For sammy1980

[dewdrop_world]

Sammy1980 --

I was considering making a point by point rebuttal against your posts, but it looks like keltic and others have already been busy with that. So I want instead to make some more general observations and hopefully build a little trust before dealing with specific grievances.

First, just a very, very general point about "user friendliness" -- it's extremely hard to read huge blocks of text where there are no paragraphs. It's very tiring for the eye.

That's an insignificant point of typography, mainly a personal preference, ignore if you like. Now let's get to business --

My overwhelming question for you as I read your posts is, what do you think of all of this? I ask because almost everything you're saying here is very very familiar. Your points are nearly exact quotations of points I've heard going back some 16 years to the time when I came out of the closet. So, are they truly your opinions, tested against hard evidence, or are they things you've been told that you simply accepted as true?

It looks like you've been studying some "opposition research" -- the names of companies, LGBT elected officials etc. -- and I find myself also wondering if you're here to hear a different side of the story so that you can make up your own mind, or if you're here mainly to get some things off your chest. (Either way is fine, but the way you approach us is, in part, going to determine the kind of response you get.)

What I mean is, some of the things you've said have been pretty one-sided. There is no gay conspiracy to make conservative Christianity illegal, for instance. The idea that we will be rounding CC's up and herding them into prisons strikes me as a right-wing paranoid fantasy, the type that would be used in an anti-gay fundraising letter, more than a reasoned response to what gay people are really arguing for.

You mentioned legislation concerning the schools. Are you aware of cases where gay students have been harassed, physically threatened, even beaten, and teachers were aware of the harassment and violence but did nothing to stop it because of their personal opposition to (or discomfort with) homosexuality? Are you aware of cases where the teachers joined in with insults against gay students, and were never disciplined?

We are aware of those cases, and that is the motivation for anti-bullying legislation. We are not talking about "any criticism," nor should we. I'm very serious about the First Amendment. You can say things that really tick me off, but if one of my "friends" says you shouldn't have the right to say it (even nicely) then I'm walking away. No, in this case we're talking about schools that have failed to create safe learning environments for all students, not just the nice straight ones.

It's possible that you're referring to different legislation -- in that case, bring us a link to the text of the proposed law and we can discuss it. I'm fairly confident that what the legislation actually says is very different from what you've read about it.

That goes back to my main comment. You've read a lot about homosexuality from one perspective (which I believe is a politically-motivated conservative position that may or may not be faithful to Jesus' example -- that is, it may be "Biblical" only in the sense of "opposing homosexuality" but in its opposition, it may do things that are not Christian). Are you questioning what you've read? You are here, so you must have some questions. I think that's great! Most of your fellow evangelical Christians would not come here and ask anything.

---

This is a really hot topic, and it brings up a lot of fears for everybody. I've felt for a long time that building trust, getting to know each other, is at least as important as hashing out the issues. So let me start that with a couple of questions, and you can ask questions about my life journey also.

- What are the biggest influences on your faith?

- What blessings has your faith brought into your life?

- What events or thoughts brought you to this forum?

I'd really like to know more about where you're coming from. Hope you'll be willing to share!

Thanks,
James

[dewdrop_world]

Responding to this post (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=15049&postcount=114), let me take a few of the points out of order.

Your comments are in italics.

If you would like to know me, please ask questions without making assumptions, I would be more than welcome to answer them for you.

I have done so, just above. Would love to hear your answers.

I just wanted to reason with them, but it didn't work.

What, exactly, didn't work? What is the result you were hoping for?

I want to accomplish here is make people understand that it is wrong to discriminate against people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and who oppose gay marriage, whether at work or at school. This is what all what I wanted to say.

Read my first post -- I actually agree with you on this. I think most of us would agree. I wish for a couple of things: first, that people would commit to approach contentious topics with mutual respect and a desire to understand others perspectives; and second, that people would have a thicker skin and allow others to make honest mistakes while attempting to be respectful.

Now, what exactly is discrimination? Let's suppose that in my office, one of my colleagues is an evangelical Christian. Let's also say that this person leaves notes on my desk every day saying how much she wishes I would come to my senses and convert away from being gay. Let's say also that every time we have to work together, she never misses an opportunity to remind me how much pity she feels for me as an unrepentant sinner.

Now let's say that after awhile, the company advises her to stop doing this because it's creating a work environment that makes it harder for me to do my job.

Is that discrimination?

Suppose, in the same situation, I would take every opportunity to make insulting statements about evangelical Christianity. And, after some time, the company would tell me to stop because it makes it harder for her to do her job. Is that discrimination?

I would say neither case is discrimination. The company's purpose is to accomplish certain tasks, and if employees act in certain ways -- on the company's dime -- that get in the way of that, the company has every right to say, "Suck it up and do your job."

I vaguely remember the Progressive Insurance case you mentioned in an earlier post. If I recall, the issue was that the letter writer identified himself as an employee of the company (I think it was a letter to the editor, not to a congressman -- I could be wrong about that, it was a while ago). Now, almost every company has it in the employment contract that employees can participate in the political process as they choose, but they must not under any circumstances imply that the company endorses the employee's specific views. Exactly the same as if I wrote a letter to the editor, mentioned my employment with Acme Widget Corp., and did not make it clear that my opinions are my own and not the views of the company.

Not to spill too many more words on it, but I would just say again: tell us your sources. Very likely, there's a side to the story that your sources are not telling you.

Cathy, the conservative Christian leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell do talk about pedophilia, incest, divorce, and abortion, no less than they talk about homosexuality and how it affects family.

But they aren't saying divorced people, or women who have had an abortion, should be summarily fired from teaching jobs? They do say that about gay people.

Dobson is an interesting case. He's published a lot of material on homosexuality, most of which is filled with distortions and sometimes outright fabrications of "evidence" to prove how horrible gay people are. Check out http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com -- the "featured reports" go point by point through the Dobson/Paul Cameron material and illustrate (with sources) the types of falsifications (i.e., lies) that the anti-gay right wing use repeatedly to "prove" their point.

Falwell and Robertson rely heavily on Dobson's "research" in stating their positions. Why, if their views about homosexuality are right, do they have to chronically resort to falsehoods to make the point?

So I have to issue a challenge -- what is your interest here? To stand up for your belief in certain Christian leaders, or, if shown that those leaders are making false statements, to discover the truth and form your own opinion?

I am just being light and salt, like Jesus commanded all of us to be and I can't stop being that.

Well, to be honest, I see a pretty big difference between the tone of your writing and your statements that you are looking for open dialogue. I am not the only one who feels that way. I just believe that I have to find the good in the middle of the bad and appeal to that.

So, I'm trying to respond to you in an assertive but nonconfrontational way. Hoping for a response in kind.

James

[andrewlittle]

Come on over here, Sam, don't be afraid. We're all friends and the water is - well - heating up.

Sam you wrote:
Cathy, Keltic, Andrew, James, Tdogg, and others I want to accomplish here is make people understand that it is wrong to discriminate against people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and who oppose gay marriage, whether at work or at school. This is what all what I wanted to say.

Sam, I thoroughly agree that it is wrong for ANYONE to discriminate against another - no matter what the differences may be. Everyone has a right to say that homosexuality is a sin and oppose gay marriage, if that is what they believe. Everyone also has the right to say that people who hold these views are wrong. Stating these opinions is not an act of discrimination.

That being said, stating either of these opinions - or any others for that matter - incessantly in a workplace or other gathering place is, in fact, harassment. An employer has the responsibility to make sure that the workplace is productive, while at the same time as safe as possible for all. It is the harassment factor that generally prompts termination or discipline.

You have also said a whole lot more in your posts - so I disagree that this is "all I wanted to say."

Sam wrote:
I also would like to apologize to Cathy and Frank for getting everything off your topic. It's just Keltic and Andrew kept talking about heterosexual privilege and accuse me of something that I wasn't.

Excuse me, but heterosexual privilege had pretty much been covered by the time you arrived. I can only assume you read the previous posts and, taking exception to the privilege discussion, opted to comment in your first and subsequent posts about it. Good for you - that is your right. It is not your right, however, to then childishly point your finger and say, "Well, I only bring it up 'cause they do."

You reinitiated the conversation about privilege in a thread where it had already been discussed. The suggestion, in order to continue that kind of discussion and avoid hijacking Cathy's thread which was inititiated for HER conversations and HER questions, was to take it to another thread. That way people can have the option of reading about your concerns as opposed to being forced to see them when they look at Cathy's. It allows people to have choice.

As of this post, you have yet to write in the thread James started for that purpose, which leads me to believe that your intention is, in fact, to derail and deflect the discussion occurring in Cathy's.

Sam wrote:
I just wanted to reason with them, but it didn't work.

You never know, Sam, start using reason and stop using party-line diatribe and it just might work. I've been known to reason through things - when I have to.

Sam wrote:
Also, I don't think that I sound hateful but I realize that I sound intimidating because what I say, gives people a different perspective on certain issues that they are having difficulty of accepting, like the persecution of evangelical Christians over the issue of homosexuality.

Persecution of evangelical Christians? Yes, all those flaming GLBT folks (10 points to the first person who knows what word I was tempted to use here) out there passing laws to stop evangelical Christian marriages; denying EC's from having property succession rights; trying to prevent EC's from adopting children because the may raise more - you, know - evangelical Christians; denying EC's from having the ability to preach. Persecution, evidently, is in the eyes of the beholder. It's just some of have cataracts, I guess, and fail to see the suffering burden of being "true" Christians.

As to your different perspective - it is the cultural party line - the mantra of the day. Say something new and thoughtful and I would be inclined to welcome it and discuss. Spewing the same old soundbites does not equate to "giving a different perspective", it just indicates an unwillingness on the part of the spewer to hear any different perspectives than those which they have adopted as truth for all time.

Intimidating? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Okay, that's enough thought. No - you're not the least bit intimidating. Annoying, frustrating, remarkably un-self-aware, mind numbing as all get out, perhaps - but not intimidating.

Then again, perhaps I'm just exhibiting controlled fear.

Sam, if you are interested in dialogue - engage in dialogue. Ask questions. Discuss the answers received. Show some interest in listening.

You entered with a monologue - a decidedly self-righteous, pontificating monologue at that - and then cry and moan that we don't listen. Give me something to listen to that I haven't heard before.

Trust me, Sam, as I have already unfortunately demonstrated, I can be as unreflective, self-righteous, closed minded, arrogant and insipid as you are appearing to be - its just that I hope I would have the common sense to go someplace where people want to hear that BS.

And, Sam, I used to be anti-gay and I used every piece of rhetoric you have used. That was over twenty freaking years ago, however. You want to add something new to the conversation, then think for yourself and make it - I don't know - new, perhaps - insightful, maybe - self-aware would be good - the least bit interesting, yeah, that's it.

[Pablo Rafael]

James,

Thanks for trying to move the discussion to a new thread. I had avoided posting on Cathy's thread because this discussion didn't have anything to do with her original purpose.

Sammy1980,

Your reasoning used to support your idea of discrimination against heterosexuals and against conservative Christians doesn't stand up.
I will say I am a conservative Christian; I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I also, like Andrew, used to be anti-gay. I have heard the arguments; they are an excuse to continue prejudice and discrimination.

Compare the numbers:
Is our president a conservative Christian?
How many gay/lesbian presidents have we had?

How many of our political leaders are openly conservative Christian?
How many of our political leaders are openly gay?

Don't Christian radio stations have the biggest share of the radio audience?
How many gay Christians have you ever heard on the radio?

Do the conservative Christians have multi million dollar media ministries?
How many gay Christian ministries are there? How large are they?

How many high school students have been persecuted for being Christian?
How many high school students have been persecuted for being gay?

How many conservative Christians are in the closet out of fear of persecution?
How many LGBT individuals are in the closet for fear of persecution?

I have heard similar arguments to continue the discrimination against ethnic minorities. Living in a primarily Hispanic community I hear things like, "White males are the only ones you can discriminate against" That kind of talk only is an excuse to continue discrimination. When Hispanics and blacks finally earn as much as whites rather than 55% as much, when the number of minorities who own businesses equals their share of the population, when governing boards and legistatures contain equivalent minority numbers, when job opportunities are equal,when the amounts of inherited wealth are equal, then I might admit that discrimination against the minority groups is at an end. However, that is a long way off.

Likewise, saying that heterosexuals are a in danger of being discriminated against is ridiculous. Where do gays ever even get an equal break let alone privledge? When the LGBT population has as large a share of influence, acceptance and respect as the heterosexual Christian community does, I will reconsider your argument. Right now that is so far from happening that the idea is totally without merit.

I say this as both a member of the gay community and the conservative Christian community. One group has much greater power, wealth, influence and status than the other; there is no comparison between the two.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[sammy1980]

[QUOTE=dewdrop_world;15048]Sammy1980 --

I was considering making a point by point rebuttal against your posts, but it looks like keltic and others have already been busy with that. So I want instead to make some more general observations and hopefully build a little trust before dealing with specific grievances.

First, just a very, very general point about "user friendliness" -- it's extremely hard to read huge blocks of text where there are no paragraphs. It's very tiring for the eye.


Hi James,

I would like to apologize for not making paragraphs. So, I would like to give you some feedback.
I think that everybody has a right to have their own opinions and I have studied research. I checked the NARTH. It is a secular organization that makes people change their homosexual behavior into heterosexual behavior. I discovered that there were people who were satisfied with NARTH, and testified that they felt better after that. So, why are you still criticizing NARTH? I would like to hear a different side of story, if you have any.

So, I see that my comments about prisons strike you as a right-wing paranoia fantasy. Please understand that I said those things, after I was repeatedly accused of being a bigot by Keltic. All I was arguing for that heterosexual privilege exists nor less as homosexual privilege does, and I listed examples, not to mention that I have never said that anything bad about individual GLBT people. Instead of just simply saying "I disagree with you" so I could draw the line on this issue, Keltic kept attacking me. Because of his scurrilous accusations, I got the message that he wanted to silence me because he was prejudist against me for my views on homosexuality, both biblical and political. So, in order to make Keltic understand, I used prisons as symbol of taking away somebody's freedom, not necessarily physically placing a person into a correctional facility, in order to demonstrate that a man will still have his beliefs if he is prohibited to share them, vocally. Those beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are, will stay in a person's heart. Just to let you know, there are some radical people in the gay community, like Michael Swift, whose goal is exactly what you said, to criminalize any opposition to homosexuality, which includes organized religion. A couple of weeks ago, Elton John made a comment saying that organized religion should be banned because it oppresses gays and lesbians. In 2003, there was a proposal in Canadian parliament to make Bible a hate literature. It got rejected. Also, there was a case in Sweden, where a pastor named Ake Green was sentenced to one month in prison, for preaching a sermon in his church against homosexuality, by using biblical references. He only criticized gay civil unions, gay adoptions by arguing that it would offend innocent children, however he stressed out that individual gays and lesbians should not be belittled as Jesus never belittled anyone. He never cursed or ridiculed any GLBT person, he just preached what he believed needed to be done in the eyes of God, however the newly passed Swedish law considered the sermon as a disrespectful hateful speech. Here is the website www.akegreen.org, please evaluate it for yourself. You can read the sermon itself, too. The main concept was just that homosexual behavior and laws promoting it were bad, but not the individual gays and lesbian people. Sweden isn't very far from America (just about 10 hours of flight) and Canada is much closer, so based on this, why couldn't I assume that something similar could happen here, given the fact that there are people in our government who would like to have similar laws legislated, like Sheila Kuehl, she is an openly lesbian, have you ever heard of her? What about the statement, made by Keltic that evangelical Christians want to create theocracy? Does that sound like a paranoia to you? I mean, there are some folks who want to make the Bible the law of the land, but definitely not me. I am just a simple guy who wants to practice his faith without afraid of being repressed, and I am very scared, based on what I experienced.

I heard about gay students being abused happening back in the 1950s but not recently, except for Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon. I believe what you said, but does having antigay harrassment, both physical and verbal justify the discrimination against CC students, like Edward Swan of University of Washington and Emily Brooker of University of Missouri, by expelling them out for their opposition of gay marriage and gay adoption? Remember, they didn't hurt physically a single person, they just acted upon their consciousness. A similar experience has happened to me, in my previous school. I was studying counseling and I admitted that I don't think I would be able to counsel people of the same sex on premarital issues. They said I was being homophobic, which I wasn't. I don't mind helping people dealing with common problems like sadness, loneliness, depression. These are the problems that both straights and gays face, but when it comes to political controversial issues, I want to take a walk. It's too heavy.

I was talking about several laws that were proposed in the state of California by Sheila Kuehl that would instruct to teach about contributions of gays and lesbians to the state of California to kids as young as 5. Don't you think it's a little bit early? Also, she proposed another law that would prohibit teaching anything negative associated with homosexuality? That sounds like one-sided indoctrination. They both got vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, the terminator.

I have read several information from both sides about homosexuality; but the one that strikes me the most was the case of my cousin. He killed himself because he couldn't find commitment with the people he was dating, and he dated like a hundred of them, and he was telling me that they all used him for sex. He couldn't find a meaning in his life and even started doing drugs. He was telling me stuff like that many gay men were players and the thing about marriage, was all about money. He even told me once that he wished he could find a woman and start having kids, so his life would have some purpose, but he couldn't do so, because he was gay. Not to mention that he lived in a famous gay community of Greenwich Village, NY and that his parents were okay with him being gay. Based on what happened to my cousin, I began to question the naturality of homosexual orientation and I am still questioning it. I can't say that it was so-called homophobia that killed him, but the world of homosexuality he was living in. By the way, I suggest you read a book called 'My Genes Made Me Do It' by Neil and Briar Whitehead. This book is a scientific research dealing with homosexuality, and is not affiliated with any politics. I noticed that those researches resembe the experiences of my cousin and his life in the gay community.

James, do you believe when an EC is giving you an advice not to have sex with other men, he intends to belittle you? Have you ever thought that such person maybe wants to actually help you and that person means well for you? Not that I intend to give you any advices, but I noticed that whenever somebody says that homosexual behavior is a sin, that speech is being labeled as antigay? Like, there is an intended attack being done against an individual gay person. I wonder why?

- What are the biggest influences on your faith?

Well, I was just not knowing who I am and what is my purpose in life, so I came to Christ.

- What blessings has your faith brought into your life?

The blessings I have from my faith is seeing things how God wants them to be and being able to forgive people who have hurt my feelings. Without my faith, I wouldn't be able to do that.

- What events or thoughts brought you to this forum?

I came to this forum after the influence of having equality riders coming to my school, Colorado Christian University. I felt like that school was my only hope; you see, before that I was in two secular schools, where I encountered prejudice from liberal professors over my religious views on homosexuality. In CCU, I have found my sanctuary, and I felt like when equality riders came there, trying to change its policy, I felt like it would influence the Colorado lawmakers to stopt CCU being a Christian school. I would be greatly depressed if that happen. The message I want to tell everybody that I need a school like that because every other school would not accept me for who I am. I couldn't stay at home at Pennsylvania with my family that I loved, so I came to Colorado. do you know how difficult it was for me? I have a huge question; why would some people apply to such schools if they already knew, that their sexual behavior would not be tolerated, there? Why not apply to secular schools that are very pro-gay rights? For me, I couldn't stay at secular schools so I applied where I would be able to share my faith without fear. So, I thought that the opposite would work for gays and lesbian students. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm also coming from having both my uncles being imprisoned in Communist Russia for being Christians. That was a huge influence on my life. Maybe, because of that I subconciously connect it with having the same fate happening to me. About my first post to you, where I was alluding to Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians. Why would some people consider that as antigay? It only talks about the sexual behavior, not the individual gay and lesbian people. Actually, Romans 2 says that with all said, we should not judge anybody. So, I by no means wanted to judge you, but I wanted to know, what does those specific chapters mean to you? Just because I understand them the way I understand, doesn't mean that I am always right. It is just I see that homosexual orientation was not a gift from God. That's all there is to it. Why would somebody perceive my vision as an attack against gays and lesbian people, or against any people?

[sammy1980]

Hola Pablo,

I would like to clarify a couple of things

Compare the numbers:
Is our president a conservative Christian?
How many gay/lesbian presidents have we had?

How many of our political leaders are openly conservative Christian?
How many of our political leaders are openly gay?

Don't Christian radio stations have the biggest share of the radio audience?
How many gay Christians have you ever heard on the radio?

Do the conservative Christians have multi million dollar media ministries?
How many gay Christian ministries are there? How large are they?

How many high school students have been persecuted for being Christian?
How many high school students have been persecuted for being gay?

How many conservative Christians are in the closet out of fear of persecution?
How many LGBT individuals are in the closet for fear of persecution?

These numerical questions that you are asking, may or may not have valid points, it depends on a situation. The facts however remain the same; both LGBT and conservative Christians get persecuted. I don't think it really matters how many people in numbers get oppressed, because on both sides people have their feelings hurt, and that's what counts. What bugs me about this, is when one group tells the other how his or her group get persecuted, the other group is acting ignorant, acts like she doesn't want to hear about it, and calling the complaining group some offensive labels. It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and I told the members of my church how GLBT are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, ostracized, despite going through every means possible to earn society's respect, they called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah story. Likewise, when I posted some info, shared stories how conservative Christians get expelled from schools and fired from jobs because of disagreements with their supervisors over pro-gay political issues, Keltic started calling me antigay, which wasn't true either. Nothing personal against the man, I have already forgiven him and I hope he forgives me.

However, I guess me telling you all this, has to do with having equality riders come to my school, which is Colorado Christian University, this past summer. The fellows were trying to convince our administration to lift the ban on homosexual behavior among students there. Their justification for such a lift was the stories they told us, how religion is used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. After I listened to their stories and watched thier presentations, I mustered up a courage to speak with equality ride director Jake Reitan, by the way, very thoughtful and open-minded guy, and I told him why I believe schools like that with such policies are needed for people like me. My arguments were the infringement of civil rights of conservative Christian students in secular schools, including my personal experiences, pretty much what you heard so far. At first, Jake admitted that he never heard anything like that but he listened without confrontation. I was trying make him understand that if I go to a secular school and he went to a Christian school, both him and I would experience issues dealing with ostracism, loneliness, and hiding what you believe. To my amazement, he said it was wrong for liberal professors, some of whom were gay to shun me for my conservative Christian beliefs. This is what I call an open dialogue.

On a cultural issue, I would like to tell you that my parents are immigrants from Russia, and I remember how some gay activists wanted to recruit me in their political campaigns. They were stressing the fact that my family experienced prejudice like they are doing now, so I got to support what they do. At that time, I just became a Christian and I simply told them that I was the wrong Russian, you know what I mean?

I was never really saying that heterosexuals are persecuted. It was just that small example of Cape Cod incident that I used, in order to show on a situational level, there could be both heterosexual and homosexual privileges. My main point was the persecution of conservative Christians. Speaking of it, do you remember when Andrew said that persecution lies in the eyes of the beholder ?. It means that if a person feels persecuted, only that person knows the best of it, and whoever don't share the feeling, know less. I can tell you from a personal experience that I was persecuted, because of my conservative Christian beliefs. For me, it's hard to think who suffers more or less, because the pain is still there. What I need to think is how to approach people who are persecuted for whatever reasons.

I am amazed what I hear; you are telling me that conservative Christian community has a lot of wealth and influence while organizations like Focus on the Family and AFA are telling on their websites that it's the GLBT community has strong wealth and influence, which is political. I feel like I'm torn apart and I think I should thoroughly examine and compare the two.

So, you are saying that you are a member of both the gay and the conservative Christian community. What do you mean by that? How is that possible?

[keltic63]

So, I see that my comments about prisons strike you as a right-wing paranoia fantasy. Please understand that I said those things, after I was repeatedly accused of being a bigot by Keltic.


Your very first post in the frankandcathy thread is #88. In it you claim that heterosexuals are being oppressed by the homosexual minority, and you cite specific examples, which are just that, specific, and many relate to business policies about harassment and discrimination, not necessarily about homosexuality. My first post in response to anything you said was about your post #97, and my reply was short: Matthew Shepard.

You posted again in #100, and #101, and I reply to #100 in my post which is #102. In that post I ask many questions, but you chose not to answer them. Indeed you weren’t even aware that marriage licenses are not renewable as are drivers’ licenses.

In post #103, you introduce the idea of being imprisoned for holding anti-gay attitudes or making anti-homosexual statements. That is in response to BruceChris, not me.

In post #104 I respond to your words about Matthew Shepard.

In post #106, you begin with an insult directed at me and my ability to understand your posts. You later compare me to a communist leader.

In post #110, I respond to your accusations/insults from post #106. At that point, I stopped posting in that thread in response to requests from fellow forum members to cool things down, and to stop from highjacking the original post.

AT NO TIME DID I USE THE WORD ‘BIGOT’ IN THAT THREAD!!!!!



All I was arguing for that heterosexual privilege exists nor less as homosexual privilege does, and I listed examples, not to mention that I have never said that anything bad about individual GLBT people. Instead of just simply saying "I disagree with you" so I could draw the line on this issue, Keltic kept attacking me. I actually said that I disagree in one of my posts. You offered examples, I offered examples. Because of his scurrilous accusations, I got the message that he wanted to silence me because he was prejudist against me for my views on homosexuality, both biblical and political. So, in order to make Keltic understand, again, it was not keltic you were responding to when you introduced the idea of prison.

as far as I'm concerned, you've insulted me and told lies about me.

[andrewlittle]

Something is becoming clearer, at least it seems that way to me. I am going to take some shots at clarifying issues.

First, we all have our noses out of joint. We all seem to think that we have been assaulted in some way by these postings. We have, and could continue to, detail the insults and accusations and become more deeply mired in what appears to be a vortex into hatred.

I, for one, am going to assume I have misunderstood a great deal of the conversation. There are significant differences in writing styles that are, I think, critical but I don't think that they have to be incompatible.

Suggestion 1 - let's stop assuming and ascribing intent to the people posting in this thread now. Let's assume that everyone's intent is to speak in a way that helps them be understood, and listen with an ear to really hearing what others have said.

To that end, Sam's last two posts have helped me to at least begin to understand where he is coming from. They don't line up with my experiences, but I am a long way from thinking that my sense of reality should apply to everyone - that's actually a scary thought.

Sam, in particular, has been personally hurt by pro-LGBT efforts and has very close, very real family experiences of anti-Christian persecution.

Most other participants in this website have been personally hurt by ant-LGBT efforts and have very close, very real experiences of pro-conservative-Christian persecution.

I, and other allies, haven't necessarily personally experienced either kind of persecution, but are here because we believe persecution is wrong for any reason, and we wish to stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Christ who have been wronged by society and church. We may also have had family or close experiences of various kinds that brought us to this place.

The commonalities are personal hurt, damage from persecution and the belief that persecution of any kind is wrong.

Okay, so far?

Suggestion 2 - if I am reasonably accurate so far, perhaps we should stop universalizing our experiences - making the specific into the general - and discuss how our worldviews and attitudes differ based on our unique circumstances.

There is a tendency in this website to ascribe certain characteristics to CC's, and to generally understand CC fear as something approaching paranoia (spelling?). I dare say, there is ample reason, when we listen to popular media and culture, to believe this. Sam, however, seems to have some legitimate reasons to feel fear.

Sam, you have generalized your and your family's experiences, which seem to very real and damaging, and specific examples that line up with your thoughts into something that is universally true. I think you have a relatively unique set of circumstances that give you ample reason for fear and antagonism, but I'm not sure how universally true they may be. By generalizing them, you have come across as just another paranoid CC, but I really think that is a grossly inaccurate judgment of your stands. For my part, I apologize and I will try to hear with more of a open heart.

Before I get into any more, could you each give me some feedback so far?
Am I full of sh-t, or do we have some basis for a reasonable dialogue?

[BruceChris]

Mostly because you sounded angry and extreem, and because I was having a lot of trouble understanding what you were trying to say. (Smaller paragraphs might even be nicer.)

I spend a great deal of time listening to the news, and reading, more often books by theologists and books on social issues, and I consider myself fairly well educated about current social issues. I do not read the bible that much, except in our bible study group, which has two ministers, and a seminary student as members. It is very clear to me that Republicans and Conservative Christians (CC's) have a great deal more money than liberals, or the gay community. Now that's only my experience.

I suppose that I do tend to see CC's and Republicans as pretty much the same group. Political observers and many newscasters often talk about the relationship between the two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: When you say
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and the members of my church how GLBT are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, ostracized, by going through every means possible to earn society's respect, they called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take this to mean:
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and I told the members of my church how GLBT people are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, and ostracized, although GLBT people had been going through every means possible to earn society's respect. The members of my church called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah stories.

I hope that I have found the meaning that you had meant to convey in the above piece. If I have not, please correct me. I guess that proof reading and editing could help. And, It would seem pretty obvious how many GLBT people are often treated by members of some churches.

Sammy, about a week ago, we had in our (GLBT) church, a ceremony of rememberance for all of the transsexual people that were murdered in the last year, simply for being trans. I think the number was close to 100.

Sammy, I believe that the Great Commandment, to love others as you love yourself (and, by implication, to learn to LOVE YOURSELF, humbly but with understanding) is much more important than focusing on sin, and judging others. And I am getting the impression that you feel that way a lot, yourself. And yes, I am going to resist the temptation to quote a lot of Bible verses. It seems that you can "prove" almost anything with a selected set of Bible verses.

I'm going to sign off, now. I've got to go and clean off some graffiti that was sprayed on my church, last week.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[sammy1980]

Something is becoming clearer, at least it seems that way to me. I am going to take some shots at clarifying issues.

First, we all have our noses out of joint. We all seem to think that we have been assaulted in some way by these postings. We have, and could continue to, detail the insults and accusations and become more deeply mired in what appears to be a vortex into hatred.

I, for one, am going to assume I have misunderstood a great deal of the conversation. There are significant differences in writing styles that are, I think, critical but I don't think that they have to be incompatible.

Suggestion 1 - let's stop assuming and ascribing intent to the people posting in this thread now. Let's assume that everyone's intent is to speak in a way that helps them be understood, and listen with an ear to really hearing what others have said.

To that end, Sam's last two posts have helped me to at least begin to understand where he is coming from. They don't line up with my experiences, but I am a long way from thinking that my sense of reality should apply to everyone - that's actually a scary thought.

Sam, in particular, has been personally hurt by pro-LGBT efforts and has very close, very real family experiences of anti-Christian persecution.

Most other participants in this website have been personally hurt by ant-LGBT efforts and have very close, very real experiences of pro-conservative-Christian persecution.

I, and other allies, haven't necessarily personally experienced either kind of persecution, but are here because we believe persecution is wrong for any reason, and we wish to stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Christ who have been wronged by society and church. We may also have had family or close experiences of various kinds that brought us to this place.

The commonalities are personal hurt, damage from persecution and the belief that persecution of any kind is wrong.

Okay, so far?

Suggestion 2 - if I am reasonably accurate so far, perhaps we should stop universalizing our experiences - making the specific into the general - and discuss how our worldviews and attitudes differ based on our unique circumstances.

There is a tendency in this website to ascribe certain characteristics to CC's, and to generally understand CC fear as something approaching paranoia (spelling?). I dare say, there is ample reason, when we listen to popular media and culture, to believe this. Sam, however, seems to have some legitimate reasons to feel fear.

Sam, you have generalized your and your family's experiences, which seem to very real and damaging, and specific examples that line up with your thoughts into something that is universally true. I think you have a relatively unique set of circumstances that give you ample reason for fear and antagonism, but I'm not sure how universally true they may be. By generalizing them, you have come across as just another paranoid CC, but I really think that is a grossly inaccurate judgment of your stands. For my part, I apologize and I will try to hear with more of a open heart.

Before I get into any more, could you each give me some feedback so far?
Am I full of sh-t, or do we have some basis for a reasonable dialogue?


Andrew, you are not full of s--t, you are very thoughtful and insightful. Your last response made me feel a whole lot better, I feel more welcome. Thanks for continuing this open conversation. I agree with you, discrimination of any kind is hurtful.

[andrewlittle]

I am very interested in continuing this discussion, Sam. I think it may help many of us in the short and long run.

It will be a few hours before I can continue, however. I have this pressing need to finish tomorrow's sermon. By the way, thanks for the fodder for the sermon you and others have furnished. It's Christ the King Sunday, and I wanted to be able to discuss what Christ's reign might look like. In my mind, this conversation has the possibility of showing us.

God bless, Sam.

[sammy1980]

Mostly because you sounded angry and extreem, and because I was having a lot of trouble understanding what you were trying to say. (Smaller paragraphs might even be nicer.)

I spend a great deal of time listening to the news, and reading, more often books by theologists and books on social issues, and I consider myself fairly well educated about current social issues. I do not read the bible that much, except in our bible study group, which has two ministers, and a seminary student as members. It is very clear to me that Republicans and Conservative Christians (CC's) have a great deal more money than liberals, or the gay community. Now that's only my experience.

I suppose that I do tend to see CC's and Republicans as pretty much the same group. Political observers and many newscasters often talk about the relationship between the two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: When you say
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and the members of my church how GLBT are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, ostracized, by going through every means possible to earn society's respect, they called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take this to mean:
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and I told the members of my church how GLBT people are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, and ostracized, although GLBT people had been going through every means possible to earn society's respect. The members of my church called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah stories.

I hope that I have found the meaning that you had meant to convey in the above piece. If I have not, please correct me. I guess that proof reading and editing could help. And, It would seem pretty obvious how many GLBT people are often treated by members of some churches.

Sammy, about a week ago, we had in our (GLBT) church, a ceremony of rememberance for all of the transsexual people that were murdered in the last year, simply for being trans. I think the number was close to 100.

Sammy, I believe that the Great Commandment, to love others as you love yourself (and, by implication, to learn to LOVE YOURSELF, humbly but with understanding) is much more important than focusing on sin, and judging others. And I am getting the impression that you feel that way a lot, yourself. And yes, I am going to resist the temptation to quote a lot of Bible verses. It seems that you can "prove" almost anything with a selected set of Bible verses.

I'm going to sign off, now. I've got to go and clean off some graffiti that was sprayed on my church, last week.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Yes Bruce Chris, I told my members of the church I was in about the persecution of GLBT, I accidently skipped some words, sorry, and they started judging me. I am very sorry to hear about somebody spraying graffiti on your church. I hope you are not too angry about this because living in anger, does not do people much good. I can say that for myself, I was very angry on this post, and went off track.

Well, some Republicans may or may not be CC's. I don't know what each one's personal beliefs are. They oppose gay marriage, but I don't think it has to do with conservative Christianity but simply preserving the traditional definition of what marriage was for 5000 years in all cultures of the world. Speaking of George Bush, he expressed his support for civil unions for gays and lesbians, that's a hardly conservative Christian stance.

I have a general question; why when somebody talks to people about what he or she believes as a sin in the Bible, an assumption arises that the person is judging individual persons?

I would like to hear more.

Later,


Sam

[sammy1980]

Keltic, since you have finally showed up, I would like to publicly acknowledge how sorry I am for hurting your feelings and ask you to forgive me, because I did it unintentionally and I never meant to insult. As you have seen, I already forgave you. Now, what do you think about other things I said in this post so far?

Peace,

Sammy

[sammy1980]

I am very interested in continuing this discussion, Sam. I think it may help many of us in the short and long run.

It will be a few hours before I can continue, however. I have this pressing need to finish tomorrow's sermon. By the way, thanks for the fodder for the sermon you and others have furnished. It's Christ the King Sunday, and I wanted to be able to discuss what Christ's reign might look like. In my mind, this conversation has the possibility of showing us.

God bless, Sam.

Me too, Andrew, I would like to continue in the discussion. I also got to go to work now, which is cleaning bathrooms at Walmart. So, maybe I'll hear from you in the evening.

Bye

[Pablo Rafael]

So, you are saying that you are a member of both the gay and the conservative Christian community. What do you mean by that? How is that possible?

Sam,

This always seems to be the thing that amazes people most, that people can be both gay and Christian.

I am a Christian because I believe in the grace of God. I believe that we are saved by Grace through Faith. Our salvation comes from God through Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. We are His children when the Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts. Therefore we live sanctified lives through His power, doing good works as He has planned for us. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. (I don't believe in the inerrancy of man's interpretation of the Bible.) I consider myself a conservative (not fundamentalist) beacuse of these beliefs. By denomination I am a Catholic

I am gay because ... well because I am. I have tried to deny it. I have tried to change; that didn't work. I don't think denial ever works. I think changing doesn't work for many.

Aren't gay people all going to hell? That is a point you made earlier. Anyone who relies on himself and his own righteousness is sure to fail. But those who are covered by the grace of God are made righteous in God's sight. All are sinners, all fall short. God's love covers us all.

Doesn't the Bible condemn homosexuality? Well, not really.
Sodom, right? No, in fact even Jesus says the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality.
The levitical holiness laws? Those were abolished by Christ's death on the cross.
Saint Paul's letters? The two Greek terms sometimes but not always translated "homosexual" are uncertain in meaning, and that translation of those terms is based more on tradition and cultural influence than on the actual definition of the terms.

I am not one who believes that the Bible can be adapted to fit one's own personal beliefs and prejudices. It is God's word. People have been twisting the Bible to use it to their own purposes. That is not acceptable to me. I have changed my views 100% on the subject of homosexuality since I was in my 20's. I believe it is God's leading that has brought me to this understanding. Could I be wrong? I make no claim to a perfect knowledge of God and His work. I can only as humbly that He show me the way.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

I discovered that there were people who were satisfied with NARTH, and testified that they felt better after that. So, why are you still criticizing NARTH? I would like to hear a different side of story, if you have any.

Ah, NARTH... just about as unbiased as Michael Moore (or Bill O'Reilly, for that matter).

So here is the thing about NARTH: they know how to make the statistics sound impressive, but the actual usage of the statistics is fundamentally dishonest in many cases. Again, read the articles at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm) -- especially The Heterosexual Agenda (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm). This is a parody -- that is, NOT REAL -- of the kind of anti-gay literature put out by groups like NARTH, Focus on the Family etc. As you read it, you will probably be offended by many of its claims, but keep in mind that this is not what the author really believes about heterosexuality. He is doing this to show how the types of statistical manipulation, favored by NARTH to make gay people look bad, can be used just as easily to make straight people look bad. If these tactics are obviously untrue when applied to straight people, why do they magically appear to be legitimate when applied to gay people?

I think there are two answers: most people don't know enough about gay life to recognize how ridiculous the portrayal is in these anti-gay tracts, and second, many people want to believe in a hopelessly corrupt enemy that must be fought at every turn.

On reparative therapy: if someone wants to consult with Dr. Nicolosi to try to change sexual orientation (or at least behavior), that's an individual choice and I would not stand in the way. I disagree with that choice but it is absolutely not my place to take that choice away from anyone. But I do have problems with the way "reparative therapy" is presented.

- They don't talk about the failure rate (people who try to change but end up gayer than ever).

- Among those who fail in the treatment, they don't talk about the greatly increased risk of depression and suicide.

- Many such patients believe that becoming ex gay is the only way to be a good person (that is, the only way to have self esteem). Therapists like Nicolosi often encourage this kind of thinking because it increases the patient's "motivation" to complete the treatment. If the treatment fails, that leaves the patient in an even worse place.

- They do not present the treatment just as an option. They also suggest that people who do not want the treatment suffer from types of psychopathology that make them "sick" in need of a "cure." Who wants to be sick? (That's part of the manipulation.)

For the majority (well over 50%) of people who enter ex gay treatment programs, the cure is worse then the (imagined) disease.

A bit more on NARTH and friends:

Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) Presents Deceptive and Misleading Information about the American Psychiatric Association (http://www.ralliance.org/TVC_APA.html) -- If the anti-gay position is so scientifically strong, why is it necessary to lie about professional associations whose views are different?

How Does Psychoanalysis View Homosexuality? (http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/psychoanalysis.htm) --

They approach treatment of gay and lesbian patients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation -- clearly not an analytic stance. It is my own personal belief that many of their so-called successful conversions occur in either people with bisexual potential, or as "transference cures" in those who have severe psychopathology with little sense of identity and who are very malleable, or in those who have a strong desire to avoid dealing with their homosexuality and a strong wish to please the authoritative therapist. It is of course possible to learn to inhibit one's sexual desires and to control one's behavior. Another criticism of their claims is that they offer almost no long-term followup data. Many of us know of cases that ended conversion treatment as "cured" in whom the change did not last.

Even if we take their claims for success at face value, they report success rates of only 35 % at best. They do not discuss the 65% who do not change, except to emphasize that those who are highly motivated to change are more likely to be successful. There are growing anecdotal reports from other analysts that they frequently see those patients who attempted such "conversion" therapy and who have suffered serious adverse effects, such as depression, lowered self-esteem, increased shame and self-hatred -- and many who, under the belief that they had "changed," have married and now have children.

Also goes on to say:

There are many analysts, psychiatrists, and psychologists that would like for our organizations to declare this "conversion" or "reparative" therapy unethical. However much some of us might feel this to be true, it also raises questions of state control over freedom to practice therapy and is hampered by lack of valid statistical data to prove that overall the treatment is harmful. We have anecdotal evidence, but not yet statistical data.

In other words, the APsaA will not take action against reparative therapy until there is HARD evidence.

Just to let you know, there are some radical people in the gay community, like Michael Swift, whose goal is exactly what you said, to criminalize any opposition to homosexuality, which includes organized religion.

So you could track down a left-wing nut job. I could just as easily track down a right-wing evangelical Christian nut job and say that evangelical Christianity is not to be trusted because this is what they believe. What would I prove by doing that? Absolutely nothing.

A couple of weeks ago, Elton John made a comment saying that organized religion should be banned because it oppresses gays and lesbians.

IMHO, quite possibly the dumbest thing he ever said.

Gays and lesbians have a lot of reasons to be angry at religion -- or at least, religion used irresponsibly. I see a vicious circle happening -- a handful of right wing nuts gain undue influence in fundamentalist circles (including the Southern Baptist Convention) and start screaming and yelling about the gay menace (now that we don't have the Godless Soviets to deal with). Gays start to feel that religion is not worth the paper it's printed on -- which only serves as proof among the same nuts why the attacks on gays should intensify.

Who is going to break the cycle? Obviously neither James Dobson nor Elton John. So let's leave those naughty children alone, and use this rare and precious opportunity to cut through all of that nonsense.

Here is the website www.akegreen.org, please evaluate it for yourself.

I did, it's a stupid law that has no place in a liberal society. Hate speech is a problem but stating an opinion in a non-hateful way should not be illegal, ever.

What about the statement, made by Keltic that evangelical Christians want to create theocracy? Does that sound like a paranoia to you?

Again, there are left-wing nut jobs, and there are right-wing nut jobs. Our job is to make sure the nuts don't get too much power. (It is not to make sure that OUR nuts get into power ;) .)

I heard about gay students being abused happening back in the 1950s but not recently, except for Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon. I believe what you said...

Read From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America - A National Report on School Bullying (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1859.html) for more.

... but does having antigay harrassment, both physical and verbal justify the discrimination against CC students, like Edward Swan of University of Washington and Emily Brooker of University of Missouri, by expelling them out for their opposition of gay marriage and gay adoption?

No, it doesn't. The Brooker case is especially egregious. No professor should ever use their students for political purposes.

(Neither student was expelled, though... they were unfairly disciplined, and when they appealed higher within their universities, they were vindicated. There was the threat of expulsion, but it was never carried out. Who told you they were expelled?)

A similar experience has happened to me, in my previous school. I was studying counseling and I admitted that I don't think I would be able to counsel people of the same sex on premarital issues. They said I was being homophobic, which I wasn't. I don't mind helping people dealing with common problems like sadness, loneliness, depression. These are the problems that both straights and gays face, but when it comes to political controversial issues, I want to take a walk. It's too heavy.

I don't have a quick and easy answer to this one. I think we do (sometimes) throw around words like "homophobia" rather lightly (just as terms like "religious discrimination" can be tossed out very lightly as well). Like I said, we all need to have thicker skins about this. I'm just not sure it's so easy to separate emotional malaise from any sexual orientation, straight, gay or bi.

I was talking about several laws that were proposed in the state of California by Sheila Kuehl that would instruct to teach about contributions of gays and lesbians to the state of California to kids as young as 5. Don't you think it's a little bit early?

Not necessarily. Depends on the material.

Also, she proposed another law that would prohibit teaching anything negative associated with homosexuality? That sounds like one-sided indoctrination. They both got vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, the terminator.

I would just want the teaching to be true. What the right wing wants to teach about homosexuality is not uniformly true.

I have read several information from both sides about homosexuality; but the one that strikes me the most was the case of my cousin. He killed himself because he couldn't find commitment with the people he was dating, and he dated like a hundred of them, and he was telling me that they all used him for sex.

I'm really sorry to hear about this. I won't deny that huge segments of the gay community are shallow and hedonistic. A lot of us think that living in the gay ghetto is heaven for gay people, but the biggest gay 'hoods can be insular communities that concentrate and magnify the worst aspects of gay attitudes. It isn't always easy to resist the glittery facade. I wish I could have known and helped your cousin -- and I get mad sometimes at these parts of the gay community for being so cruel.

Based on what happened to my cousin, I began to question the naturality of homosexual orientation and I am still questioning it. I can't say that it was so-called homophobia that killed him, but the world of homosexuality he was living in.

Without diminishing those experiences in any way... is it true that gay people in general behave in the ways that your cousin experienced? Maybe I was lucky to have met stable, level-headed, intelligent, committed LG people early in my coming out process, so that I knew from the beginning that I didn't have to buy into the glamarama gay scene. That's why I get p*ssed off at gay playas who hurt people... it doesn't have to be that way and for many of is, it isn't that way.

James, do you believe when an EC is giving you an advice not to have sex with other men, he intends to belittle you? Have you ever thought that such person maybe wants to actually help you and that person means well for you?

To me it's a matter of trust. Many EC's feel that, because their views are "Biblically based" (I take some issue with that, but that's another conversation), they are self-evidently correct and so obviously beneficial that any reasonable person would automatically see it as such. Therefore, basic steps like getting to know the person you're preaching to are optional.

If someone wants to give me this type of advice, but they haven't taken the time to get to know me and haven't let me get to know them, then I have no idea whether the advice is truly offered for my benefit.

I think that, quite often, well-meaning advice serves another purpose -- to make the person offering the advice feel better about himself -- for "doing the Lord's work," for "helping a poor, misguided soul." This latter point is where compassion crosses the line into pity, because it's no longer about communication and understanding, but about reinforcing one's self-image as a "righteous Christian." It isn't about self-image; it's about being a servant.

I think that EC's are not always aware of all their motivations for giving advice, and I think that harms the relationship and makes gay people more likely to see hypocrisy in religion.

Out of time for today -- I should also say that I have given a whole lot more time to this discussion than I normally can, because of the four-day weekend. I will soon have to keep my responses a lot shorter. Very interested in continuing the chat, though.

Best,
James

[tdogg]

If someone wants to give me this type of advice, but they haven't taken the time to get to know me and haven't let me get to know them, then I have no idea whether the advice is truly offered for my benefit.

I think that, quite often, well-meaning advice serves another purpose -- to make the person offering the advice feel better about himself -- for "doing the Lord's work," for "helping a poor, misguided soul." This latter point is where compassion crosses the line into pity, because it's no longer about communication and understanding, but about reinforcing one's self-image as a "righteous Christian." It isn't about self-image; it's about being a servant.

Well said James - this is my experience with those few family/friends who profess to love me, but have no interest in getting to know me and my journey, but feel its their job to condemn me. Perhaps they have a genuine motive to 'save' me, perhaps they don't. It doesn't feel as tho their actions are out of love. It's not the message quite so much as the delivery. Funny - although I grew up AG and consider myself still a Christ-follower (not sure I want to be called a Christian anymore), those I trust the least are those who consider themselves fundamentalist Christian - the same ones who at one time I considered my mentors.

Sammy, read Dash's post - it will give some insight into the 'not so hetero-traditional marriage' history. Dash puts a tremendous amount of effort and thought into his research and posts - it's well worth reading several times over. There are other threads that he has posted on, which will give you some additional thoughts to ponder on the history of translations of specific words found in the original Biblical texts.

I have a general question; why when somebody talks to people about what he or she believes as a sin in the Bible, an assumption arises that the person is judging individual persons?

I believe, once again, this is due more to the delivery of the message than the actual message. If you re-read this entire thread - consider how Cathy delivered her messages and questions, and then compare to your delivery. I'm not judging your motives, I'm only trying to provide some insight on possible answers to your question above. When someone comes across geniune and true, others are much more open to dialoguing tho they may not agree with the person's beliefs and opinions. When it comes across judgmental, then it is likely to be received and answered back judgmentally. It's more of a self-defense, self-preservation approach. If we (all of us including me and you) all took a pro-active approach (yes, thicker skin and more open minds), the dialogue would be more informative and beneficial; however, we must all understand that those of us who have felt more judgment and prosecution/persecution will enter into the conversation with skin a lot less thick than those who haven't felt much at all. A little padding and compassion in the delivery will go a long way to open dialogue and less self-defense language.

Andrew is pretty much right on, we must realize that each of us hold valid, valued opinions, beliefs and feelings - and we must respect that. I just think we would get farther if we could delivery our messages with more compassion and empathy.

Pablo, I always find it an interesting mystery that there are some who cannot fathom the possibility of a gay Christian. There are a few who make repeated deserate attempts to take away my faith since I am gay, but I refuse to allow them. It drives them crazy - and farther away from me. Yes, it is TOTALLY possible to be gay, Christian and (although I'm not) conservative!!! YES YES YES. Just read throughout these forums
Sammy and you will find it isn't only possible, it's reality.

As a California resident, I'm so very thankful and blessed that we have Sheila Kuehls and others who will not tolerate intolerance and inquality. Thank God for her! And no, we will not stop at receiving the crumbs of equality - we want the entire loaf of bread that other selected groups of citizens receive. Will we take the crumbs, yes some of not most of us will - otherwise, we would have absolutely NO rights as a couple. Will we stop at getting crumbs, no absoulely NOT. We will stop only at full equality, 100%, nothing more and nothing less than any other selected group is entitled to receive.

[frankandcathy]

Well Bruce thought my input might be helpful in this forum but after reading all the posts so far, I think you guys are doing great!

It appears to me that Sammy's writing style was just too brash at first, unbeknownst to him/her.

His (okay, I'm just picking a gender for ease of writing) apology seems to have been heartfelt and his personal loss and suffering engaging.

Anyone who cleans toilets at Wal-Mart deserves a HUGE pat on the back and "thank you" from me (mother to three who always seem to have to go when we're at the store). What a humbling and serving job to have.

Um...I dunno. If you guys want my input on anything, just ask. It appears Sammy is capable of holding his own here.

Andrew: Blessed are the peacemakers...for they will be called Sons of God. WTG.

tdogg: Please don't extrapolate yourself from "traditional" church/Christianity. Change most often takes place from within. The literal meaning of "Christian" is "little Christ." Don't let someone else define for you what the word means. How wonderful for those coming behind you to be able to look at "a Christian" and see something unexpected. There has been much said about all the closeted gay people in church. Who will reach out to them? The most obvious answer: their older brothers and sisters in Christ who have walked farther down the path and can help lead them.

Oh yeah, final note: let's not be too hard on Sammy for his delivery. He is, after all, a single male (yes?) and, speaking from personal experience, not the best at communicating. Why it took years for me to teach my husband to say, "I feel...." :lol: A little stereotyping can help sometimes, right??;)

~C

[sammy1980]

Hi guys,

It was nice to hear from all of you:

James: Thanks for your honest feedback. That stuff you sent me about heterosexual agenda, was way funny. It is truly amazing that a gay man would defend a conservative pastor and reject another gay activist. Doesn't his sermon sound a bit harsh, though? You said, yourself that the Swedish hate speech law was stupid and had no place in liberal society. Well, one of the laws that Sheila Kuehl proposed was to consider criticism of homosexuality in public schools as a hate speech.

Tdogg: I have heard about Sheila Kuehl being pushing against employment discrimination of LGBT people, which I think is fair, but the most recent one laws she proposed went too far. On gay marriage, I used to worry about this before, but now, it doesn't bother me at all. You see, with having it or not having will not have any affect on who and what people love. Whether it is a love for another person or a love for certain ethical codes that you want to live by. You see, my grandparents could only get their marriage certificates issued after living together for nearly 10 years. It was in Russia, and they were some political issues, pertaining to such a delay. They didn't have marriage certificates but they loved each other. The way I see it, the feeling of love is more important than having a certain document.

Pablo: In my personal experience, I had attraction for other men when I was in my teens but now I am attracted to women, which I consider is a gift from God. Yes, you can say that I am an ex-gay, however, I never had sexual relations with men, so you might say that I wasn't really gay. I guess, it's confusing these days to clearly define what it truly means to be gay. My 'therapy' was basketball. I always wonder, if I could change my sexual urges, why couldn't other people? That word you were talking about in the 1 Corinthians, from what I heard/read means 'men in a bed together,' literally speaking. It wasn't defined as homosexual until the 19th century. However, the scripture doesn't say anything negative or positive about having a sexual attraction for the same sex, known as homosexual orienation. Like I said before, anybody who wants to follow Jesus is a Christian. The key thing to remember is that we must deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily and follow him (Luke 9:23). This means that whatever we personally cherish most, we must give up, ie try to figure out what God really wants and not what we want. Then put his concerns above ours. I'm still in the process but I believe that God all has plans for all of us.

Cathy; Yes, I'm a single male. How did you figure it out?

See ya

[andrewlittle]

Please forgive the dry nature of this post. I think it's important. You may not.

Sam, how right you are to question this passage:
That word you were talking about in the 1 Corinthians, from what I heard/read means 'men in a bed together,' literally speaking. It wasn't defined as homosexual until the 19th century.

1Cor 6:9 has two words that, when translated into English, have been understood to be directed against homosexuality. The Greek the words, malakoi(s) and arsenokoitay, are problematic for different reasons, however.

malakos - is an adjective.
malakois appears in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and is the neuter/plural form of malakos. malakoi appears in 1Cor 6:9 and is the masculine/plural form of malakos. This is the full extent of the appearance of the malakos adjective in the New Testament.

It appears in ancient Greek texts and is understood to mean, variously, freshly plowed (when talking about land), luxurious (when talking about clothing) and is also used to mean temple idol slaves or servants (Homer and others).

The Latin Vulgate Bible, from the 5th century translated malakois (Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) into mollibus, which means "luxurious" or "effeminate". It translated malakoi (1Cor 6:9) into idolis servientes, which means idol slaves or servants.

The King James version (1611), which relied heavily on the Vulgate, translated malakois to "soft" in Matt and Luke, as it was referring to clothing. But in 1Cor, evidently not being happy with "idol servants" they translated malakoi into "effeminate". It seems to many scholars that the Latin translators were closer in time and culture than the English translators, so they would have a better idea of meaning. None-the-less, the KJV translation has, of course, stuck ever since.

As far as arsenokoitay is concerned it appears twice in scripture and not at all in classic Greek literature. It is a compound word, not uncommon in Greek. 1 Cor 6:9 uses arsenokoitay and 1Tim 1:10 uses arsenokoitais. The words combined to make the first word are arsen (adjective neuter/singular), o (masculine definite article) and koitay (noun feminine/singular). The second word is the same, except that koitais is feminine/plural.

Now, the first thing is that the Greek language is gender specific. These words have feminine endings which means they refers to something female. The word parts are varied, however. arsen means “male”. o is the male definite article (the). koitey, the root of koitay and koitais, means “bed” or "place where koitus (coitus) occurs" - can we presume "female's bed", since it is feminine?

What was being communicated here? No-one is really sure. The KJV opted for “the abusers of themselves with mankind”. The NIV went with “homosexual offenders”. The NRSV went with “sodomites”.

The notion of "men in a bed together" is not literal at all, but shows the same bias as KJV, by assuming a lot of things that the Greek, or Latin, doesn't say.

But the Vulgate, translated 1000 years earlier, and closer to the original culture, than the KJV translated to adulteri, which means “adulterer” but in the female tense. You could argue that this doubles up on the earlier use of adulterer appearing in the same verse, but that one is male tense.

So which meaning do you want to use? It seems you have quite the range of choices, and biblical scholars can’t agree – can we?

I think, Sam, you show maturity in questioning the use of this passage.

[sammy1980]

Hi Andrew,

I would use a common sense approach. The word arsenakoite from 1 Corinthians is a term coined by Saint Paul by two words, arsena and koite. Arsena means men, or mankind and koite means bed. A lot of Greek scholars and Greek speakers would tell you that. Now, I don't speak Greek but I have a friend who does and another friend who studies Greek. I asked them both and they told me what it means. So, if you just put them together, you'll get something like "men in bed," "man and bed," or "bedfellows." By the way, the word fellow came into English language from Celtic culture, which meant young man in their language. I think that Greek scholars and some biblical scholars would agree on the individual meaning on this coin term. However, I think they can't agree on what Saint Paul implied by that, and for what reason he used that, ie what he wanted to accomplish.

Speaking of bedfellows, has anybody seen a movie called "Strange Bedfellows" with Paul Hogan, crocodile Dundee, about how pro-LGBT efforts affect Australia? Two straight guys pretend to be gay in order to file joint taxes. I guarantee, this movie will make you laugh

[tdogg]

Hi Sammy,

I don't think we need to give up the things we cherish most in order to follow Jesus. I do not feel that's what he meant at all. Otherwise, no one would have wives, husbands, partners, lovers, children, homes or jobs. we would all give that up, that means the most to us. Actually our faith means the most to us, so we might have to give that up to. I truly do not feel that is what Jesus meant. He blesses us with these gifts of love, homes, lives and we shouldn't toss that away necessarily. Although yes, some people are called to give it all up and totally commit all aspects of their lives to the Lord (ie nuns). We CAN have Jesus, follow Him AND have the loves of our lives as well. That is part of how we share Jesus with others.

Perhaps for you, changing who you are attracted to worked (perhaps it didn't??). For most it doesn't. For me, I finally allowed myself to fully have all those feelings I denied myself for years and years. It was the most tremendously freeing feeling I've had. To know that I can get rid of all that baggage, be myself, love my partner AND still have the Lord in my life fully and completely is AMAZING. I thank Him every day for it. I don't feel that God creates people with their individualness, uniqueness, and then expects them to not be who he created them to be. That would be cruel and inhumane and we know God isn't cruel and inhumane. He is loving and kind. And I know He blesses my relationship.

We'll just have to disagree on Sheila - I say go girl, and hope she continues to push that envelope. Meanwhile, I hope you are having a great weekend, and I'll be talking to you soon Sammy. :love: :pray: :)

[andrewlittle]

Okay, Sam,

You will obviously believe what you want, but for the sake of those who don't take what their friends say as Gospel, I will argue a point.

The word arsenakoite does not appear in the scriptures at all. Matter of fact, it doesn't appear in a lexicon of Biblical Greek. I cannot speak to modern Greek, but that's not relative - scripture wasn't written yesterday and modern Greek and Ancient Greek are as different as modern English and Old English. They are two different languages.

This site doesn't have Greek fonts, otherwise I would write the word as written in the Bible, but it is transcribed as arsenokoitay, the last two letters in Greek being an alpha (a) and an iota (i with a sound like y), and that between the nu (n) and kappa (k) being an omicron (o).

Changing a letter here or there to try to make arsen plural and koitay masculine is a rationalization to justify the traditional (?) translation. It is revisionism of the original Greek text.

The point to the scriptures, as I think you would agree, is not to change it to suit the interpretation we want, but to deal with what is actually written and wrestle with the ambiguity that remains.

And in this case, the word does NOT translate as "MEN (plural) IN (does not exist in the word) bed". At best, it is "the man bed" (bed being female as opposed to male gender).

You are correct, however, when you say, we don't know what Paul meant to accomplish or intended. To change Paul's word to make it something that we intent, however, is disengenuous, at best, and deceitful, at worst.

As to the origin of "fellows" - who cares. It's not pertinent to the text.

[frankandcathy]

Well this thread has gotten a bit more interesting.

Sammy...Thank you for sharing a bit of your story. I wanted to ask if you think the fact that you are an ex-gay has anything to do with why came to this web site and why you stood up against anti-gay behavior at your old church? Just out of curiousity, what led you here initially?

I think it is refreshing to hear from someone who says that they felt they were gay and then began to be attracted to women. It's certainly a different point of view and I think ALL points of view are probably needed in this discussion. Again, thank you for sharing!

~C

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

It is truly amazing that a gay man would defend a conservative pastor and reject another gay activist.

Not really amazing -- I don't see any contradiction. Pastor Green should have the right to speak his mind. I don't agree with what he says, but in a democracy, he's free to say what he thinks, and I'm free to say where I think his arguments are not correct. I'll get to that in a moment.

I think the trend is getting worse in this country of being hypersensitive to disagreement. Hate speech laws begin with the correct idea that some kinds of speech have no intention to contribute to a civil, democratic discussion of how things should be done. Some kinds of speech are intended to hurt people, nothing more. Some such kinds of speech have historically accompanied violence against people who had no legal way to stop the attacks, and it's reasonable to suppose that people who indulge in that kind of speech would also sympathize with the violence, and perhaps be capable of their themselves. Did you happen to see the Borat movie? He said something to a rodeo organizer about sending the gays to prisons and stringing them up by their necks -- to which the rodeo guy responded, "That's just what we're trying to do right here ."

There's a rational basis to ban certain kinds of speech. We can have a great discussion about race without using the n-word. Likewise, we can have a great discussion about sexual orientation without using the f-word. If we're committed to a civil society, we should be able to handle disagreement so long as it avoids obviously hateful speech. The Swedish government's response to that sermon seems a bit like banning speech that might hurt somebody's feelings. I think if you seriously try to do that, democracy grinds to a halt because pretty soon, nobody can say anything.

[I]Doesn't his sermon sound a bit harsh, though?

I read through part of it. It's all very familiar, containing the same types of misinformation I'm used to hearing from conservative Christians. He also relies heavily on specific interpretations of what we sometimes call "clobber verses" (so named because of their frequent use to clobber gay people in debate). Those interpretations are heavily in dispute among Christian scholars, and for Pastor Green to completely ignore those debates, I think, does a disservice to his congregation.

I don't want to rehearse all of the arguments because many other authors have done it much better than I could.

My other issue with his sermon is that, in effect, the result of his argument is to promote conditional love of gay people. What message would most straight people take away from the sermon of this sort? "We are all sinners in need of God's grace," or is it rather, "we are all sinners, but gay people are worse sinners than others"? It's partly a matter of emphasis. There's a lot of attention in that sermon to the speck in the brother's eye, and very little to the log in one's own. That, in my observation, is the biggest source of religious hypocrisy of them all.

You said, yourself that the Swedish hate speech law was stupid and had no place in liberal society. Well, one of the laws that Sheila Kuehl proposed was to consider criticism of homosexuality in public schools as a hate speech.

California Senate Bill 1437 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1437_bill_20060830_enrolled.html) reads:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:

51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code.
SEC. 2. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51501. No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code.
SEC. 3. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by any governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their
race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code, or occupation.
(b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.

"No teacher shall give instruction... that reflects adversely upon persons because of their... sexual orientation."

I think this is quite a bit different from outlawing all criticism of homosexuality. To me it's the difference between a teacher basing the curriculum primarily on personal views (whether religious or not) -- that is, using his professional position as an educator to promote views with which many of his students (not to mention many of their parents) might take serious issue. For example, if I were in high school and out to my parents (who are very supportive), and my social studies teacher started a discussion by saying, "Homosexuality is a psychological disorder and my religion says all gay people are going to hell," the teacher might think he is just exercising his religion, but my parents would be entirely justified in saying that it's extremely unprofessional behavior and calling for disciplinary action.

Kind of like what I was saying before about the corporate world. The teacher is there to do a job -- to create a productive learning environment for the students. It is not in the teacher's job description to use the classroom as a religious pulpit.

(Similarly, a teacher who is an atheist could begin a discussion of religion in politics by saying that religion, especially conservative religion, has historically been a corrupting influence, and that we would be better off without religion. Also unprofessional behavior!)

If a teacher is opposed to homosexuality, she would have to find some creative ways to introduce her views. What about presenting pro and con arguments and opening up a discussion where students share their views? It's almost certain that some of the students would have views on the subject similar to the teacher's. The bill doesn't require a teacher to censor any discussion that "reflects adversely" -- just that the teacher may not use anti gay materials only, or primarily, and the teacher may not push an anti-gay view.

My view is that it isn't the teachers job to push one position or another. I prefer the educational philosophy of helping students to think through complex issues -- how to evaluate different opinions, review research, and recognize logical errors -- so that they reach a position that is stronger because they've put it through scrutiny. More like Socrates (who called out everybody's errors, even people he generally agreed with).

There's a huge difference between a teacher approaching the topic in the classroom with "James Dobson says this about homosexuality, and this is the way it is," vs. presenting both sides and hashing through the merits and the problems of each.

I think if the law were interpreted in the courts to prevent this kind of teaching, I would not be able to support it. At the same time, I don't think teachers should be able to just spout off whatever they want to say without any accountability "just because it's their religion."

That's all for today... longer than I thought :) I have to bring this under control sooner or later. But I'm really enjoying this discussion.

James

[sammy1980]

Well this thread has gotten a bit more interesting.

Sammy...Thank you for sharing a bit of your story. I wanted to ask if you think the fact that you are an ex-gay has anything to do with why came to this web site and why you stood up against anti-gay behavior at your old church? Just out of curiousity, what led you here initially?

I think it is refreshing to hear from someone who says that they felt they were gay and then began to be attracted to women. It's certainly a different point of view and I think ALL points of view are probably needed in this discussion. Again, thank you for sharing!

~C

Well, part of my experience of having homosexual attraction is the reason why I came here and I would really like to hear, what would people say who believe in a 'born gay theory' because I don't. I am very sure I had reasons why I was attracted to other boys, when I was a teenager, and I think I was able to understand them with the help of God. I also believe that people who find pleasure in homosexuality have their own reasons for that, but that's another issue. Correction: at my church, I just shared the information about the biggotry against gay and lesbian people at my church, and suddenly three or four elders started preaching to me about Sodom and Gomorrah in a very harsh way, and asked me if I was a 'liberal gay rights activist.' I got upset because I'm hardly liberal and I was not involved in anything that promoted gay rights. Now, thinking back in time, I have brought the subject to my church, not because of what I used to feel, by that time I was completely done with homosexuality (that happened when I was like 11-12) and I didn't start going to church until I was 18, but because at that time I had an openly gay cousin, who is now passed away::( But in the long run, I used that experience in this thread and compared to what Keltic have said to me, in order to show what happens when people don't want to hear the other side of the story and keep attaching labels to you, the ones you don't have.

[sammy1980]

Hi Sammy,

I don't think we need to give up the things we cherish most in order to follow Jesus. I do not feel that's what he meant at all. Otherwise, no one would have wives, husbands, partners, lovers, children, homes or jobs. we would all give that up, that means the most to us. Actually our faith means the most to us, so we might have to give that up to. I truly do not feel that is what Jesus meant. He blesses us with these gifts of love, homes, lives and we shouldn't toss that away necessarily. Although yes, some people are called to give it all up and totally commit all aspects of their lives to the Lord (ie nuns). We CAN have Jesus, follow Him AND have the loves of our lives as well. That is part of how we share Jesus with others.

Perhaps for you, changing who you are attracted to worked (perhaps it didn't??). For most it doesn't. For me, I finally allowed myself to fully have all those feelings I denied myself for years and years. It was the most tremendously freeing feeling I've had. To know that I can get rid of all that baggage, be myself, love my partner AND still have the Lord in my life fully and completely is AMAZING. I thank Him every day for it. I don't feel that God creates people with their individualness, uniqueness, and then expects them to not be who he created them to be. That would be cruel and inhumane and we know God isn't cruel and inhumane. He is loving and kind. And I know He blesses my relationship.

We'll just have to disagree on Sheila - I say go girl, and hope she continues to push that envelope. Meanwhile, I hope you are having a great weekend, and I'll be talking to you soon Sammy. :love: :pray: :)

Hi there, Tdogg,

Well, I am basing my arguments from biblical passages, where it is being said that God has a plan for us, and that Jesus wants to put him in the first and primary concern about above things like spouses, parents, brothers and sisters, deny ourselves and follow him. The way how it works is this: you ask God in your prayer what he wants from you and trust me, he will speak to you and tell what he wants and tell you what to do. This is how your establish a RELATIONSHIP with God. This is the concept of self-denial. It's not really about giving up your friends, lovers, cats but about putting God first and doing everything on his terms. Trust me, in my life, they were certain things I wanted to have, without ever thinking whether God would approve of them, just because I was very selfish and I realized that pursuing them led me into major dissatisfaction. So, I prayed to God, asked him about his plan for me, and from now on he spoke back to me in his unique ways, and told me to do certain things. I am following according to his plan and I am finding a great joy. It's like God told me to take a job of a janitor in Walmart and I did it, although it does not match my education and as you would agree, not the most popular job in the world, but I'm doing it because this is what God wants, and I believe he will reveal more of his plan, later on.

Peace and Love,

Sam

[Dash]

Sammy,

Like Cathy, I loved you the moment you told that you were cleaning bathrooms in Wal-Mart. :love: Heck! I don't care if you disagree with everything I am...I'll still love you for that. You're beautiful!

But, something else you mentioned brought back some old, old thoughts of mine.

So, there's this parable in Matthew:

Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)

"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
* * *

I used to have a pretty low opinion of myself, and I used to be pissed at God that I was gay. Couldn't change it... My friends rejected me... I thought God hated me. I wrote a lot of verse then, and much of it was quite dark. Here's what I wrote about the parable:

Matthew 25: 14-30

I've said it before—you've given me little
Of life. O so little do you entrust
To worthless me; and you say that I must
Return to you this precious committal.
Ah! but terrible Master I know you;
Know you expect a balanced account.
How shall I ever repay the amount
Should I dare to invest and risk to lose
This burden of a golden coin, engraved
With a likeness resembling somewhat thine?
Heavy it is, and heavily those eyes
Do press—nor relent to gaze upon mine.
O how I long—though I know it's not wise—
To wrap in a cloth...to lay in a grave.

* * *

So yeah...I wanted at times to kill myself, and in these lines I thought of the man who was given one gold coin. He buried his gift...I wanted to bury myself.

But, I've learned some things since that time. I've learned to value the bit that has been entrusted to me. I've learned to see my own capacity to love as part of that gift. I've learned that (for me) I can't bury my loving nature as a gay man, anymore than I should see myself to an early grave. There've been times when all I could think was "why didn't God make me straight like everyone else?"

Well...I was entrusted with something else. I was entrusted with a different gift for love, and you know what, Sammy? I'm gonna go out there and turn it into so much wealth! And when that day comes, and I show how much increase I have made of the love God gave me...those words, "Good and faithful servant!"...they'll be for me as much as anyone else.

Who I am...that's what God gave me. What will I make of it? How much can I make of it? Well, I tell you one thing: I'll never think about burying who I am again. I'm gay. It's a gift. It's my gift.

* * *

From the Catholic Action Network...my favorite prayer:

Loving God, Source of all Life and Truth, we come before you with hearts filled with gratitude for the many gifts you have bestowed on your people, including the marvelous gift of our affections and love. We pray that we may always be people who act with a holy respect for our capacity to love, knowing that in our loving we draw closer to you, the wellspring of love in all of creation.

We ask for hearts that are forgiving and filled with your compassion. Help us to overcome hurt and injury -- in word and in action. Help us to speak truth without fear. Help us to nurture one another in faith. And we ask you, source of all Mercy, to forgive our injury of others, our lapses in truth-telling, and our neglect of one another.

We call upon the intercession of our Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered brothers and sisters who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith. Some lived quietly, some boldly; some were martyred, some have been forgotten to history: May they help us in our struggle today, and may we all come to share in the fullness of the light of your presence, when every tear will be wiped away, and ignorance of your Law of Love will be no more. Amen.

* * *

Peace to you in your journey, Sammy.

[Daniel]

Well, part of my experience of having homosexual attraction is the reason why I came here and I would really like to hear, what would people say who believe in a 'born gay theory' because I don't. I am very sure I had reasons why I was attracted to other boys, when I was a teenager, and I think I was able to understand them with the help of God.

Sammy- On the 'born gay theory' Here's my take on the matter.

Theories, as such, are a way to give context to observations. The concern here is the context in which same-sex attraction takes place: what we're talking about is people self-reporting that they have been attracted to members of their sex for as long as they can remember. Hence: they report that they are born gay.

Your own self-reported feelings towards members of the same sex are just that- your own. To extrapolate that- just because you once felt something and now do not feel that something and therefore everyone else can do the same- says more about you than it does about other people. For one thing, as you indicate, you never acted on those feelings.

Hello!

Gay people do, eventually, if they are in an environment where it is possible to do so safely.

Ever hear of Alfred Kinsey? (God Bless Him) He was the first to study sex and sexuality in America in a way that helped people understand that everything (and everyone it seems) regarding sexuality isn't all so black and white.

It's more like a continuum.

Ok. It's time to get real. Confession time.

I've never- ever- had sex with a woman. Never wanted to. Ever. Kinsey- if I have my numbers right- would say that I am a '6'.

The few times I played around with dating women when I was at my AG school weirded me out big time. It took me a while to figure out why. (I did have an attraction to other boys when I was around 12/13, but stuffed those feeling down deep- so deep- in fact- that it took me a while to find them again. Trouble is- at least it was troublesome for me- when you push essential stuff like that deep down- out of your awareness- other stuff goes with it unfortunately.)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I was a bit different from the other boys- and even my father told me that- looking back- he knew that I was different. Scared him but good. And why wouldn't it? Most people don't know what to do with someone who is 'different'. (Having taught school, I observed that children can be most intolerant of each other. We send children to school to be socialized and they often come home anything but. But that's another matter. Last thought here: real education takes place between two people: one to one, teacher to pupil, artist to apprentice, master to would-be-master. Someone has to light that spark in us or at least make it possible for the flame to burn on high.)

That said, I loved my first-grade gal pal, she was the first person I remember feeling a strong attraction to- we wanted to be around each other all the time. But that was before my hormones kicked in. And I love (am very fond actually) of a few gal pals at work. But I have no desire to make-out with them except as directed (I work in the theatre- opera).

They call that acting.

Got that?

I'm as gay (queer) as a three-dollar bill.

That's my self-reporting. Believe it or not, but my marriage to my husband is real.

Canada. Legal papers.

Can't wait to do it in New York State.

Legally.

[andrewlittle]

In think Daniel's notion of a continuum is immensely important. I also think it explains a lot of fear on the part of people who are concerned about where they fall on that continuum.

I dare say that if we look at any line that represents a continuum, very few of us are found at either extreme. I am an introvert who is reasonably confortable being extroverted. I am an intellectual who is driven to do physical things - woodworking, gardening - in order to feel complete. There are so many scales that this kind of analysis could go on forever, but hopefully I've made that point.

Sexuality is, I think, one more continuum, just as Daniel (and others) pointed out. Lesbians who are butch; lesbians who are princesses; straight women who are butch; straight men who are effeminate on some scale (I qualify here); gay men who are "manly men". These are just a few of the massive number of possibilities.

Yesterday, in church, a man got up to express a joy. He was dressed immaculately, groomed handsomely, spoke with a very distinct and expressive lilt in his voice, and guestured in what would generally be considered effeminate ways. I would not have been surprised to see this 50+ year old man in a gay bar - I wouldn't necessarily expect to see him there - but it wouldn't surprise me. Well, he got up and beamed - absolutely glowed - as he gave thanks for his new granddaughter born on he and his wife's 30th anniversary. He cried with joy.

He resides somewhere on a continuum that is expressly suitable to who he is as a child of God and, when talking with him later, is perfectly comfortable with his place on that continuum. Praise God from whom all blessings flow. So many of us can't claim that comfort.

It is not unusual at all, matter of fact some developmental psychologists say it is very normal, for young pre-teen boys and girls to go through a period of same-gender interest. I refuse to call it "gender confusion", because I think it is a passage to our self-definition.

When that period is accompanied by someone else's criticism or debasement, or when it is impacted by significant family or social events or bias, the results can be soul-crushing shame that is carried throughout life. Shame on that magnitude can be toxic.

I had a friend Jimmy, at that age, who I thought the world of. We were both different in many ways than our schoolmates. Jimmy was the adopted child of a retired couple, and (looking back) he seemed to have no doubts that he was loved and loveable. He was himself. Just like Sam, I had no sexual or romantic contacts with Jimmy, but we showed affection for each other in many ways and spent huge amounts of time together.

Also during that time, I became seriously ill and was hospitalized for a long period, followed by a long recovery spent mostly in bed. I learned to crochet, since my hands were about the only part of my body that didn't scream with pain when I used them. I became very proficient at it (I was, by the way, taught by my married uncle who was also an Airforce commander).

Neither one of these pieces of information are earth-shaking.

My parents reacted in completely opposite ways to that period in my life. My mother was as encouraging as it is as humanly possible to be. My father was livid. He told me frequently what an absolute embarrassment I was to him, and I was forbidden to be seen outside the house unless I was on my way to school or work. He also became intent on "beating me into manhood." He instilled shame to the deepest level of my being, and I hated him for it.

As I grew older, I found my sexuality. It was decidedly heterosexual. Men held no sexual attraction for me whatsoever - but women, that was a different story. At 52, I am in love with my wife, and I am fascinated with her whole person - body being very included in that fascination.

I'll give you just a moment to have a stiff drink or whatever will help you get over the yuck factor. Sorry.

My point is that I have spent an inordinate amount of time recovering from that earlier period of my life. I was, for much of it, a true homophobe - I was nasty, judgmental, and verbally abusive. Years ago, however, with the help of a shrink, I found the source of that visceral hatred for gays - it was fully lined up with my hatred for my father (now there's a surprise, eh).

I was conditioned to be homophobic because, at my core, I was uncomfortable - bullshit, I was ashamed - of my place on the "sexual" continuum. I reeked with self-doubt and I expressed my emotional agony over that in truly hateful behavior towards innocent people who just happened to ACT in a way that I was told was "revolting" and "of the devil".

I even, remarkably well I might add, crafted a theology that lines up with my emotional state. God hated gays as much as I did. I created a hatred in God that made me feel accepted and lessened my shame. I committed idolatry to make myself feel better as a person.

I am here to tell you, failed suicide attempts not withstanding, that God heals - God takes our hand as we wander through the shame filled hallways of out mind, and brings us to the place where we can love others as ourselves because God first loves us, then we learn to love God, then God teaches us how to love ourselves, and then and only then how to love each other.

God does not hate fa-s, no matter the claim of the website. God hates hatred.

[Zerbie]

Omigosh you dear sweet friends!

:love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

Hugs all round!

I'm about to be late for class, but couldn't resist popping in - greatly moved by Dash and Andrew's stories which I hadn't heard before (Dash's not in such detail - thank God you are with us!:love: :pray: )

Now about that continuum - I've been everywhere on it, and I guess most of my life has been spent traveling somewhere along the middle.

Cathy you said you welcome all viewpoints, so since you are new here I'll say this:

I feel - how unpopular is this going to be? - like maybe my sexual orientation changed, or - dissolved - along the way. I didn't have a lick of attraction to men until I was 28, and then suddenly there it was. Of course I was "out" as a lesbian by that time. It was pretty embarassing :o to acknowledge a "change," since that's supposed to be impossible, and since there is a vicious "ex-gay" political movement out there. I came out as bisexual, a label which finally felt RIGHT, but retreated from activism for several years because I feared being viewed by other gay people as some kind of traitor for having felt that my orientation changed. Well, there it is. It did. or else I was made bisexual via time-release-capsules and the "straight side" kicked in a little late. :rolleyes: :p

That's no reason whatsoever to suggest that someone like, let's say Daniel, who has always felt himself 100% same-sex oriented should make some kind of effort to change his entire affectional and sexual nature. We're all different - we need to acknowledge that.

[sammy1980]

Omigosh you dear sweet friends!

:love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

Hugs all round!

I'm about to be late for class, but couldn't resist popping in - greatly moved by Dash and Andrew's stories which I hadn't heard before (Dash's not in such detail - thank God you are with us!:love: :pray: )

Now about that continuum - I've been everywhere on it, and I guess most of my life has been spent traveling somewhere along the middle.

Cathy you said you welcome all viewpoints, so since you are new here I'll say this:

I feel - how unpopular is this going to be? - like maybe my sexual orientation changed, or - dissolved - along the way. I didn't have a lick of attraction to men until I was 28, and then suddenly there it was. Of course I was "out" as a lesbian by that time. It was pretty embarassing :o to acknowledge a "change," since that's supposed to be impossible, and since there is a vicious "ex-gay" political movement out there. I came out as bisexual, a label which finally felt RIGHT, but retreated from activism for several years because I feared being viewed by other gay people as some kind of traitor for having felt that my orientation changed. Well, there it is. It did. or else I was made bisexual via time-release-capsules and the "straight side" kicked in a little late. :rolleyes: :p

That's no reason whatsoever to suggest that someone like, let's say Daniel, who has always felt himself 100% same-sex oriented should make some kind of effort to change his entire affectional and sexual nature. We're all different - we need to acknowledge that.


Thanks Zerbie for sharing your experience,
The question is really not about whether people should make efforts to change their sexual and affectional natures, but whether they COULD do so.
Haven't you heard what is happening in the world? In Sweden, there is a movement among bisexuals to legislate polygamy, in order to protect the rights of who people who love two different people. Actually, it is the same organization that pressed charges against Ake Green, which serves the needs of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, led by Soren Andersson. So, based on this, I can understand why some people would argue against gay marriage by seeing it not just about gays but about everybody, who experience love and need economic benefits, and when everybody else start asking for marriage, would there be any order and stability in our society? I heard a joke about redifining marriage, a man went to a clerks office asking for a marriage llicense. The clerk asked him, whom he wanted to marry and the man replied that he wanted to marry himself because he had a split personality and wanted to make sure, his alter ego would be able to inherit medical and life insurance.:lol:

[Zerbie]

Thanks Zerbie for sharing your experience,
The question is really not about whether people should make efforts to change their sexual and affectional natures, but whether they COULD do so.
Haven't you heard what is happening in the world? In Sweden, there is a movement among bisexuals to legislate polygamy, in order to protect the rights of who people who love two different people. Actually, it is the same organization that pressed charges against Ake Green, which serves the needs of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, led by Soren Andersson. So, based on this, I can understand why some people would argue against gay marriage by seeing it not just about gays but about everybody, who experience love and need economic benefits, and when everybody else start asking for marriage, would there be any order and stability in our society? I heard a joke about redifining marriage, a man went to a clerks office asking for a marriage llicense. The clerk asked him, whom he wanted to marry and the man replied that he wanted to marry himself because he had a split personality and wanted to make sure, his alter ego would be able to inherit medical and life insurance.:lol:


Well now we're mixing issues Sammy!

Let's stick with the matter of change for now, and not take on the "slippery slope" and "marriage definition" at this moment.

You said the question isn't whether they "should" make effort to change, but whether they "could." Well they "could," they DO, and the problem is that effort doesn't make a jot of difference to them - it didn't to me. I didn't do a d*mn thing, just suddenly liked a guy one day. and then another, and then another. It was like riding a raft on a rapid river, all I did was hang on for the ride. I would NEVER tell someone that something I did caused the object of my feelings to change. I didn't DO anything - it just happened to me.

There are people who waste years of their lives (and a great deal of cash as well) paying "experts" who supposedly know how to get control over this tremendous force of life and change their sexuality - our sexuality is the force of life manifesting through us, how dare we try to wrest forcible control over Life? While I do not stand in the way of anyone "experimenting" to find where their true attractions lie (whether with men or women,) I will never condone saturating gay people in an environment that says everything about how they experience their innermost heart is wrong and needs to change. :mad: :'(

The ability to love and be loved is the greatest noblest part of a human being. It is not some joke or some deficiency that needs "correcting". That many on our forum have found partners and are emotionally, psychologically, spiritually free, growing daily in abundance, caring, love and generosity is the most beautiful gift from God and I will fight until my dying breath that no one ever takes it away from them. Us.

No one should be asked to suppress their ability to love. Never!
When people try, we are all deprived of the fullness of their contributions to this world. Don't take that away from them, from me, from yourself, or anyone. Don't ask them to lay it aside.

[frankandcathy]

Guys are HOT! I'm glad that now Zerbie and I can share this wonderful truth! Rippling muscles, big smiles, a hand placed on the small of your back to help you through a door. Sigh. My husband has been out of town WAY too long. :D

I'm sure I'm getting a few "amens" from David or Daniel or Pablo here.

Seriously, though, thank you so much for sharing that Zerbie. Had you not shared it before on this site?

I think it's so very, very important for ALL of us to say things that aren't kosher like, "I used to only be attracted to women...now I am attracted to men too!" We need to understand the full spectrum of where people are at.

There was a point in my life before I was a Christian when I thought I might be bi-sexual. A lot of that had to do with some different stuff in my childhood, etc. and now I don't feel that way at all. But I do think a woman's body is simply beautiful to look at...especially when she's pregnant. Is that erotic? I don't think it has to be. Maybe it's our silly inability to look at beautiful human creations and NOT make it sexual that gets us in so much trouble sometimes.

I think it's important for us to say, "Hey, maybe some men aren't really as gay as they think. Maybe they really ARE looking for a father figure. And maybe some aren't. Maybe some women aren't really attracted to women merely because they were born that way. Maybe they were abused and are terrified of men. And some aren't. Maybe who I'm attracted to could change mid-stream. Or maybe it won't."

This is all a part of the spectrum of sexuality that Bruce has been speaking about. The important thing is that I don't label it all and that the gay community doesn't label it all and we just look at it for what it is and try to figure it out.

I think that's scary to do. What would it mean to the gay community if Sammy was "really" gay but started playing BASKETBALL and this cured him?? We can't tell people THAT! Maybe the NBA would get more interesting, but...

It's threatening a premise that is basic to the whole shebang. You are born gay and can never change! And what is the reaction to Sammy? "You weren't ever REALLY gay." You were just "fake gay." ;)

To be TRULY gay you have to do x, y, and z and stand on your head singing show tunes! Now I'm trying to be comedic here but you see my point. I mean, who among us would say it's outside of God's ability to CHANGE SOMEONE'S ORIENTATION? What if they were miserable and prayed daily to have it taken away from them and Jesus, in his mercy, did so? Would that mean that he hates gays? NO! It just means he answered the prayer of one guy who was desperate.

The same priciple applies in reverse for the CC community. What would we DO if we let people tell stories about how they were once heterosexual to the core and now are bi-sexual? (Are there stories like this? Anyone know?)

Anyway, this thread is awesome. I am so thankful for everyone sharing here. You guys are great!!

~C

[andrewlittle]

Sammy wrote:
So, based on this, I can understand why some people would argue against gay marriage by seeing it not just about gays but about everybody, who experience love and need economic benefits, and when everybody else start asking for marriage, would there be any order and stability in our society?

Order and stability from exclusivist marital regulation is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. When marriage gives order and stability to straight people, then I might listen to this BS.

What the hell would be wrong if everybody else started asking about marriage? Who is this "everybody else"? If they experience love and need the economic security of marriage, who has the right to stop them?

Oh, that's right, I forgot about the heterosexual majority. We need to keep what is uniquely ours to ourselves. Our security depends on it. But how? What makes us think that order and stability are the things that depend on heterosexual marriage?

Where's the threat? If John and Joe get married, or Jane and Judy, how does that diminish Fred and Freda? What threat is it to them?

Do we think that more people who get married are going to increase the demand for divorce attorneys and, thereby, raise the price? Is that 50% divorce rate something we're proud of and want to protect? My God, if truly committed people wanted to get married, they'd make us straight people look like philandering a-holes. What would happen if they, God forbid, stayed married?

Or is the critical concern insurance rates? Or availability of housing? Or is it that somehow GLBT folks are going to overrun the planet - oh, yeah, I forgot. They don't propogate like us straight rabbits.

And, Sam, that joke really makes whatever straight a-hole who made it up look like the biggest crackpot around. Now, let's talk about sensitivity - or the absolute lack of it. I know its really none of my business, but I wish to hell that you grow up have some sense anout yourself. You really make yourself look bad.

[sammy1980]

Sammy wrote:


[quote]Order and stability from exclusivist marital regulation is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. When marriage gives order and stability to straight people, then I might listen to this BS.

I never said marriage gives order and stability exclusively to straight people but to the whole human society and most importantly children. If you have questions about it, why I believe so, please ask me and I will discuss them with you in details, but I think it should be handled in a separate thread.

What the hell would be wrong if everybody else started asking about marriage? Who is this "everybody else"? If they experience love and need the economic security of marriage, who has the right to stop them?

Everybody else who claims they are in love with somebody. People who are in love with two people, with three people, with 10000 people, people who are in love with themsleves, people who are in love with children. Nobody has a right to stop anybody, but the question is how it will affect all people living in the world in terms of what they start seeing on TV, read in books, and learn in schools whether is it going to be a positive learning information or biased propaganda, and most important how it will affect the growth and development of our children?

Oh, that's right, I forgot about the heterosexual majority. We need to keep what is uniquely ours to ourselves. Our security depends on it. But how? What makes us think that order and stability are the things that depend on heterosexual marriage?
Where's the threat? If John and Joe get married, or Jane and Judy, how does that diminish Fred and Freda? What threat is it to them?

Like I said before, it's not about Fred and Freda. It's about what children see and learn about who they are and where they came from. Not about heterosexual adults, as somebody might think. But again, I think it would better that these concerns regarding children, society, and marriage should be handled separately.

Do we think that more people who get married are going to increase the demand for divorce attorneys and, thereby, raise the price? Is that 50% divorce rate something we're proud of and want to protect? My God, if truly committed people wanted to get married, they'd make us straight people look like philandering a-holes. What would happen if they, God forbid, stayed married?

I am lost in this reasoning.

Or is the critical concern insurance rates? Or availability of housing? Or is it that somehow GLBT folks are going to overrun the planet - oh, yeah, I forgot. They don't propogate like us straight rabbits.

Well, Andrew, like I said before, there are some people in the gay community who want to do exactly so, GLBT to rule the world with an iron fist. Michael Swift is one of them. Actually, it was he who invented the term you heard from conservative circles known as homosexual agenda. As a matter of fact in 1987, he published an article entitled "Homosexual Agenda." In that article, he stated his intentions of what his followers would do, it goes on and on; convince the world that homosexuality should be glorified, prey on children and make them gay, make any critics of homosexuality feel ashamed of themselves, influence the promotion of homosexuality into government and politics, make the world understand that the tradional marriage (one man and one woman) is naturally oppressive, create punitive measures against anybody who opposes homosexuality, the list goes on and on. This guy does not represent entire GLBT community, but he is very charismatic and has followers. Like James said, there are left-wing nut jobs, like Michael Swift, and there are right-wing nut jobs, like Fred Phelps, and our job is to make sure that the nuts don't get too much power.

And, Sam, that joke really makes whatever straight a-hole who made it up look like the biggest crackpot around. Now, let's talk about sensitivity - or the absolute lack of it. I know its really none of my business, but I wish to hell that you grow up have some sense anout yourself. You really make yourself look bad.

So, I can understand that the joke I told might have a lack of sensitivity and I might make myself look bad. You are not kidding about it, since we live in the world of political correctness. Firstable, it is assumptive to think who made the joke, it was a joke I found on the internet and it was made by a person, who could be either straight or gay. As a matter of fact, not all GLBT are in favor of gay marriage. The ones I met in my working class neighborhood don't really care. Second thing, I noticed that when someone makes a joke on the issue of affirming traditional marriage (one man and one woman), like by jokingly asking if heterosexual marriage license needs an expiration date based on the premise that it is about children, the public is cool with this joke but when someone makes a joke about redefining traditional marriage, the public tends to malign that someone. It's not my business, but whoever promotes this PC sensitivity, ie trying to prevent somebody from saying what they think with the fear of hurting somebody's feelings, is being unbalanced, undemocratic, and unliberal. Don't you think though, when people who believe in preserving traditional marriage hear jokes about it being so, they don't get their feelings hurt?

I am sorry if I accidently heated things up again, I didn't mean too. I was just trying to make everybody understand where people from other perspectives could be coming from.

[sammy1980]

Hello folks,

It's my day off and I am planning on going to the movie to see 'Borat.' James inspired me, by reminding me about it. I've been so busy working and never had time for myself.

Cathy: On your comments about me being fake gay, who cares, as long as I am happy as a person. I think it is possible that NBA could put NARTH out of business. :)

Zerbie and Andrew: I thought we could talk about anything, and you brought a subject of bisexuality and I wanted to ask a question about its involvement, due to its connection with polygamy. I am still questioning whether anybody who is in love, regardless of sex and number of parties, should get married? What will it bring? That's all.

Peace,

Sammy

[keltic63]

Well, Andrew, like I said before, there are some people in the gay community who want to do exactly so, GLBT to rule the world with an iron fist. Michael Swift is one of them. Actually, it was he who invented the term you heard from conservative circles known as homosexual agenda. As a matter of fact in 1987, he published an article entitled "Homosexual Agenda." In that article, he stated his intentions of what his followers would do, it goes on and on; convince the world that homosexuality should be glorified, prey on children and make them gay, make any critics of homosexuality feel ashamed of themselves, influence the promotion of homosexuality into government and politics, make the world understand that the tradional marriage (one man and one woman) is naturally oppressive, create punitive measures against anybody who opposes homosexuality, the list goes on and on. This guy does not represent entire GLBT community, but he is very charismatic and has followers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Agenda It's satire. Many anti-gay people omit the first sentence of the article in question.

[Zerbie]

Zerbie and Andrew: I thought we could talk about anything, and you brought a subject of bisexuality and I wanted to ask a question about its involvement, due to its connection with polygamy. I am still questioning whether anybody who is in love, regardless of sex and number of parties, should get married? What will it bring? That's all.

Peace,

Sammy

Er? Not clear on the question here? Is your question what would marriage bring a bisexual person? I'll tell you what it has brought me:

Publicly acknowledged vows between me and my forever partner
a beautiful house which, should one of us die, the other will inherit without question
ditto - every asset we have (insurance, retirement funds, the cars, whatever)
the legal right to visit one another in the emergency room (same-sex partners cannot)
automatic acceptance of the validity of our relationship whenever people see us wearing matching rings and holding hands, world-wide
a degree of emotional security in the knowledge that not only is my forever-partner with me, but also that our relationship is legally acknowledged and protected, sanctified and publicly endorsed wherever we go

I'm sure there are other things I am leaving out. I tell ya Sammy - I thought I supported marriage equality before I got married - BEING married is such a tremendous blessing that I want more than ever for all couples to be so blessed and so happy. Knowing your relationship is legally - what's the word? - cemented makes such a tremendous difference. Study after study shows that a happy marriage improves emotional and physica health - and that has been my personal observation as well. My gay friends deserve these blessings and joys every bit as much as I do.

As for what children see - well, I was a child not all that long ago. I'll tell ya what I saw: a world where some people were ostracized, demonized, whispered about, ridiculed, humiliated, and cut-off from the rest of society because they have a capacity to love another human being. It horrified me Sammy! I thought: What kind of a world is this??? And wanted to retreat away from it. I was a horrified little girl, since 6 years old, wondering what was wrong with the grown-ups around me that they would ever treat other human beings the way they treated gay people.

At our victory party after Prop 107 was defeated, I stood beside a 12 year old girl for two hours watching the votes come in. She watched with tears of hope in her eyes, hands clasped over her heart, praying. She was there with her two gay fathers to see the results of a popular vote over whether her parents' relationship would have all legal recognition voided. That child had to watch people VOTE on the worth of her family. That's what that child had to see. :'(

Cathy - I've mentioned my history here several times, but it's buried somewhere in the over-one-thousand posts, and I knew you hadn't heard it. So I re-hashed a bit. There WAS a big thread that I started about bisexuality a while ago, maybe I can find it and bump it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts - we connect a lot more than I thought at first. Yeah, men are cute. They've been growin' on me over the years. But more than men, it's my husband - he sweeps me off my feet completely!

You are right, sexuality is often fluid. It's been observed to be more often fluid with women than with men, but even with men it can sometimes be fluid. Once same-sex attractions and relationships are no longer stigmatized, I think people will find they feel safe expressing a range of feelings.

[Daniel]

Guys are HOT! I'm glad that now Zerbie and I can share this wonderful truth! Rippling muscles, big smiles, a hand placed on the small of your back to help you through a door. Sigh. My husband has been out of town WAY too long. :D

I'm sure I'm getting a few "amens" from David or Daniel or Pablo here.


Ahhhh...........Men!

[tdogg]

Hi there, Tdogg,

Well, I am basing my arguments from biblical passages, where it is being said that God has a plan for us, and that Jesus wants to put him in the first and primary concern about above things like spouses, parents, brothers and sisters, deny ourselves and follow him. The way how it works is this: you ask God in your prayer what he wants from you and trust me, he will speak to you and tell what he wants and tell you what to do. This is how your establish a RELATIONSHIP with God. This is the concept of self-denial. It's not really about giving up your friends, lovers, cats but about putting God first and doing everything on his terms. Trust me, in my life, they were certain things I wanted to have, without ever thinking whether God would approve of them, just because I was very selfish and I realized that pursuing them led me into major dissatisfaction. So, I prayed to God, asked him about his plan for me, and from now on he spoke back to me in his unique ways, and told me to do certain things. I am following according to his plan and I am finding a great joy. It's like God told me to take a job of a janitor in Walmart and I did it, although it does not match my education and as you would agree, not the most popular job in the world, but I'm doing it because this is what God wants, and I believe he will reveal more of his plan, later on.

Peace and Love,

Sam

Hi Sam

I have prayed much before and after accepting myself and coming out to loved ones. And you know what??? While in a women's prayer meeting I received an amazing revelation from the Lord - my work is ministering to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, to help them understand that God accepts and loves them just as they are. As I have made prayer a somewhat regular aspect of my life since around 10 years of age (I'm now 47), I'm confident this was indeed a revelation from God. And, He didn't ask me to give up my sexuality, or my relationship, or any other part of my life to do this. As I see it, how better to minister and comfort as a person who is genuine, accepts herself and maintains a very compatible and loving relationship with another woman. It help to gain and maintain trust and lets people know there are others who understand and love them.

If you are saying that being attracted to the same sex is ok (love the sinner) but acting on that attraction is not (hate the sin), and in order to serve the Lord a homosexual must give up any considering of a relationship with someone of the same sex, then why wouldn't this be a requirement of heterosexuals as well?

Cathy, as I see it, each person is a unique individual with their own set of genetics, environmental influences, traits, thoughts, opinions, beliefs and life experiences. That is what makes them individual. I'm sure that some gay people are gay partly because of life experiences (good and/or bad). I totally believe what Daniel posted regarding the Kinsey scale. Most people will fall somewhere between 2 and 5 - with a few falling at 1 (fully hetero) and a few at 6 (fully homo), and then the few that are right in the middle at fully bisexual. And being attracted to someone of the same sex may put you out of the '6' range, but doesn't necessarily mean you would be happy in a relationship with that person. I have some attraction to men (yes muscular chests and nice bottoms are attractive to me), and have had relationship with men, including my ex husband for 17 years. However, it was not a romantic, sexual relationship. but a buddy/friend type, was like living with a brother! I haven't had any real negative experiences with men, just that they weren't fulfulling for me. It just didn't seem like I belonged in that type of a relationship. Now it's fulfilling for me, I finally figured out why men don't do it for me! Do I think it can be changed back? After everything I've gone through in my life (not necessarily negative mind you), and the growth I've eperienced to get to where I am today, I would say no, it's not going to change for me. For others, depending on their own uniqueness and situation, of course I think it can change. For many, it is impossible. You may say nothing is impossible with God, but bear in mind, God doesn't always answer prayers the way we want, and God doesn't necessarily want someone to be a cookie cutter image of a select few, and then there is the factor that not everyone believes in God. So I truly feel for some it is impossible to change. Why would anyone want to, just because a few dictate they should?

Well, I'm ranting on now and the final leftovers are waiting to be turned into soup, so I better sign off for now. Read Daniel and Andrew's posts again, they are so right on.

[Zerbie]

I think it's so very, very important for ALL of us to say things that aren't kosher like, "I used to only be attracted to women...now I am attracted to men too!" We need to understand the full spectrum of where people are at.

There was a point in my life before I was a Christian when I thought I might be bi-sexual. A lot of that had to do with some different stuff in my childhood, etc. and now I don't feel that way at all. But I do think a woman's body is simply beautiful to look at...especially when she's pregnant. Is that erotic? I don't think it has to be. Maybe it's our silly inability to look at beautiful human creations and NOT make it sexual that gets us in so much trouble sometimes.

I think it's important for us to say, "Hey, maybe some men aren't really as gay as they think. Maybe they really ARE looking for a father figure. And maybe some aren't. Maybe some women aren't really attracted to women merely because they were born that way. Maybe they were abused and are terrified of men. And some aren't. Maybe who I'm attracted to could change mid-stream. Or maybe it won't."

This is all a part of the spectrum of sexuality that Bruce has been speaking about. The important thing is that I don't label it all and that the gay community doesn't label it all and we just look at it for what it is and try to figure it out.

I think that's scary to do. What would it mean to the gay community if Sammy was "really" gay but started playing BASKETBALL and this cured him?? We can't tell people THAT! Maybe the NBA would get more interesting, but...

I. I mean, who among us would say it's outside of God's ability to CHANGE SOMEONE'S ORIENTATION? What if they were miserable and prayed daily to have it taken away from them and Jesus, in his mercy, did so? Would that mean that he hates gays? NO! It just means he answered the prayer of one guy who was desperate.

The same priciple applies in reverse for the CC community. What would we DO if we let people tell stories about how they were once heterosexual to the core and now are bi-sexual? (Are there stories like this? Anyone know?)

Anyway, this thread is awesome. I am so thankful for everyone sharing here. You guys are great!!

~C

Cathy, I've got some cautions written below - I think my tone comes across harsh, which I don't intend. Your friendliness is much appreciated and I for one feel more warm to you with every new post you make. I'm certainly with you on fluid sexuality and I thank you for your further disclosure. but I'm aware that we are skating on very thin ice, so here are the cautions:

Coupla points. First - please be cautious about phrases like "used to be gay and (fill in the blank) CURED him." Please, you cure an illness. Do you still believe being gay is an illness? Sounds like you do - or maybe not, maybe you want to put that word "cured" in quotes. The major psychiatric/psychological organizations removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 because it is NOT an illness.

I get you on the potential humor - but it's still something we need to be cautious with. I tend only to share my story from time to time, for this very reason. some may seize upon it as fuel to pressure other people that they should go and DO something to try and change their sexual orientation. I will not allow my experience to be used that way. It is only my (admittedly weird) experience.

In your example citing prayer, please do not forget that there are hundreds of thousands (maybe more) who do pray desperately, pleading, incessantly, and with faith in God to be changed from gay to straight, and it does not happen. Be wary of any implication that some one lucky person "gets it right" and finds the magic prayer button - because of the millions who will berate themselves and wonder why *they* have "failed." Trust me, many are desperate. They deserve to receive comfort and a full range of emotional fulfillment - for most, that is gained via coming out, because change does not come.

Yeah, I know a lot of people who have come out as bisexual relatively later in life (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s.)

[sammy1980]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_Agenda It's satire. Many anti-gay people omit the first sentence of the article in question.

So, if it is a satire, maybe I should laugh it off, right? I'll do it. :lol: Thanks for the link, you sent me, and I discovered that the first sentence you were talking about was added long after it was written in originality. So, based on this, I would say that the article is a riddle. Anyway, why can't you be satirical about pretty much anything?

[scott snedeker]

A word of caution to Ex-gay folks

I "Chose" to be straight as an Adolescent with my own version of "aversion" therapy. It didn't work, naturally. And I saw this as my most profound failure of my life.....a failure to be decent and good. For me and my family. I wasn't very kind to my soul was I?

It has been my greatest self-esteem battle that created a fear of failure to the point of phobia!

But then with the help of a friend I came to realize that IF I had succeded, then I would not be living, loving and sharing my true nature. I realize now that I was never a failure! And that If I had succeded that I would have truly failed to honor my God-given soul. So in a sense I was going against God's will by trying to change myself!

Just be what is in your soul! Gay, straight, Bi, monogamous, poly-androus (but please no polyester:lol: )
Be kind to your soul. Make it happy! That is God's will.

love and affirmation,
Scotty:cowboy:

[tdogg]

What Zerbie said is the key - those of us who have figured ourselves out (well, it's a lifelong journey, but for the most part) and accepted ourselves as we are - well, we just don't see that there is any need for change, a cure, etc.

This weekend I watched X Men (the new one). I found it interesting and ironic that the situation mirrored our struggle for equality. Those who were mutant were considered by some of the population to be ill, needing a cure, needing to change. A cure was found (possibly temporary) and many chose the cure to change back to a 'normal' human. I say 'normal' because that is the view of those non-mutants pushing the cure. For those who haven't seen this movie (and want to) stop reading here, I'm going to give a small plot point away.

Anyway, the developer of the cure had a son who was a mutant. The son struggled to change in his teenage years, by cutting off his feathers but they would always grow back. The father then attempted to persuade his son to take the cure but at the last minute the son decided he didn't want to be cured, that was his fathers idea, he only wanted to be himself. So he left the clinic. Later the father was saved by his son only because the son had wings. Had the son taken the 'cure' and 'changed', his father would have perished in the battle.

So, the point is, many many of those who are different from others (specifically the GLBT population) don't feel the need to change or be cured or turn straight. We are happy the way we are, leading our lives, doing our thing. Which really isn't all that different from your own life.

[sammy1980]

Er? Not clear on the question here? Is your question what would marriage bring a bisexual person? I'll tell you what it has brought me:

Publicly acknowledged vows between me and my forever partner
a beautiful house which, should one of us die, the other will inherit without question
ditto - every asset we have (insurance, retirement funds, the cars, whatever)
the legal right to visit one another in the emergency room (same-sex partners cannot)
automatic acceptance of the validity of our relationship whenever people see us wearing matching rings and holding hands, world-wide
a degree of emotional security in the knowledge that not only is my forever-partner with me, but also that our relationship is legally acknowledged and protected, sanctified and publicly endorsed wherever we go

I'm sure there are other things I am leaving out. I tell ya Sammy - I thought I supported marriage equality before I got married - BEING married is such a tremendous blessing that I want more than ever for all couples to be so blessed and so happy. Knowing your relationship is legally - what's the word? - cemented makes such a tremendous difference. Study after study shows that a happy marriage improves emotional and physica health - and that has been my personal observation as well. My gay friends deserve these blessings and joys every bit as much as I do.

As for what children see - well, I was a child not all that long ago. I'll tell ya what I saw: a world where some people were ostracized, demonized, whispered about, ridiculed, humiliated, and cut-off from the rest of society because they have a capacity to love another human being. It horrified me Sammy! I thought: What kind of a world is this??? And wanted to retreat away from it. I was a horrified little girl, since 6 years old, wondering what was wrong with the grown-ups around me that they would ever treat other human beings the way they treated gay people.

At our victory party after Prop 107 was defeated, I stood beside a 12 year old girl for two hours watching the votes come in. She watched with tears of hope in her eyes, hands clasped over her heart, praying. She was there with her two gay fathers to see the results of a popular vote over whether her parents' relationship would have all legal recognition voided. That child had to watch people VOTE on the worth of her family. That's what that child had to see. :'(

Cathy - I've mentioned my history here several times, but it's buried somewhere in the over-one-thousand posts, and I knew you hadn't heard it. So I re-hashed a bit. There WAS a big thread that I started about bisexuality a while ago, maybe I can find it and bump it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts - we connect a lot more than I thought at first. Yeah, men are cute. They've been growin' on me over the years. But more than men, it's my husband - he sweeps me off my feet completely!

You are right, sexuality is often fluid. It's been observed to be more often fluid with women than with men, but even with men it can sometimes be fluid. Once same-sex attractions and relationships are no longer stigmatized, I think people will find they feel safe expressing a range of feelings.


Zerbie, my original question was , should only 2 people of the same sex or 2 people of opposite sex be allowed to be married monogamously? Basically, should we have polygamy to satisfy the love of people who are attracted to more than one person? There is a polygamy movement, widely in Europe, but also in the United States and Canada. Just recently, I heard about a man who "married" two women in the Netherlands, in a fictive ceremony, of course. I was talking about a movement in Sweden led by bisexual people who wanted to legalize polygamy due to having all their relationships with both men and women at the same time recognized. Don't get me wrong, straight people also support polygamy, like Tom Green. He actually argues that if it is okay for two men of the same sex who love each other to get married then why can't a man marry up to ten women, whom he all loves? The point I was making was that asking for gay marriage inspires people to ask for other types of marriages on the premise that it is all about love, like polygamy. So, I was wondering if this would bring more justice or more questions?

About that little girl, don't you think she needs to know who her mother is, or how would she explain herself coming into this world?

[Joe Brummer]

The point I was making was that asking for gay marriage inspires people to ask for other types of marriages on the premise that it is all about love, like polygamy. So, I was wondering if this would bring more justice or more questions?


While I respect that you may believe what you have written, it is a straw man fallicy just the same. It is based on fear tactics and distractions.

Oh if we grant people the right to talk we will have to let them sing.....

Well, not case A will not lead to case B, because although they seem related, they are not.

I would love to talk with you about your beliefs, but first you need to recognize that my love, my right to have my relationship recognized and my sexuality are not up for "debate" anymore than my humanity.

[Zerbie]

First - that little girl got on the cell phone to her mother, bubbling with happiness and excitement to share the results of that vote. So she obviously knew who her mother is. And that is all I know about that family.

Okay so the argument about marrying numerous people. That's it's own separate philosophical/sociological issue that I know has been talked about throughout history at various times in various ways - and that is ALL I personally know about it. I personally don't feel informed enough to address it.

It IS however a separate issue from marriage equality for same sex couples. If you make the argument that two people marrying for love somehow brings NUMBER into the equation why - then surely if we allow any two HETEROSEXUALS to marry one another for love, then why not allow polygamy? After all, if my husband and I just married because we love each other, why not also marry aunt Sally because we love her too?

The two cases (marriage equality versus legal polygamy) have no bearing on each other.

[sammy1980]

While I respect that you may believe what you have written, it is a straw man fallicy just the same. It is based on fear tactics and distractions.

Oh if we grant people the right to talk we will have to let them sing.....

Well, not case A will not lead to case B, because although they seem related, they are not.

I would love to talk with you about your beliefs, but first you need to recognize that my love, my right to have my relationship recognized and my sexuality are not up for "debate" anymore than my humanity.


Hi Joe,
I was reporting just what I heard/read/saw, like with Tom Green. I believe that all people are struggling for equality, including polygamists. The question is what is equality in each one's view?

By the way, I am originally from New York City and over there, you could have your relationship recognized for around 50 bucks without getting married.

[Dash]

I always think that "polygamy fears" are poorly reconciled with the Christian perspective. The great patriarchs of the Judeo-Christian faith found nothing wrong with polygamy, and keeping concubines (unmarried mistresses, but mistresses with some rights) was also accepted. God made families of many different shapes and sizes, and did not disdain to bless the children of such families.

Yes, our society tends to think that families should have only one shape...do we really believe that God thinks that way? What is good for us now certainly wasn't the only good way for others in the past and may not be best in all circumstances. It ain't a "one size fits all" or even "one size fits most" world.

Read more about different kinds of marriage in the Bible at ReligiousTolerance.org:
EIGHT TYPES OF MARRIAGES AND FAMILIES IN THE BIBLE, AS COMPARED TO TODAY'S PRACTICES (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm)

[Dash]

not to say I'm not a one man guy....;)

[Daniel]

By the way, I am originally from New York City and over there, you could have your relationship recognized for around 50 bucks without getting married.

Sammy- What you are referring to is Domestic-Partnership, right?

My husband and I were number 52 in line on the first day of registration.

Whoop-dee-do. That 'recognition' got us a heck of a lot, right?

Wrong!

Legally speaking, here's what we got in our tote bag.


http://nycmarriagebureau.com/about/domesticpartnership.html

A. Bereavement leave and child care leave for NYC employees
B. Visitation in a city correctional and juvenile detention facility
C. Visitation in facilities operated by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
D. Eligibility to qualify as a family member to be added by the New York City Housing Authority to an existing tenancy as a permanent resident
E. Eligibility to qualify as a family member entitled to succeed to the tenancy or occupancy rights of a tenant or cooperator in buildings supervised by or under the jurisdiction of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development
F. Health benefits provided by NYC to its employees and retirees and eligible members of their family pursuant to stipulation or collective bargaining
G. Such other rights as may be established pursuant to applicable law.


Let's reflect on this for a moment.

1) We can visit each other in a CITY hospital and a CITY jail and if one of us is NUTS. (Gee, can't wait to get hit by a cab and taken to the right hospital or arrested and sent to Rikers Island or taken to Bellvue!)

2) I can take bereavement leave IF I am city employee (Too bad I'm not a fireman or a policeman or a sanitation engineer or a school teacher- or Mayor!).

3) It helps in 'right of succession' if an apartment is involved and your apartment is rent stabilized, but one can still be thrown you out on the street if your landlord's property is not overseen by the city.

4) There is health insurance if you are a city employee (see #2). SOME employers, not all mind you, DO recognize the document for health insurance of one's partner, but they aren't following a law, just doing the right thing. Horray for them. You are lucky if you work for a nice big company. if not, too bad.

Even so, there's a nifty catch: because of IRS laws, the premium on the health insurance policy is considered INCOME and is TAXED accordingly, over 50% in many cases in fact (it is taxed at a higher rate ). So, on a 6 thousand dollar premium (health insurance is expensive even if one's employer pays it), one pays over 3 thousand in tax. However, my straight collegues don't pay a dime. How fair is that? Is their love for each other somehow better?

Don't think so.

Let's do the math here. The few rights under NYC's Domestic-Partnership law are NOTHING compared to the 1500 + rights that are afforded legally married couples.

Zippo in comparison.

And that last item on the list, "applicable law': there aren't any yet.

Even with paying loads of cash to have wills, power of attorney, health care proxy done, it becomes very clear what one is dealing with when your partner is taken to the hospital and you have to run home to get those documents to prove that you can make the decisions for the person you love and are committed to for life. Otherwise, you have the same rights as a STRANGER.

NONE. NADA. ничто

Oh....don't even think about taking a trip anywhere without your papers. Not even to New Jersey. Going out of the country? Aghh!!!!!!!

Accidents happen.

Are we clear now?

[sammy1980]

Sammy- What you are referring to is Domestic-Partnership, right?

My husband and I were number 52 in line on the first day of registration.

Whoop-dee-do. That 'recognition' got us a heck of a lot, right?

Wrong!

Legally speaking, here's what we got in our tote bag.



Let's reflect on this for a moment.

1) We can visit each other in a CITY hospital and a CITY jail and if one of us is NUTS. (Gee, can't wait to get hit by a cab and taken to the right hospital or arrested and sent to Rikers Island or taken to Bellvue!)

2) I can take bereavement leave IF I am city employee (Too bad I'm not a fireman or a policeman or a sanitation engineer or a school teacher- or Mayor!).

3) It helps in 'right of succession' if an apartment is involved and your apartment is rent stabilized, but one can still be thrown you out on the street if your landlord's property is not overseen by the city.

4) There is health insurance if you are a city employee (see #2). SOME employers, not all mind you, DO recognize the document for health insurance of one's partner, but they aren't following a law, just doing the right thing. Horray for them. You are lucky if you work for a nice big company. if not, too bad.

Even so, there's a nifty catch: because of IRS laws, the premium on the health insurance policy is considered INCOME and is TAXED accordingly, over 50% in many cases in fact (it is taxed at a higher rate ). So, on a 6 thousand dollar premium (health insurance is expensive even if one's employer pays it), one pays over 3 thousand in tax. However, my straight collegues don't pay a dime. How fair is that? Is there love for each other somehow better?

Don't think so.

Let's do the math here. The few rights under NYC's Domestic-Partnership law are NOTHING compared to the 1500 + rights that are afforded legally married couples.

Zippo in comparison.

And that last item on the list, "applicable law': there aren't any yet.

Even with paying loads of cash to have wills, power of attorney, health care proxy done, it becomes very clear what one is dealing with when your partner is taken to the hospital and you have to run home to get those documents to prove that you can make the decisions for the person you love and are committed to for life. Otherwise, you have the same rights as a STRANGER.

NONE.

Oh....don't even think about taking a trip anywhere without your papers. Not even to New Jersey. Going out of the country? Aghh!!!!!!!

Accidents happen.

Are we clear now?


You know, this is what hits me; openly gay and lesbian people existed for decades and at no point in time, there was a concern for marriage, until the beginning of this century, the demand for it has emerged. I remember when I was clubbing Greenwich Village about 10 years ago, I've met quite a few GLBT folks and none of those folks, ever expressed that they would like to be married someday. They talked though a lot about expressing themselves of who they are, about having fun, about dancing. Now, all of a sudden, everybody wants to get married. Is it because the life has become too expensive? Let us say it works and same-sex couples will be married nationwide, my concern is whether the impact of it would censor any scientific reseach. Another thing I find weird these days; when somebody argues against gay marriage, people assume that the person is being theocratic? He or she might not even believe in God, and just saying it from purely sociological perspective.

Why would they deny you, or any other gay folks to visit their loved ones at hospital? I have visited my friend who was in the hospital, and I wasn't married to him. Also, if you go to New Jersey, nobody would bother who you are even if you are Portuguese and if you go to Europe, they'll meet you with open arms. Speaking of Europe, in Sweden, Germany, and Holland, domestic partnerships/civil unions work as well as marriages, then what is going on with this country?

Stay out of trouble, even if you have a right to have jail visits, I've worked for corrections and it's not exactly Disneyland to live there.:)

Nice talking to you,

Sammy

NONE. NADA. [/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]ничто

PS: Do you know Russian?

[Daniel]

You know, this is what hits me; openly gay and lesbian people existed for decades and at no point in time, there was a concern for marriage, until the beginning of this century, the demand for it has emerged. I remember when I was clubbing Greenwich Village about 10 years ago, I've met quite a few GLBT folks and none of those folks, ever expressed that they would like to be married someday. They talked though a lot about expressing themselves of who they are, about having fun, about dancing. Now, all of a sudden, everybody wants to get married. Is it because the life has become too expensive? Let us say it works and same-sex couples will be married nationwide, my concern is whether the impact of it would censor any scientific reseach. Another thing I find weird these days; when somebody argues against gay marriage, people assume that the person is being theocratic? He or she might not even believe in God, and just saying it from purely sociological perspective.

Why would they deny you, or any other gay folks to visit their loved ones at hospital? I have visited my friend who was in the hospital, and I wasn't married to him. Also, if you go to New Jersey, nobody would bother who you are even if you are Portuguese and if you go to Europe, they'll meet you with open arms. Speaking of Europe, in Sweden, Germany, and Holland, domestic partnerships/civil unions work as well as marriages, then what is going on with this country?

Stay out of trouble, even if you have a right to have jail visits, I've worked for corrections and it's not exactly Disneyland to live there.:)

Nice talking to you,

Sammy

NONE. NADA. [/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]?????

PS: Do you know Russian?


No. I don't know Russian per se, though I have sung in Russian. I just know how to get my meaning across, or so I thought.

Look. Sammy. End scientific research? What kind of scientific research? The cure for gayness?

Whom do you think you are kidding here?

The fact is that, sure, anyone can visit anyone in the hospital, but not just anyone can make life and death decisions for that person.

Did you even read what I wrote? Hello?

I don't know who you were hangin' with in NYC, but the people I was hangin' with wanted something other than party party party. And not every gay person wants to get married anymore than every straight person wants to get married.

Sounds like you had quite the life: I was busy working while you were out all night. :rolleyes:

Real responsibility- like taking care of the person you love- involves a lot more than simply expressing yourself. And yes, financial concerns do matter. But the way you put it gay people are only looking for a good time. Or an easy score.

I wonder who you are really talking about here.

[Joe Brummer]

You know, this is what hits me; openly gay and lesbian people existed for decades and at no point in time, there was a concern for marriage, until the beginning of this century, the demand for it has emerged. I remember when I was clubbing Greenwich Village about 10 years ago, I've met quite a few GLBT folks and none of those folks, ever expressed that they would like to be married someday.

Black people were slaves for decades and it wasn't till the mid last century they are emerged as wanting to have freedom.......

Sound kinda silly.....It is......GLBT have been talking about marriage since about 1972. Pretty much right after Stonewall. Don't be fooled, it hasn't been until the last century glbt folks have felt comfortable enough to say they are glbt folks without getting their head bashed in let alone have they been daring enough to say they want to be married.

[Daniel]

Don't be fooled, it hasn't been until the last century glbt folks have felt comfortable enough to say they are glbt folks without getting their head bashed in let alone have they been daring enough to say they want to be married.


You said it well Joe. Grazie.

And here's some daring and hutzpa: It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that woman started defying their husbands and marching for the right to vote. Before that they had to fight the state for the right not to be considered cattle by their husbands- who could put them away at their whim.

Thankfully, our Constitution protects the 'pursuit of happiness'. Women, blacks and gays, each in their own way, have pursued their rights.

While you were clubbing around town a decade ago Sammy (which you have every right to do btw), I was already partnered for 5 years. New York State doesn't recognize that I was, for all intent and purposes, 'married' to him, as I am still. It does, however, recognize your right to marry any gal you meet clubbing and in a New York minute, zip down to City Hall in the morning and poof- you are married.

I'm happy you can do that. I want the same right. Nothing more. Nothing less. The same responsibilites along with the delights.

[dewdrop_world]

You know, this is what hits me; openly gay and lesbian people existed for decades and at no point in time, there was a concern for marriage, until the beginning of this century, the demand for it has emerged. I remember when I was clubbing Greenwich Village about 10 years ago, I've met quite a few GLBT folks and none of those folks, ever expressed that they would like to be married someday. They talked though a lot about expressing themselves of who they are, about having fun, about dancing. Now, all of a sudden, everybody wants to get married.

Joe is right; people within the gay community have been talking about this for a long time. It's only recently that more than a handful of straight people have started to pay attention.

This is also a good opportunity for an object lesson on population sampling. You went to a couple of gay bars once upon a time -- which is a scene oriented around dancing and having fun. So it should not come as a surprise that this scene will attract people who are interested in dancing and having fun, and it might also not come as a surprise that many of these people do not have marriage as a high priority at that time in their lives.

The reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that (most) gay club kids aren't looking for marriage the immediate future. News flash! But when you go the next step -- to say that gay people as a whole were not interested in marriage -- that is not supported by the evidence you cite (going out in Greenwich Village a few times). It is not a random sample. The sample is pre-selected for specific characteristics, and because of that, it isn't logical to generalize outside the community where the sample came from. Or in plain English, club kids in the Village don't define gay people in general, so you can't draw conclusions about all gay people from them.

(A lot of anti-gay tracts use this kind of faulty reasoning -- find a study that has some numbers that look bad for gays, then ignore the part in the study where the researchers say "We excluded this or that type of person because we wanted to study one segment of the community.")

Another thing I find weird these days; when somebody argues against gay marriage, people assume that the person is being theocratic?

Well, gay people are talking about CIVIL marriage. Because of the separation of church and state that is guaranteed in the US Constitution, civil marriage is separate from religious marriage. Allowing gay civil marriage will not force any church to perform gay marriages against its will.

By contrast, refusing gay civil marriage on the grounds that it is "un-Christian" is to place the law in the service of one particular religion (at the expense of other denominations that do not oppose gay marriage). To privilege one denomination over another is to break down the separation between church and state. I don't think that this in itself is theocratic, but it is a point in common with theocracy.

Anyway, I think a lot of evangelicals would happily throw out the separation between church and state -- provided that THEIR church becomes the one endorsed by (and in control of) the state. If, for instance, Catholics got too much power, you would see the evangelicals arguing FOR that separation.

Got to go to work... more later on rights/responsibilities of marriage.

James

[Zerbie]

Sound kinda silly.....It is......GLBT have been talking about marriage since about 1972. Pretty much right after Stonewall. Don't be fooled, it hasn't been until the last century glbt folks have felt comfortable enough to say they are glbt folks without getting their head bashed in let alone have they been daring enough to say they want to be married.

1928.


Radclyffe Hall - while not daring to "ask" for marriage equality back then - depicted the calamitous results of unrecognized partnerships in her semi-autobiographical novel, "The Well of Loneliness." It's a long melancholy book and very dated (and very meoldramatic in tone!) but I am sad to say that very little has changed with regard to this matter. 1928 folks. It goes back at LEAST that far.

Daniel - about hospital visitation - here in AZ the emergency room is off limits unless you are spouse/immediate family, and same-sex partners do not qualify unless they have a Tucson registered DP, AND have their papers with them. I know of a couple who went to the gym without their DP papers, one had a heart attack and was dead before his partner could get back to the hospital with the papers he was forced to go home and get because the staff would not let him in without them.

And I know of two cases in NJ from 1997 where partners were not permitted to visit, and in one case the partner was excluded from the decision to pull life support. And was not even permitted in the room to say goodbye.

Sammy - who would do that? Staff following procedure and bureacratic rules. States with bans on legal recognition for "unmarried persons" are a real pickle - what hospital staff wants to risk violating the state Constition by allowing "non-family" in to visit? They *could* get sued.

[marutidas]

Something that has popped into my mind is that the church by and large has been pretty strict about sex ,Period, gay or straight, something not to be enjoied. Hetero cupplings were tolerated because they produced offspring.

In Wicca, sex is seen as sacred, a symbol of life itself, the opposite of Christianity and another fun fact, Wicca is one of the fastest growing religons among Gays and Lesbians, because their sexuality is embraced.Everyone has heard of the Tantra and the Karma Sutra, that have come from Hinduism( one of the reasons I have not had sex in a year, If they don't know the Tantra, then I am not going to waste my time.)

Human being are sexual beings, and yes sex is pleasurable, it is not a sin to feel pleasure with the one you love. But could you use your intement moments to understand God just a little more?

I know what I have said has little to do with what has been said, or it could have everything to do with it.

[sammy1980]

Hi everybody,

I woke up a couple hours ago so this what I have:

Zerbie: I understand you view differently gay marriage and legal polygamy, but the advocates of polygamy do indeed see it as marriage equality. Also, I feel sorry for people who prayed to God to change their sexual orientation, just like I feel sorry for myself for praying that someday, my then girlfriend would agree to become my wife. That didn't work, as a matter of fact, she cheated on me twice, first... with a woman and second, with a man. The concept of prayer is to ask God a general question what he wants from you, and then wait for his answer. It seems to me that many people view God similar to a genie in a bottle who grants wishes and that's why such people end up being lost and confused, like I was before.

Daniel: The researches I was concerned with are not about gay cureness, first off, I don't believe that homosexuality is an illness and therefore, cureness doesn't apply here. They deal with rather different subject, which is children living in a same-sex families. Let's be realistic about this, there are going to be a lot of pros and cons in research dealing with this hot issue, and I was curious whethern nationwide legislation of gay marriage would influence the press to censor the researches who would find some cons? Just food for thought, in my old country, people were forbidden to critique Darwinism in order to promote political theory that God doesn't exist.

Joe and James: Thank you for your historical information, it was very educational. I see how some fundamentalist are being paranoid over having their churches performing same-sex wedding, I don't see it happening here, though. However, there are churches in Europe, who do so.

Marutidas (did I spell it right?): There is nothing wrong with sex, it's just why be a wild party animal?

Peace,


Sammy

[Daniel]

Daniel: The researches I was concerned with are not about gay cureness, first off, I don't believe that homosexuality is an illness and therefore, cureness doesn't apply here. They deal with rather different subject, which is children living in a same-sex families. Let's be realistic about this, there are going to be a lot of pros and cons in research dealing with this hot issue, and I was curious whethern nationwide legislation of gay marriage would influence the press to censor the researches who would find some cons? Just food for thought, in my old country, people were forbidden to critique Darwinism in order to promote political theory that God doesn't exist.


Sammy- From your response, or lack of one, I gather that you aren't keen on crossing swords on the issue of Domestic-Partnership and the rights it does, and does not, afford.

Be that as it may, you will find, if you do the simple task of a google search, that there is ample evidence- and by that I mean scientific findings- which show that there is absolutely no harm in having two parents of the same gender.

That's being realistic. Here are some resources.

http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html
There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/24948pub20060407.html

I'm sure the Narth people have their own opinion, but opinions aren't facts. And the facts of the matter are squarely against them. Even so, prejudice still can have it's day. Peer-review studies were evidenced in the recent gay marriage court case in NY, evidence which was ignored for the simple reason that any evidence is ignored: it doesn't fit with one's pre-determined view. (Oh...btw...the Narth people aren't big on peer-review.)

As for self-censorship by the press, that may happen in your old country, but, by and large, when the populace isn't being terrorized into silence (the lack of questioning regarding WMD's was appalling, wasn't it?) we're pretty good about getting things out in the open. Thankfully, we do have a Constitution, the first amendment of which, stipulates freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition to Government for a redress of grievances.

Right now I'm exercising my freedom of speech. ;)

[BruceChris]

I was taught two things when I was younger. (1) God always answers your prayers, and (2) the answer that you get is not always the one that you wanted.

P&L, Bruce Chris

[sammy1980]

Hi guys,

Just got back from VA hospital, got a flu shot, don't wanna get it, cause I can't afford to be sick:)
Well, just to let you know both mental health organizations NARTH and APA do things in a very unbalanced approach. NARTH is so on the right, while APA is so on the left, but I personally try to be in the middle. At this point, I don't fully trust any of these stray cats. There is a book called "Destructive Trends in Mental Health" that talks about the biases in psychological professions. Furthermore, there are many testimonies and books written by the people who were raised in the same-sex families and they felt very proud of their upbringing and there are many testimonies and books written by the people raised in the same-sex families who have poured their hearts out screaming that this upbringing has caused them tremendous emotional pain. By the way, Judith Stacey, who is a gay rights activist, indeed indicated in her research that for the kids raised in a same-sex families, chances are they could develop a homosexual orientation themselves. Some people, like James Dobson get ticked off hearing it, but ultraliberals would be feeling delighted. To them, it's like saying that gay community is growing stronger.

I don't disagree with you that domestic partnership would not give the same benefits to you as marriage for straight people would do. All I was saying that in Europe, DP provide equal services as marriages, and I don't understand, why they don't work in our country? By the way, legal civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut are as powerful as marriages, the only problem is, they are not recognized in other states.

I am glad we still have our First Amendment and I would like to keep it so.

Yes, God answers our prayers mostly not in the way we want to hear, because only he knows what is best for us, since he knows the absolute truth, and he will tell us about it, when Jesus comes on earth for the judgment day.


Peace,

Sammy

[tdogg]

No only are civil unions performed in Vermont and Connecticut not recognized in other states, they aren't recognized by the federal government. So much for tax benefits. They are appeasements for not receiving 100% FULL EQUAL BENEFITS of heterosexual married couples. They are dangled to us to keep us temporarily 'happy and quiet' for a period of time. Until ALL human couples are entitled to 100% FULL EQUAL BENEFITS, we should not be happy and quiet. Will we take them, many will but we definitely won't stop there.

So Sammy, are you basically saying you agree that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry and therefore receive all benefits that are currently enjoyed only by heterosexual couples? Just wondering, I'm sometimes confused by your posts as they seem to contradict other posts of yours.

Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that heterosexual marriage isn't exactly the perfect answer to 'save family values' - whatever that is.....

[keltic63]

Well, just to let you know both mental health organizations NARTH and APA do things in a very unbalanced approach. NARTH is so on the right, while APA is so on the left, but I personally try to be in the middle.


OK, so I went to both websites to learn more. always a good thing, right? here's what I discovered: the American Psychological Association has an information page that details "Who We Are" and gives a mission statement.

Who We Are
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.
Mission Statement
APA Bylaws I.1
The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by
the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner
the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions
the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement
the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association
the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publicationsthereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare.
It also offers a pdf file of its annual report, and definitions of psychology as well as psychologist

NARTH, on the other hand does not offer such clear statements. The closest thing to a mission statement is under the heading "What We Offer"

NARTH's primary goal is to make effective psychological therapy available to all homosexual men and women who seek change. Furthermore, we wish to open for public discussion all issues relating to homosexuality. NARTH wants to build an atmosphere which allows an honest debate--balancing the one-sided distortion which has characterized the discussion.
In an article about their "purpose" NARTH sets out attacking the APA because it does not honor NARTH's research and opinions. It continues by talking about its members: Most NARTH members consider homosexuality to represent a developmental disorder. Some of our clinician-members, however, do not consider the condition disordered, but simply defend the right to treatment for those who desire it. They have joined NARTH because they know that the client's right to choose his own direction of treatment must be protected.It ends with a plea for "sympathetic" people to join NARTH as supporters.

The bias is obvious, and their purpose is not clearly stated.

How does one come up with a concept that is somewhere in the middle of these 2 organizations?

[sammy1980]

So Sammy, are you basically saying you agree that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry and therefore receive all benefits that are currently enjoyed only by heterosexual couples? Just wondering, I'm sometimes confused by your posts as they seem to contradict other posts of yours.

I agree that gays and lesbians should receive all benefits that are currently enjoyed only by heterosexual couples, but I am not sure whether marriage is the only solution for them. Like I said, in most European nations, gays and lesbians have their relationships affirmed by their respective federal governments and fully benefited just like heterosexual couples, but they are not called marriages, for sociological purposes.

Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that heterosexual marriage isn't exactly the perfect answer to 'save family values' - whatever that is.....

You are right about this, heterosexual marriage isn't the perfect answer to save families. What needs to be done is that biological parents of their children should be not abandon their kids but be mature enough to raise and support them. This might save families.

[sammy1980]

How does one come up with a concept that is somewhere in the middle of these 2 organizations?

I am trying to be in the middle by reading books that critique both NARTH and APA. Does it make sense?

[Joe Brummer]

There is no middle really, if that is what you are looking to find you may never find it. The thing to look for isn't a half way point, but a new point.

Look at it like this.....

Narth has truth "A"

the APA has truth "B"

both believe they have the real deal, the real science...the real "TRUTH".

but the reality is there is a NEW truth to be found. It may encompass some of the thoughts of both groups and other thoughts will be disguarded. IN the end we need a new truth that leaves room for humanity, respect of others beliefs and "truths".

A new truth that says we both have the right to be wrong, and we both have the right to be "wrong".......much different then saying we are both right, but we have the right to be wrong...(You may need to think abou this point, but I am assured if you do, you will get it)

LOOK FOR A NEW TRUTH, not a middle ground.

[sammy1980]

Wow, Joe!
It was wonderful, I just noticed you sound very similar to John Locke and Rene Descartes. Locke believed that everybody has different "truths" while Descartes encouraged to search for unknown truths, by starting with a doubt. Did you know that our country was based on the philosophies of these great men? I guess this is something we need to be proud of.

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

By the way, Judith Stacey, who is a gay rights activist, indeed indicated in her research that for the kids raised in a same-sex families, chances are they could develop a homosexual orientation themselves.

You can probably guess my next question... what is your source? (Yes, I'm going to press you for a source on every last one of these factoids! ;) )

"Chances are" is probably not an accurate summary of the research you're referring to. The research that I've heard of indicates that children raised by lesbian or gay parents might experience less pressure from their families against "experimenting" with members of the same sex. But, if you're straight and grossed out by the thought of sex with someone of the same gender, being raised by two men or two women is not very likely to change that. So there might be a slightly increased probability of transitory same sex experiences in adolescence -- and, of course, if the child were gay to begin with, it would be a whole lot easier for the child to come out (that is, less likely that the child would hide).

Sorry if I'm being picky about word choices -- but it's important. Groups like NARTH, and the so-called researchers who fill up the bibliographies of their printed materials, use exactly this kind of vagueness to turn a study's conclusion that "gay parenting might make a small difference within a certain population [which might not the representative of the population as a whole]" into "gay parenting makes a huge difference across all people everywhere."

There is a really great article at boxturtlebulletin.com about one subject who was interviewed for one of these gay parenting studies. When Paul Cameron (the worst of the anti gay "researchers") used some of her quotations totally out of context and in a way that was different from what she meant, she went public and explained exactly how her words were misused.

http://www.BoxTurtleBulletin.com/Articles/000,014.htm

Back to marriage... it occurred to me during the day that, even though gay people have been talking about marriage for a long time, it was not until the Hawaii supreme court decision (that restricting civil marriage to heterosexual couples was discriminatory) that anybody other than gays started to pay attention. Before then, conservative Christians could dismiss it as just talk; afterward, it became a "credible threat" leading up to the hysteria of the last election.

I see how some fundamentalist are being paranoid over having their churches performing same-sex wedding, I don't see it happening here, though. However, there are churches in Europe, who do so.

But are the churches in Europe compelled by the state to perform gay marriages?

There is nothing wrong with sex, it's just why be a wild party animal?

Where did Marutidas say that sacred sexuality = wild party animal?

That's another common bit of illogic from the Christian right wing: it is either OUR morality, or it's a complete free-for-all. I find that to be a less-than-thoughtful way to approach the subject of ethics.

I don't disagree with you that domestic partnership would not give the same benefits to you as marriage for straight people would do. All I was saying that in Europe, DP provide equal services as marriages, and I don't understand, why they don't work in our country? By the way, legal civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut are as powerful as marriages, the only problem is, they are not recognized in other states.

As some others have said, they are not as powerful as marriages. It's also expensive and maybe ineffective. Since civil unions aren't respected everywhere, we still have to draw up airtight wills, power-of-attorney and other documents.

- Drawing up legal papers is expensive, $2000-3000 is probably a rough average.

- Legal papers get challenged in court or ignored all the time. That means more money spent in a court battle, which no one should have to go through in a time of tragedy.

What exactly do the anti-gay people gain from making our lives difficult?

James

PS I thought Joe was talking about Hegelian dialectics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic) :) ... oversimplified as thesis - antithesis - synthesis.

[sammy1980]

"Chances are" is probably not an accurate summary of the research you're referring to. The research that I've heard of indicates that children raised by lesbian or gay parents might experience less pressure from their families against "experimenting" with members of the same sex. But, if you're straight and grossed out by the thought of sex with someone of the same gender, being raised by two men or two women is not very likely to change that. So there might be a slightly increased probability of transitory same sex experiences in adolescence -- and, of course, if the child were gay to begin with, it would be a whole lot easier for the child to come out (that is, less likely that the child would hide).
I read Judith Stacey's article entitled "How does sexual orientation of parents matter?" in ASR in 2001. She indeed stated that children raised in the same-sex family experiment with member of the same-sex. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad but what it is.

But are the churches in Europe compelled by the state to perform gay marriages?

Yes, most of them are. For example, in Sweden, there is no separation between church and state. Just look at www.akegreen.org

Where did Marutidas say that sacred sexuality = wild party animal?

That's another common bit of illogic from the Christian right wing: it is either OUR morality, or it's a complete free-for-all. I find that to be a less-than-thoughtful way to approach the subject of ethics.

Wasn't he alluding to having sex with several people? That's what I got. Also, this is what is called 'wild party animal' in our culture, and there is no religious implication. But maybe I got it wrong?

I forgot, there is also Georg Hegel. But he was influenced by Locke and Descartes, he came after them.

What exactly do the anti-gay people gain from making our lives difficult?

That's a very controversial issue, regarding who is 'anti-gay,' which brings me again, to the issue of Ake Green. The Swedish GLBT organization led by Soren Andresson that pressed charges against him, stated that he used religion to offend gays and lesbians, but he believed that he didn't. Many pro-traditional marriage supporters, would state that people like Mel White and Michalangelo Signorile, and other GLBT who support gay marriage are using sexual orientation to offend children, but these people don't believe so. What I noticed though, that different groups, justify their actions as ways to make lives easier for somebody. So, for me it is a very complicated question to answer, because it is not always easy to know who and how somebody is 'antigay.'

I looked at your website and I noticed that you are a poet, so I would like to share a poem with you. I hope you understand that many poets tend to write their works by expressing the thoughts and feelings of other people, as a way of reaching out. So, this poem does not really state my opinions or beliefs, but it should be considered as a general overview how different people go on a lifelong journey exploring themselves. The form I used is borrowed from Antwone Fisher's original poem, I just changed the lyrics.

Who will help a little boy?
He didn't know right from wrong,
Who will help a little boy?
The one who wasn't strong,
Who will help a little boy?
He needed a mom and a dad,
Who will help a little boy?
Deprived of being a man,
Who will help a little boy?
He was being used for the cause,
Who will help a little boy?
He didn't have a choice,
Who will help a little boy?
He doesn't know whom to be,
Who will help a little boy?
The boy resembling me.

Thanks,

Sam

[BruceChris]

About 1% more so. Or perhaps they are simply more open to exploring the option. But the fear expressed about the Gay Agenda, that the world will somehow be overrun with gay couples raising gay children, well, it just ain't gonna happen. :eek: :lol:

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[sammy1980]

Sammy, you are right, children of glbt parents are more likely to be gay



About 1% more so. Or perhaps they are simply more open to exploring the option. But the fear expressed about the Gay Agenda, that the world will somehow be overrun with gay couples raising gay children

So, maybe this what Dr. Dobson's main concern is, not individual gay and lesbian people who freely walk the earth?
By the way, I found the answers to the charges Equality Riders made against Focus on the Family. I am not saying that Dr. Dobson is always right but I think it would be better to hear his side of the story for the sake of having an open dialogue. Here is a link:

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/maf/A000001525.cfm

[dewdrop_world]

I read Judith Stacey's article entitled "How does sexual orientation of parents matter?" in ASR in 2001. She indeed stated that children raised in the same-sex family experiment with member of the same-sex. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad but what it is.

From http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382

As young adults, they are also more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships, though they are not more likely to firmly self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Children of gays are just as likely as children of heterosexuals to wish they were a member of the opposite sex, the study concluded. Female children of gay parents are more likely to be sexually active as teenagers and young adults than children of heterosexuals, according to the researchers, while male children show an opposite trend. Male children of gays are also less likely to show aggression than other boys. Children of lesbians and gays do report experiencing peer stigma regarding their own sexual orientation at higher levels than children of heterosexuals.

"They are not more likely to firmly self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual" -- far cry from "Chances are they'll turn out gay."

Where did Marutidas say that sacred sexuality = wild party animal?

Wasn't he alluding to having sex with several people? That's what I got. Also, this is what is called 'wild party animal' in our culture, and there is no religious implication. But maybe I got it wrong?

Well, to requote Marutidas's post:

Something that has popped into my mind is that the church by and large has been pretty strict about sex ,Period, gay or straight, something not to be enjoyed. Hetero couplings were tolerated because they produced offspring.

In Wicca, sex is seen as sacred, a symbol of life itself, the opposite of Christianity and another fun fact, Wicca is one of the fastest growing religons among Gays and Lesbians, because their sexuality is embraced.Everyone has heard of the Tantra and the Karma Sutra, that have come from Hinduism( one of the reasons I have not had sex in a year, If they don't know the Tantra, then I am not going to waste my time.)

Human being are sexual beings, and yes sex is pleasurable, it is not a sin to feel pleasure with the one you love. But could you use your intimate moments to understand God just a little more?

I see nothing about multiple partners here. Also, he is saying that sex is a sacred gift from God and should be handled with great care and respect -- which is exactly the opposite of being a party animal.

What I noticed though, that different groups, justify their actions as ways to make lives easier for somebody. So, for me it is a very complicated question to answer, because it is not always easy to know who and how somebody is 'antigay.'

Interesting point, which I'll have to come back to later (short on time at the moment).

Have a good day!
James

[andrewlittle]

Sammy1980 wrote:
So, this poem does not really state my opinions or beliefs, but it should be considered as a general overview how different people go on a lifelong journey exploring themselves.

You seem to do this a good bit - quote something and then say it doesn't state your opinion/belief. Why, then, would you bother quoting it? It would seem far more productive, and certainly more sincere and clarifying, to discuss what you believe.

Poem, editted to show flow of thought:
Who will help a little boy?
He didn't know right from wrong...
The one who wasn't strong...
He needed a mom and a dad...
Deprived of being a man...
He was being used for the cause...
He didn't have a choice...
He doesn't know whom to be...
The boy resembling me.

The flow of the poem seems to indicate that there's cause and effect from not having "mom and dad". Does the lack of "mom and dad" create a difficulty for learning right and wrong, for being weak, for being deprived of manhood?

Also, unless I'm gravely mistaken, the alternating lines begin with "Who will cry for this little boy?"

Perhaps we need to understand a little were Antwone was coming from. Rather than this being in any way whatsoever related to the issue of gay or lesbian parents, this is about a young man who had no parental relationship - almost no love in his life, whatsoever.

Antwone Fisher, born in a women's prison in Ohio, was placed a foster child from a few weeks after his birth. He spent two years in a loving foster home, but was removed. At that point he was placed with a religious couple, who had children of their own. Fisher stated that the time spent with this family was where the nightmare of his childhood began. For fourteen years he was physically and emotionally abused. He was also sexually abused by a neighbor and family friend. Eventually, Antwone went back to social services because he was rejected in the home.

For this poem to be pertinent to the discussion, you must think that there is some relationship between criminally abusive parenting and same-sex parenting. I can think of no other reason you would post this. You can then claim it's not your belief or opinion, but that reeks of either dishonesty or delusion.

Unless, of course, you used someone else's words and inadvertently misunderstood the context in which those words belong. That's the problem with using other people's words to discuss what you feel. Use your own. Use arguments that are, in fact, your thoughts - your words - your beliefs. Be original and risk exposing your self - the real you.

Perhaps, then, tdogg wouldn't post, "I'm sometimes confused by your posts as they seem to contradict other posts of yours."

I don't know if its pertinent, but I am including a poem of my own. It's about my recovery and getting in touch with who I really am as a person. Perhaps it will have some worth for you - perhaps not.


Children survive.
They just seem to be built to survive almost anything.
The pain of loneliness, war, crime, rejection,
being ignored, being abused, being smothered, being used,
predation, exposure, abandonment, over-protection, –
these are just some of the things children endure.

But to do so requires they develop tools –
most of them facades – fake faces.
It is these false countenances and big walls
that, as adults, keep distance between us.
They protect the “us” we can’t risk showing the world,
the identities we forget exist as time moves on.
We show the safe “us”, the ones that can’t get hurt,
because they’re not real.

But hurt we do.
The void manifests as we become emptier.
And then, eventually, it dawns on us –
being an adult isn’t about being safe –
it’s about being real.
It’s about risk.
It’s about re-finding GOD.
Yes, eventually we realize –
if we can’t be honest with each other –
how can we trust anyone including GOD.

So eventually we learn to set aside our facades,
to show our soft underbellies,
to expose our pain and doubts,
to look longingly for GOD.
We find GOD’s been there the whole time – waiting for us.
We allow GOD to fill the void with joy.
Welcome back to being a child – now we’re ready for GOD.
Now we can survive anything.

Andy Little, 1996

[Zerbie]

Hi everybody,

I woke up a couple hours ago so this what I have:

Zerbie: I understand you view differently gay marriage and legal polygamy, but the advocates of polygamy do indeed see it as marriage equality.
, she cheated on me twice, first... with a woman and second, with a man. The concept of prayer is to ask God a general question what he wants from you, and then wait for his answer. It seems to me that many people view God similar to a genie in a bottle who grants wishes and that's why such people end up being lost and confused, like I was before.

Daniel: The researches I was concerned with are not about gay cureness, first off, I don't believe that homosexuality is an illness and therefore, cureness doesn't apply here. They deal with rather different subject, which is children living in a same-sex families. Let's be realistic about this, there are going to be a lot of pros and cons in research dealing with this hot issue, and I was curious whethern nationwide legislation of gay marriage would influence the press to censor the researches who would find some cons?

Sammy

I didn't say those advocating polygamy DON'T view that as equality. Only that they are different arguments. It makes no more sense to say that allowing a gay couple to marry will or could or might lead to legal polyamory than it does to say allowing a straight couple to marry will/could/might lead to the same. It's a two-party contract - if you say that these 2 are a case for polygamy, well then, so are THOSE 2.

I'm sorry about your girlfriend - it's a terrible feeling when someone cheats on you. :(

You are right about prayer. Spot on!

[tdogg]

I agree that gays and lesbians should receive all benefits that are currently enjoyed only by heterosexual couples, but I am not sure whether marriage is the only solution for them. Like I said, in most European nations, gays and lesbians have their relationships affirmed by their respective federal governments and fully benefited just like heterosexual couples, but they are not called marriages, for sociological purposes.



You are right about this, heterosexual marriage isn't the perfect answer to save families. What needs to be done is that biological parents of their children should be not abandon their kids but be mature enough to raise and support them. This might save families.

Hi Sammy,

Can you explain what sociological purposes would be served by allowing gays and lesbians to have equal benefits by some type of 'uniting' without calling it marriage? I guess the main point is - why not just call it marriage and provide 100% equality??? I just don't see that it would serve any appropriate and just purpose. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

I know a lot of people who were raised by their biological parents are had a pretty messed up life, especially childhood. Not every biological parent is fit to raise a child. Which is why we have foster care and adoptions, oh and child abandonment, orphans, etc. So I don't buy into the need for biological parents to raise their children and save families. I agree with some of the others, if one has one or two gay parents, it is presumeably much easier to be open and accepting of oneself if one is gay or lesbian. Makes sense to me. So being raised by gay/lesbian parent(s) doesn't necessarily raise the chances of the child being gay, but it can raise the chances of the child accepting themselves and coming out at a much younger age without many of the hardships others face.

Even if having one or more gay/lesbian parents increases the chance of the child being gay - so what? I say hallelelujah. The more the merrier. It's getting easier with time to come out - less and less people have issues with gays and lesbians. Eventually the CFs are going to have to come up with a new plan and a new focus (mutants perhaps - from an earlier post...).

It's hard to tell where you are coming from or what you truly believe Sammy. But, keep on keeping on anyway - I am enjoying the dialogue and you know you have friends here, you know how to get in touch with them.

[sammy1980]

Can you explain what sociological purposes would be served by allowing gays and lesbians to have equal benefits by some type of 'uniting' without calling it marriage? I guess the main point is - why not just call it marriage and provide 100% equality??? I just don't see that it would serve any appropriate and just purpose. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

I know that the Germans and Swedes find sociological purposes, which are to affirm that a relationship between a man and a woman is different than a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Hence, different doesn't mean good or bad. Did you know that in German language, words 'der mann' and 'die frau' (a man and a woman) are also being used in describing a husband and a wife, hence in German, a word for a husband is 'der mann' and a word for a wife is 'die frau.' Now, Germans are very traditional folks, and they have unique definitions of what it means to be a husband and what it means to be a wife. In German culture, husband, the man has different duties than wife, the woman. Let us say two women get married, it would be too difficult to figure out who should have husbandlike duties and who wants to be like a wife. It would be preposterous if a woman wants to be like a husband and call herself der mann, since she is not a man. Remember, der mann means both a man and a husband. For these reasons, in order to preserve their cultural heritage affirming the duties of a husband and of a wife, Germans call heterosexual unions marriages and homosexual ones 'einigkeit', which translates into English language, as unity. However, they are very good on social programs helping gay and lesbian couples by giving them tremendous amounts of money. Like, if you are registered same-sex couple in Germany, you would receive a paycheck every month, which you could use for medical and dental services. It is needless to say that you life insurance and hospital visitations are already covered. I learned about this, after living in that country on and off for two months. I don't know how about you, but for me, it's a very reasonable approach that does not impede on anybodys traditions.

I also believe that putting children in a same-sex household is a risky act, assuming that such a child could develop negative traits along with positive ones. Let me tell you a family story. My grandfather lost his dad when he was 5, and he was raised by his mother and his grandmother, two women. They were very loving and caring for him, I don't doubt them having good parental duties. As a result, he turned out to be a very kind and gentle person, a man with a big heart (you know what I mean), but due to having a father figure being absent from his life, he developed a lack of assertiveness, he is having immense difficulty getting his points across and standing his grounds, he is very easily being manipulated by other people. In his youth, he was very uncontrollable and had discipline problems until he joined the army, which helped him to get a reasonable firmness. Don't get me wrong, I love my grandad, but I see him possessing those traits at the age of 76 and I feel sad for him, by just thinking that he would have not develop them, should his father been around when he was growing up. As you can see, fathers provide assertiveness, firmness, consistency, confidence, something that we all need in general. Because he had and still has such traits, my grandad wasn't a very good father to my dad, who as a result wasn't much of a father to me. I hope you could see this downswirling pattern. I am pretty much sure you know that majority of same-sex couples rasing children in our country are women. So, how can you tell me that their kids wouldn't be predisposed to the same experiences that my grandad was?

You are not kidding when you are saying that there are biological parents unfit to raise their kids. This is what I believe is the main problem which leads to the breakdown of families and family values. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, but regardless, I think that every biological parent should strive to be fit to be parents to their children because this way, our world could be saved. They could seek counselors, abstain from excessive smoking and drinking, avoid drugs, etc. I do sound utopian, but what's wrong with having a dream?

[Dash]

Sammy...let go...

Let go of the lie...

Let go of the myth of the perfect family... It never existed since time began. It didn't exist in the 50's...those television families were lies. It didn't exist in Jesus' time. It didn't exist in Abraham's time, or Jacob's time, or David's time, or Joseph's time, or Daniel's time, or Ruth's time, or Adam's time...or anyone else's.

Let go of the lie...the false idol of family...that is worshipped by so many misguided people today. There is no single right shape to a family, and it's okay for them to look different, one from another.

Yes...our families shape us...our fathers and our mothers pass on all their hopes and fears...we get some of their good...some of their bad... We walk with their unfinished journey before us. And fathers die leaving children with good mothers...or mothers pass before their children are grown. Or divorce leaves children with weekend parents or angry distance.

If every bad parent...every deadbeat father...if every strong-willed mother...if every premature death...if every failed marriage...BY HEAVEN!..if every human mistake or misfortune meant that another child would be gay....then there would be a much higher percentage of gay people on this planet, my friend. There are precious few perfect parents and families...if any. I'm not even sure there are any "good" parents, except for those that are made beautiful in the fond memories of their children. Truth is...there are a lot of really horrible parents out there, and not all of their children are gay. There are also a lot of decent, if imperfect, people who find they have a gay child.

Let go of the lie that we as gay people are the product of evil qualities in our parents and families. Just like every other child of God, we were born of the love...yes, the imperfect love!...of humanity. And just like every other child of God, we carry the light of that love within us, and we share it with each other.

Sigh...I don't know how to shine a light bright enough to help you see what is right in front of you every day. You have heard so many lies that all you know is defined by them. But look at the world again! Look closely at what it really is, and not what you think it should be. Learn to love what it is...what you are...what your parents are... Then you will be on your way towards that ideal for which you dream.

:love:

[sammy1980]

Children survive.
They just seem to be built to survive almost anything.
The pain of loneliness, war, crime, rejection,
being ignored, being abused, being smothered, being used,
predation, exposure, abandonment, over-protection, –
these are just some of the things children endure.

But to do so requires they develop tools –
most of them facades – fake faces.
It is these false countenances and big walls
that, as adults, keep distance between us.
They protect the “us” we can’t risk showing the world,
the identities we forget exist as time moves on.
We show the safe “us”, the ones that can’t get hurt,
because they’re not real.

But hurt we do.
The void manifests as we become emptier.
And then, eventually, it dawns on us –
being an adult isn’t about being safe –
it’s about being real.
It’s about risk.
It’s about re-finding GOD.
Yes, eventually we realize –
if we can’t be honest with each other –
how can we trust anyone including GOD.

So eventually we learn to set aside our facades,
to show our soft underbellies,
to expose our pain and doubts,
to look longingly for GOD.
We find GOD’s been there the whole time – waiting for us.
We allow GOD to fill the void with joy.
Welcome back to being a child – now we’re ready for GOD.
Now we can survive anything.

Andy Little, 1996

Andy,
It was a wonderful poem. It made me want to cry. You are so right on target when you say that children survive pretty much anything, and they are doing it better than adults, by putting on facades, or I call them going into escape places. This what was happening to me, when my father used to abuse me, I would want to escape either in my mind, by inventing some story or by going to an arcade center to play video games. I guess it explains why I'm being abstract; it is my facade, escape, defense mechanism (however you want to call it) which prevents me from getting hurt. But your poem inspired me to be honest in order to find ways to God, so I'd like to shed some light.

I wrote my poem in a very obscure way, expecting different people to interpret it in different ways they see it fit. That's what I think makes a written work more interesting by using puns. Like the concept of mom and dad could mean same-sex families but could also means orphanage, or having parents but not being there when you needed them, like something that happened to me. The concept of being used for the cause could mean political activism for you but for me it means serving in the military. I am a fan of Shakespeare, and I saw him using puns, and I found him very good for that. Furthermore, I said that I borrowed only the form of writing from Antwone Fisher, not his ideas. His speaker asks who will cry for the little boy, this means he is asking the audience to sympathize with him, maybe to pity him. My speaker says who will help a little boy. This is different, because my speaker doesn't not ask anybody to feel sorry for him, but he is asking for help thus he is searching for answers to his questions that were bugging him all his life. I can relate to my speaker because I have too many complicated questions and I need some help to find answers for them. Apparently, it hasn't been working so far: I have seen two shrinks and none of them could reach me. In no way, I was implying that the events described in my poem, would bring any kind of abuse but I was implying that the events would bring questions. Just because I used similar wording, how am I being unoriginal?

Anyway, I would like to say that it is very good for us to use things like poetry, philosophy, arts, instead of throwing hard facts at each other, for this discussion. So, once again, Andy, thanks for sharing your poetry.

PS: Speaking of escapes, I noticed that you look like Rupert Holmes: "You want you pina colatas?"

[sammy1980]

But look at the world again! Look closely at what it really is, and not what you think it should be. Learn to love what it is...what you are...what your parents are... Then you will be on your way towards that ideal for which you dream.

I'm so sorry Dash but this is what I see. I see that homosexuality is triggered by something, I'm speaking from personal experience, and some people see this 'something' in themselves and some people don't. But this 'something' exists in all of us. I also see that once we apprehend and assess this 'something,' we can change. Don't condemn me for having this vision but I just don't see what you want me to see. Please, forgive me.

Your friend,

Sammy

[Emproph]

I'm so sorry Dash but this is what I see. I see that homosexuality is triggered by something, I'm speaking from personal experience, and some people see this 'something' in themselves and some people don't. But this 'something' exists in all of us. I also see that once we apprehend and assess this 'something,' we can change. Don't condemn me for having this vision but I just don't see what you want me to see. Please, forgive me.

Your friend,

Sammy
I appreciate all you've shared with us Sammy, it makes all the difference and I have no intention of discounting your experience.

I don't even know how to segue to this but to just say it. I remember living before. I had a spontaneous past life revelation as a direct result of prayer to God in regard to emotional trauma.

I am not gay, I am a heterosexual female with a male body. If there is life before birth then there can be gender before birth. Even gay people who may believe in reincarnation may not describe themselves this way, but the conviction of certainty is just as complete. I just happen to have personal proof.

To convince me that my memory of yesterday is nothing more than a delusion "triggered by something," would require that you convince me that I am incapable of understanding the difference between memory and delusion. Do you wish to make this assertion?

If you were once gay and now you're not, then you are an anomaly. You are not in a position to speak for anyone other than your self and those who are exactly like you.

[tdogg]

Sammy, I appreciate your thoughts and yes, you do have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. Perhaps in your case, it's true. At any rate a persons perception IS their OWN reality - but NOT necessary the reality of any other person.

As far as roles of men/women - husband/wives, I hear what you say, but I still don't buy it. If it works for you, ok. It definitely doens't work for me. My partner and I don't have specific roles that only one of us acts out. We do what needs to be done in our professional life, our home front, our relationship. If we aren't physically capable of completing the task, we have loved ones to help. If all else fails, we call Dave the handyman (which we will do after the weather warms up again to fix our broken sprinkler pipe).

Do you really feel same-sex parents should not raise children??? Dash said it perfectly, not much to add there. Except, I've seen with my own eyes, the sad results of some heterosexual couples raising children. Sad, sad, sad. It's not a straight/gay thing, it's an individual human thing. Some people are just not cut out for raising children. That said, the vast majority of people who have children do the best they can with what they have. There is actually no evidence that same-sex couples are less adequate parents. Sorry, not buying that one either.

[sammy1980]

I wasn't just speaking for myself, but I read experiences of other people as well who were once gays and now they aren't. For example, the book of Alfred Kinsey reports the disappearance of homosexuality in certain males after some period of time. Let's take for instance, Mr. Oscar Wilde, a famous writer. He was openly gay, despite being married and having children. He even went to prison for being gay. But you see, when he was growing up, his saw his father, the doctor, touching boy patients in the inappropriate places. Yes, you could say his father was a pedophile. When he went to college, he became fascinated with various ancient Greek writings, glorifying homosexuality by calling it a special kind of love. As an avid Greek scholar, Wilde bought into that and decided to experiment. You see, these were his triggers for becoming gay. Eventually, he was led to being incarcerated. After spending 2 years in prison, losing his wife, and having almost all his family deserting him, he became a Catholic Christian and never had sex with another man until his death. He died rather young but I can say he died in peace.

[sammy1980]

Do you really feel same-sex parents should not raise children??? Dash said it perfectly, not much to add there. Except, I've seen with my own eyes, the sad results of some heterosexual couples raising children. Sad, sad, sad. It's not a straight/gay thing, it's an individual human thing. Some people are just not cut out for raising children. That said, the vast majority of people who have children do the best they can with what they have. There is actually no evidence that same-sex couples are less adequate parents. Sorry, not buying that one either.

I never said that those lesbian couples would be inadequate parents, just like the women who raised my grandpa were excellent parents. The key issue is the absence of a father, and there are evidences that absence of a father affects children negatively. That's why I feel it is risky for putting children with them. There are places in our country that allow people to adopt children, regardless of their marital status and of course, sexual orientation, like New York. I can't do anything about that. What is sad though, that today any argument stating that children do best with a mother and a faher, could be labeled as a hate propaganda. Apparently, our society is going crazy.

The world is tilting, the world is spinning,
And I don't know where I am sitting,
There's so much food, it's hard to choose,
Or maybe I just need a booze?

[Emproph]

I wasn't just speaking for myself, but I read experiences of other people as well who were once gays and now they aren't.First of all, you ONLY speak for yourself.

You don't even speak for those you are certain of who are like you, LET ALONE those "experiences" you've "read" of.

If others happen to be a MINORITY ANOMALY like youself, you and your minority anomolies do not speak for those of us in the MAJORITY ANOMALY.

Does this make sense to you or not?

[Zerbie]

I wasn't just speaking for myself, but I read experiences of other people as well who were once gays and now they aren't. For example, the book of Alfred Kinsey reports the disappearance of homosexuality in certain males after some period of time. Let's take for instance, Mr. Oscar Wilde, a famous writer. He was openly gay, despite being married and having children. He even went to prison for being gay. But you see, when he was growing up, his saw his father, the doctor, touching boy patients in the inappropriate places. Yes, you could say his father was a pedophile. When he went to college, he became fascinated with various ancient Greek writings, glorifying homosexuality by calling it a special kind of love. As an avid Greek scholar, Wilde bought into that and decided to experiment. You see, these were his triggers for becoming gay. Eventually, he was led to being incarcerated. After spending 2 years in prison, losing his wife, and having almost all his family deserting him, he became a Catholic Christian and never had sex with another man until his death. He died rather young but I can say he died in peace.

Whoa Sammy!

Your personal experience does not prove (or even suggest) that anyone else must follow the same path you did. The fact that you have found peace means that you found the path that is right for you. That does not make it right for anyone else.

You seem to imply that you speak for all people who have experienced a change in sexuality. You Do Not. You and I have that experience in common, but the respective meanings we glean from it are quite different. You do not speak for me. Don't imply that you do.

Your statements about Oscar Wilde are speculation. You do not "know" that anything "caused" Wilde to become gay (or bisexual as the case may be.) He died at peace? Do we know that for sure? Did he claim to be at peace or is that your own conclusion? And if he claimed he was at peace, well I certainly hope so, but Sammy you completely gloss over the severe brutality he was tortured with during those two years in prison. He was over-exercised, malnourished, and spent months in total isolation and darkness - an experience which destroyed his health utterly in his early 40s, essentially led to his death, and which by the reports I've read completely shattered his psychological balance. Peace? Sounds more like utter defeat to me.

[andrewlittle]

Sammy, I perceive you are becoming more open. This is a good thing. Quick reminders have been made not to use the thoughts and experiences of others in your quotes, and I think you've shifted to expressing your own. Bravo!

What happens in return is a very engaging conversation - complete with emotions and, sometimes, hostilities. Don't back away from them. Especially in this forum, you can engage and disengage at will - backing out for brief times to re-collect thoughts or soothe bruised egos. Keep engaging.

I would like to offer a different view of your post:
I'm so sorry Dash but this is what I see. I see that homosexuality is triggered by something, I'm speaking from personal experience, and some people see this 'something' in themselves and some people don't. But this 'something' exists in all of us. I also see that once we apprehend and assess this 'something,' we can change. Don't condemn me for having this vision but I just don't see what you want me to see. Please, forgive me.

Your friend,

Sammy

Could I suggest that disdain or dislike or, even, fear of homosexuals is triggered by something. Some people see this "something" in themselves and wrestle with the voices ingrained in their heads to sort out the messages and contradictions. This ia, at least, what I did.

Some people do not see this "something", and continue through life being unaware of the slanted views they possess and how they were caused by damage at a previous time in their lives.

It's just another way of looking at the same thing. I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong." Maybe I'm saying, "Can you see where we're both right sometimes."

Different assualts and abuse - different damage.

Sometimes no abuse, no assaults, and no damage. Feeling love for someone else, same-sex or not, is hardly a broken condition. (Again, not taking about aberrant abusive situations) Can we say the same thing for feeling disdain for someone else, however?

[Emproph]

Could I suggest that disdain or dislike or, even, fear of homosexuals is triggered by something. Some people see this "something" in themselves and wrestle with the voices ingrained in their heads to sort out the messages and contradictions. This is, at least, what I did.

In your experience Andrew, what's the most effective way of getting others to come to that conclusion on their own?


-Namely that one should come to their own conclusions.

[dewdrop_world]

I'm so sorry Dash but this is what I see. I see that homosexuality is triggered by something, I'm speaking from personal experience, and some people see this 'something' in themselves and some people don't. But this 'something' exists in all of us. I also see that once we apprehend and assess this 'something,' we can change. Don't condemn me for having this vision but I just don't see what you want me to see. Please, forgive me.

Hi Sammy,

While I can't condemn anyone for holding an opinion, I have to ask questions when someone is maintaining an opinion that contradicts a large body of evidence.

There's a very big problem with drawing general conclusions from personal experience -- very simply, very few people can claim to have wide enough experience to say with any certainty whether a certain observation is true in general.

In other words, one's conclusions can be as far reaching only as the range of the observations.

What if you find someone who had a strong father and loving mother, who grew up with all the conventional ideas about gender -- and still turned out to be gay? Wouldn't that suggest that the theory is not correct? (Incidentally, I bet many of the people on this board had very happy, "normal" childhoods. That includes me. There was nothing in my upbringing that would make me gay... I just wasn't straight.)

The next step then is, if it wasn't a parental trigger, then it must be some other trigger. If you just look hard enough, you'll find it. And you might find another trigger that explains another portion of the population, but that has nothing to do with the first portion. And there are still others who don't fit either of those explanations.

How many different triggers are there going to be? How many triggers are going to be mutually contradictory? (That is, some gay men might have the legendary "absent father," but others might have an overinvolved father.) At what point do we stop trying to force conflicting observations to make sense, and just help people to be whole? When do we recognize that trying to fit the square peg into the round hole is no longer the pursuit of truth?

Let me put the shoe on the other foot. What if I had a theory about conservative Christians and I was willing to interact with you only as long as you could serve as evidence to support my theory? In that case would I be seeing you as a person? Is that respectful of your personhood?

No. Obviously not. In fact, I have a lot of theories about conservative Christianity. :p But, when I interact with CCs, theories are nothing. I'm interested in who that person really is, not in how that person can help me feel more secure in my beliefs.

Likewise, I feel like the relationship is not right when conservative Christians can deal with me only if they can "explain" me.

Now, Sammy, I can see very clearly that you are not dealing with me/us only on this level. But I'm curious whether or not you see anything in homosexuality other than a trigger. Are you willing to see anything in homosexuality other than the little bit you've seen so far in your life?

Is it really true that the overall concept of "homosexuality" is fully defined by what you have seen? If not -- if there are facets of homosexuality you haven't seen yet -- what is the benefit of hanging onto the belief once you know that it is at best only partially true?

Like the others who have responded here, I really admire the fact that you're willing to come here and talk about this at all. You must have known that we would challenge your beliefs -- most people respond to such challenges by walking (or running) away. Not you! I have a huge amount of respect for that. Just wanted to be clear that my questions for you are intended as respectful challenges. It doesn't matter to me whether you agree or disagree with my specific point of view, as long as we're both learning and growing.

Hugs and blessings to you!
James

[andrewlittle]

Emproph wrote:
In your experience Andrew, what's the most effective way of getting others to come to that conclusion on their own?

I can only answer for myself.

I came to know one gay man, in particular, who lived a life that spoke truth. He was authentic to who he was, and would readily accept without reservation that someone may not like that. "So be it," he would say, "but I'm still me like you are still you."

At the time I was wrestling with who I was - I was an exploiter of financially troubled businesses. So, I guess, I was predisposed to questioning who I was and what I believed. He stood in stark contrast to what I had in my head. He wasn't some vile aberrant half-human - he was a whole person with a commanding presence and a warm self-confidence.

Anyway, through him (and his patience with a questioning homophobe), my wife and I met several more of his GLBT friends. None looked or acted like any others. Everyone was an individual. Kinda challenged the stereotype in my head no end, I will tell you.

Then I found out that several of my existing acquantances were gay. These were all good, ethical, loving people - I just didn't see them in their personal environs and had no curiosity about their lives, before this.

Anyway, before this gets too long like my other posts - I was affected by people who spoke truth at every opportunity - and lived it in their lives. They forced me (well, not really - I was compelled) to either wrestle with my presuppositions, or turn my back on some very good people.

Living in right-relations won out, and I slowly became an ally.

I don't know if there's a shred of usable information here or not. But, If I can offer anything, it would be to live authentically to who you believe you are and to speak your truth at every opportunity. Be prepared, as life has already taught you, that some people will not like you for that. Others, however, may one day thank God that you were present in their lives. It's a bit of a crap shoot, and the stakes can be personally high, but the potential gain is also very high.

[Emproph]

I don't know if there's a shred of usable information here or not.On that note, I don’t know if I should mention that I suddenly realize that the ocean of hatred I have for my brother is larger than the trickle of reasoning I have for keeping it.

[scott snedeker]

Sammy,

Consider that in the 1950's the same argument was used to substatiate banning interracial marriages in some southern states. Not even given a thought by most folks today.

As far as sexual desire, follow your instinctual drives and you will honor the nature God gave you.

love and affirmation, Scotty203

[Daniel]

Let's take for instance, Mr. Oscar Wilde, a famous writer. He was openly gay, despite being married and having children. He even went to prison for being gay. But you see, when he was growing up, his saw his father, the doctor, touching boy patients in the inappropriate places. Yes, you could say his father was a pedophile. When he went to college, he became fascinated with various ancient Greek writings, glorifying homosexuality by calling it a special kind of love. As an avid Greek scholar, Wilde bought into that and decided to experiment. You see, these were his triggers for becoming gay. Eventually, he was led to being incarcerated. After spending 2 years in prison, losing his wife, and having almost all his family deserting him, he became a Catholic Christian and never had sex with another man until his death. He died rather young but I can say he died in peace.

Sammy- if you are going to assert that Oscar Wilde's father, that being William Robert Wilde, was a pedophile, I would appreciate at least a link or a citation.

The 1988 bio, Oscar Wilde, by Richard Ellmann mentions only that Wilde's father, a doctor, was accused of rape- by a woman other than his wife (p.14). The woman, Mary Travers, a patient of his, made the assertion 2 years after the date, and ten years since she had become his patient. Lady Wilde, learning of this, wrote to the woman's father, saying that his daughter was making 'unfounded' allegations. When Mary Travers found this letter among her father's posessions after his death, she sued William Wilde for libel and won $2000 lbs.

William Wilde had 3 children before he married Oscar's mother (p. 13). One, a son, was cared for and educated, then taken into Wilde's medicine practice as a fellow doctor. The two girls were raised by William's brother, Rev. Ralph Wilde, and kept the family name.

Whether William Wilde was decidely straight or not, it does seem clear that he had a conscience.

Where's your evidence?

Now. On Wilde's sex life after he left jail.

Ellman notes that Wilde was seen in 'sexual embrace' (kissing?) when curtains were forgotten to be drawn (p. 544)

After Wilde met with Bosie after leaving jail he wrote: "I feel that my only hope of again doing beautiful work in art is being with you. It was not so in the old days, but now it is different, and you can really recreate in me that energy and sense of joyous power on which art depends. Everyone is furious with me for going back to you, but they don't understand us. I feel that it is only with you that I can do anything at all. Do remake my ruined life for me, and then our friendship and love will have a different meaning to the world." (p. 547)

They met in Naples and Ellman notes: "Most of their time was spent dawdling around the cafes or the beaches, good humoredly competing for Neapolitan boys." (p. 552)

Wildes' wife, Constance wrote to him: "I forbid you to see Lord Alfred Douglas. I forbid you to return to your filthy life, insane life. I forbid you to live at Naples. I will not allow you to come to Genoa."

I don't think he died in peace, not with his wife and Lady Queensbury both working to keep the two men apart by financial means. The latter bribed Wilde with 200 pounds (Bosie got his money from her- and she threatened to cut him off), if only he would say in writing that he would never live with her son again. (p. 553)

Wilde had his allowance cut off since he had previously agreed never to live with Bosie again. (p. 553)

Your assertion that Wilde converted to Catholicism is a gross over statlement. Here's what he is reported to have said: "Much of my moral obliquity is due to the fact that my father would not allow me to become a Catholic. The artistic side of the Church and the fragrance of its teachings would have cured my degeneracies. I intend to be recieved before long."

'Artistic side' of the Church? 'Fragrance'? To my ears, this sounds like the musings of a romantic.

According to Ellmann, Wilde's friend, a Mr. Ross, was saddled with the task of whether to call a priest or not at his death bed, seeing that Wilde was prone to contradictory statements.

Here are a few to them (p. 583).

"The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people the Anglican Church will do."

"And when Ross feverently declared that Catholicism was true, Wilde said in an avuncular tone, 'No, Robbie, it isn't true.'

In the end, Ross obtained a priest so that the body wouldn't be taken to the morgue and an autopsy performed. (p.584) With the blessing of a priest, a formal and ceremonial burial could be obtained.

Facts before fabrication if you please.

[sammy1980]

Hi Sammy,

While I can't condemn anyone for holding an opinion, I have to ask questions when someone is maintaining an opinion that contradicts a large body of evidence.
There's a very big problem with drawing general conclusions from personal experience -- very simply, very few people can claim to have wide enough experience to say with any certainty whether a certain observation is true in general.

James, you are correct about about me having a belief that homosexuality is caused or triggered by something. I don't believe that being gay is who a person is but rather being gay is something that caused a person to be so. The whole irony about me starting having this belief has to do with reading a variety of literature, both secular and Christian, dealing with homosexuality, but I never believed so before. Actually, before reading the literature on homosexuality, I used to think of myself as being a freak of nature, due to having that experience. I was just a teenager. The books that influenced me the most were "My Genes made Me do it," by Neil and Briar Whitehead and "Strong delusion," by Joe Dallas (this guy was a former gay Christian, a member of MCC). After reading these books, as well as others, searching material on the internet, by listening to scientific researches and observations, only after that I started applying all that to my personal experience. In other words, the education I got was the primary influence for formulating my beliefs, and very minor influence was my personal experience. Speaking of that, my experience is nothing compared to experiences of former gays and lesbians I read about, because I never experimented with it but they did for many years, like Joe Dallas. The majority of evidence, you are probably talking about are APA, ACA, AAP, and other professional associations, state that there are factors involving in the development of a person's sexual orientation, but they don't necessarily apply to all people. The only existing "evidence" claiming that homosexual orientation is naturally genetic was the brain study of Dean Hamer, which was discovered to be a hoax, because it could not be replicated, and that Dr. Hamer proposed this idea in order to promote his political ideology, no less than Michael Moore.


When do we recognize that trying to fit the square peg into the round hole is no longer the pursuit of truth?

So, what is the pursuit of truth?

I'm interested in who that person really is, not in how that person can help me feel more secure in my beliefs.
I feel like the relationship is not right when conservative Christians can deal with me only if they can "explain" me.
Now, Sammy, I can see very clearly that you are not dealing with me/us only on this level. But I'm curious whether or not you see anything in homosexuality other than a trigger. Are you willing to see anything in homosexuality other than the little bit you've seen so far in your life?

James, my earlier comment was just a response to Dash, who was trying to tell his version of how HE sees the world in terms of homosexuality, and all I said that I see it differently. Then I added that I was sorry because nothing could be done about that. By saying, how I see the world, I in no way was trying to "explain" Dash, or you, or all gays and lesbians. I guess, my main concern is to make sure that Dash, or anybody who sees the world differently, would be okay. There is no added bonus to it. You'd be surprised that I agree with you that when I talk with people, I am interested in knowing who they are as persons. Does that mean what a person likes to do? I can start with myself. Well, I'm 27 years old, I speak Russian and Italian, I currently work in Walmart in Denver as a janitor but I'm planning on finding something else in the future, my hobbies are video games, chess, and motorcycling.

Like the others who have responded here, I really admire the fact that you're willing to come here and talk about this at all. You must have known that we would challenge your beliefs -- most people respond to such challenges by walking (or running) away. Not you! I have a huge amount of respect for that. Just wanted to be clear that my questions for you are intended as respectful challenges. It doesn't matter to me whether you agree or disagree with my specific point of view, as long as we're both learning and growing.

And how would you feel if you were in a circle of ultra conservative people? Don't you think that people of that kind would also challenge you? What would you do?

Hugs and blessings to you!
James

Same applies to you,

Sam

[sammy1980]

Hi Zerbie,

I got my information about Oscar Wilde from a newspaper article I read about 10 years ago, from a book called "A secret life of Oscar Wilde" by Neil McKenna, and some other different sources, including encyclopedias. Whether his father was truly a pedophile remains controversial, but there are facts proving that there was a correlation between his interest in Greek literature and his homosexuality. He even referred to Greek culture during his trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_wilde
Anyway, there are a least 7 different biographies on his life, and they all have mismatching information. What is known that after he was released, he spent some time with his exboyfriend in Italy, it is still unknown whether they did it or not, and then he moved to France and died, there. He was interested in Catholicism, tried to be around it, and shortly before his death, he received a full communion.

I guess you misunderstood the peace I was talking about. I meant heavenly peace, which can be only given by Jesus, not the earthy peace. I am very sure, he didn't have earthy peace, meaning, he was living in poverty after his release, he certainly was psychologically damaged, his health was obviously in bad shape, all things you listed. However, this did not necessarily bar him from a peace in heaven. Several of his biographers state that during his last years, he was trying to reconnect with his spirituality, so I don't see any reason why Jesus wouldn't forgive him, which means peace.

[sammy1980]

Hello Scotty
Consider that in the 1950's the same argument was used to substatiate banning interracial marriages in some southern states. Not even given a thought by most folks today.

Here we go again: being gay is like being black, therefore being gay is like being Russian. What can I say?

Have heard of that. Been there. Done that.

Thanks, but no thanks

PS; I can agree that arguments regarding interracial marriages stated that such marriages could be risky just like arguments dealing with same-sex marriages could be risky, but they are risky for totally different reasons.

[scott snedeker]

Dear Sammy,

I'm sorry that you struggle with being gay.

I am certain that it is indeed a trait and no more complex than that.

Acceptance that ones sexual attraction as a trait simplifies its morality, questions of sin, and entitlement to joy.

I've been attracted to the male sex since I was 7 years old (had the hots for Captain America in comic books) but never any stirring for women (wonder woman did nothing for me). I was exposed to both Playboy magazine and Plagirl magazine from age 10. Playgirl got me excited Playboy did not.

My God-given soul is Gay. I honor my soul and God in making love to men. No apology or request for forgiveness is needed for following His design. When I find joy making love (like I just did an hour ago) God is pleased and smiles and gives me the afterglow of his radiance. This afterglow is proof of His love and affirmation. And I love Him for this gift of joy that grows stronger as I allow my connection to my Gay Soul to evolve. The more love I make, the more of God's love and affirmation I feel.

I pray for you that some day that you will be free of the struggle you are in.

I do this not for me but for you. God has unlimited love for you that does not matter if you are attracted to men or women for whatever reason.

Love and affirmation,

Scotty:cowboy:

[Daniel]

Hi Zerbie,

Sammy- I wrote the long post on Wilde which questions your sources in detail, not Zerbie.

I got my information about Oscar Wilde from a newspaper article I read about 10 years ago, from a book called "A secret life of Oscar Wilde" by Neil McKenna, and some other different sources, including encyclopedias. Whether his father was truly a pedophile remains controversial, but there are facts proving that there was a correlation between his interest in Greek literature and his homosexuality. He even referred to Greek culture during his trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_wilde

Ok..So Wilde was interested in Greek culture. And? You make it sound as if he hadn't learned about Greek culture he wouldn't have been gay. Hello? That sounds very much like the 'you can catch it- it's a virus' type of thinking.

That- my friend- is a MYTH. People con't catch gayness by exposure to reading about it or meeting gay people. If they did, we'd all be gay.

Wilde went to Oxford (for which he was very grateful btw) and read Plato, who wrote eloquently regarding same-sex sexuality, the fact of which made it possible for Wilde, it might be said, to find himself.

And again, Wilde's father is considered controversial by WHOM? You? This major point of your argument is unsubstantiated, a point, btw, which insinutates the Viral Myth again. Even if it is so- that being that Wilde saw his father touch young boys- it is rather odd to to assert that (let's see if I can follow your logic here) that Wilde wanted to be like his father so he did what he saw his father do.

The idea of Wilde emulating or catching homosexuality from his father shows flies in the face of our understanding of psychology and sexuality.

The source you give has this to say about Wilde's 'conversion", a statement in keeping with Ellman's.

On his deathbed he was received into the Roman Catholic church. However, biographers disagree on whether his conversion was an act of volition, since he may not have been fully conscious at the time. Eyewitnesses, however, all asserted that he was conscious.

Ok. Let's try to get things clear here.

Just because Wilde may have been give Last Rites under his own volition doesn't for a second mean he became 'Right', that is, somehow not gay. He was gay his whole life, in spite of everything. That much is clear. Are you trying to say that, if he had gotten 'right with God' earlier in his life he never would have been gay?

This seems to be the unspoken assertion, which falls under the heading of an "if only' argument.

Isn't that a search for someone, or something, to blame?

Sammy- you are visting a site which is frequented- for the most part- by those who do not see a contradiction between being gay and Christian. It would be a mistake to say that Wilde shared this view for the simple reason that he did not live during a time which benefited from advances in science, theological and psychological understanding. But his not having these advantages didn't make him any less gay.

The fight here seems to be for the symbolism contained within Wilde's life. You may see a cautionary tale- one which would have been different 'if only'.

Gay people with a modicum of self-acceptance see the Life and Trials of Oscar Wilde very differently. For them, he is a symbol of the destructive force of homophobia.

Anyway, there are a least 7 different biographies on his life, and they all have mismatching information. What is known that after he was released, he spent some time with his exboyfriend in Italy, it is still unknown whether they did it or not, and then he moved to France and died, there. He was interested in Catholicism, tried to be around it, and shortly before his death, he received a full communion.

Doing it. Not doing. Whether Wilde and Bosie 'did it' or not isn't the point. The point is that they wanted to have some semblance of a life together. And they would have, if the society they lived in had been more accepting. As it is, Bosie grew up to be a self-hating queen.

The majority of bio's on Wilde agree about Wilde's ambivalence regarding the Catholic Church. Did you read the quotes above? Again- it isn't a simple matter of presto! - Last Rites = Gay No More And At Peace With God. That kind of thinking is pretty reductive, not only of Wilde's life, but of his Art. This may serve your ends, but I believe it totally misses the point of his life.

(BTW: Darwin's 'conversion' is often trotted out in the fight for the existence of God, but this seems to be a myth made by those who want it to be so. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/reviews/rev002.htm)

I guess you misunderstood the peace I was talking about. I meant heavenly peace, which can be only given by Jesus, not the earthy peace. I am very sure, he didn't have earthy peace, meaning, he was living in poverty after his release, he certainly was psychologically damaged, his health was obviously in bad shape, all things you listed. However, this did necessarily bar him from a peace in heaven. Several of his biographers state that during his last years, he was trying to reconnect with his spirituality, so I don't see any reason why Jesus wouldn't forgive him, which means peace.

Sammy- what you believe about Wilde regarding his spirituality is your projection, nothing more. But just for the sake of argument- assuming Wilde did experience spiritual peace at the end of his life, how can you say this "forgiveness" by Jesus did not embrace his total being- a part of which was his sexuality?

Last I heard, Jesus had nothing to say about expressions of same-sex sexuality.

We do know, however, that John was his beloved.

Sorry to throw gasoline on the fire here, but there are gay christians who see the bible with different eyes.

[sammy1980]

Sammy- what you believe about Wilde regarding his spirituality is your projection, nothing more. But just for the sake of argument- assuming Wilde did experience spiritual peace at the end of his life, how can you say this "forgiveness" by Jesus did not embrace his total being- a part of which was his sexuality?

Daniel, I'm sorry I wanted to say that having all what happened in Wilde's life did NOTbar him from a peace in heaven. I totally forgot to insert the word "not" in my original quote. I hope it makes things clear. The point I was trying make by using Wilde's experience that Jesus loves and forgives everybody who asks for it. And we all need that because we are all sinners. Do you remember when he was crucified, he told a man who was crucified for murder that he will see him in paradise, after that one asked to be forgiven? I agree with you that what happened to Oscar Wilde was a result of homophobia: he should have not gone to prison in the first place, becaue what he did in his private life, should have not been anybody else's business. Oh boy! I remember how I got hammered by the members of my church for stating that Oscar Wilde was unjustly punished, a couple of years ago. Anyway, even if what you said about him being a symbol of homophobic destruction is true, it is still an earthy matter. Even though he suffered on earth, I believe he is with God, regardless. All I wanted to do was to distinguish between earthy matters and heavenly matters. The strange thing is, that we don't know exactly what heavenly matters and heavenly peace are, only God knows that, but I'm sure he can shows us in his mysterious ways, if we ask.

[Daniel]

Sammy-On Wilde: glad to hear we may be closer to agreement that I previously thought.

Anyway, even if what you said about him being a symbol of homophobic destruction is true, it is still an earthy matter. Even though he suffered on earth, I believe he is with God, regardless. All I wanted to do was to distinguish between earthy matters and heavenly matters. The strange thing is, that we don't know exactly what heavenly matters and heavenly peace are, only God knows that, but I'm sure he can shows us in his mysterious ways, if we ask.

I agree with you that we may not exactly know what 'heavenly matters are' per se, but I can say that I have tasted a bit of heaven with my husband. :D

The proof is in the pudding.

Love bade me welcome, yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey'd Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack'd anything.

"A guest," I answer'd, "worthy to be here";
Love said, "You shall be he."
"I, the unkind, the ungrateful? ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee."
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
"Who made the eyes but I?"

"Truth, Lord, but I have marr'd them; let my shame
Go where it doth deserve."
"And know you not," says Love, "who bore the blame?"
"My dear, then I will serve."
"You must sit down," says Love, "and taste my meat."
So I did sit and eat.

By George Herbert

[tdogg]

The strange thing is, that we don't know exactly what heavenly matters and heavenly peace are, only God knows that, but I'm sure he can shows us in his mysterious ways, if we ask.

He has shown me Sammy, and perhaps you are here so eventually he can show you.

Peace

T

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I hope Sammy takes this comment in the light hearted way it is intended.

Below is a link to a site that has a rather good photo of Oscar Wilde's tomb in Paris. I would describe it as dominated by a very Art Nouveau male angel with exposed genitalia. I think Oscar went to the grave very gay! I also have no doubt that he was deeply religious, if not conventionally so.

Here's the link:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~androom/major/reading.htm

I see that this site contains a link to another page describing Wilde's burial. This points out that eventually the ashes of Oscar's friend Robert Ross were interred with Wilde's remains in the tomb. So Oscar is not without gay companionship even now!

Steven Webster

[sammy1980]

Well, Steven, I don't doubt that Wilde had homosexual feelings even after he was released, however, I have not found any historical accounts about him having any lovers and any sexual encounters. For me, he was a great author whose works I found very educational. My favorites are "Picture of Dorian Gray" and a story called "The Star Child." I learned from this story that if you want to find beauty, try to look for it among ugliness.

[keltic63]

Well, Steven, I don't doubt that Wilde had homosexual feelings even after he was released, however, I have not found any historical accounts about him having any lovers and any sexual encounters. so unless it was actually recorded, you absolutely refuse to believe that he had any kind of sexual encounters after prison? For me, he was a great author whose works I found very educational. My favorites are "Picture of Dorian Gray" and a story called "The Star Child." I learned from this story that if you want to find beauty, try to look for it among ugliness.*and let's redirect the conversation again as it gets too close for comfort*

[Daniel]

Sammy- sorry to butt in on your conversation with Steven (I got a chuckle out of knowing that Wilde was buried with an amorous angel on his tomb- thank you), but since we are talking about the patron saint of gay persons here, I think your objection should be addressed in some way.

For you- it seems- Wilde ceases to be gay because it cannot be proved to your satisfaction that he slept with another man after he got out of jail.

In other words, you equate 'doing' with 'being'. I could, however, point out quite a number of men who 'do' it and aren't gay in the slightest: they're escorts.

Being isn't the same as doing. Anybody can do just about anything.

Christopher Isherwood had a quip that addressed this:

It seems to me that the real clue to your sex-orientation lies in your romantic feelings rather than in your sexual feelings. If you are really gay, you are able to fall in love with a man, not just enjoy having sex with him.

It's whom you fall in love with.

Boys or girls?

[keltic63]

Sammy- sorry to butt in on your conversation with Steven (I got a chuckle out of knowing that Wilde was buried with an amorous angel on his tomb- thank you), but since we are talking about the patron saint of gay persons here, I think your objection should be addressed in some way.

For you- it seems- Wilde ceases to be gay because it cannot be proved to your satisfaction that he slept with another man after he got out of jail.

In other words, you equate 'doing' with 'being'. I could, however, point out to quite a number of men who 'do' it and aren't gay in the slightest: they're escorts.

Being isn't the same as doing.

But Daniel!!!! wouldn't that mean that as much as one might resist having sex with a person of the same gender, that they could still be *gasp* gay?

if "doing" it doesn't indicate "being" then perhaps "not doing" is not an indication of "not being."

[sammy1980]

so unless it was actually recorded, you absolutely refuse to believe that he had any kind of sexual encounters after prison?

I don't know what to say, but it could be possible. It was actaully recorded that after prison, he became very sick and discovered that his wife died and that his children deserted him, so that gave him a huge emotional pain. So, I find it hard to believe that a man being in such a poor physical and mental condition would invest his time in seeking lovers for sexual encounters.
*and let's redirect the conversation again as it gets too close for comfort*

What do you mean? What comfort?

[keltic63]

I don't know what to say, but it could be possible. It was actaully recorded that after prison, he became very sick and discovered that his wife died and that his children deserted him, so that gave him a huge emotional pain. So, I find it hard to believe that a man being in such a poor physical and mental condition would invest his time in seeking lovers for sexual encounters.

I think that it's quite possible for people in emotional pain and poor physical condition to not only desire sex, but to succeed in performing. I've actually experienced that myself.


What do you mean? What comfort? too close for comfort: idiom; dangerously nearby or accurate.

when the conversation in this thread requires you to supply sources, or to speak of your own experience, you simply redirect the conversation/change the subject. Perhaps you do this because it is too painful to discuss what is really happening with you, hence the saying "too close for comfort."

[Daniel]

Sammy- It's a fact that quite a few babies were born 9-10 months after 9/11 here in NYC. A nice surge in births.

Why?

The emotional pain of losing loved ones doesn't always mean that one stops loving. Sometimes one needs love even more then- even during grief.

Call that emotional logic, if you will.

Reasserting meaning. Pushing back the darkness. Hanging on for dear Life. Making love and life during a time of terror.

What did Wilde do in his grief and sorrow?

Who knows?

All that matters here is what are we going to do.

[Emproph]

Sammy, I've been wanting to ask a few questions and/or make a few comments about things but I want them to be as relevant as possible.

Could you possibly reiterate what specific issues you have and what it is you're trying to understand, or share with us for that matter?

I don't seem to have any blanket disagreement with you so I'm kind of at a loss as to what your particular disagreement with us is. Not that I need to be antagonistic but I've been through most of the arguments before and if I'm going to discuss something I want to make sure it's of relevance.

~Thanks

[sammy1980]

It's whom you fall in love with.
Boys or girls?

Based on this premise, it is hard for me to see what kind of person Oscar Wilde really was. You see, he has fallen in love with both women and men. For example, his used to be deeply in love with Florence Balcombe, but she left him for Bram Stoker. He took it so personally that he left Ireland, his homeland. It is similar to what happened to me, after my girlfriend chose somebody else, I left New York and joined the Navy, from where I went to Italy and then Iraq. Anyway, back to Wilde. As you can see, his first love was a woman. He married Constance Lloyd, which is the speculation among historians whether he married her because he loved her or just did it to be accepted in aristocratic Victorian society, or he just did it for her money, she was a freulin, an aide to the Queen. Then, he was having brief relationships with several men. Like the one with John Gray, this one inspired to write his famous "Picture of Dorian Gray." I read it and I could see that Wilde was writing about himself, that he was deeply in love with a man who eventually became a total jerk, which gave him an enormous pain. His most prominent relationship with Alfred Douglas was pretty rocky, it is hard to say whether it was about love or just about sex. So, I am not sure whether Oscar Wilde was naturally straight, gay, or bi. If I take him as a whole person, I find him strange, which means beautiful.

PS: I noticed that you are 48 years old. It is hard to believe. How do you maintaing looking so fresh and youthful?

[sammy1980]

I think that it's quite possible for people in emotional pain and poor physical condition to not only desire sex, but to succeed in performing. I've actually experienced that myself.

Wow, Steve! Looks like you have a lot of energy. I envy you for that. Do you think you could still be successful in sexual activity, after serving time in prison, having a criminal record, suffering from chronic back pains and meningitis, living in poverty, and losing all your immediately family?

[sammy1980]

Sammy, I've been wanting to ask a few questions and/or make a few comments about things but I want them to be as relevant as possible.

Could you possibly reiterate what specific issues you have and what it is you're trying to understand, or share with us for that matter?

I don't seem to have any blanket disagreement with you so I'm kind of at a loss as to what your particular disagreement with us is. Not that I need to be antagonistic but I've been through most of the arguments before and if I'm going to discuss something I want to make sure it's of relevance.

~Thanks

Emproh,
Well, the issues I had with Soulforce in general is the lack of knowledge about conservative Christian people being discriminated against due to their opposition to pro-homosexuality politics. I argued that it was unconstitutional.

I also don't see everybody here as us, because different people here have different views, so I can't generalize everybody. I just wanted to chit/chat about anything. That's all.

Sam

[Emproph]

Emproh,
Well, the issues I had with Soulforce in general is the lack of knowledge about conservative Christian people being discriminated against due to their opposition to pro-homosexuality politics. I argued that it was unconstitutional.You started out with examples that were clearly unfair. Other than the people responsible for that unfairness, have you actually heard of any legitimate or consistent support for that kind of unfair behavior as far as gay people or "activists" go? My point being that if you have, I'll get on their derrieres about it right now. I'll condemn them and do what I can to make it stop, and I can't imagine I'm the only one here who feels that way.

The problem I have is that I don't see that same ethic forthcoming in conservative Christian circles. Evidence of intentional lies has been presented, and the number one response – outside of being completely ignored – is "how does that justify your sin?"

It says to me:
How do my unfair intentional lies about you, justify your complaint about them? How dare you [as a dog] question my/their unfairness.

I suppose the reaction/non-reaction makes sense in a way. Who would expect an animal, albeit 'talking,' to suddenly demand an explanation as to why it's inferior.

I'm not talking about Biblical interpretation here, this is the STANDARD response to the documented LIES of and from "superior" heterosexual Christians.

I only see gay "activists" refuting lies, not telling or spreading them. Unfair or unConstitutional is not part of any gay equality agenda that I'm aware of. If you find something that's clearly unfair or unconstitutional that's being promoted or even accepted in the name of gay equality, let us know, we'll do what we can.

I have two of Joe Dallas' books. There's a distinct absence of personal witness, at least that's what stands out for me. I have many complaints about him, but perhaps that's one reason he's more careful than others in the 'ex-gay' industry when it comes to blatant lies and hypocrisy. He definitely makes the effort to weave around it – (while using it).I also don't see everybody here as us, because different people here have different views, so I can't generalize everybody. I just wanted to chit/chat about anything. That's all.

SamI've learned ALOT about not generalizing of late. I made several CC friends. I'm so grateful we were at least able to agree to disagree and continue communicating and understand each other. Not that it didn't ever get testy sometimes, but there was a genuine sense of respect that wasn't there before I took the time to REALLY find out why they thought and felt the way they did. So much is lost in translation, especially on line, but persistence paid off. Point being, I no longer generalize even those who believe the lies, or at least know that I shouldn't. It's a big step for me.

[keltic63]

Wow, Steve! Looks like you have a lot of energy. I envy you for that. Do you think you could still be successful in sexual activity, after serving time in prison, having a criminal record, suffering from chronic back pains and meningitis, living in poverty, and losing all your immediately family?

As you do not know my particular circumstances, and the situation to which I refer, I'll have to ask you to refrain from making such insulting statements which belittle my experience.

[Daniel]

Based on this premise, it is hard for me to see what kind of person Oscar Wilde really was. You see, he has fallen in love with both women and men. For example, his used to be deeply in love with Florence Balcombe, but she left him for Bram Stoker. He took it so personally that he left Ireland, his homeland. It is similar to what happened to me, after my girlfriend chose somebody else, I felt New York and joined the Navy, from where I went to Italy and then Iraq. Anyway, back to Wilde. As you can see, his first love was a woman. He married Constance Lloyd, which is the speculation among historians whether he married her because he loved her or just did it to be accepted in aristocratic Victorian society, or he just did it for her money, she was a freulin, an aide to the Queen. Then, he was having brief relationships with several men. Like the one with John Gray, this one inspired to write his famous "Picture of Dorian Gray." I read it and I could see that Wilde was writing about himself, that he was deeply in love with a man who eventually became a total jerk, which gave him an enormous pain. His most prominent relationship with Alfred Douglas was pretty rocky, it is hard to say whether it was about love or just about sex. So, I am not sure whether Oscar Wilde was naturally straight, gay, or bi. If I take him as a whole person, I find him strange, which means beautiful.

PS: I noticed that you are 48 years old. It is hard to believe. How do you maintaing looking so fresh and youthful?

Ok. Sammy. To continue to argue about Wilde would be, for me at least, to argue about the number of angels on the head of a pin.

You clearly are going to see him through the prism of your life as I am through mine. But beyond that there are the Great Master's own words: he wrote De Produndis in prison as a cry of pain and a rebuke to Bosie, not Constance, not some other woman, for the pain that his LOVE has caused him.

The last thing I want to say on the matter is this: factoring in the perspective of Isherwood (I think you use the word love in regard Wilde and women much too loosely- and inapproprately- but then your reasons for doing so are you own- reasons- as I see it- which have brought you here), Wilde stands out as the gay martyr that he is. But first and foremost, to really understand him, one has to reflect on Wilde the Artiste: his passion for making art and his love for men are not divisible.

If you really think that Wilde's relationship with Bosie is hard to figure out- whether it was for love or sex- I think you should reflect on the fact that he met with- and wanted to live with- the man he went to jail for. One doesn't do such a thing for sex. If it was only sex, Wilde would have gotten out of jail and never looked back. And lets be clear here. You've also questioned whether Wilde could even have sex after getting out of jail. Why then, would he want to have a mere boy-toy around if he couldn't do it and was only inolved with said boy-toy for sex only? Hello? Methinks Sammy- that the emotional logic you are operating under needs a tune-up.

PS How I stay 'young'.

My mother's genes, pumping iron and keeping my weight stable, a little yoga and the joy of singing- and yes- some love-making (notice I don't say sex in this particular instance) thrown in there. Love keeps ya young.

[marutidas]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Well size is irrealevent, for an angel can be any size, and it is hard to keep count because they keep losing many of their number in between the molecular spaces, and as far as dancing while angels do enjoy the music of the spheres, its not something you can dance to. So they sway.
----a Quote from Good Omens:p

[Emproph]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Well size is irrealevent, for an angel can be any size, and it is hard to keep count because they keep losing many of their number in between the molecular spaces, and as far as dancing while angels do enjoy the music of the spheres, its not something you can dance to. So they sway.
----a Quote from Good Omens:p I was going to say one infinite, but hey, I'll sway.

[suzer1013]

OK, folks. This is just my humble opinion, but I'm going to state it, and y'all can do with it what you like. I hope I am not speaking out of turn or out of place.

I've been following the threads with frankandcathy and with sammy1980. While frankandcathy sometimes said things that bothered me, I could at least discern that respectful conversation was occurring. I saw folks reaching out to each other to come to some kind of mutual understanding -- not always agreement, but definitely understanding. And that was uplifting.

I'm sorry that I cannot see the conversation with Sammy1980 the same way. Over and over again, Sammy presents anti-gay and ex-gay rhetoric and I'm tired of reading it on these boards. People here have been more than patient and tried to explain. But his continually using terms such as "pro-homosexual politics" is truly offensive to me. His arguments remind me of the same arguments put forth by the KKK and racist bigots during the civil rights movement. He uses language that degrades and dehumanizes GLBT persons.

I guess some here have the intestinal fortitude to remain in conversation. But I'm afraid Sammy may just be here to continue to pound an anti-gay and anti-equality message.

We had a conversation a while back about finding a "safe" place to converse on these boards with people who hold views like Sammy's. I can't remember what the outcome of that conversation was. But, I'll be honest -- this particular thread has kept me from reading and posting as I usually do. If this is what the Soulforce boards are to become, that is fine -- but I won't be here. I look to Soulforce to be a safe and supportive place. And, for me, it is quickly losing that unique, welcoming flavor I felt it once had.

This is just my opinion, and I realize people may agree or disagree. I just thought I'd float it out there, so y'all will know how I feel. I would suspect I'm not the only one here who is bothered by Sammy's posts.

Sammy, I wish you all happiness and blessings. I hope that, someday, your eyes and heart will be opened to God's redeeming love for ALL His children. I hope that you will stop buying into and spreading hateful rhetoric about God's children. God's love does not discriminate between gay and straight, practicing or not practicing, black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim or Jew, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps I Corinthians 13 would be a good place to begin a journey toward healing? Blessings to you...

Susan


13Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body *to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

[Daniel]

Susan- I hear you loud and clear. :D

[andrewlittle]

Hi Susan,

I am returning to my original attitudes about Sammy's posts. I tried to be understanding and open up fronts for honest dialogue - as have many others - but he just seems to dance around with various ways of stating unreflective and, sometimes, infantile rhetoric.

I stopped posting a short while back, having reached the point where it seemed one of two things were happening:
1. Sammy just likes to see his own writing and gets some kind of pleasure out of word-spinning, playing the chameleon and contradicting himself.
2. This is a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

I kept reading, however, hoping some new insight or truly personal, meaningful remarks would emminate form Sammy's keyboard. I have seen those from others, but not from Sammy. I am now also done with even reading this tripe.

I give the rest of you credit for being able to deal with what may be, but I doubt is, just youthful ignorance.

If I'm mistaken about my assumptions, Sammy, I am truly sorry, but as yet I have not seen anything that reflected any kind of deep, personal interest in dialogue. And I have run out of interest in waiting to see if it occurs.

Andy

[Daniel]

Sammy- if you look back at how our 'engagment' has progessed over the course this thread, you will see that I've tried hard to keep bringing the conversation back to things that matter, real 'in time' things. Love. Relationship. Being Gay.

I gotta say though, you are one tough customer. You seem to hold these very real concerns- everything having to do with love and relationship that is- at bay.

Hey. that's your choice. It's a free country as they say.

But guess what?

This forum was brought about to deal with the stuff that matters- that is- the real concerns of gay people who are oppressed by religious conservatives. And from what I have observed, you have demonstrated very little willingless to either understand yourself or the issue.

And let's get real here: the folk around here are pretty good about going the extra mile. Heck. I've even entertained your 'flirting'- yes Sammy- the question on how I stay young is flirting. (That's the kind of thing- in my book- that one asks in a PM. But I guess if you flirt in public it isn't flirting, is it? Hiding out in the open perhaps?) But in the interest of honesty I don't mind a bit of self-disclosure.

Wish I could say the same about you.

I have nothing to hide.

Do you?

[sammy1980]

As you do not know my particular circumstances, and the situation to which I refer, I'll have to ask you to refrain from making such insulting statements which belittle my experience.


Steve, I'm sorry if I accidently offended you. These things I listed above, have happened to Oscar Wilde, and I was just curious what would you do in a similar situation. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I just want you understand that I didn't mean to put you down.

Sam

[sammy1980]

OK, folks. This is just my humble opinion, but I'm going to state it, and y'all can do with it what you like. I hope I am not speaking out of turn or out of place.

I've been following the threads with frankandcathy and with sammy1980. While frankandcathy sometimes said things that bothered me, I could at least discern that respectful conversation was occurring. I saw folks reaching out to each other to come to some kind of mutual understanding -- not always agreement, but definitely understanding. And that was uplifting.

I'm sorry that I cannot see the conversation with Sammy1980 the same way. Over and over again, Sammy presents anti-gay and ex-gay rhetoric and I'm tired of reading it on these boards. People here have been more than patient and tried to explain. But his continually using terms such as "pro-homosexual politics" is truly offensive to me. His arguments remind me of the same arguments put forth by the KKK and racist bigots during the civil rights movement. He uses language that degrades and dehumanizes GLBT persons.

I guess some here have the intestinal fortitude to remain in conversation. But I'm afraid Sammy may just be here to continue to pound an anti-gay and anti-equality message.

We had a conversation a while back about finding a "safe" place to converse on these boards with people who hold views like Sammy's. I can't remember what the outcome of that conversation was. But, I'll be honest -- this particular thread has kept me from reading and posting as I usually do. If this is what the Soulforce boards are to become, that is fine -- but I won't be here. I look to Soulforce to be a safe and supportive place. And, for me, it is quickly losing that unique, welcoming flavor I felt it once had.

This is just my opinion, and I realize people may agree or disagree. I just thought I'd float it out there, so y'all will know how I feel. I would suspect I'm not the only one here who is bothered by Sammy's posts.

Sammy, I wish you all happiness and blessings. I hope that, someday, your eyes and heart will be opened to God's redeeming love for ALL His children. I hope that you will stop buying into and spreading hateful rhetoric about God's children. God's love does not discriminate between gay and straight, practicing or not practicing, black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim or Jew, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps I Corinthians 13 would be a good place to begin a journey toward healing? Blessings to you...

Susan


13Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body *to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
__________________
www.thewheelinsidethewheel.blogspot.com
Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not. -- George Bernard Shaw

Susan, I hope you understand that I never intended to dehumamize individual gays and lesbians. I just wanted to raise awareness and present facts dealing with people being discriminated for having different opinions regarding homosexuality, gay marriage, and gay adoption. Now, do you want me to stop presenting the information that deals with such a discrimination, anymore? I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, you when you hear "pro-homosexual politics" but what do you think would be more appropriate word to describe it? Please, educate me.

[keltic63]

Susan, I hope you understand that I never intended to dehumamize individual gays and lesbians. I just wanted to raise awareness and present facts dealing with people being discriminated for having different opinions regarding homosexuality, gay marriage, and gay adoption. Now, do you want me to stop presenting the information that deals with such a discrimination, anymore? I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, you when you hear "pro-homosexual politics" but what do you think would be more appropriate word to describe it? Please, educate me.

your facts have been disproven a number of times here in the forums. we've presented you with evidence of lies and misinformation. why do you continue to present these things as facts?

[sammy1980]

your facts have been disproven a number of times here in the forums. we've presented you with evidence of lies and misinformation. why do you continue to present these things as facts?

Okay, you said that what I said was lies. I don't understand. Let's see:

1. Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to prison for openly saying what he thought about homosexuality and how he thought Christianity viewed that. Eventually, he got acquitted but he was sentenced in the first place, needless to say that he was accused by Swedish GLBT rights organization of using religious freedom to offend gays and lesbians.

2. Edward Swan was originially expelled from University of Washington not just for his opposition to gay adoption, but also for believing that whites do not always have privilege and that the concept of 'diversity' is being misrepresented. After he sought help from the FIRE organization, he got readmitted back, but the fact that the university has expelled him for not agreeing with their views remains the same.

3. Emily Brooker was threatened to be expelled from her social work program in the University of Missouri, if she would not refrain from stating that she believed that gay adoption was wrong. She sued the university, the lawsuit worked in her favor, her academic record was restored. However, it was proven that her professors, including Frank Kauffman wanted to indoctrinate her with their political beliefs.

Where are the lies here?

I made a mistake when writing about Oscar Wilde by forgetting to put certain words there, but does that make me a chameleon?

Daniel, if I understood you correctly, you were implying that several conservative Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, AFA, and so forth oppress gays and lesbians. But how? They are not politicians who are in power to make any laws, just folks expressing their opinions what they think needs to be done. Don't they have a right to say what they want in a democratic society? I'm really confused, here.

What is exactly exgay rhetoric?

Why is it when some scientists discover that homosexual orientation is caused by something (I'm not saying that they are always right), they are tended to be labeled as being against gays and lesbian people?

Please folks,

I need some help here.

[keltic63]

Okay, you said that what I said was lies. I don't understand. Let's see:

1. Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to prison for openly saying what he thought about homosexuality and how he thought Christianity viewed that. Eventually, he got acquitted but he was sentenced in the first place, needless to say that he was accused by Swedish GLBT rights organization of using religious freedom to offend gays and lesbians.

2. Edward Swan was originially expelled from University of Washington not just for his opposition to gay adoption, but also for believing that whites do not always have privilege and that the concept of 'diversity' is being misrepresented. After he sought help from the FIRE organization, he got readmitted back, but the fact that the university has expelled him for not agreeing with their views remains the same.

3. Emily Brooker was threatened to be expelled from her social work program in the University of Missouri, if she would not refrain from stating that she believed that gay adoption was wrong. She sued the university, the lawsuit worked in her favor, her academic record was restored. However, it was proven that her professors, including Frank Kauffman wanted to indoctrinate her with their political beliefs.

Where are the lies here?

it has been demonstrated to you in this public thread, as well as in private messages that you have misrepresented the facts; there's no need to do that again.

I made a mistake when writing about Oscar Wilde by forgetting to put certain words there, but does that make me a chameleon?

Daniel, if I understood you correctly, you were implying that several conservative Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, AFA, and so forth oppress gays and lesbians. But how? They are not politicians who are in power to make any laws, just folks expressing their opinions what they think needs to be done. Don't they have a right to say what they want in a democratic society? I'm really confused, here.
they certainly have the right to say what they wish, but so do others, including those of us at soulforce, and we are committed to speaking the truth, as well as exposing the flawed research that those organizations use to oppress lgbt people.

What is exactly exgay rhetoric? pretty much all of the "facts" you've presented here.

Why is it when some scientists discover that homosexual orientation is caused by something (I'm not saying that they are always right), they are tended to by labeled as being against gays and lesbian people? look again at all the evidence that has been presented about the reliability, validity, and interpretation of said research.

Please folks,

I need some help here. I agree, you do need some help, but I'm not sure you need help understanding what we're saying. You've already admitted to same sex attractions, you've admitted to clubbing in Greenwich Village, although you didn't say whether it was at gay clubs in particular, and you've flirted publically with one of the members of the forum. Are you here to have a dialogue about why we are wrong, or are you here because you want to see if it's possible to be the person you know yourself to be deep inside?

[dewdrop_world]

Hi all,

When Sammy first showed up, he was in danger of being removed from the board fairly quickly because the tone of his initial posts was quite insensitive. I argued against taking that action because I didn't think he was trying to be offensive, and I thought that nonviolent engagement -- responding reasonably and evenhandedly -- might help all of us.

But now we are just going around in circles and I'm not convinced of the value of this discussion anymore.

Sammy -- if your main purpose here was to make points 1, 2 and 3 -- I have already stated that I disagreed with the way those situations were handled. You might also observe that not a single person here defended the actions of the Swedish government or the two universities.

If we are in agreement on these points, then what is your point? Show me one person here who says that conservative Christians should not have freedom of speech.

On FoF etc., let's rephrase. These groups don't directly have legislative or executive power. But they do have the power to shape public opinion. It is their right to do this, obviously, but it is also their responsibility to do so conscientiously and with respect for the facts. That is where they fail.

- The portrait that they paint of "the homosexual lifestyle" is a joke. It is an exaggerated parody of some aspects of the community, and completely unlike the lives of many of us.

- The portrait is based on statistics that are taken out of context, manipulated and otherwise misrepresented to make a false picture sound like it's true.

- The effect of the portrait is to make ordinary people fear us, so that those people will take actions that do oppress us. So, the organizations that spread the lies are just as responsible for the oppression that they help to create as the people who blindly follow them.

I could go on, but we've already been over this territory. I don't know, Sammy. What are these blinders that you have on? It's like you have this idea in your head that these groups are run by "good Christians," so why would they lie?

Newsflash: THEY DO LIE. Often. Repeatedly, and when their lies are called out, they make up more lies to justify the first lies.

And all of this is done to "defend morality." What kind of defense of morality is it if you corrupt your own ethics in the process? Is it really true that a few lies here and there are OK in support of some kind of larger agenda?

You're free to hold whatever opinion you want, Sammy. But if you're going to claim that your opinion is backed up by science, then you have to make sure the science is valid. We can show that FoF's science is junk -- which means that your opinion, finally, is just that. An opinion.

You won't be able to prove anything as long as you keep holding onto that junk science.

James

[suzer1013]

Sammy,

You can continue to feign ignorance here, but I for one am not buying it. Many here have tried to present you with truth and facts. Why are you really here? It doesn't really seem to me that you are here for a greater understanding.

I am not here to "educate you." Frankly, someone saying "educate me" is one of my pet peeves. It's almost like saying, "I'm wilfully ignorant, but you can spend your valuable time trying to fix me." While I try to spread truth in a loving spirit (and I may not always hit the mark), I will not undertake the immense task of educating you on GLBT rights issues. You can, however, educate yourself.

I will, however, answer your question -- why is "pro-homosexual politics" offensive to me? First, it is filled with, as Fox News is so experienced at doing, "spin." What the term suggests is that there are activists attempting to secure "special rights" for GLBT persons. No, Sammy -- that is not true. GLBT persons are simply trying to be afforded EQUAL rights in the civil arena -- the same rights as their straight peers have. Your term also almost reeks of a "conversion" aspect -- as if "pro-homosexual" means we want everyone to be homosexual. That's just ridiculous. The term "pro-equality" would be a much better term to use.

I would love to see some links for the stories you claim are discrimination agianst CC's who object to homosexuality. You seem to want governments to agree that CC's have the right to discriminate in all areas of life. Some governments protect minorities from being discriminated against. That does NOT mean CC's don't have a right to their opinion, but they do not have the right to break the law where minorities are concerned. CC's have the right to discriminate in many ways, but when it comes to areas where federal tax dollars are being spent, in many cases CC's are not allowed to discriminate. I'm sorry if you see that as somehow a violation of your and other CC's beliefs. It is simply the law. Last I knew, we still had some modicum of separation of church and state in this country -- a fact which irks CC's to no end because they no longer have carte blanche to discriminate. I have a law degree and I understand civil rights -- refusing to allow discrimination is not, in and of itself, discrimination against those why would deny equality.

CC's can still discriminate in the private sphere, and also in the public secular sphere, too, in most places where there are not laws protecting minorities. Some cities, states and countries have now provided protections to racial and other minorities because of the inequity that follows from discrimination. And not just inequity -- often violence and murder are committed against anyone considered to be "other" or outside the norm.

Equal rights are not special rights. Equal rights do not trample on anyone's ability to take part in their religion. CC's are free to go to church and preach as much anti-GLBT stuff they want. But I pay taxes, too -- the same amount or more than heterosexuals pay. I should have the same rights under my government's laws, regardless of what ANY religion says.

I have a doctor's appointment, so I need to go. But Sammy, I truly don't buy your pretended ignorance of what you are saying. You can continue to use this as a platform for anti-gay rhetoric, or you can get real with us. And I hope you read the Corinthians quote and will take it to heart -- we must, as human beings, begin from a point of love, and move forward from there.

Susan

[sammy1980]

Originally posted by suzer1013
I would love to see some links for the stories you claim are discrimination agianst CC's who object to homosexuality. You seem to want governments to agree that CC's have the right to discriminate in all areas of life. Some governments protect minorities from being discriminated against. That does NOT mean CC's don't have a right to their opinion, but they do not have the right to break the law where minorities are concerned. CC's have the right to discriminate in many ways, but when it comes to areas where federal tax dollars are being spent, in many cases CC's are not allowed to discriminate. I'm sorry if you see that as somehow a violation of your and other CC's beliefs. It is simply the law. Last I knew, we still had some modicum of separation of church and state in this country -- a fact which irks CC's to no end because they no longer have carte blanche to discriminate. I have a law degree and I understand civil rights -- refusing to allow discrimination is not, in and of itself, discrimination against those why would deny equality.

With all due respect Susan, here are the links to what I was talking about:
www.akegreen.org
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3904
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3916
http://www.kirotv.com/education/5160207/detail.html
Conservative WSU Student Fights To Stay In College Of Education

POSTED: 8:02 am PDT October 24, 2005

PULLMAN, Wash. -- A complaint from the "Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education" prevented Washington State University from dismissing an
education student who describes himself as a conservative Christian.

Ed Swan of Othello says he was ordered into diversity training over comments
that he didn't believe that whites are privileged, opposed adoption by gays,
and wrote "diversity is perversity" in the margins of a book.

Swan says he is not a racist and is no more likely to preach his point of
view in the classroom than someone with left-leaning politics.

The W-S-U College of Education is reviewing assessments that faulted Swan
for not valuing diversity.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press.

So, you have a law degree? You know what, I am a planning on applying to a law school in the future after I am done with cleaning toilets. I am not sure yet, whether law is the right career for me. To your original questions, I am aware that several CC organizations are slowly encouraging theocracy, that's where I go separate ways with them: I believe in democracy not theocracy.

Originally posted by suzer1013
You can continue to use this as a platform for anti-gay rhetoric, or you can get real with us. And I hope you read the Corinthians quote and will take it to heart -- we must, as human beings, begin from a point of love, and move forward from there.

I don't intend this thread to be so called 'antigay platform.' Like I said before, what is considered antigay is controversial and subjective. But I want this to be a learning experience with an emphasis on liberty platform. I really wanted to learn from people here and I was hoping that by hearing what I said, you could learn something. So far, I have seen that I was successful in that matter. However, I noticed there were some setbacks but at least I was trying and I really am. I also think that CC's and equality activists should try to show love toward one another individual when discussing issues. Unfortunately, there have been lack of it in the past.

[sammy1980]

they certainly have the right to say what they wish, but so do others, including those of us at soulforce, and we are committed to speaking the truth, as well as exposing the flawed research that those organizations use to oppress lgbt people.

Hi Steve, I like this comment coming from you. I see that we are reaching some understanding. Why don't we stick to it, instead of beating the dead horse? Please, try to understand that I just answered recent Emproph's question in terms of who I was and where I was coming from. Apparently, it got backfired. I didn't mean it turn out that way. I can respect that you might think that the 'science' I read, on which I based my views, is flawed and is a junk. I'm still questioning them.

I agree, you do need some help, but I'm not sure you need help understanding what we're saying. You've already admitted to same sex attractions, you've admitted to clubbing in Greenwich Village, although you didn't say whether it was at gay clubs in particular, and you've flirted publically with one of the members of the forum. Are you here to have a dialogue about why we are wrong, or are you here because you want to see if it's possible to be the person you know yourself to be deep inside?

Well, the clubs I went to, were open to all people, regarding of sexual orientation but the majority of frequenting population were indeed gays and lesbians. Still, I had a lot of fun there. I guess I want to see whether it is possible to be the person you are. Speaking of myself, I don't really know who I am inside because I have been through a lot of crap, including being engaged twice. I mean I like women but right now, I want to be by myself. And I am not trying to prove anybody wrong, but I do hope that you and I could have a learning experience. I was trying really hard at it but something gets in the way.

[sammy1980]

You started out with examples that were clearly unfair. Other than the people responsible for that unfairness, have you actually heard of any legitimate or consistent support for that kind of unfair behavior as far as gay people or "activists" go? My point being that if you have, I'll get on their derrieres about it right now. I'll condemn them and do what I can to make it stop, and I can't imagine I'm the only one here who feels that way.

The problem I have is that I don't see that same ethic forthcoming in conservative Christian circles. Evidence of intentional lies has been presented, and the number one response – outside of being completely ignored – is "how does that justify your sin?"

It says to me:
How do my unfair intentional lies about you, justify your complaint about them? How dare you [as a dog] question my/their unfairness.

I suppose the reaction/non-reaction makes sense in a way. Who would expect an animal, albeit 'talking,' to suddenly demand an explanation as to why it's inferior.

I'm not talking about Biblical interpretation here, this is the STANDARD response to the documented LIES of and from "superior" heterosexual Christians.

I only see gay "activists" refuting lies, not telling or spreading them. Unfair or unConstitutional is not part of any gay equality agenda that I'm aware of. If you find something that's clearly unfair or unconstitutional that's being promoted or even accepted in the name of gay equality, let us know, we'll do what we can.

I have two of Joe Dallas' books. There's a distinct absence of personal witness, at least that's what stands out for me. I have many complaints about him, but perhaps that's one reason he's more careful than others in the 'ex-gay' industry when it comes to blatant lies and hypocrisy. He definitely makes the effort to weave around it – (while using it).

Emproph, thanks for you honest genuine response. To be honest with you, I never heard or seen anybody condoning these unfair treatments of people. However, I have seen how when I presented this information, some people would turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to it, and to me it was the same as condoning it. If you remember, I experienced similar problems in CC circles, when people would become ignorant after I shared with them the information regarding biggotry against gays and lesbians, and of Oscar Wilde. They started calling me names. Both these experiences make me feel very sad.

If you find something that's clearly unfair or unconstitutional that's being promoted or even accepted in the name of gay equality, let us know, we'll do what we can.
Well, I remember I listed several examples, you could find links to them in my response to Susan. For example, I was very shocked to what happened to Ake Green in Sweden. What I know that is clearly unfair and unconstitutional in the name of gay equality, mostly happens in our educational system. In a book called "101 Most Dangerous Professors," by Dave Horowitz, I read a story of Professor Robert Dunkley who instructed his students to write an essay by making supportive arguments for gay marriage and for the belief that George Bush committed a crime by invading Iraq. Anybody who would disagree with Mr. Dunkley, was grounds for failure. You see, this power-abusive indoctrination has happened in a public university of Northern Colorado, not far from where I live.

I can see clearly that you are not seeing me as being 'antigay' and for that I am very grateful. I sincerely appreciate your support and I hope we can continue our discussion in a constructive and learning way.

[sammy1980]

Sammy -- if your main purpose here was to make points 1, 2 and 3 -- I have already stated that I disagreed with the way those situations were handled. You might also observe that not a single person here defended the actions of the Swedish government or the two universities.

If we are in agreement on these points, then what is your point? Show me one person here who says that conservative Christians should not have freedom of speech.

On FoF etc., let's rephrase. These groups don't directly have legislative or executive power. But they do have the power to shape public opinion. It is their right to do this, obviously, but it is also their responsibility to do so conscientiously and with respect for the facts. That is where they fail.

James, the reason I brought these 1, 2, and 3 points in order to find out how have I misrepresented the facts as some people claimed. The conservative groups have the power to shape the public opinion no less than liberal groups can do so, and I have to admit that both sides tend to misrepresent facts. My defense mechanism to these issues, is to question their 'scientific statements.' This is what I call learning experience. When I was younger, I used to believe everything liberals said, even Dr. Hamer, then I started believing everything conservatives said, including Focus on the Family, without ever questioning their claims. I guess I can say that was a faulty approach.

Newsflash: THEY DO LIE. Often. Repeatedly, and when their lies are called out, they make up more lies to justify the first lies.

And all of this is done to "defend morality." What kind of defense of morality is it if you corrupt your own ethics in the process? Is it really true that a few lies here and there are OK in support of some kind of larger agenda?

No, it's not OK to lie on purpose in order to promote any kind of agenda.


Once again, thanks for enlightening me.

Sam

[keltic63]

When I was younger, I used to believe everything liberals said, even Dr. Hamer, then I started believing everything conservatives said, including Focus on the Family, without ever questioning their claims. I guess I can say that was a faulty approach.


perhaps you should try thinking for yourself.

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

From your comment to keltic63:

I can respect that you might think that the 'science' I read, on which I based my views, is flawed and is a junk. I'm still questioning them.

Thanks for this. Sometimes you say you're questioning the studies, but other times you refer to them as if they were fact. At best I can see you're confused about a lot of things. Confusion is okay. I often find that when I'm confused, the harder I fight the confusion, the worse it gets.

So what would be wrong with withholding judgment temporarily, just listening for awhile, and waiting for the answers to come to you in their own time?

I know that's hard, but I think it's the essence of Christian faith. It's to allow God to be God, to rest in God's care, to be still and at peace, to relax the need to have all the answers and really trust that God will take care of things in his own way.

I've watched conservative Christians very carefully over the years. It's actually not just conservatives; Christianity is heading in the direction of mistaking belief in ideas for faith. We have forgotten what faith is. We think that knowing the truth is faith. If we can only figure out what is the right way to read the Bible, then we don't need to ask any more questions. And, once we know those answers, or think we know, then anyone who raises doubts or who doesn't fit into the picture becomes an enemy.

Seeking peace through a stubborn sort of certainty actually leads to just the opposite. The whole world becomes a battlefield, with "my" side standing for truth and all others being only agents of darkness. (Isn't it interesting? So many are absolutely sure they know what will happen after they die, and they are all sure they're going right to heaven. How self-serving and self-aggrandizing is that?) And instead of be-ing in God's grace, there is always a new fight to be fought.

It's true that "Christian soldier" rhetoric can be found in the Bible. But look at what it can do to people's lives. It becomes an addiction for many -- such an adrenaline rush from feeling mighty -- and the fight becomes everything, and they think they are doing the Lord's work, but really God is nowhere in it. It's only making themselves feel special by cutting down others.

Faith allows us to be calm in the middle of serious contradictions. I find in myself that when I am not at ease with contradiction, I am also resisting the presence of God. I am trying to be in control. That is not faith.

What are you trying to be in control of?

Speaking of myself, I don't really know who I am inside because I have been through a lot of crap, including being engaged twice. I mean I like women but right now, I want to be by myself. And I am not trying to prove anybody wrong, but I do hope that you and I could have a learning experience. I was trying really hard at it but something gets in the way.

Ah! There is "something" to offer up to God. No need to fix it, or change it into something else. Just be still with it, even if it hurts, let it be there and let God take care of it. It is OK not to know who you are.

Peace,
James

[keltic63]

Heck. I've even entertained your 'flirting'- yes Sammy- the question on how I stay young is flirting. (That's the kind of thing- in my book- that one asks in a PM. But I guess if you flirt in public it isn't flirting, is it? Hiding out in the open perhaps?)



Sammy, you haven't addressed this yet. are you indeed flirting with Daniel? if so, why is that? if you don't percieve this as flirtation, why did Daniel think so? why have others thought that you were flirting?

[sammy1980]

Sammy, you haven't addressed this yet. are you indeed flirting with Daniel? if so, why is that? if you don't percieve this as flirtation, why did Daniel think so? why have others thought that you were flirting?

Steve, I wasn't flirting with Daniel but I wanted to give him a compliment. You see, I noticed in his profile that he was 48 years old, but the pictures I saw of him, he looked like he was 31-32, basically almost twenty years younger his age. I was wondering what could people do in order to appear youthful, hoping I could do the same for myself.

James, after reading your last response, I felt like I was back on track, thanks. I guess, in order to let God do his work and find his closeness, we all need to pray about that. I pray a lot about why I think what I think and what I feel needs to be done. I also pray about the questions I have regarding morality and truth, because no matter, how many scientific researches I find, I always find flaws and misinformation, there. I believe that someday God will answer all my questions, but only when HE sees it fit.

[keltic63]

Steve, I wasn't flirting with Daniel but I wanted to give him a compliment. You see, I noticed in his profile that he was 48 years old, but the pictures I saw of him, he looked like he was 31-32, basically almost twenty years younger his age. I was wondering what could people do in order to appear youthful, hoping I could do the same for myself.


why did Daniel and others see it as something different?

[sammy1980]

why did Daniel and others see it as something different?

Beats me. Maybe, because I said fresh. I don't know.

[Daniel]

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

[keltic63]

“my peace I leave with you
my peace I give to you
in a world that is filled with confusion and pain
my peace I leave with you”


Perfect Peace-Andrae Crouch

[BronzDragon]

Daniel, if I understood you correctly, you were implying that several conservative Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, AFA, and so forth oppress gays and lesbians. But how? They are not politicians who are in power to make any laws, just folks expressing their opinions what they think needs to be done. Don't they have a right to say what they want in a democratic society? I'm really confused, here.

» Thom says: ☛ On a Personal Level: When I first took the choice to become a legally ordained minister, I realized several things. I suspect this was from over 35 years (at the time) of experience. When a Minister — or anyone in a position of accredited authority — shares their opinion on a subject, any subject, their opinion bears a good deal of weight in the minds of those who choose to listen. (This is why, though I have reservations on abortion, I still prefer to let the mother make the choice.) Robertson (Who has personally run for the presidency of the USA), Falwell, Dobson, and J Kennedy might not be in a political office exactly. But when they say something, politicians listen.

On a less personal level: It seems that, when the president or other political electees make a decision these days, they take into account the advice of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and J Kennedy, or their cobelligerents in other pulpits.

Ministers have a great deal of power, if for no other reason than the weight of their moral authority, regardless of what religious organization one belongs to and gains ordination through, or how. The moment I say I am an Ordained minister, they start to listen; then they either agree without much thought, or they react without much thought. This is why I strive to take care on what I say and when. Even if I don’t make that announcement, they may learn later what the truth is. This is sort of like my guide to character, “How would I like a child to act in this situation?” after all, that child might be looking, and might learn, and might come back to reward me accordingly. Children, aren’t they wonderfully wise teachers?

And you see the danger these four and their cobelligerents pose to the rest of us, regardless of what the rest of us are. If they gain the power they wish to gain, the rest of us are toast. First the GLBTQ, then the Pagans and Satanists, then the Jews …. What, don’t think that would happen? Might I suggest a review of history? Christians have killed more Jews in the name of Christ than all the Muslims ever on Earth.

[Daniel]

Thom- interesting what you mentioned about age. A counselor said to me once: "You know, you really can't teach anything very effectively until you are 40." Now, at 48, and having been teaching people to sing for a number of years, I see the wisdom of the statement.

What you relate about being circumspect resonates with me strongly. I can see the effect of what I am saying to a student in their eyes. They drink up those words- so those words better be right ones at the right time. Either that, or it goes in one ear and out the other!

Thank you for your wisdom. Indeed, should the Four Riders you mention should have their way, very bad things would be in store for all of us. And while I know some believe this to be an overreaction, I think its the better part of prudence to never take anything for granted, especially one's freedom.

[sammy1980]

Just curious, does anybody think that Dr. Mel White's opinion have any influence on the members of Democratic party?

Sam

[dewdrop_world]

I think that the merging of religion and politics is predominantly a conservative phenomenon. At least, I have not seen liberal (or even moderate) religious leaders try to acquire political influence as brazenly as the far right wingers, some of whom measure their success as religious leaders by the extent to which they can wield political influence.

I don't see any evidence that Mel White is trying to make religion political, or politics religious, in the same way.

James

[sammy1980]

I just remember when Bill Clinton was a president, he had very good relationships with various organization dealing with LGBT issues, like GLTF, GLAAD, GLSEN, PFLAG, and so forth. Actually, it was them who influenced the President to create "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Although they were secular, nonetheless they were quite assertive about gay rights. They all got pissed off at Billy boy, when he signed in DOMA. I saw it on a documentary called "The Case of Marriage."

Sam

[dewdrop_world]

And what is wrong with political lobbying groups seeking to exert influence?

I'm not sure what your point is here, Sammy. Are you disagreeing with that influence? If so, why? If conservative Christians have the right to have lobbying groups, what is wrong with gay people having the same right?

Not to mention that you're changing the subject again -- now from an author of books on religion in the political sphere, to groups whose focus is explicitly political (but not religious). You can be awfully slippery sometimes (and that is not a compliment).

James

[sammy1980]

Oh, no!
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with political lobbying groups seeking to exert influence. I was just comparing how situation changes when a different party switches the White House. I find this contrast very amazing. I see that Republicans tend to be pro-religious conservatism, while Democrats are trying to balance the society out, so they feel they should cut antireligious and liberally religious folks some slack, while ultra right-wing religiosics get furious over this. As a result, good all Dems start thinking how to please the other side. That's why Democrat politicians remind me of the Elephant, the painter from the fable. But this is just my personal opinion.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying for anything, I mean, in a democratic society everybody's voice got to be heard.

On the subject; I think if the majority of leading figures of our government, White House and Supreme Court were Democrats instead of Republicans, the opinions of Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, and James Kennedy would not be taken seriously and would probably be ignored.

Sam

[dewdrop_world]

Well, if David Kuo is right, then Bush & Co. don't take Falwell et al. seriously either.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/60minutes/main2089778.shtml

In his book, Kuo wrote that White House staffers would roll their eyes at evangelicals, calling them "nuts" and "goofy."

Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, "Oh, absolutely. You name the important Christian leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places."

Specifically, Kuo says people in the White House political affairs office referred to Pat Robertson as "insane," Jerry Falwell as "ridiculous," and that James Dobson "had to be controlled."

Bush & Co. use (as in, exploit) CC's to get votes. And it seems that some CC's are perfectly content to be exploited in this way, as long as they can pretend to have friends in high places.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301583.html

[Tony] Perkins of the Family Research Council said he would not be surprised if derisive comments were made behind Christian leaders' backs.

"I have no misconceptions about how people in the Republican Party and the establishment view social conservatives. They are dismissive. I see how they prefer to work with fiscal conservatives," he said. "Having said that, I see it really as a marriage of convenience. We are not without significant gains by working with this administration."

James

[dewdrop_world]

Hey Sammy,

(Picking this up from the "why we need disagreement" thread.)

I learned that the elephant was being a fool for wanting to please everybody and unwilling to agree to disagree. But I agree with you that it was mainly the fault fo the various groups who put their needs first.

I'm troubled by the implication... namely, that not everybody will get their way, i.e., someone will lose, and majority rule means it will probably be gay people who have to make the most sacrifices.

We all give up things for the benefits of living in a democracy. I would love to live in a society where I didn't have to listen to the type of right-wing religious nonsense (casual relationship with the facts and poor logic) that get so much attention today. Do I think society would be better off if they were silenced? Sure. But -- even more important to me is the way that our democracy protects my right to express my views by protecting everybody's right to do so. So, as painful as it is to hear the lies from the right wingers, and being aware of how much harm they do, I tolerate them because I know that the alternative, if I were to get "my way," would be worse.

You don't find this kind of self reflection among antigay Christians. Instead, I've heard a lot of foolish arguments about why conservative Christians should be exempt from the separation of church and state.

You would be surprised that there are moderate conservative Christians, different from those extremist religious fanatics you mentioned below and their demands are exactly the same, although the details might be different. These moderate conservative Christians also want to live peacefully, free from harassment and violence that comes from activists who disagree with them.

I'm really shocked to hear you say this. Do you really believe what you're saying? I don't suppose it matters... every day in court, lawyers make the most outlandish statements with an absolutely straight face.

When is the last time you heard of a Christian being beaten to within an inch of his life, just because a passing gang of gay people didn't like the way he looked, dressed or acted?

Reverse the situation... gay people do get beaten, even killed, just because somebody thought gay people are evil -- several hundred times per year at least. The perpetrators may or may not be churchgoers, but the church's contempt for gay people is certainly an influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_gays,_lesbians,_bisexuals,_and_th e_transgendered

What you are saying is that the beatings we experience are comparable to an activist saying to a Christian, "I think you're wrong," or saying "I think if you cannot respect gay people for who they are, then maybe social work isn't the right line of work for you" (recalling one of your examples of pro-gay discrimination).

That is an inhuman argument, Sammy. You just lost a lot of respect from me. I am stunned -- flabbergasted -- that you would so casually trivialize violence against gays without even a trace of self-awareness.

They also want a right to hold a job without fear of being fired because the boss doesn't like some religious beliefs of theirs. The boss thinks that your beliefs are a threat to the boss's views of "diversity."

We covered this territory already. The boss has a right to have a workplace where people do not act like jerks toward each other (normal office politicking and oneupmanship notwithstanding). If your religious views oppose homosexuality, when you go to work, you check your attitude at the door so that the workplace functions smoothly.

Employees who hold any belief who are unwilling to check the attitude at the door will quickly find themselves on the street. That's fair, actually, because it goes for everybody. If I went into work spouting gay-supremacist rhetoric, I would be disciplined too.

Furthermore, those people are asking for the right to say openly what they think about love, morality, values, virtues without the fear of being rejected. In other words, the right to be respected.

Does this mean that they think they have the right to say what they want, without anyone disagreeing with them, while they of course retain the right to disagree with others?

You're gonna make a great lawyer, Sammy.

There are similar fanatics in the gay community who also want to have a tyrannical approach and punish those who disagree as well. Hint: Ake Green case in Sweden.

We covered this territory, too. The gay community as a whole does not support the legal action against Pastor Green.

C'mon, man, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

James

[sammy1980]

First off, I would like to say that I am sorry the way you interpreted what I thought the implications of the fable were.

I didn't see you mention beating anywhere in you original post. Just the concept of harassment and violence. By the way, violence doesn't have to be physical, it could be verbal or mental. But verbal harassment that I experienced when I was in college was very painful to me. This is what I was trying to tell you, to make you understand. Now, I personally don't consider anybody beating anybody as Christians. So, I don't think what they do, reflects me. And yes, you are right: gays and lesbians experience more physical assault than conservative Christians but I blame people's ignorance and intolerance not the belief in what the Bible say or doesn't say for it happening. I remember though, when I was in college, and the professor started lecturing on how gays get beaten and for that reason Christians should not preach openly what they think. You see, she was accusing all Christians being gay bashers, which is simply untrue. How do you think that made me feel?

So, you are saying I would be great lawyer? I'll take it as a compliment. As a matter of fact, I am thinking about going to law school.

I see that in an imperfect society, some side might lose, I guess the fable was also conveying it. But I think that given to what happens now, it would be possible that gay people will get a chance to get married in this country very soon. However, they are going to be a lot of people who would not like that and they are going to start demonstrating and God knows what is going to come out of it?

Bottom line is: not all gay people are extremist activists and not all CC's are religious fanatics. Most of us are just grey. Can we be more aware of this?

Thanks,

Sammy

[suzer1013]

I have another "take" on the fable presented. Wouldn't it have been much better for the Elephant to simply draw a picture of the planet Earth? That way, all would have been represented -- we all would be One (as seen in a theme on another thread). Because everyone can be in the picture of the planet Earth, which we all share, no one is left out.

The other animals could not fit into the Elephant's world view because his picture was not big enough (his worldview was not expansive enough or inclusive enough) to allow others into it. Instead of saying "you will mess up my picture if I allow you into it," perhaps thinking outside of the "box" represented by the frame which holds the picture would be prudent. There is room for all of us.

Perhaps the fable can be seen as illustrating the need to look at the big picture.

Susan

[keltic63]

But I think that given to what happens now, it would be possible that gay people will get a chance to get married in this country very soon. However, they are going to be a lot of people who would not like that and they are going to start demonstrating and God knows what is going to come out of it?



can you expand this thought? what are you saying here?

[Zerbie]

I take him to be catastrophizing that marriage equality will be enacted in the US within a few years, Christians will hold protests rallies, and that potentially those protestors will be persecuted by the government for expressing their views.

Of course the trouble with what I take Sammy to be saying is:
1. we're no place near having marriage equality in all 50 states and are in fact more likely to lose it in the one where it DOES exist
2. it is protestors on the socio/political left, not right, who have been asked to stand in special fenced-off protest areas, and variously treated like what they are doing is un-American, when it fact the right to gather and express dissent is bedrock in our society

Sammy, it DOES play out both ways. The ACLU last I heard was defending Fred Phelps and his band of wackos in their right to picket funerals.

You are in no danger of governmental persecution for being Christian in the United States. This is not communist Russia. It ain't gonna happen.

However, gay people have experienced severe institutional persecution for generations in this country. You continually make the implication that if gays are no longer persecuted and if their rights are protected, that it will somehow equate to, or lead to, persecution of Christians. It simply does not work that way.

[Daniel]

However, gay people have experienced severe institutional persecution for generations in this country. You continually make the implication that if gays are no longer persecuted and if their rights are protected, that it will somehow equate to, or lead to, persecution of Christians. It simply does not work that way.

Yes. A thousand time yes.

Sammy- I doesn't work the way you think it does.

Let's get something straight here Ok? The United States of America is far more Christian in orientation that it is gay (and yes the play on words re 'orientation' is intentional).

Religious conservatives are in no danger of losing their rights any time soon- IF EVER. GLBTQ folks, on the other hand, don't enjoy the same rights and privleges that religous conservatives take for granted and would deny to the former.

This is the elephant in the room that is not being paid attention to in this discussion.

[sammy1980]

I take him to be catastrophizing that marriage equality will be enacted in the US within a few years, Christians will hold protests rallies, and that potentially those protestors will be persecuted by the government for expressing their views.

I just think it is possible to have marriage equality someday, my approximate estimate is within 10 to 20 years. I thinks so, because even though there are restrictive amendments, you can always take it to Supreme Court, and any amendments could be declared unconstitutional. Just like it did in Lawrence vs. Texas. I also expected to have many demonstrators protesting the existence of marriage equality and I expected them to get arrested. I guess, this would answer Steve's question. I can't speculate whether they would be persecuted the way it was in the Communist Russia, because I don't know what kind of government we will have in the next 2 decades, but I think if all 50 states had gay marriages, or even legal civil unions, it would be much harder for conservative Christians to defend their beliefs and opinions.

Another thing to remember, that if conservative Christians would hold rallies, so would married gays and lesbians--counterpotesting them. I surely believe that by having marriage equality, would make gays and lesbians feel more equal, but I am not sure that their struggle would stop. In my opinion, gays and lesbians would still continue fighting, now to prove what they believe is right and why they shouldn't lose what they got.


Sammy, it DOES play out both ways. The ACLU last I heard was defending Fred Phelps and his band of wackos in their right to picket funerals.

Are you serious? If what you are saying is true, then the ACLU is the one with duplicity. They are trying to play both sides. Would you say the ACLU are being Elephant, the Painter?

You are in no danger of governmental persecution for being Christian in the United States. This is not communist Russia. It ain't gonna happen.

However, gay people have experienced severe institutional persecution for generations in this country. You continually make the implication that if gays are no longer persecuted and if their rights are protected, that it will somehow equate to, or lead to, persecution of Christians. It simply does not work that way.

You know what, I'm not going to worry about it like I did before. I am going to put this matter into God's hands. I'm sure, he will figure out a solution, because he is God.

I love you Zerbie for showing your encouragement to get me through the difficult emotions I had. That goes also for James, Tdogg, Emproph, Andrew, Steve (I appreciate your guidance), BruceChris, Pablo, Daniel, Dash, and others who have contacted me. I love you all.

Peace,

Sammy

[keltic63]

sammy,

a few things stick out here for me that really help me understand you better: I also expected to have many demonstrators protesting the existence of marriage equality and I expected them to get arrested. I guess, this would answer Steve's question. I can't speculate whether they would be persecuted the way it was in the Communist Russia, because I don't know what kind of government we will have in the next 2 decades,
were you born here, or in Russia? what is your knowledge of US history, especially the struggles of oppressed minorities here in the US?

but I think if all 50 states had gay marriages, or even legal civil unions, it would be much harder for conservative Christians to defend their beliefs and opinions. conservative Christians may hold any belief they want, they simply cannot impose that on others. Even if gay marriage would become legal at the federal level, churches would be free to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies without gov't interference. Now, as far as defending a belief or opinion that is no longer defendible...that will be up to cc's to decide. I think you find very few people who will defend denying the right to vote to women and minorities. I think you will find very few people willing to say that women deserve less pay for the same work that men do. Eventually, justice and mercy win.

Another thing to remember, that if conservative Christians would hold rallies, so would married gays and lesbians--counterpotesting them. I surely believe that by having marriage equality, would make gays and lesbians feel more equal, but I am not sure that their struggle would stop. In my opinion, gays and lesbians would still continue fighting, now to prove what they believe is right and why they shouldn't lose what they got. women didn't stop pushing for equality; blacks haven't (and shouldn't) stop pushing for equality, simply because the law says they are granted civil rights. Granting people civil rights by making it law doesn't guarantee that they will always receive those rights, but it does give the individual a way to address the injustices committed against them. For instance, a law prohibiting sexual harassment doesn't prevent the harassment from happening, but it does give the victim an avenue for pursuing justice.


Are you serious? If what you are saying is true, then the ACLU is the one with duplicity. They are trying to play both sides. Would you say the ACLU are being Elephant, the Painter? Sammy, it's not what the individuals or groups are saying, it's about their right to say it. Our constitution is written so that we are indeed to hold our own opinions without worry about what others, or the government may do to us for holding that opinion. Do I agree with Fred Phelps? Of course not. Should he have the right to state his opinion, no matter how ugly? YES, he should. ACLU is not playing both sides; they're making sure that all are free to exercise the promises of the constitution.



You know what, I'm not going to worry about it like I did before. I am going to put this matter into God's hands. I'm sure, he will figure out a solution, because he is God.

I love you Zerbie for showing your encouragement to get me through the difficult emotions I had. That goes also for James, Tdogg, Emproph, Andrew, Steve (I appreciate your guidance), BruceChris, Pablo, Daniel, Dash, and others who have contacted me. I love you all.

Peace,

Sammy

Isn't it interesting that many who have felt hurt and angry by some of your words are willing to reach out to you and continue to engage you in conversation?

Peace to you, Sammy, on your journey

[BronzDragon]

Are you serious? If what you are saying is true, then the ACLU is the one with duplicity. They are trying to play both sides. Would you say the ACLU are being Elephant, the Painter?

That would be the case if and only if the aclu were fighting for a particular person or group. They are not, they are fighting for an ideal, Civil Liberties for everyone. The compare the actions of a corporate or civil entity against constitutional law and precedent, and then ask that the corporation or civil entity behave themselves.

Having been involved with WARD (Witches Against Religious Discrimination) I got an education in how the aclu works, and what to do before even thinking about calling them for help (Keep a journal, make it thorough, who, what, when. Keep any documentation, voice mail, e-mail, etc.) They will not help you just because you think you’ve been offended. They will need strong cause with quality evidence before they will help you. Oh, and the more people who are discriminated against, the faster they will help you.

[sammy1980]

I have another "take" on the fable presented. Wouldn't it have been much better for the Elephant to simply draw a picture of the planet Earth? That way, all would have been represented -- we all would be One (as seen in a theme on another thread). Because everyone can be in the picture of the planet Earth, which we all share, no one is left out.

The other animals could not fit into the Elephant's world view because his picture was not big enough (his worldview was not expansive enough or inclusive enough) to allow others into it. Instead of saying "you will mess up my picture if I allow you into it," perhaps thinking outside of the "box" represented by the frame which holds the picture would be prudent. There is room for all of us.

Perhaps the fable can be seen as illustrating the need to look at the big picture.

Susan

Hi Susan,

It was a very interesting interpretation. I really appreciate that something from my culture is being noticed with a constructive positivism, like the idea that there should be a bigger picture to allow more room for different kinds of animals. So, I would like to know, once you get more room with more animals, how do you get that picture to flow? How do you maintain dynamics, since different animals have disagreeing views on doing business?

However, I still prefer to have the discussion of this fable in a thread called "God loves diversity," because this fable is about diversity, and I think it would be more appropriate to address it in a thread that deals with this specific subject. This goes for everybody who is interested.

Thanks for your reflection,

All the best,

Sam

[Daniel]

So, I would like to know, once you get more room with more animals, how do you get that picture to flow? How do you maintain dynamics, since different animals have disagreeing views on doing business?


How? I mean come on! How? (voice rising incredulously)

One (we're talkin' about you here actually) has to stop thinking in such small puny terms and view a 'picture' in your mind that is big enough to hold everyone and everything. (Isn't this what God is supposed to be doing? Hello! I though you were leaving it up to the big guy! Taking it back already I see?)

Can you conceive of a world-a picture big enough so that there is enough room for everyone- so that everyone can do their business without banging into each other?

Space is like love- there has to be enough of it around one for there to be flow.

Duh!

[sammy1980]

Hi Steve,

It was very insightful and thoughtful. Seems like you would like to get to know me more. So, here it is:

Originally posted by Keltic63
were you born here, or in Russia? what is your knowledge of US history, especially the struggles of oppressed minorities here in the US?

I was born here in NYC, and I do have substantial knowledge of US history (I have a BA in history, yes, I'm janitor at Walmart but I'm educated. It's just I don't know what I want to do with my life, but I need to work). I know that United States of America was based on the teachings of Freemasonry, not on the Bible, as some conservative organizations claim. The concept of "under God" implies supreme higher power not Jesus Christ and having Christian theocracy. I heard that recently Dobson changed his previous opinions after he had an interview with John Meachem, the author of "American Gospel." I also have a very good knowledge of Civil Rights movement for blacks led by King, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Edridge Cleaver, the voting rights led by Susan Anthony, the farmer labor movement led by Cesar Chavez, and of course about the Stonewall Riots. Actually, my friend Angelo was a participant, there. Despite having my knowledge about civil rights movement, I was not raised to believe that gays and lesbians are cultural minorities. You see, my parents were raised in the Communist Russia, and over there, homosexual behavior was considered a crime just as a crime for openly stating the existence of God, and practicing Christianity. Also, after high school I moved to PA and started associating with my relatives, who were very conservative Christians, including two uncles who spent some time in Soviet prisons for their faith (one of them, died a week ago). I'm pretty much sure, you can figure out what kind of views they had on this behavior.

As far as myself, I speak Russian, and for that reason I am more likely to believe that the original Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 was what some religious scholars claim to be, which is a coin word. You see, in Russian language, we used to use exactly the same coining to describe gay men for 850 years, not only in our Bible but in public life as well. However, that's another issue. If you are interested in learning more about this, you can send me a PM. Furthermore, sometimes I perceive myself as being an oppressed minority because I'm Russian. Although I was born and raised here, some kids in school used to call me Commie, which was very hurtful. Now, I see that I perceive the world much differently from many Anglo-Americans, this kind of makes me feel like an outsider. I also think that many Anglo-Americans take a lot of things for granted, like the concept of liberty.

conservative Christians may hold any belief they want, they simply cannot impose that on others. Even if gay marriage would become legal at the federal level, churches would be free to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies without gov't interference. Now, as far as defending a belief or opinion that is no longer defendible...that will be up to cc's to decide. I think you find very few people who will defend denying the right to vote to women and minorities. I think you will find very few people willing to say that women deserve less pay for the same work that men do. Eventually, justice and mercy win.

I personally think that CC's would never stop talking. Heck, they talked very loud during the Communist regime, so I wouldn't see any difference here. Based on what I witnessed, I learned that people tend to take their religion very seriously.

Sammy, it's not what the individuals or groups are saying, it's about their right to say it. Our constitution is written so that we are indeed to hold our own opinions without worry about what others, or the government may do to us for holding that opinion. Do I agree with Fred Phelps? Of course not. Should he have the right to state his opinion, no matter how ugly? YES, he should. ACLU is not playing both sides; they're making sure that all are free to exercise the promises of the constitution.

So, I guess I can state my opinions here, even if you don't like or disagree with it, right? Remember, the promises of the constitution.




Isn't it interesting that many who have felt hurt and angry by some of your words are willing to reach out to you and continue to engage you in conversation?

It's actually amazing. I feel like our open dialogue is progressing. I guess the way I expressed myself, had to do with me being angry about what I experienced in my colleges, which was one-sided teachings of gay and lesbian issues. I felt hurt by its indoctrinative and disrespectful measures. However, I never intended to personalize anybody, and now I see that many people here do not intend to personalize me, or frankandcathy, for that matter. By the way, do you have any idea what happened to them? I haven't heard from them, here. As far as our feelings of anger and hurt, I think we as humans tend to be overwhelmed by them, that we are forgetting how to think rationally. It has to do with our sinful nature.

I would like to hear more from you, Steve,

Sammy

[dewdrop_world]

So, I guess I can state my opinions here, even if you don't like or disagree with it, right? Remember, the promises of the constitution.

The first amendment does not guarantee that every organization in the US must be equally welcoming of all opinions. It merely states that the government must not take actions that infringe upon people's rights to state their opinions.

Americans also have the right to associate with whom we choose. (It's this right that CC's invoke when they worry about being "forced" to rent an apartment to gays or lesbians etc.) Soulforce can legitimately choose not to associate with people who spew hateful anti-gay rhetoric and who show no interest in examining any viewpoint other than the one they already have -- just as CC groups can choose to exclude gay people if they desire.

Soulforce, as a private organization, is not obligated to listen to you just because it runs a public BBS. We choose to do so, but the constitution does not require it. If someone is not allowed to post here, it doesn't mean that person has lost her freedom of speech. It just means that she needs to find somewhere else to speak.

:)

James

[sammy1980]

So, James, if a white landlord refuses to rent to black tenant, he is excersing his constitututional First Amendment right, by choosing not to associate with whom he wishes?

Sammy

[dewdrop_world]

Actually, that is a right... until the courts find that this right of free association infringes other rights of the people who are excluded.

It is not possible to apply every right universally. They conflict sometimes. Part of the job of the courts is to establish where to draw the boundaries.

In practice, a racist landlord could decline tenants of [insert minority race here] for many reasons other than race. It's very hard to prove racist intent in that case. But if the landlord says explicitly, "I do not rent to black people," then the courts have found this is a discriminatory practice that violates black people's rights. Most people today accept this as a fair balancing act. (And, in that example, a racist who is proudly racist is also kind of an idiot.)

Right now gay people don't have similar protections.

James