interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:



question for you: what if you were gay? what if one of your children is gay? how would this affect your moral/spiritual convictions?

Ultimately, it is impossible for me to answer. I would hope that regardless of any circumstance I find myself in – that I would still seek a close relationship with Christ; and that as I grew closer to Him the answer of what He wants (as opposed to what I want) would become obvious.
 
Last edited:
AEON said:


I would be happiest with a wonderful, heterosexual marriage for both of my kids. I do no think I am being extreme to hope for such a thing.

Of course I want my children to be happy instead of unhappy. But I think we may disagree with what genuine happiness is. I usually think of it as joy, and IMHO - deep internal joy can only be experienced while a soul is in communion with God (that is, doing God's will).

This truly saddens me.

AEON said:


Because I am not a homosexual, I can only base my opinions on what I read and observe. Actually, I think this makes me more objective on this issue.


:lol: :|
 
AEON said:


I would be happiest with a wonderful, heterosexual marriage for both of my kids. I do no think I am being extreme to hope for such a thing.


not at all -- i think this is what most parents want, but i also think that most parents want their child to be happy and authentic first, and then the happy marriage (gay or straight) will then follow.


[q]Of course I want my children to be happy instead of unhappy. But I think we may disagree with what genuine happiness is. I usually think of it as joy, and IMHO - deep internal joy can only be experienced while a soul is in communion with God (that is, doing God's will).[/q]

do you see this as incompatible with being gay?


She was still my aunt, she was still cool, and she still had a great sense of humor. After a few years, she came to Christ and left the woman. Now she lives with her sister and seems to be very happy.

i am happy that your aunt is happy, and was able to escape an abusive relationship, but did Christ make her leave the woman?

that doesn't seem very Christian to me -- can you imagine Jesus saying, "it's either me, or this woman you love."
 
I hope that the scientific discussion could continue in an open manner. There seem to be a number of theories, covering a span of influences or possible “causes” available for discussion.

The genetic component is interesting, but presents a logical challenge. It would seem to be a reasonable assumption to say that those with a homosexual gene would reproduce at a lower rate than those without a homosexual gene. Just by the sheer passage of time over the generations, this factor alone should show a substantial decrease in homosexuality if it is to be based on genetic factors alone.

The biological component from the recent study is also interesting; though I’m not sure anyone has really tested the study and its conclusions. As a couple has more children, it appears that the chance of having a son who is homosexual increases (though the study does not state how they identify a son as homosexual – nor how you measure sexual orientation other than self selection). On this basis, a survey of large families or groups that tend to have larger families would have far higher incidents of having sons who are homosexuals. For example, you should see far higher occurrences of homosexuality among groups in South America, Africa, India or the Pacific Rim (larger families/increasing population) and lower incidents in areas of Europe (where there are smaller families/decreasing population). I am sure there are other ways to identify groups that tend to have larger families.

The areas spoken of here the least include environmental factors and behavior choice. We know there are people who identify themselves as bi-sexual. It would seem in these incidents that choice is the overriding factor. Bisexuality covers a wide range from the incidental to near exclusive same sex relations. I think we understate the broad notion of choice or our ability to control our own actions.

Bottom line – should any of this really matter in our response? There are political and legal implications if the arguments are taken to conclusion, but we need not get there to define our own individual interpersonal behavior.
 
Irvine511 said:


not at all -- i think this is what most parents want, but i also think that most parents want their child to be happy and authentic first, and then the happy marriage (gay or straight) will then follow.


[q]Of course I want my children to be happy instead of unhappy. But I think we may disagree with what genuine happiness is. I usually think of it as joy, and IMHO - deep internal joy can only be experienced while a soul is in communion with God (that is, doing God's will).[/q]

do you see this as incompatible with being gay?

I already shared my interpretation of the Bible’s stance on homosexuality fairly extensively. Basically, here is where we must “agree to disagree.” Do I believe you can be a homosexual and be a Christian? Absolutely yes! Being a Christian only requires genuine faith in Jesus Christ. Do I believe that homosexuals are in step with God’s will regarding sexual behavior – I personally do not think so. However, it is not my place to actually condemn anybody. So, my advice to any homosexual Christian would be to focus on Christ and do your best to submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Wherever that leads – it leads.

Irvine511 said:

i am happy that your aunt is happy, and was able to escape an abusive relationship, but did Christ make her leave the woman?

that doesn't seem very Christian to me -- can you imagine Jesus saying, "it's either me, or this woman you love."

I wouldn’t say that Christ made her leave the woman. I think she probably left her for several reasons, including the fact she probably needed time to be “relationship free.” However, Christ does ask us to put Him first, and we should be willing to set aside ANY of our own wants and desires (whatever they may be) in order to do His will.
 
Last edited:
AEON said:

However, Christ does ask us to put Him first, and we should be willing to aside ANY of our own wants and desires (whatever they may be) in order to do His will.

While debate is good, and debate is great, this quote is exactly why these debates will never be settled or resolved. Christians, Muslims and all other religious groups that condemn homosexuality will ALWAYS fall back on their faith, their God and the teachings of said god as justification for their views in asking homosexuals to deny their sexuality. In my experience I haven't ever seen it be any other way.

So all I can speak from, and the only evidence I could ever bring is what I know from my own day to day life, and what I've known stemming from when I was 5 years old and only growing stronger and more assured as I grew older, and that is: sexual physiological, chemical, and emotional responses happen to me in relation to men only, and never to women. Whether it's genetic, environmental, sub-conscious, I don't know and I don't care. It's moot. To me my sexual orientation is as much a part of me as breathing, getting thirsty, sweating, feeling jubilant or sad, yawning, itching, etc.

I don't question it. I only question those who attack me and ask me to deny and give up something that is so instinctual and ingrained in myself, that if not for that part of me, I would not be me.

And if some don't like me, then they don't have to know me or have me in their life. I'm not hurting them, I'm not insulting them, I'm not attacking them. I'm just trying to live my life as best and happy as I can.
 
AEON said:


Eloquent response.

I really do not believe that everyone who opposes gay marriage is necessarily "homophobic." The word is really becoming meaningless by its overuse. (not because it is losing importance, but because it is losing "meaning")

While I was not the author of the article and do not agree with it entirely - I thought several reasonable points were made.

Eloquent? You know where you can shove that, mate. This is far more important than politeness. The most giving I have heard agressive Christians get on this is to 'admit' civil unions could be acceptable, but not through the Church, as they're allowed. And you know, fuck that. And anyone who agrees. If the bible had mumbled about 2 other individuals not being allowed to marry, it would be bigotry in race. This is bigotry in sexuality. If church types cannot see that, then pity the fools. It is a major ugly aspect of the church which keep many from following.
 
And yet, the irony is that the only place a gay couple could get married is in the religious sense, rather than the legal sense.

Melon
 
Angela Harlem said:

And you know, fuck that. And anyone who agrees.

It is rather difficult to understand your actual point of view. This is a classic bully tactic to try and intimidate people into accepting that they must be an intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist, homophobe for disagreeing with you. I assure you - I am none of those things.

Is there no room for opposing views here? Must we all blindly agree with you so that we can avoid this sort of blasting? I sure hope not.

You are passionate about your views, I can appreciate that. But I think we could all agree that very little can be accomplished through insults.
 
All I can say is.....

If a few miles did not keep us apart Angie....I would kiss your Outback Special!

HEHEE:wink:
 
FitzChivalry said:



So all I can speak from, and the only evidence I could ever bring is what I know from my own day to day life, and what I've known stemming from when I was 5 years old and only growing stronger and more assured as I grew older, and that is: sexual physiological, chemical, and emotional responses happen to me in relation to men only, and never to women. Whether it's genetic, environmental, sub-conscious, I don't know and I don't care. It's moot. To me my sexual orientation is as much a part of me as breathing, getting thirsty, sweating, feeling jubilant or sad, yawning, itching, etc.

Thanks for sharing this. It really helps me understand your point of view.
 
AEON said:
But I think we could all agree that very little can be accomplished through insults.

You do not feel you have been insulting?:huh:

Maybe the slave master was more objective about slavery too....
 
[Q]The second majority opinion, written by Judge Victoria A. Graffeo, a Pataki appointee, upheld the Smith opinion but seemed to distance itself from its sociological arguments that the purpose of the marriage law was to promote families with children.

"Marriage can and does serve individual interests that extend well beyond creating an environment conducive to procreation and child-rearing," Judge Graffeo said, in a 22-page concurrence.

She exhorted the Legislature to take up the issue, saying, "It may well be that the time has come for the Legislature to address the needs of same-sex couples and their families, and to consider granting these individuals additional benefits through marriage or whatever status the Legislature deems appropriate."[/Q]

Of the parts I read...I thought this made the most sense....

But damn...they are not very decisive if this is th majority opinion.
 
AEON said:


It is rather difficult to understand your actual point of view. This is a classic bully tactic to try and intimidate people into accepting that they must be an intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist, homophobe for disagreeing with you. I assure you - I am none of those things.

Is there no room for opposing views here? Must we all blindly agree with you so that we can avoid this sort of blasting? I sure hope not.

You are passionate about your views, I can appreciate that. But I think we could all agree that very little can be accomplished through insults.


What's difficult to understand? My actual point of view is plain and simply what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are worthy of marriage and blessings, then so should everyone. This denial of a basic right enjoyed by the majority IS inequality. It IS bigotry. It is denial of something based on one element. Christians stumble continually over their own tangled web, here. It is denied because God wishes it as it was stated through the bible, yet then in the next breath a Christian will cry it is improper (and impossible) to know God' will. If you lot cannot make up your own minds on what word of God you can and cannot interpret, then be it on yours. Your views ARE offensive, do you know that? Every gay and lesbian is on the outside looking in because of a doctrine of your church. Does that mkae you feel you are following in the hallowed steps of Christ? Does it make you feel giving and welcoming and accepting of EVERYONE? Stop questioning me, mate. I believe in equality for ALL in every sense of the word. Start questioning yourself and your church.
 
Angela Harlem said:

Your views ARE offensive, do you know that?
.

I actually do not see how they are offensive, but you do assert that you are indeed offended - and for that I sincerely apologize. My goal is not to offend, but to simply propose to those that read and post here that there are Christians, biologist, psychologists, psychiatrists, historians, and scholars who have educated opinions regarding this topic that are different than the ones you are proposing.

There are many people torn apart internally over these questions. Yes, I am one of them because I do have what I consider truth in one hand, and in the other hand I have emotions that contradict that truth. However, if A is True, then A Cannot Be Not True at the same time. It is the Law of Non-Contradiction. We cannot even have an intelligent conversation if we cannot accept logic as ground rule. Regardless of what my emotions tell me, I have to accept what I consider true. Emotions can be very deceptive. They are especially good at clouding judgment and reason, especially when it comes to morality. When emotion reigns - we can find a justification for anything we want to do.

Again, I do apologize that you are offended. I hope that we can still have a rational dialogue over this issue.
 
Irvine511 said:

please, show me the scientific evidence that says that people can change their sexual orientations.

I'm thought I was going to sit this one out but I do have to ask this. And I ask you because 1) I don't know the answer and 2) I enjoy conversing with you even if we don't agree.

Here's the question. What is the explanation for otherwise heterosexual men and women turning to homosexuality while in prison? What is the difference between homosexual behavior and orientation in 25 words or less?
 
INDY500 said:


Here's the question. What is the explanation for otherwise heterosexual men and women turning to homosexuality while in prison?

Homosexuality in prison is more about power than it is sexuality.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Homosexuality in prison is more about power than it is sexuality.

But you are conceding, that at least SOME forms of homosexual behavior is a choice - correct?

How are we then to differentiate when homosexual behavior is about power from when it is about sexuality?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Homosexuality in prison is more about power than it is sexuality.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. We are talking about violent and dominating people. And prisons have their own hierarchy for sure. But isn't there also the sex of companionship in prison? When self- pleasure or abstinence isn't satisfactory. Think MIDNIGHT EXPRESS if you've seen that movie.
 
Angela Harlem said:
Eloquent? You know where you can shove that, mate. This is far more important than politeness. The most giving I have heard agressive Christians get on this is to 'admit' civil unions could be acceptable, but not through the Church, as they're allowed. And you know, fuck that. And anyone who agrees.
Please tone down the rhetoric a bit, Angela. This kind of argument isn't likely to inspire anyone to be more self-critical, nor is it going to move the discussion (which is all any of this is) forward very much. Thanks.
 
AEON said:


But you are conceding, that at least SOME forms of homosexual behavior is a choice - correct?

How are we then to differentiate when homosexual behavior is about power from when it is about sexuality?

Does it matter...

They aren't doing it to you correct?
 
INDY500 said:
But isn't there also the sex of companionship in prison? When self- pleasure or abstinence isn't satisfactory. Think MIDNIGHT EXPRESS if you've seen that movie.
Heterosexuality doesn't imply an absolute inability to "make do" with someone of the same sex, nor does homosexuality imply an inability to make do with someone of the opposite. Plenty of gay men and lesbians have had mutually unsatisfying, but nonetheless physically "functional" enough, heterosexual intimate relationships in their past. That doesn't mean in either case that the "sex of companionship" is the ideal or healthiest form of intimate relationship for those trying to get by with it.
 
Uhh, could it be that the people in prison are so desperate for sex and some sort of companionship that they resort to whatever is available to them?

Actually engaging in sexual behavior is a choice (unless you're forced, obviously). The IMPULSE is not your choice. So...I'm not sure what the prison arguement has to do with proving homosexuality is a choice. Yes, it's your choice who you have sex with, but it's not your choice who you want to have sex with, or who you fall in love with. You can hardly compare someone who is in prison for years and longing for some form of a sexual relationship to someone who has been attracted to members of the same sex his or her entire life.
 
Dreadsox said:


Does it matter...

They aren't doing it to you correct?

Well, this is actually another discussion, but I'll take the bait.

Everything we do has an effect not only on ourselves, but on others. We may not always see the connections; however, they certainly exist and almost always reveal themselves over time in some fashion or another.

The age old saying: "No Man Is an Island unto Himself" - is very true. That is why I believe that in their very essence, objective moral laws are NOT about denying pleasure, but about keeping us from hurting ourselves and each other.
 
A fairly recent publication on the topic is in the American Psychological Association's June 2002 issue of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays."

This article summarizes 11 studies and concludes: "My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others."

“Clearly, to claim that there is "no evidence of successful sexual orientation change" is to be either grossly uninformed or in a state of denial. Reparative therapy has not been discredited. It has simply fallen out of favor since the 1973 vote by the board of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its official encyclopedia of mental disorders. The research hasn't been disproved; it has simply been disenfranchised by the political correctness of the times.”
 
yolland said:
Just for the record, Throckmorton is a conservative Christian college psych prof specializing in sexual reorientation therapy, so his is not a disinterested perspective on the subject either.

Does that necessarily discredit the research that was published by the APA? Your statement is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.
 
Last edited:
AEON said:
.

I actually do not see how they are offensive, but you do assert that you are indeed offended - and for that I sincerely apologize. My goal is not to offend, but to simply propose to those that read and post here that there are Christians, biologist, psychologists, psychiatrists, historians, and scholars who have educated opinions regarding this topic that are different than the ones you are proposing.

There are many people torn apart internally over these questions. Yes, I am one of them because I do have what I consider truth in one hand, and in the other hand I have emotions that contradict that truth. However, if A is True, then A Cannot Be Not True at the same time. It is the Law of Non-Contradiction. We cannot even have an intelligent conversation if we cannot accept logic as ground rule. Regardless of what my emotions tell me, I have to accept what I consider true. Emotions can be very deceptive. They are especially good at clouding judgment and reason, especially when it comes to morality. When emotion reigns - we can find a justification for anything we want to do.

Again, I do apologize that you are offended. I hope that we can still have a rational dialogue over this issue.

Glad we can resort to a rational dialogue. :) It's a funny dynamic, these debates. We have one side saying "look at what this does to an entire section of the community" and others who say "look at what you're calling me, based on my beliefs!" Which kind of mirrors yolland here's comment on my comment. Peopole say this is a big difference between Americans and Australians, as an aside. We can talk generally like this and not bat an eye, but you lot are more reserved. Anyway. I dont mean to offend you, by saying Christianity is bigoted, and I'm sure there is a politer way to say "fuck that". Either way, these debates leave me at my wits end with patience. Your calling it a truth is interesting. At the start, when you got into all this religion caper, did it not raise a little flag to you? That love and acceptance has to mean for all equally? If you look at what Jesus (supposedly) lived to teach (all well and good, by the way), does that mesh with not allowing gay men and women into your church to be married before God? They're His children, too, right? I'm sure if there's a God, then He knows exactly what he's doing. I reckon if it were an absolute no-no, it'd be more clear than some vague mentionings of in a 2000+ year old book. The church itself is a huge institution built on a relatively small rulebook. I'm sure before Jesus and his buddies there was a lot people based their beliefs on. Now I'm sidetracking. I dont really give a squat for the history, to be honest.

I find it curious you dont see how this can be offensive? You're saying to a section of the community "I love you as I'm supposed to, but due to your sins, I can't allow you to live as freely as I do and you therefore either need to become hetero or just deal with it." You think that sits well? This is a trait that is unchangeable and not chosen. It cannot be chosen. I cannot name a single person who chose their sexuality. Do you? Honestly? Know anyone who did, I mean. It's saying to gay people that you cannot accept them as they are, that they have to change or be destined to live with a restricted lovelife. Do you really think Jesus and a fair and just God see it the same way? I cannot see it. This is logic. Surely.
 
I'm sorry. "Ex-gays" are a pseudoscience. AEON, I don't know why you're busy trying to defend a blatant fallacy. Do you remember when you described how embarrassing it was for Christians to do expeditions to find Noah's Ark? This is on similar footing, if you ask me.

This has absolutely no bearing on actual science, and, like the ID pseudoscience, it's about propping up original religious ideas with specious "evidence." The "ex-gay" movement is a mixture of religion with pseudoscience with semantics. Their idea of "success"--which is only 30%, according to them--is to convince a gay person to live celibately or to convince a bisexual to be with a woman. No one else would rationally define this as "conversion."

It's actions like these that discredit Christians in the eyes of anyone left of Jerry Falwell.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom