MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melon,

1st...offending you or anyone was not my intent. I am not walking in your shoes, and I would hope that you know I would not go out of my way to offend you.

2nd I would say that I agree that homosexuals can live fulfilling lives, as my Aunt has done for the past 25 years providing me with the ONLY stable model to base my marriage on.

3rd I do NOT think that this man's experience is invalidated by the 33% success rate. it is HIS experence, and not necessarily EVERYONES experience.

Finally, go get the book by SPONG. it is well worth the read.
 
martha said:
I was going to answer it, but I couldn't without using naughty words.

FYM Martha...

Even though I agree with you on the topic.....there are other points of view. We may not agree with them, but, they can be discussed.

Peace
 
Dreadsox said:
3rd I do NOT think that this man's experience is invalidated by the 33% success rate. it is HIS experence, and not necessarily EVERYONES experience.

I also tend to suspect that the entire story is a fabrication. After all, the end justifies the means...

Melon
 
melon said:


I also tend to suspect that the entire story is a fabrication. After all, the end justifies the means...

Melon

I was wondering about that after I read your post....I would hope it was not.

Peace
 
I wonder how much of this minister's "change" came about due to the church's rejection of homosexuals. The desire to fit in, especially for a career and family can make some people do some crazy things. That's why I have a hard time reading stories like this because it just makes me wonder. I mean so many of us never had to deal with questioning our sexuallity because it fell into the box of norm.
 
Last edited:
or perhaps the minister is simply bisexual, which is why he is able to have a fulfilling relationship with his wife.
As melon is, I'm skeptical as to whether or not the story is real. Both sides of all sorts of issues like to make up fake stories to try to "prove" their point.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I wonder how much of this minister's "change" came about due to the church's rejection of homosexuals. The desire to fit in, especially for a career and family can make some people do some crazy things. That's why I have a hard time reading stories like this because it just makes me wonder. I mean so many of us never had to deal with questioning our sexuallity because it fell into the box of norm.

Exactly. That, and I'm sorry, but I just find it really hard to believe we can choose who we fall in love with. Can any of us straight people force ourselves to start liking someone of the same gender?

Every homosexual I've come in contact with has said that they did not choose to be this way. I believe them.

And besides, even if it is a choice...so what? It's not hurting anybody else, is it? So people should just leave them alone and quit trying to change them. Straight people wouldn't like it if somebody tried to change them, so why do they insist on doing it to gay people?

Angela
 
melon said:


How is it *any* of your right to decide that either of these groups are implicitly "deficient" and thus need "treatment"? First off, you can't treat Down's Syndrome. It exists, and there's nothing that can be done.

You know what is natural? Left-handedness. And for centuries, it was looked at negatively. How *dare* people try and use their left hand in a right-handed world? And that's the equivalent I see to being gay--a left hand. If it weren't for straight society's obsessive compulsiveness on their self-defined standards of "perfection," then they'd realize that it means absolutely nothing to them.

Maybe you all need "treatment" instead.

Melon

You know what the funny thing is, is that I was originally going to throw in a commnet at the end of that post which more or less said the final question that needs to be answered is whether homosexuality is a aberation harmless like left-handedness or not. That cannot be said at the moment. There's simply not enough data. Not enough research has been done to definitely say that the increased rate of suicide and depression is purely the result of homophobia. Homosexuality is such a complicated condition from what I've seen in the research that to make blanket statements over the entire condition is useless. It is a mixture of genetic, biological, environmental and psychological factors, none of which seem to be consistent. I find the notion that certain homosexuals feel same sex attraction due to pyschological trauma to be a well supported one. I can think of a case in my dad's first pastorate. Two women who had abusive relationships with their fathers, one of whom was sexually abused, and subsequently had abusive marriages, who then turned to eachother. While I cannot comment on genetic factors, it does seem fairly evident that environmental factors played a significant part in creating the same sex attraction which lead to the eventual decision to have a homsexual relationship. This is a different case from someone who was never abused, had a normal upbringing and always new they preferred the same sex. That is where I'm more than willing to accept the majority genetic biological argument, but in the case of someone like these women isn't then the homosexual behaviour is a symptom of the abuse and a way of isolated ones self from it, and thus counterproductive to solving the root problem. They're free to live that way if they wish but I can't see how that's a healthy state to be acting on contradiction to ones native sexual orientation as a way of surpressing a trauma.

And liekI say this is just one case and no two are similar, which is why I find blanket statements that homsexuality is perfectly healthy as well as that it is completely unhealthy to be both equally wrong. It is a much too complicated phenomenon for that and too little is known about it. Until all forms of homosexuality are studied and the effects of this aberant form of sexual desire are fully appreciated I don't think blanket statements are appropriate.

What I can say about my beliefs is that I feel that to go against ones native sexuality is harmful to ones self and that is why it is sin. With heterosexuality being the norm for humanity (for all but around 5-10%) then the blanket statement of scripture makes sense especially in the context of no one in that time knowing of any possibility that homosexuality could be an individual's sexual orientation. I don't consider it a significant sin for a number of reasons. First it is mentioned very little (about 5 verses in total) and never by Christ. Second, it is a sin which only affects a single individual directly. Homophobia may couase its effects to spread further but that is a result of different sins. Finally it is a sin specific in most instances to a small percentage of humanity under a specific set of circcumstances. For them I do belive that in a lot of cases it may be better for them to live in this sin than to harm them by making "corrective efforts" which likely will not succeed. God is merciful. Furthermore I look to Paul's words "it is better to marry than to burn in lust." If it is not possible to remove these feelings then it is better to form a relationship than to be constantly tempted to other sinful actions like promiscuous sex and to be in personal torment for your whole life. It is an inevitable quality of a sinful world that in many cases we are forced to make the decisions which are better as opposed to what is best as the best id often not possible. And God being meriful takes these things into account.

Melon on this issue I think you need to examine your own position as I see a zealotry which parallels certain people of the opposing view point. Your hostility and inability to tollerate view differing from your own on this matter are quite evident. In my case I have stated again and again that I do not hate gays people, that I consider them my brothers and sisters and that I only wish what is best for them, and that I have expressed a constant desire to learn exactly what that is. I do not think gays who have no conscious choice in their orientation are going to hell, nor do I ever make any judgement as to th eventual salvation or damnation of anyone. That's not my affair. And as a matter of legal rights I support same-sex secular, civil marriage. I also do not belive that anyone who is gay should be obligated to be treated for it. I personally find a lot of the deliverance programs reprehensible as they do more harm than good. The methods used by many of them are only useful for certain people a small percentage of a small percentage. I find your instant reaction that the story Dreadsox presented as being false to be another sign of your own intollerance. Yes it is possibile it might be fabricated by a zealot group, then again it might not, and for the man in the story this path he has chosen (and he does state that he undertook it willingly) is one which has granted him peace. And who are you or anyone else to deny that. You yell at me when I suggest that for certain homosexuals their condition may not be one which is healthful for them yet you go and do the same thing on the inverse issue. Look to your own hypocrisy before assaulting someone elses. I accept that there are homosexuals who can lead fulfilling lives, yet you don't seem to be willing to accept at all that certain people who exhibit same sex attraction can be free of it if they wish and that this can be fulfilling for them. We each consider the other condition an aberation of a norm yet I can tollerate yours while you cannot tollerate mine.
 
Discriminating against homosexuals is a sin. Hating anyone for any reason is a sin. Anyone who justifies hating gays is gonna have a nasty surprise when they meet God.

Discriminating against someone else for being a sinner is pure stupidity otherwise you'd have to discriminate against yourself. Hello! how many times to I need to say that I don't hate gays and that hating gays is a sin and is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Blacksword said:
Discriminating against homosexuals is a sin. Hating anyone for any reason is a sin. Anyone who justifies hating gays is gonna have a nasty surprise when they meet God.

Discriminating against someone else for being a sinner is pure stupidity otherwise you'd have to discriminate against yourself. Hello! how many times to I need to say that I don't hate gays and that hating gays is a sin and is unacceptable.

Exactly.
 
Nbc,

Are you saying it's okay to discriminate against gay people? Or that gay people should be permitted to marry?

I wasn't sure which part of martha's post you were objecting to: the suggestion that you oppose discriminating against gay people or the suggestion that you oppose allowing gay people to marry.
 
Goodness, it is NOT okay to hate anyone. My objection was regarding the accusation of discrimination. I have never objected to gay marriage in secular society.
 
And I have also said that gay people deserve the right to secular marriage. More than once in this thread and a couple times in previous threads on this subject. Please pay attention to what people say. Martha you just assumed that you knew what I believe based on your prejudices and presuppositions. Many Christians oppose secular marriage, my dad is one of them. I am not. Try not to make blanket judgements in the future.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
^ Actually, I have not made any such statement.

Please be more careful before making such claims.

I think I hold the opposite position from you on this, and I am getting pissed at the twisting of your words and the assault on your character.

Dear God people play nice.
 
I agree. This is a very difficult subject and I've been very impressed up until now with how passionate-yet-civil this discussion has been.

If you need clarification on someone's views, ask nicely. Try not to accuse people of things before you get that clarification.

Thanks.
 
I think what nbcrusader may be saying is that he is not opposed to some form of secular marriage or union for gay people, but he is opposed to religious union (at least in his faith tradition).

Is this right, nb?
 
nbcrusader said:
^ Actually, I have not made any such statement.

Please be more careful before making such claims.

You're right. I looked back, and there's nothing there. My inference was based on all your posts discussing homosexuality and sin, but you've said nothing about being against gay marriage at all.



I had no idea you supported the rights of homosexuals to fully participate in full legal and equal marriage, same as you and I.


I'm pleasantly surprised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom