know, but certainly people have thought that. The idea that people should express being left-handed, rather than learn to be right-handed, is something I support but I don't know that I can totally prove I'm right. Or that people who believe left-handers should learn to do things with their right-hand should be castigated.
I'm basically left-handed, but I had enough arm fractures I can use both hands. I type mostly with my right-hand as my left has some weakness due to my last arm fracture.
Still I think left/right hand doesn't get into concepts of gender and morality as sexuality does. Until quite recent times even secular ways of thinking (Freud, Ayn Rand, etc) tended to consider homosexuality to be disordered in some way. Modern psychology shows that it doesn't make one dysfunctional or a danger to themselves and others, but the idea that everyone must embrace that standard and that 40 years can or should overthrow many centuries overnight is a tad unrealistic. Logical rational people may work that way, but for the 90% of us who aren't that there's a reluctance to just throw values away with every new study.
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
I don't care what you call it......as long as I have equal rights....therefore it is a civil rights issue and we are disagreeing on semantics.
I've been with my partner nearly 28 years and just want the same rights and respect many people take for granted; but to me these "marriage rights" mean a lot......over 1,000 by last count..
I don't care what you call it......as long as I have equal rights....therefore it is a civil rights issue and we are disagreeing on semantics.
I've been with my partner nearly 28 years and just want the same rights and respect many people take for granted; but to me these "marriage rights" mean a lot......over 1,000 by last count..
I agree. It doesn't matter what it is called. I'm not religious and I was allowed to get married. I would have no problem if they changed the name to civil unions or whatever for everyone that wasn't religious - as long as we all had the same rights.
The hubby is convinced that by the time our children (who haven't been born yet) are grown - gays will be allowed to get married. I really hope this is the case. Especially since the gay is strong in my family and I wouldn't be surprised if one of my children was gay!
I agree. It doesn't matter what it is called. I'm not religious and I was allowed to get married. I would have no problem if they changed the name to civil unions or whatever for everyone that wasn't religious - as long as we all had the same rights. The hubby is convinced that by the time our children (who haven't been born yet) are grown - gays will be allowed to get married. I really hope this is the case. Especially since the gay is strong in my family and I wouldn't be surprised if one of my children was gay!
I would be extremely surprised if it isn't the case.
Every year, there is turnover in the electorate as people die and other people turn 18 years old. The average age of those dying is above 60, and they were raised in a time when few gays were out, when homosexuality was marginalized everywhere, and when it was still considered an illness my mainstream science. However, those turning 18 have grown up seeing far more people out, both in their personal lives and in the media. They are accustomed to the fact that gays get married in several states. They were born long after the medical profession concluded that homosexuality is not a disorder but a natural state of being.
The clock is simply running out on laws against gay marriage.
Also, consider this:
Support for same-sex marriage currently polls over 40%. A year after the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriages, support for interracial marriages was less than half where support for same-sex marriage is now (Gallup polled the public at 20% on the issue in 1968).
Within the decade, we will likely see a similar Supreme Court decision which decides the issue once and for all. As it is now, there are probably five votes in favor of striking down all laws prohibiting gay marriage (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan) and I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a sixth (Roberts).
Some states will hate it as much as they hated Loving v. Virginia (1967), which forced them to allow and recognize interracial marriages.
Actually, if one wants to be Gay and a Christian, well, it's mutually exclusive, at least to anyone who believes the Bible. The Bible is pretty clear. Homosexual is an "Abomination" and no matter how one chooses to define abomination . . . it ain't another meaning for "Good thing. So essentially: If you are a Christian and believe Homosexuality is perfectly good and fine . .then you're ignoring what the Bible says. Which essentially means we're picking and choosing what we want to believe, so heck, might as well put a white cap on an opossum and give it a septre and kneel down before it if we're gonna just ignore the rules we don't like . . .we ain't s'posed to do that.
"Gay Christian Clergy" simply doesn't exist. Just a group of folks who co-opped the title and happen to use some of the rules they don't find too objectionable. My personal opinion is that "Gay" is a defect, be it biological or psychological. Do I believe in persecuting all people who are defective? No, I don't. On the other hand, I don't want my kids being taught that "Gay is perfectly normal and there is nothing wrong with it." It's not "normal" even if it is common.
I'm not intolerant. I tolerate homosexuals. But I tolerate Democrats too. Often one in the same.
The Biblical texts are rather clear that sacred male and female shrine prostitutes worshipping the Canaanite fertility gods are condemned, (qadesh and qadesha). The KJV version used the word "sodomites" in Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 22:46, 1 Kings 15:12, and 2 Kings 23:7 when translating the Hebrew word "qadesh". Later versions used the more correct translation of male shrine prostitutes.
Leviticus 18:22 comes directly after a verse "Do not give any of thy children to be consecrated to the idol Moloch" (Canaanite god) and before a verse about having sex with animals - a practice used by the Egyptians in worshipping fertility gods. These are idolatrous practices. The Hebrew word to'evah (translated as abomination) was often used in the context of idolatry.
Philo of Alexandra (a contempory of Paul) discussed Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17 as referring to shrine prostitution.
In 1 Romans, Paul also refers to those who had reverted back to using sex in idolatrous worshipping practices. (eg read up on the Roman fertilty goddess Cybele or the Greek fertility goddess Aphrodite - worshipped in Corinth at the time Paul wrote 1 Romans)
For those who think Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuals - read Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
and
Luke 10:10 -12 "But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." Jesus then goes on to tell the story of the Good Samaritan.
Judges 19 - where there is similiar story to that of Lot protecting the strangers under his roof. In this story of the Levite, a gang of men threatened to rape the Levite stranger but ended up raping his female concubine all night.
and
"Historically, the rape of males was more widely recognized in ancient times. Several of the legends in Greek mythology involved abductions and sexual assaults of males by other males or gods. The rape of a defeated male enemy was considered the special right of the victorious soldier in some societies and was a signal of the totality of the defeat. There was a widespread belief that a male who was sexually penetrated, even if it was by forced sexual assault, thus "lost his manhood," and could no longer be a warrior or ruler. Gang rape of a male was considered an ultimate form of punishment and, as such, was known to the Romans as punishment for adultery and the Persians and Iranians as punishment for violation of the sanctity of the harem (Donaldson, 1990)."
So perhaps it's only really using male/male sex practices in the context of idolatrous worship of fertility gods, or rape of strangers, that was being referred to by the biblical writers.
Neither of these practices are specific to male homosexuals. Male shrine prostitutes were not necessarily homosexual and may also have had ritual sex with women. Straight men using rape of other men to humilate and dominate them has occurred all throughout history and still goes on in places like prison or in war. It does not make these men homosexuals.
And there is no reference at all to lesbians in the Bible (although the story of Ruth and Naomi is rather suspect ). The scripture often used against lesbians is Paul's 1st letter to the Romans. However Paul does not actually state that women were having sex with each other - most people just read that into the text. During ritual sex practices in temples to fertility gods, women also penetrated men with phalluses for example - which would be considered an "unnatural" role for women in a patriarchal culture.
So maybe it's just male temple prostitution, ritual sex practice in temples to the Canaanite or Roman fertility gods and male rape that is condemned. But these practices hardly describe homosexuality in general, or homosexuals in the 21st century.
With all due respect, love is not just love. We create, on a daily basis, barriers or limits, which must be set in order to maintain a civilized society. For example, in the history of serious pedophilic addictions, perpetrators of molestation often claimed that they were very much in love with their victim or partner.
Love is actually a multi-defined emotion loosely used in today's society, to describe ones sense of attraction to another. This is often intertwined with sexual attraction which is the primary reason why limits must be set. As in my previous example of pedophilic addiction, if a 45 year old man claimed to be 'in love' with a 14 year old girl, and has expressed that love through physical means, in the public eye, even if the the act was consentual, the public outrage would reflect a concern for something far beyond the obvious fact that the action was illegal.
The man, and the behavior would, in addition, be considered perverse or, in a word, 'creepy'. If we strictly adhere simply to the definition that 'love is love', legal parameters should not play a part, because the emotion and the behavior is strictly involuntary, but on the contrary, as we well know, it is very controllable and equally voluntary, which allows us to dismiss or subdue unusual affections on a daily basis.
We live in a very highly sexualized society which is slowly shedding itself of sexual boundaries. Sexting (the act of sending nude pictures via cellphone), pornography sites, (glorified legal exhibitionism), and the controversial NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) which seeks to eliminate the age of consent, are only a few symptoms indicating that the nation has become somewhat morally challenged.
To simply conclude that 'love' is the culprit, would be to burry ones head in the sands of naivety. This is the reason why 'love' is not an acceptable argument when substantiating homosexual attraction, and in fair tolerance to the masses who are still quite uncomfortable with these types of relationships, 'creepy' still reflects the way a large number of people rightfully characterize same sex relationships.
Bringing up pedophilia in the same context as homosexuality....is creepy.
While "fixated" pedophiles are generally ONLY attracted to children (of either sex) and NOT adults, "regressed" pedophiles usually have an adult sexual orientation but sexually abuse children, both boys and girls, in a more opportunistic way as a substitute for sex with an adult woman.
According to most studies in this field, as well as surveys of child molestors, most men who sexually abuse children (either boys or girls) are heterosexual.
(see studies by reseachers like A. Nicholas Groth, Carole Jenny etc)
"Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine.
....
The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships isheterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male."A. Nicholas Groth
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
). The scripture often used against lesbians is Paul's 1st letter to the Romans. However Paul does not actually state that women were having sex with each other - most people just read that into the text. During ritual sex practices in temples to fertility gods, women also penetrated men with phalluses for example - which would be considered an "unnatural" role for women in a patriarchal culture.