MERGED--> He became straight + I despise...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by 2861U2


Wow.

Why wow? You have no respect for the fact that homosexuality is a part of who they are. You call it sinful. You claim religion as your reasoning, despite the fact that the Bible never condemned modern homosexuality. You have been misled into bigotry.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Irvine511
why do people make statements they are either unwilling or unable to defend?

seriously.

I think that the contention that homosexuality isn't genetic is defendable based on some lines of evidence, but it would be ignorance to claim that it isn't biologically based.

[yolland]

Originally posted by deep
For you race and "gay" should be treated the same. It is not the law.

Perhaps it should the "Law of Interference"?

I sure hope not.

I don't want my pretend world to not reflect the things in "Real World" that I think should be changed.

Yes, this is more or less why threads on this topic are unlikely to get automatically locked, unless they descend into vulgar diatribe, advocation of violence etc. As public opinion polls will attest, this is very much an active and mainstream debate in the US (and some other posters' countries as well), and we should not shrink from it. Had FYM been around in the days when black people couldn't attend school with white people in some states, or when Jews couldn't hold public office in some states, or when women couldn't vote in some states, then I expect debates as to the acceptability and justifiability of such laws--subject to the same qualifications already mentioned--would have taken place in here, as well. The eventual arrival of various statutory or case laws and constitutional amendments may have had the 'Real World' effect of a on what was left of the "Let the laws stand unchanged" side of those arguments, but no one who's studied the history of the processes behind them could say that the debate, struggle, and mass mobilization of support on both sides preceding those outcomes played no role; that those laws and amendments just fell from the sky one day and magically transformed what was once near-universally accepted as "just" across the country into what was near-universally reviled. And debate happens to be all we can meaingfully achieve in this forum.

That's the argument from reason, anyway. The emotional side of it is something else. It's easy for me as a Jew to shrug off the reality that some people believe that means I'm "going to hell" and don't mind telling me so, because I'm not going to lose my job or my home or the thousand-plus legal benefits protecting my status as support for my family over it...or if for some unexpected reason I did, I'd have the law there to back me up. And legal manifestations aside, I'm not going to get cast out of my family, or be afraid to walk down the street holding my partner's hand, or have to resort to regarding most of the country, much of the media, and a zillion-and-one other local social arenas as no-go zones, should I wish to avoid being constantly marinated in a popular belief that what I am is profoundly shameful, contemptible, and vile. Were those things in fact the case, I'd certainly have a hell of a time convincing myself that there are those who openly endorse various parts of the above, yet somehow "don't mean it in a bad way."

I'm not saying this to demonize or stigmatize--I belong to a denomination myself which currently allows its clerics the option of denying the blessings of marriage to their gay and lesbian congregants (though campaigning for such in the civil sphere is technically forbidden them), as part of a transitional phase which I'm confident will end, and while I accept that some would deem me a bigot and a homophobe and deeply in the wrong for not having abandoned said community, in the end I don't accept that reasoning. I do understand it emotionally though, because I'd have to be blind and deaf and utterly incapable of moral imagination not to recognize the anguish and suffering that results from such beliefs and practices being writ large and pervasive across the state, church, and fabric of society. And I can hear it in Michael Glatze's writings as well--the self-contempt, self-loathing, self-dread and shame (a very different and altogether less worthy emotion than guilt, which is the awareness of having wronged others) damningly intertwined with all the "joy" and "liberation" and "relief." I don't suppose whatever it is that's happening to him is straightforward or simple on any account, and were it not for the fact that his testimony will be--and was intended to be--exploited to spread this anguish and moral schizophrenia to others, I'd be content to simply write it off as one individual's contestable experience of what self-"healing" consists of.

Nonetheless, the debate will inevitably continue until a political end result emerges, and its aftermath attends to the rest.

[martha]

Originally posted by Irvine511
i've smoked some pot, but have never done serious drugs. i'm now in a monogamous relationship that's healthy and happy and both of our families are aware and generally supportive.

i spend most of my week at work, go to the gym, argue in FYM, see movies, travel when i can, read books and listen to music.

:gasp: With a few minor changes, I find I'm leading a gay lifestyle!!

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by anitram


What is there to disagree with? Do you disagree with me being a woman? Or yolland being Jewish? Or Michael Jordan being black?

I don't think it's fair to put religion up there with race and orientation, if a Jewish kid was raised in a completely different environment without any of the cultural connection they wouldn't just invent it. Condemning and arguing against religion is a step aside from race hate and gay bashing. For instance if a Christian takes issue with the "homosexual lifestyle" and miscegenation and cites biblical authority to justify it one could quite rightly attack their beliefs and say that they shouldn't hold them.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Condemning and arguing against religion is a step aside from race hate and gay bashing.

surely, religion is a choice, though.

but we have laws in place that not only defends the right to choose such a "lifestyle," but actively enables some practicioners of such a "lifestyle" the freedom to express their "lifestyle" prejudices in such a way that it infringes upon the freedom of others, that the freedom of others might actually be viewed as a form of discrimination.

[A_Wanderer]

I agree there is more than enough discrimination but the question of their freedom becomes one of speech and property. If it is through public channels (e.g. marraige inequality, lack of government benefits and legal recognition) then it isn't freedom at all, it is state sanctioned bigotry - same goes for supressing support for gay teens etc.. If it is having bigoted counter-protests against a gay parade or not allowing gay kissing in a bar then their freedom of bigotry exists (as a side note there was a case where anti-discrimination law was skirted in victoria to prevent packs of heterosexual of women from going to a particular gay bar, which I agree with).

The thing is that most homophobes are inherently anti-freedom, they may well "disagree with the lifestyle" or "hate the sin" but it doesn't stop there - they have to start using government force against gays.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
(as a side not there was a case where anti-discrimination law was skirted in victoria to prevent packs of heterosexual of women from going to a particular gay bar, which I agree with).

there's a gay club in DC that has a sign out that says something to the effect of, "this is a gay bar run by gay people for gay people and we have the right to refuse anyone for any reason." it's a bit up front, but the intention is to prevent loud, large packs of drunken straight girls, often on bachelorette parties, who treat gay bars like a theme park. one of the ways around this is that they ban anyone from wearing heels with more than 1", which also keeps out the drag queens, and they say it's for safety on the dance floor which is elevated in several places.

i think i support this.

or do i? not sure. i'm not a fan of self-ghettoization, but then i don't like feeling like i'm an exhibit in a petting zoo.

yeah, so, anyway ...

[A_Wanderer]

Positive discrimination, like not letting skinheads into a bar.

If the homophobes just self-ghettoised then everything would be sweet.

[diamond]

Excellent post yolland.

I think this thread should remain open and that we can discourse civilly among each other.

Some people have Judism and being born a certain race confused.
Some people claim that being gay isn't a choice while some gay people such as Irvine admit that it can partially be.

I interact w many ppl, most are straigtht, a few are gay, I even use to have a transvestite friend who I had coffee w almost every morning before he passed a way suddenly one day. We went to a ball game together and I never judged him for who he was, but I felt he was conflicted inside and he admitted to me he was. He was still my friend however. My point is I don't lay awake at night wondering who is going to Heaven or who isn't. I try and be a good person to all people, and know that we all are not perfect and God knows us better than we know ourselves and will judge us based on the circumstances we found ourselves in, and what we did with those circumstances.

I do know for a good portion of my life I was a hedonistic phalander, hurt many many people and know now that lifestyle would be offensible in the sight of God, and after some spiritual experiences, which are too sacred to discuss in a public fourm, I knew it was time for me make a major change in my own lifestyle.
And I did make those changes and glad I did.

So carry on everybody, but please do civilly.

Thanks,

dbs

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond
Some people claim that being gay isn't a choice while some gay people such as Irvine admit that it can partially be.

care to explain? i would love to know what i've admitted.

I do know for a good portion of my life I was a hedonistic phalander, hurt many many people and know now that lifestyle would be offensible in the sight of God, and after some spiritual experiences, which are too sacred to discuss in a public fourm, I knew it was time for me make a major change in my own lifestyle.

it's good that you're no longer a slut. i can see how that could hurt people, though i'm at a loss as to who i've harmed by being gay (other than all the broken straight female hearts i've left in my wake). but can one choose to curb the frequency of one's sexual conquests in the same manner in which one can choose which gender one is attracted to?

[deep]

Originally posted by diamond


I think this thread should remain open and that we can discourse civilly among each other.



I do know for a good portion of my life I was a hedonistic phalander, hurt many many people and know now that lifestyle would be offensible in the sight of God, and after some spiritual experiences, which are too sacred to discuss in a public fourm, I knew it was time for me make a major change in my own lifestyle.
And I did make those changes and glad I did.

So carry on everybody, but please do civilly.

Thanks,

dbs

It is not reasonable to equate or project your own personal past behavior on others.

Because a certain thing you choose to do, may work for you,

does not mean everyones experience is the same as yours and they need to follow your example.




I have not had to modify my behavior,
or make any major chances in my own lifestyle.

I might feel conflicted
if I told everyone else how to live.

[diamond]

Originally posted by Irvine511








the argument that homosexuality is *solely* genetic is debatable,

[Irvine511]

^ honey, you're wildly reading into things.

where is the word "choice" in the above?

i have said, repeatedly, and intentionally, that sexual orientation is 100% involuntary.

[deep]

*solely*


that means only,
so other things may contribute to genetic

are you grasping?


the whole tone of the thread has been very disappointing to me


But, I knew it was projection.

[diamond]

Originally posted by deep


It is not reasonable to equate or project your own personal past behavior on others.

Because a certain thing you choose to do, may work for you,

does not mean everyones experience is the same as yours and they need to follow your example.




I have not had to modify my behavior,
or make any major chances in my own lifestyle.

I might feel conflicted
if I told everyone else how to live.

But you claim not to believe in God.

Anyway back to the point-


When I lived as a hedonist, I felt unhappy and didn't judge anyone nor do I did I tell ppl how to live.

I now live a different lifestyle, no longer feel conflicted still do not judge ppl, nor tell ppl how to live.


I did however post an artcle about a fellow who changed his lifestyle and his name is Michael Glatze.

dbs

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by deep


the whole tone of the thread has been very disappointing to me

My disappointment began with the first line of the article that began the thread, "Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak."

And it went downhill from there.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond

I did however post an artcle about a fellow who changed his lifestyle and his name is Michael Glatze.

i agree.

Michael Glatze changed his lifestyle.

but he did not change his sexual orientation, no matter how much gay shame he confesses.

the poor thing. i consider him a victim of Christian abuse.

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by diamond


I did however post an artcle about a fellow who changed his lifestyle and his name is Michael Glatze.

dbs

Then the title of the thread should have been "He changed his lifestyle" rather than "He became straight."



edited to add: didn't see Irvine's similar post.

[deep]

Originally posted by diamond


But you claim not to believe in God.

I don't know
or really care that much


I do care how I behave
and how people are treated


I want to leave a better world for your children
and for us, while we are here