Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Andrew Tallman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Perhaps Homophobia Isn’t a Choice Either
by Andrew Tallman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


As a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, I believe that any sexual activity other than that between a man and his wife is illicit. This includes adultery, premarital sex and, of course, homosexuality.

But I’ve also been doing what my parents always taught me to do: listen to those who disagree with me. And I think I’ve discovered something rather shocking: opposition to homosexuality must itself be genetic.

For as long as I can remember, homosexuals have been explaining why gay people have no choice about their orientation. And it finally dawned on me that their arguments explain why being anti-gay is also not a choice but an innate predisposition beyond our power to restrain. This led me to embrace my convictions and stop trying in vain to repress who I am.

Since millions suffer from this same condition, I’m hopeful that my epiphany will help others accept themselves and their convictions, too. Here are insights that helped me, in no particular order.

Insight 1: You cannot control whom you love

Although there are different kinds of love, some of which involve choice and some of which do not, this realization about passion led me to a very liberating conclusion. If we can’t control whom we love, that’s because we can’t control our strong passions. But passions can be both for and against. And, just as gay love is a passion which is impossible to control, I now know that my passionate anti-gayness must also be impossible to control. I might wish I could change, but it’s hopeless. My judgmental tendency draws me as irresistibly as their same-sex affection. 

Insight 2: People shouldn’t have to restrain acting on their innate desires

I used to think that restraint was the key differentiator between animals and men. But then it was explained to me that sexual urges are such a deep element of real human nature that it’s wrong to suppress them. This led me to realize that moral urges are an equally deep aspect of human identity, and it must be unhealthy to try to suppress them, too. Just as someone may feel a deep desire to have same-gender sex, I often suffer the seemingly irresistible urge to espouse my views on sexual ethics. In fact, my desire to express my beliefs is so deeply human that even the First Amendment to our Constitution explicitly protects it. So it must be truly unhealthy to try repressing something as innate as opposition to homosexuality.

Insight 3: If one identical is twin gay, both are gay 50 percent of the time

Although my instinctive reaction to this statistic is to note that—even among genetically identical people—when one is gay, still fully half of the siblings manage to not be gay, I eventually figured out what this meant for people like me. While research has yet to confirm my suspicions, the likelihood of identical twins sharing a strong disposition to oppose homosexuality is probably even higher than 50 percent. Given the fact that one or both parents may be carriers of the traditional morality gene, it seems perfectly natural that children in some families might all express a strong disposition to denounce gay behavior. And if I inherited this from my parents, well, who can blame me for that?

Insight 4: No one would choose to be gay

After all, who would choose to suffer discrimination, fear, alienation and family discord? I used to worry that this argument would prevent disapproving of any behavior at all, since it seems to entail the unusual conclusion that the more despised something is the less anyone can be blamed for it. But then I realized that I have been ridiculed, called intolerant and fired from an academic post for my beliefs on this subject. In fact, I’ve often thought how much easier my life in this culture would be if only I could lay down the burden of believing in traditional morals and embrace homosexuality. Since no rational person in the United States in 2008 would choose to be anti-gay if he didn’t have to be, it must not be a choice.

Insight 5: Being gay isn’t a choice anyone ever actually makes

The realization that no one (straight or gay) ever consciously flips a switch to set their sexual preference led me to the recognition that I never chose to be anti-gay. It’s not like I went to bed one night thinking supportive thoughts about gayness and then woke up the next morning committed to opposing it. It’s more accurate to say that one day I just sort of realized, almost to my horror, that I thought gay behavior was wrong. I felt like I had been suppressing my innate moral voice because of social pressure before finally coming to terms with it. On top of my parents both being pro-gay and having lots of gay friends, I had actually taken a seminar on gay theory from Richard Mohr, one of the county’s most prominent gay philosophers. I would gladly have been homo-endorsant if I could have been. But all to no avail. And I clearly can’t un-choose what I had never chosen in the first place.   

Conclusion

I know this column might frustrate some people who will resist seeing how their arguments, if true, have helped me embrace my own unfashionable alternative beliefstyle. But that’s okay. I don’t blame people who criticize me. Thanks to their insights, I’ve also come to realize that their homophobophobia probably isn’t a choice either.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Andrew Tallman is host of The Andrew Tallman Show on AM 1360 KPXQ from 5-7PM weekdays in Phoenix, AZ.

Be the first to read Andrew Tallman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Homo sexuals.

No one fears homosexuals.
We are disgusted by the unnatural and disrespectful acts.
We don't want to know.
Stay in the closet or find help.
There are many professionals that can help you get out of this lifestyle.
You just have to want to leave it.

Ethical determinism
Mr. Tallman's exercise in sophistry might be called "ethical determinism." His thesis is that his hostility to gays is something over which he has no control. Two possible interpretations can be made of his view. (1) He is simply parodying arguments made on behalf of or by gays that their homosexuality is something over which they have no control; that they did not choose it. Similarly, Tallman's hatred of gays is also innate. Or (2) he is attempting to make a serious argument.

Neither (1) nor (2) is coherent. In both cases, Tallman rejects the very idea of moral responsibility for one's actions. He supposes this is a serious argument against the belief that being gay is not a choice. In other words, if he is correct, then gays choose to be gay, and are thus morally culpable.

The hidden premise in all of this, of course, is that being gay is prima facie morally wrong. Tallman does not try to prove this, but his ramshackle ethical doctrine depends upon it.

Grade: C-

Thank you Mr. Tallman. It was very

entertaining. I too have the anti-sodomy gene.

A Third Way?
If bi-sexuality is also genetically determined, does it therefore stand to reason that being a conflicted, semi-homophobe is also a genetically inherited condition?


When you care enough to send the
VERY BEST!

=========


From the Associated Press:

NOW ON THE HALLMARK AISLES:
Gay marriage cards

August 21, 2008 8:17 AM
Associated Press newsPORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Most states don't recognize gay marriage — but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards — featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

Hallmark added the cards after California joined Massachusetts as the only U.S. states with legal gay marriage. A handful of other states have recognized same-sex civil unions.


---------------------

Yes, the times, they are a-changin"!


Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.


Well Done, Tallman
Gestell, you illustrate your bias immediately when you say his thesis is "his hostility to gays is something over which he has no control". He didn't say anything hostile at all, unless you think disagreement with your perspective is hostile. Hmm, sounds like Obama whining about McCain supposedly criticizing Obama's patriotism--while McCain specifically criticized Obama's judgement. So I guess a grade C- from someone as intellectually dishonest as you appear to be isn't such a put-down.

Joycey
As a Homosexual - I don't believe people who object to homosexuality are afraid of it - they just don't approve and it's their right to do so.

My question to you is why we should have to stay in the closet or seek help?

People like you make it sound as if every homosexual in the world are outside sodomizing each other everyday on every street corner.

FYI - Some us are perfectly fine with our "chosen" LIVES therefore help isn’t wanted or needed but thanks for your concern nonetheless.

Lucifer
Why are you forcing everyone to accept your chosen life? Why do my children have to be taught that homosexuality is "normal" and that there is nothing wrong with same-gender sex, when I tell them the exact opposite? Why do you have to involve children in your sordid lifestyle?

This Christian....
...take the Bible seriously, too. You don't have a corner on the market, pal.

Keep your hate to yourself and don't hide behind the Son of God to excuse it.

Bravo
Tallman may actually be correct. If homosexuality is innate (genetic or not) heterosexuality fits the same bill. SO yes, an aversion to same sex sexual contact might be inborn.

Gays have been saying that for a long time, and I am glad it is now clear to everyone.


Joycey---RIGHT ON!!!
Notice the name of your critic? Lucifer666, hmmm.
Homosexuality is a psychological and physiological aberration...even if the APA(s) sold out to homo-political pressure and de-diagnosed these conditions they still are argueably a form of psychopathology. As doctoral level mental health professional with over 20 years of experience I can assure you that this is an opinion shared by thousands of providers. However, a militantly pro-gay media will crucify any group that swims against the PC current. Check out the NARTH website.

FINALLY!!!
What a well thought reply to those who are offended by anti-homosexual bigotry. Bravo Mr. Tallman. Why stop here, though? How about a discussion on the historical context of lynching next? Surely those fine mericns weren't really choosing to be anti- black bigots, they were just practicing their "innate moral codes."
How 'bout the holocaust? Were Hitler and his minions just practicing their particular "innate moral codes?"

Dr. Manhattan
Oh Doctor...

Narth is nothing but a religious based organization hiding by the image of a scientific organization.

Nonetheless I firmly believe that there are many people who can not handle their same sex attractions in a positive manner or they have chosen to follow a belief system that says homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore they should be allowed to get all the help they need so that they can become happy well adjusted human beings.

However their choices should have no impact on the rest of us who are well adjusted human beings that are content with our same-sex attraction.

What a hack....
Let's reveiw and compare this to his last article, shall we?

Five Logical Errors of the 'Born Gay' Ideology

Error 1: Sexual orientation cannot change
Error 2: I have no choice about how I behave
Error 3: If I was born gay, then acting upon it must be good
Error 4: If I was born gay, then this is simply who I am
Error 5: If I was born gay, God must have made me this way

Perhaps Homophobia Isn’t a Choice Either

Insight 1: You cannot control whom you love
Insight 2: People shouldn’t have to restrain acting on their innate desires
Insight 3: If one identical is twin gay, both are gay 50 percent of the time
Insight 4: No one would choose to be gay
Insight 5: Being gay isn’t a choice anyone ever actually makes

So what we have is the same 2 or 3 points repeated ad-nauseum, slightly re-arranged to make it look as if he has a great deal of original thought. In actuality, he's doing nothing but attempting to inflate flawed reasoning to support his agenda.

Perhaps he should go work for the TV networks with the other hack writers?

replies to Nick Name and aurorawatcher

To Nick Name: Tallman's overall point is that his opposition to gays is genetically determined. If I'm "opposed" to something, then I'm "hostile" to it. If Tallman is "opposed" to homosexuals, then he is "hostile" to them. Your failure to comprehend this shows only that you know little about our language as it is in fact used.

To aurorawatcher: You think of genes in a way that is far too simplistic. Think in terms of genetic predispositions rather than determinations. No one is likely to find a single gene responsible for a predispostiion to homosexuality; it's more realistic to expect a polygenic explanation.

It's still the case that Tallman and those who have agreed with him are begging the question by simply stipulating that homosexual activity is morally wrong. That's the belief that needs to be explained, justified, and the like. Of cousre if you start from that premise, you'll come to the typical religious conservative conclusions and thus oppose gays. As the Objectivists love to say, "Check your premises."

diasppointing
I don't get the sense that I agree with Tallman much, but in the past the few articles I read had been attempts to show that conservative Christians can make serious arguments.

This column is depressing in that while it is clearly intended to satirize opposing arguments. It works only if one has a truly superficial understanding of those arguments. So the column because yet another article in which a Christian thinker acts as a simpleton in trying to pretend to address serious arguments.

Again, this is a shame because Tallman in the past has suggested he is capable of better.

One of the interesting things we have seen over the last couple of generations is that while the percentage of the population that is gay does not seem to vary much, or be restricted to people who are previously tolerant of homosexuality, the kind of hatred of homosexuals that Tallman exhibits here has decreased markedly in just the last 20 years.

So homosexuality has shown an incredible resistence to environmental attempts to limit it, while homophobia seems to require extreme attempts to reenforce it. As we have seen, let people interact with open homosexuals and most of that homophobia slips away.

If homophobia was genetic, support for gay marriage in Massachusetts would not have increased as quickly as it did when people in Massachusetts met actual married gay couples.

But why do conservatives think they are doing their cause well by showing that something else is similar if one really dumbs down the debate? Or are they just counting on a readership for whom it is not possible to dumb down a debate enough to lose them?

Platonism is Alive and Well...
2500 years ago Plato argues that "all men who have, are or ever will exist are determined (Greek proorizo, meaning "to set boundaries beforehand") by the elements (stoicheia) and their gods." 900 years later a monk from Carthage, who was a Platonist, ascribed that predetermination not to "elements and their gods" but to the Christian God. Thus, Augustine gave birth to one of Christendoms most intriguing (and to this writer an insidious) doctrine which has come to be known as Predestination.

In the last 150 years, society in general and the legal and medical professions in particular, ascribe predetermination not in terms of gods or God, but in terms of genetics. This argument has been used in thousands of court cases in which society or genetics is to blame for all forms of behavior from mass-murder to homosexuality. In other words, what we do we cannot help. This, therefore, removes any sense of personal responsibility and if a person can't be held responsible for his actions then they can't truly be punished. The end result: Limit jail terms, end capital punishment, governmentally subsidize the underclass and legalize same-sex marriage.

Society today freely blames God for everything while at the same time rejects His existence. We are still looking for something to blame our ills on. This time, the genetic code is to blame. I personally would like to blame the Warren SCOTUS and Lyndon Johnson, but the fact remains, all such blames remove personal responsibility. The end result is We are merely puppets on a string being manipulated by something (or someone) beyond our comprehension. This, my friends, is a CROCK!

666
**People like you make it sound as if every homosexual in the world are outside sodomizing each other everyday on every street corner.**

Well, maybe not every homosexual, but you should visit my girlfriend on a Sunday afternoon and try to enjoy her deck which overlooks a community park where a game of "touch" football is played every week. And, no, the city won't police it - no good reason, they just don't. The things that go on in that park, a park where families USED to go with their kids on Sunday, is disgusting. And no one putting on this filthy display seems to care that their perversion is happening in front of about 12 home owner's back decks who are prevented from using their own decks. (The park sits lower than the surrounding homes).

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own homes (as long as you don't ask for my money to take care of diseases that are completely preventable - applies to heteros, too). But keep it out of the streets and the schools.

ARISE my brothers and sisters!

jayhawk writes, "Why stop here, though? How about a discussion on the historical context of lynching next? Surely those fine americans weren't really choosing to be anti-black bigots, they were just practicing their "innate moral codes."


RIGHT ON, Jayhawk! You freaking knocked the ball right out of the ballpark!! Beautiful reasoning there.


Seth notes Tallman's propensity to re-package the same garbage column under a different name("Perhaps Homophobia Isn’t a Choice Either" is a re-working of his last poorly thought out column, "Five Logical Errors of the 'Born Gay' Ideology"): "So what we have is the same 2 or 3 points repeated ad-nauseum, slightly re-arranged to make it look as if he has a great deal of original thought."



I feel so proud that there are some original, independent (yes, even WITTY) posters here at Townhall, going against the grain, spitting on bigotry wrapped up in nutty, incoherent reasoning such as Tallman presents (our good posters here more than balance out the tired, pedestrian, absurd and unsubstanciated blather of the "Joycey"s and the "eddie too"s).


Will

Privacy vs. Public Affirmation
What ever happened to "stay out of my bedroom."? Now it is "You MUST give us a license! You MUST help us have children!"

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/08/18/you_must_help_the m_get_children.thtml

To: Gestell
I've reread the article and nowhere do I find the author stating that homosexual activity is morally wrong. He doesn't stipulate that as you say.

Mr. Tallman simply points out, through parody, the inconsistency of people (gay and straight, by the way) who say (1) gayness is inborn and therefore cannot be opposed as immoral and then (2) opposition to position (1) is nurtured, not inborn, and therefore can be opposed, ridiculed, etc.

"GESTELL" YOU ARE A FRAUD
by claiming that THE AUTHOR is inventing per se one side of the NATURE VERSUS NURTURE argument vis a vis homosexuality.

That "back and forth" been around for a looooooong time before this article ever came out.

But nice try for a pseudo-intellectual: D+

To: Lon
Two quick points:

1) Why do you insist on equating opposition to homosexuality as either 'hatred' or 'fear'? Seems to me you want to label those who oppose you as emotion so you can ignore their arguments rather than engage them.

2) you state "... homophobia seems to require extreme attempts to reenforce it." How do you know this? It hasn't been my experience at all. I've been in association with openly gay people (eg. work associates) for many years and it hasn't changed my position on the subject.


When I was young,
gay meant happy. I have never felt my thoughts of those who perform sodomy, etc. were natural any more than believing sodomy is natural. Nor do clinging to my guns and religion a born-with behavior. It's more like a result and the natural need for self preservation. I won't elaborate on the diety subject other than to state homosexuals put the rest of us at risk.

Is it OK to be spiritually against ...
At age 70, I have been taught to be open to ideas, actions unless they were immoral, illegal and hurt 'innocent' people, whatever that means. As a Christian, sin is varied and hits both men and women at their centers. Whether an adulterer like John Edwards or Clinton, and huge numbers of the Hollywood Left, or a gay like Truman Capote, no matter earthly bias or lack thereof, sin covers many human activities that humans simply deny are evil deeds in the Creator's eyes. When one doesn't believe in the Biblical Savior and Creator, then all bets are off. I happen to believe and know to deny my own sin is delusional. In the end, God will deal with all 6 billion people on their views, faith, actions and hearts. But, I admit like the author, I think homosexuality, no matter the genes, like adulterers et al are sinners. So like many minority classes, when bias is used against them that minority justifies all, all , every thing about their lifestyle as justified and Good and therefore even special. Well, even polka dotted people are sinners. Now that may be in my DNA too. I hate sin, especially in myself, which often drips with it. And yes, I still think homosexuality is sin when practiced. But, then I think gossips are sinners too. Would I want gays, bad term, to be married. No. It goes against thousands of years of Judeo-Christian history and worldviews. I am sad the gay community doesn't like that. But, as they would often say, Just Move on and accept that! KGK, is my hubby and a retired pastor and we both agreed on this principle.

My Pet Goat
If you are a Christian and take the Bible seriously then why wouldn't you agree homosexuality is immoral? The Bible couldn't be clearer on this issue in both the New and Old Testament. You seem to be insinuating that there are "other intepretations" to the scripture verses that deal with this issue so I would be very interested in hearing what they are. Romans 1:27 is one verse specifically that I would be curious to hear your opinon on.


IdahoGal
What you described isn't about homosexuality as much as it's about disrespectful people (both Hetero & Homo).

As for paying for it - we all pay for stuff we may not agree with.

I have to pay health care cost for people who over-eat and don't take care of their well being.

Response to IdahoGal:
You'll get no argument from this gay man that public sex is icky. I'm curious as to what, exactly, you're talking about regarding a "touch" football game, though. Is there a group of gay men that get out there and actually play football? Why is that a problem? Or is football a complete euphamism, meaning that there is blatant sex going on in the bushes and such? I'm not being snarky, by the way- just making sure I understand you.

As for keeping it out of the schools, I also agree. Sex ed, SHOULD be the responsibility of the parents. Problem is, most of them don't educate their kids- for reasons of embarrasment or just outright indifference. There is no way a public school system can be expected to handle such a topic and satisfy every parent. If you, as a parent want to teach your child that homosexuality is wrong, evil, nasty, etc... such is your right. I would ask, though, what would be your response if one day the child came out to you?" Sure you could send them to any number of "ex-gay" programs, but suppose he or she truly is gay and you ultimately have to accept it? How does one backtrack from that?

Again, IdahoGal- I'm not specifically calling you out on this- for the greatest part, I agree with you. Your post just put the topic in my head!

GESTELL
Look up the definition of parody. Then you will understand the column. Duh.

replies to LibertyGuy and Ed Wallis
Reply to Liberty Guy: How about starting with the first sentence: "As a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, I believe that any sexual activity other than that between a man and his wife is illicit."
Or are you going to try to play philosopher with me and tell me that to call something "illicit" does NOT mean one is calling it "morally wrong?"

Reply to Ed Wallis: I must not be getting your criticism. And you certainly do not establish what Tallman's argument requires--proof that homosexuality is morally wrong.

My idea
excactly. This is funny because I thought I was a freakin' genius when I thought of this very same thing a couple of weeks ago. If someone can be born predisposed to crave a certain behavior, then why can't someone be born pre-disposed to be repulsed have certain behaviors? Where is the ACLU when I need them? Are they going to come to my rescue when I get fired because I happen to mention that man on man sex is repulsive to me? They'd better if they have an once of fairness. I'm not holding my breath though. Great minds think alike. Thanks for reading my mind Tallman.

Response to Brian...
The bible has been interpreted, re-interpreted, translated back and forth from language to language, edited to remove passages that some ruler or other didn't like, edited to ADD passages that some ruler or other wanted to see, etc... etc... etc... For this reason alone, the notion of taking anything contained within it is suspect.

Unfortunately, what invariably happens is that people cherry-pick the passages that they want to translate literally, and when confronted with others, they blow it off and say, "Oh, that's just taken out of context."

I gave up those types of arguments long ago, because I don't like banging my head against the wall. At the end of the day, a person can find whatever justification or condemnation they care to seek within the pages of the bible- literally or figuratively.

Another ignorant
zealot who believes that his prejudiced beliefs entitle him to discriminate against and oppress fellow US citizens.

Don't know if being gay is something one chooses but one definitely chooses to be rabid bigot.

And Joycey:

Same words to you - keep your despicable bigotry and hatred behind closed door. Your venomous personality and hateful acts disgust me. I don't want to know about about your petty meanspiritedness,

There are plenty of professionals who can help you to leave this hatred and destructive lifestyle behind, just walk away from your inner hatred disguised as religious principle.

I will never befriend or socialize with any Christian bigot. If I am forced to being presence of one I will make it clear how much contempt I have towards him/her. And like Christians I call it speaking truth in love and acting out of love.

So I'm saying this lovingly: you Christianist zealots make me sick.



liberty guy
I used the term homophobia freely because it was the word used in the headline for the article. Otherwise I might have been more careful in categorizing the view in that way.

But articles like this do somewhat illustrate the fine line between discrimination and phobia. Tallman has shown an ability to make reasoned arguments, even on positions I disagree with. But this one is really embarassingly bad. And when smart people make embarassingly bad arguments one does have reason to wonder why.

liberty guy
I mostly answered your second question in my post. The reason for thinking that homophobia needs to be reenforced is, as I noted above, the incredible spead with which opinion has changed on the subject, and the fact that the reason seems to be simply the removal of social and political discrimination.

Contrast that with the lack of movement on the abortion debate or the comparative slowness that racial hatred decreased. I don't know how old you are, I don't think of myself as all that old, but I am old enough to have seen a sea change in attitudes about homosexuality.

I have no doubts that the people who have not undergrone that change are more likely to live among others who still have the attitudes people had in the '80s, and so may not see it. But the fact that the fall back position in many places is civil unions should be astonishing to anyone even old enough to remember the 90s.

And what has brought about this change other than greater familiarity with homosexuals. Homosexuals have no ability to shove their agenda down anyone's throat contrary to the paranoia often suggested. And there has been no similar movement on abortion, an issue as dear to those elites in Hollywood and New York who are supposedly shoving their values down our throats.

So the answer is that the countries views on homosexuality have changed greatly in response to the removal of bans on showing homosexuals as human beings on tv and more homosexuals appearing in the media. So it appears that these things are enough to produce such change.

If you use the word "homophobia"...
... you just give it false legitimacy. It's no more logical to hate or fear "homosexuals" than it is to hate or fear unicorns.

"But there are no real 'unicorns.'"

Exactly.


What if
1st of all i'm not very religious. But let me throw something out there. Most of the arguments here and other columns dealing w gay issues have at least 2 sides. One side says it's (gay sex) not moral , mostly due to what the bible says. On the other hand some/ most of the gay posters say they arent religious or if they are they dont think God is against gay sex.
Here is my what if, what if God showed up one day (and somehow proved he was God) and said while he wasnt against gay people , He expected them to not act apon their feelings. What would the gay posters say or do with that info? Would it change your feelings because you KNEW there was a God? I'm really curious how you folks would feel.

Oh, "Ex-pat in Geneva - TX"...
"Gay impact on my children? Zero."

Tell that to the public school indoctrinators starting at the elementary school level.

"Gay impact on my taxes? Zero."

You are paying a heavy tax price in paying for accommodationg the "disability" of those with AIDS/HIV.

Moron...err..I mean...moronic ostrich.

bostguy112
"Here is my what if, what if God showed up one day (and somehow proved he was God) and said while he wasnt against gay people , He expected them to not act apon their feelings. What would the gay posters say or do with that info?"

I have written in support of the position of gay posters, but am not gay, so I don't know if I qualify to answer your question.

But my response would be to ask for an explanation as to why. Presumably a God worth following would have a reason. But currently I don't see it. But I am not willing to rule out that the God you describe could convince me. But then that is true of all kinds of moral issues, in which we could imagine God coming down and telling us all kinds of things.

If God came down and told me that people were supposed to marry their siblings, I would also want an explanation as to why.

Seth
What makes you think that THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY cannot protect His Word? That is what the Bible is you know......................or maybe you don't know.

imagining world without J*erks like you
this was all I could think reading this article. No I have no tolerance for intolerance and intolerant people like you. I refer to this stance as "active tolerance", no mealy mouthed kum bay ya liberal I am. Look. love is better than hate. if people love people its good. when people hate people and try to make them feel bad about themselves for being different then they are zits on the face of humanity. Whether or not this is a "predisposition" is immaterial. Homosexuality is only inherently wrong inside your brain and in the stupid old book you pound.

bostguy112
Here is my what if, what if God showed up one day (and somehow proved he was God) and said while he wasn’t against gay people, He expected them to not act upon their feelings. What would the gay posters say or do with that info?

I would ask why I shouldn't act on my feelings and if I got a logical answer I might consider it (doubtful but I would consider it)

Question for you what if God said he/she didn't have an issue with Homosexuals what would be your response?

LAURA'S POST
Laura,
Tell me about christian intolerance? How strong would your convictions be if you were standing in a real moral islamic country where you would be hung?
The fact that sodomy is immoral, is a perversion is a sin can't be changed no matter how you sugar coat the kool aid its still wrong. Does your being a moral phobe mean you are a bigoted sodomite? I think not, your tirade was off the wall.
The homosexual agenda does undermine marriage. It is a perversion and a mental disorder and that has been a fact for thousands of years. This behavior is not a gender, or a unchangeable, it is not a civil right it is a moral phobic behaivor.
Jesus said "A man will leave his family and marry a woman" not henry or bob. I know Christ said it all and you don't agree but that does not mean this death style is right it does mean it is immoral.

Lon
Thanks for the reply. I guess i worded it that way (God saying no gay sex) because of what people more familiar w the bible say in that god loves the sinner but hates the sin. So i guess I'm saying (for the sake of arguement) that God says no gay sex like he would say no cheating on your wife/husband. Not sure if that helps but I'm kind of making it up as i go.

To: Gestell
Thanks for pointing out "illicit" in the article. I was looking specifically for "moral" and didn't see it.

That said, the first paragraph in the article is the author's self-disclosure and not part of his argument. Note the second paragraph begins, "But...". He's saying "I've been defending my position on homosexuality from my moral perspective, BUT NOW I SEE that I can defend it in the same way that homosexuals defend their own oritentation. And then he launches his parody.

What I meant in my earlier post is that the author is NOT HERE arguing against homosexuality, as you implied. I'm sure he would argue that, but he's not doing it here.

Lucifer666
"Question for you what if God said he/she didn't have an issue with Homosexuals what would be your response?

To be honest i dont a problem with gays. But like a lot of groups of people ( the whole Global warming crowd for example) i dont agree with all or most of what they do and say. But i have known many gay people and have gone to gay parades as well.

Response to Sandy:
The Bible could be God's word- but it is clearly as transcribed by human-kind. Just as the entire construct of Christianity is a construct of human-kind, and therefore flawed by nature.

Your supposition of God "protecting" the bible has no basis. The Catholic denomination has their own version of the Bible, claiming that other Christian denominations removed certain chapters to suit their beliefs. Other denominations claim they ADDED them. Who's right? Don't know, and don't care. But clearly, there is more than 1 version of the bible out there.

But it doesn't change the fact that many Christians cherry pick the scripture- This verse is to be taken literally, while the next verse doesn't mean anything to life in this time. Why is that?

CURT
US Christian advocacy groups support the practice of killing gays in muslim countries and would, given the chance implement the practice without any hesitation in this country too. Are seriously suggesting that your bigotry and hatred is somewhat more admirable if your viciousness allows you to let gays live but wants a society that tortures and hurts them in every imaginable way?

The language you use is the language of true bigot and as a moral citizen I find it disgusting and despicable. the moral rot of Christianist movement endangers all freedoms in this country, after all it claims that the epitome of religious freedom is the right of Christians to oppress those who do not believe the way they do. That's totalitarianism, that's fascism and that is hate. Pure and simple.

I will proudly disassociate myself from ugliness of Christians and refuse to socialize with people like you in any form. You deserve no respect or consideration and someday I sincerely hope you will treated exactly the way you treat gays.


NOW NOW Y'ALL
It all ways puzzled me that as Christians, most of us aren't very Christian. I don't seem to remember God or his Son teaching us to hate. Which is what homophobia is. Why are you so angry?

Homophobia like all hatred is learned and hatred is not naturally with in us. You learned to hate and/or fear gays for whatever reason. Perhaps you stared too long at another male in the shower at school. Only you know why you hate.

As a retired Marine (1973-1996) I served with more than a few Marines that I know are Gay. Both men and women. Yeah know what kids, they were some of the finest Marines I ever served with. Close your mouth Joycey your drawing flies.

We are who we are, plain and simple. You either accept gays and straights as who they are or you don't. My question to those straights out there, when did you decide that you liked the opposite sex? I know I never did, I happen to really like women and I never had to think about that, I just do. If you have to choose then you aren't.

So now boys and girls, remember this, God loves us all no mater who we are. Well maybe not Joycey because of her cold black heart, But take heart darlin, you can really change.

So there you have it kids, this humble Marines thoughts on the matter. Attack if you must, agree if you like. or not. Makes no matter to me.

Semper Fi...

Gunny J

666 and Seth
First, in answer to this **I have to pay health care cost for people who over-eat and don't take care of their well being**

Agreed. One of those self induced conditions.

Second, to Seth: **I would ask, though, what would be your response if one day the child came out to you?...How does one backtrack from that?** Why would I backtrack? My belief system doesn't change just because it's painful. Why would I be expected to change my belief system? I can love my child and not love what they do. In reality, I do have a gay half sister. She's also an alcoholic. I still care about her, even though I don't condone what she does.

The "games" in the park start as football, at least that's what they told the police the two times the police came out, but it ends up a full fledged orgy with public sex and nudity.






Marriage vs Homosexuality
I have no problem with homosexuals. Their choice is not mine, but it's their choice. My problem is when the homosexual community insist that they deserve to be married. I have to draw a line on that. They can call it anything they want, but not marriage. That is reserved to the man and wife venue. I'm really confused. The homosexual community wants to be separate from the "straights" but yet they want to be the same. They can call it anything else, but they don't want to. Why? I don't know, maybe they just want to shove it up our nose. It's like my daddy said; a mule is a mule, a horse is a horse. They look alike, but they're different. If 10,000 liberal judges want to call a horse a mule or vice a versa, it's still a horse and a mule, can't change that.

If anyone is interested

You can go to youtube and search for personal videos shot by attendees at the various gay pride parades across the globe.

The biggest is Brazil's (attracting 3 and a half million participants, which includes parade watchers. Apparently it has become a real family event, much to the chagrin of our narrow-minded evangelical posters!) Russia had one this year. Tel Aviv had a great one.


Go to youtube.
Type in "Jesusalem gay pride" or "Tel Aviv gay pride" or "Berlin gay pride", etc. There are thousands of such parades annually now, all across the globe.

To: Lon
My self-disclosure: I'm 47 and have lived in the San Francisco area for almost 25 years. I've also seen the "sea change" you describe.
We may in fact agree, but just use different language to describe it.

I believe that, as more people gain more exposure to openly gay persons, they start seeing them more as human beings and less as dangerous. They also become more sympathetic to their issues regarding hospital visitation, estate/will management, etc.

Because of these changes, we have changed the culture so that bigotry toward homosexuals has been reduced and we have passed laws extending (nearly) all the benefits the gay community has lobbied for.

However, we have NOT changed our position that homosexuality is morally wrong. We've just agreed to the proposition that you shouldn't discriminate against a group of people because they engage in behavior that you morally disagree with. I think you are mistaken if you believe the country is rewriting its moral code.

Buck
And an idiot is an idiot and bigot is a bigot.

Can't change that.

Seth
I think you have a lot of misconceptions about the Bible and said some things that just aren't true. One thing is there are orignial Greek manuscripts of the New Testament dating about 25-50 years after Christ's death (very close to when the actual events happened)...those are what is used to translate parts of the New Testament into English so I don't know what you are talking about with all the "different languages."

There are a lot of Christian apologists out there that make a very solid case for Christanity and the Bible (especially when compared to other religions.) I'm a Christian and I assure you I did not reach that conclusion by "blindly" believing what the Bible says. If you were interested in any books that address the issue of the veracity of Bible I would be more than happy to suggest some.

With regards to what you said about my post I was addressing "My Pet Goat" because he claimed he was a Christian and "took the Bible seriously." I assumed that meant he believed what the Bible said was true which is why I challenged him on the issue. If one were to believe in the Bible and read Romans 1:27, I would ask you as well, what else could Paul mean other then homosexuality is immoral? There are several other passages out there as well(See Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 among others), I just feel that one makes the strongest case.

Let me know what you think.

Homophobia
No Andy Lad, homophobia like all hatreds and fears is learned. We learn things like hate from our parents, friends, teachers and others. From whom did you learn to hate?

I will admit that I am not as knowledgeable in the Bible as you but I do seem to remember the bit about loving your enemies. I don't seem to remember the part about hating gays? Did I miss that part?

Next time you are at a movie or a play or ball game or heck even in church, take a look at that person next to you but don't sit too close, he or she might be gay.

Semper Fi...

Gunny J

Genetic homophobiaphobia
Tallman has convinced me that homophobia and homophobiaphobia are not really anyone's fault. Hey no one really has a choice about who or what they are, its all in our genes.

Can't we all just get along.

Response to IdahoGal
Re "football"... If that's the case then I surely don't blame you for being disturbed. I am surprised that it hasn't been busted up. There are certain parks around here where such things happen, and there are frequent arrests.

As for the backtracking comment- Consider it from the point of view of your "gay" child. They grow up hearing from Mom and Dad that gays are evil, nasty horrible people (not saying you are really doing that- just exaggerating to make a point). Then one day, they come to the realization that they are gay and have to tell Mom and Dad. Can you imagine how hard that is? And then to hear from them, "Well, if you're going to be gay, I'll love YOU but hate your life." Why not just, "I love you- period."?

Seth
Yes there are different versions of the Word out there, but they all point in one direction.........To God,and his plan of our salvation.

Laura
"US Christian advocacy groups support the practice of killing gays in muslim countries and would, given the chance implement the practice without any hesitation in this country too.

You must be old because it would take a while to get this stupid.

Lucifer666 , this is what i meant by not agreeing with gays on certain issues.

Disgusted..
describes my feelings for "gay" sexual relationships. Besides being unnatural and A prime cause of the spreading of STDs, their so-called "sex" is just an extremely perverted expression of intimate personal interactions in our overly sex-crazed society!

Having worked with several homosexuals before AIDS was discovered, ranging from an in-the-closet type to a "flaming homo" type, I found that there was a pervasively consistent factor in each case. That factor was a father which was absent, or unloving, or uncaring toward their son.

With the increase of single-parent mother-led households today, this could result in boys growing up missing the loving attention of an involved father in their lives. That lack of nuture in their lives may cause them to be predisposed to look for love from another man (a father substitute), many of which will find themselves in relationships which promote false realities, and they may often will end up in an unhappy existance. One of my homo coworkers committed suicide, even though he was well liked and accepted by all who interacted and/or worked with him.

I'm not homophobic, which implies a fear of homosexuals. Can't relate to that "politically correct" term. There's nothing wrong with two or more persons of the same gender living together, its just that when the relationship becomes "sexual" in nature that it gets all "screwed up."

Last Ray of hope....

Reply to Brian:
Thanks for your thoughtful response- A;ways a pleasure to debate with someone who refrains from the unfortunate name-calling.

Re Translation: I had a friend whose dad collected rare bibles. According to him, one of the many things that made a particular bible rare was weird anomalies in translation. He once pulled down dozens of versions and showed us how in different times and places the language and verbage in many, many passages changed to some extent. These were typically your 19th century examples. Prior to that- there really isn't much record. Who's to say that somewhere along the line someone didn't add some passages about homosexuality that had never existed before? Just as the Catholics did, or didn't add their own chapters? Nobody knows for sure, in my opinion.

As for your comments to "my pet goat" and homosexuality being called out as an abomination- Again, I will ask you- as someone who seems to be a reasonable and thinking sort- why is it that some verses are to be taken as literal, and some not? I've yet to get a solid answer from anybody on this.

I am glad for you that you find solace in your faith- and I don't regard you as an enemy because you do. I live my life strictly on a live and let live policy, and it has served me well.

One quick comment...
To all of you who are saying that "homophobia" means "fear of homosexuals." Not so. "Fear of homosexuality" is the true meaning, and they are 2 very different things.

I'm not a big proponent of the term, but let's at least use it correctly.

bostguy
Maybe you would like to check the facts first? Concerned Women for America spokesperson Janice Shaw Crouse has repeated praised Ugandan government for banning basic political rights of gays (last week the chairpierson of ugandan gay and lesbian association was kidnapped , tortured and left on street to bleed by police)... There's evangelicvcal international family group that has succesfully prevented all discussion about human rights violations against gays islamic countries and when possible Christians join fundamentalist muslims in gay bashing. not one, not single one Christian group condemned executions of gay teenagers in iran, on the contrary Christians said that muslim countries hold "family values" in high regard...

Christian are either mum or openly endorse tiorture and killing of arab or black muslims and would, given the power do the same here. Townhall columnists (most notably Giles and McCullough have openly endorsed beating up gay men, Gallagher, Rios and some other Christian leaders blamed a killed gay teen for his own murder...

Had Jews taken the hate propaganda of nazis more seriously, more of them would be alive today. I will not make the same mistake with Christianist in America who not only hate their fellow citizens but willingly export their hatred abroad. And lavish praise to people who are most cruel and vicious toward gays.

Christianism is moral rot and I find Christians to be disgusting in their zealotry they find so much joy in hating others it is absolutely perverse.





I am one of the lucky ones
I was born with the nature to be disgusted with deviancy.
And since I learned to be non-"homophobic" would place me as a friend of these weird reprobates, I choose to be homophobic.
Even if the world means nothing and twisted out of all understanding in what a homo is to begin with.

Homo
[Sp]

The genus to which humans belong. See Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis.


I do not understand the connection to the deviant sexual perverts anyway as we are all homos.
I am a homo and the perverts hate me so they are also homophobics.
There now, everyone should be happy and just get along.

We can as soon as these perverts keep their bedroom antics out of the public square


Laura
Are you familiar with the act of some in the gay community of what is referred to as "receiving the gift"

Ray writes,

"Having worked with several homosexuals before AIDS was discovered, ranging from an in-the-closet type to a "flaming homo" type, I found that there was a pervasively consistent factor in each case. That factor was a father which was absent, or unloving, or uncaring toward their son."

----------


Ray, I had (have) a "present" father. I came out to my parents when I turned 16 (it took my dad a little while longer to get used to the idea of a gay son, but, in retrospect, it was no big deal).

My parents are loving and open-minded. They certainly don't fit your mold. In fact, my mother hooked me up with my first real date after my 17th birthday. A parent she'd met at my brother's baseball game had a gay son (a senior from a neighboring high school) and they decided to set us up on a blind date (no joke). Alex and I didn't hit it off romantically, but we became good friends through our senior year of high school and for a couple years afterwards.

Laura said:
**
Christian are either mum or openly endorse tiorture and killing of arab or black muslims and would, given the power do the same here.**

Laura, wipe the spittle off your keyboard and calm down. You're just plain ridiculous!

THE NEXT STOP ON THE DESCENT INTO MADNES
Despite the fact that no one has found a “gay gene”, many insist that there is a least one, so they insist on “gay pride” and “gay rights.”
Well, I'm here to tell you that I have irrefutable scientific proof that there is an “alcoholic” gene and an “prone to violence” gene. My “irrefutable scientific” proof? Some guy in a white lab coat! Follow these links:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researcher s-identify-alcoholism-gene

http://www.geneticsandhealth.com/2006/03/21/maoa-gene-linke d-to-violent-behavior/

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07152008/news/nationalnews/viol ent_kids__mean_gene_119918.htm


Now we can have drunk pride and fierce pride. Advocates can educate us on the many drunks and fierce in history, the arts, sports and entertainment. Drunks can tell us about Aristotle, Alfred the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton , Bonnie Prince Charlie, Ludwig von Beethoven , Karl Marx, Edgar Allen Poe, Babe Ruth, Dean Martin, and Ted Kennedy. The fierce can go on about Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Ty Cobb, Chris Benoit, Charlie Manson and Mel Gibson. Both groups can claim Napoleon, Ulysses S. Grant, Joseph Stalin, and Britney Spears.
Then we will hear about drunk rights. They will organize and call themselves “drunk nation.” Anyone who disagrees with them in anyway will be a labeled a “sotophobe.” If anyone other than an alcoholic uses the term “drunk” they will be labeled politically incorrect. Just as gays insist they be allowed marriage licensees, drunks will insist that they be allowed to keep their drivers licensees after driving drunk, as after all, they have a congenital condition and they didn't choose to have “sober aversion disorder” Then we will get the “Beer Boy Love Alliance” because alcoholism is genetic and there should be no shame when children drink.
As I approach the 2K character limit imposed by this forum, I will leave it to my fellow posters to carry on about fierce pride and fierce rights.




Lauras
How 'bout you cool your Christophobic hate, wipe the foam off your mouth and then give us some real evidence from the CWA website to back up your claims?

I have NEVER seen the Concerned Women for America attempt to deny ANYONE his or her legal rights under the Constitution in any way.

Nor is CWA an international organization, so it has absolutely no influence on what other countries' governments do. It doesn't even have all that much influence on our government, for that matter.

And no, I'm not now nor have ever been a member.

While you're busy digging up all this "proof" of anti-gay sentiment, perhaps you can prove as well just which branch of Christianity in this ocuntry (name names, please, and give documented quotes)is interested in taking over the country and killing off any who disagree with them. I know it isn't my denomination (LCMS), so there's one you won't have to look for.

Then STFU and get lost.

Seth and Josh
**As for the backtracking comment- Consider it from the point of view of your "gay" child. They grow up hearing from Mom and Dad that gays are evil, nasty horrible people (not saying you are really doing that- just exaggerating to make a point). Then one day, they come to the realization that they are gay and have to tell Mom and Dad. Can you imagine how hard that is? And then to hear from them, "Well, if you're going to be gay, I'll love YOU but hate your life." Why not just, "I love you- period."?**

But, Seth, why would that change what I believe? My faith isn't something I just try on and see if it fits. I BELIEVE. Now that doesn't mean I'm nasty about it. I would love said child, I would care for him/her, but there would things I would insist on in my house. A respectful significant other who wouldn't insist on sleeping over, for instance. (That goes for my hetero, unmarried children, also BTW). But what they do in THEIR house is THEIR (and their Gods) business.

And Josh, you said, "Apparently it has become a real family event, much to the chagrin of our narrow-minded evangelical posters!"

I ask you, what good is this? What higher purpose does taking off one's clothing and prancing naked in the streets serve? What higher purpose comes of making a freak show of one's self? Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it.




Talent scout
Yours is a common mistake.

In Latin homo denotes "human". But the "homo" in "homosexual" is not Latin. It is Greek, and it means "same", as in "same -sex"

Totally different world.
BTW, the word homosxual, a hybrid composed of one Greek and one Latin word, did not exist until after the trial of Oscar Wilde in England, in the late 1800s.

Deviance is a loaded word. At different times in history, Catholics were "deviants" (it was so for me, who grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church).
At other times Methodists were "deviants", Moslems, Mormons, Shakers, Pentecostals. Jehovah Witnesses are still "deviants" in Germany and Greece, and Scientologists are illegal Deviants in Germany.
It is a rather.....elastic term.

Joycey
>No one fears homosexuals.

Perhaps but that's not what homophobia is. Homophobia is a form of sexual insecurity.

> We are disgusted by the unnatural and
> disrespectful acts.

"We?" If you think that same-sex sex is disgusting then don't do it. Simple enough.

> We don't want to know.

It's clear just how little you know.

> Stay in the closet or find help.

Gay people should be closeted celibates to please you and a handful of religious conservatives? I don't think so.

> There are many professionals that can help you get
> out of this lifestyle.

Being gay is not a lifestyle. Science has concluded that sexual orientation is no more changeable than eye color. For the record, there are NO peer reviewed, published studies that contradict that conclusion. "Pray away the gay" is a scam. It has far greater potential for harm.

>You just have to want to leave it.

Some years ago, as a student at boarding school coming to terms with my sexuality (in a rather conservative environment), if some offered me the "straight pill" I probably would have said "I'll take two." As an adult, having run some fair sized businesses, I have come to the realization that my sexuality is irrelevant. I don't really care what Tony Perkins or Jimmy Dobson think.

David Hart
http://www.tips-q.com

brilliant
This is one you read and say, "I wish I'd thought of that".

Good work. Good logic. Very revealing of the effeminate culture.

Homosexual Self Esteem

We live in a society in 2008 that has an educational system that is more interested in 'Self-Esteem' than survival.

Our educational system is NO longer focused on the survivability of the student in a world of Information and High Tech, but rather how the student 'Feels' about themselves.

Homosexuals want the educational system to change the curricula to teach they are 'Normal' so they can have 'Self Esteem'.

Homosexuals want to feel 'Good' about their deviant lifestyle and think ANY criticism is intolerance. Homosexuals have 'Pride' parades and wear badges about 'Gay Pride' and yet seemingly hate their lifestyle or they wouldn't constantly try to show the world 'How Proud They Are'.

Homosexuals are intolerant of anyone who disagrees and attack them personally and viciously, all in the name of 'Tolerance' and 'Diversity'.

Homosexuals declare all they want are the same rights of every other American Citizen - yet Homosexuals have the same rights as any other American Citizen.

Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like every other American Citizen. Homosexuals have the right to have sex with another consenting adult just like any other American Citizen.

There is a 'Cure' for hunger 'Eat', there is a 'Cure' for sleepiness go to 'Sleep', there is a 'Cure' for loneliness 'Make Friends' etc.

There is a 'Cure' for sexual deviancy choose non-deviant sex.

Homosexuals who want to feel 'Normal' and have self-esteem, change your lifestyle or accept yourself and leave the rest of us out of the equation.

Homosexuals 'Life is a Hill' get over it.

It is the Authority
of the Bible that Homosexuality is deemed contrary to Nature. Contrary to nature means contrary to the natural order the God of Bible created order to be.

Now, those in rebellion to that God of the Bible have to shluff of the Words of the Bible if they chose to remain in their rebellious state.

Homosexuality in its essence the outward expression of an inward rebellion toward the God of the Bible.

Any resolution for any outward expression of rebellion toward the God of the Bible must begin with an inward reconcilation with the God of the Bible.

The Bible's message for that offer for that reconcilation with the God of the Bible is called the Gospel.


the "homo" in Homo Erectus

must be latin then, not greek.


Homo erectus MAY sound like an aroused gay man, but it means "upright human". Homo erectus lived 1.6 million years ago (sorry, "Creationist" theory!), made stone tools and mastered fire. Homo erectus were our forebears, before we evolved into Homo sapiens ("rational" or "wise" or "clever" man....)

About Marriage

Why did the government become involved in marriage?

Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.

Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.
They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.

The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.

The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.

'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.

The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.

Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.

Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.

Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.

Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.

Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course would be a violation of privacy rights.


Lucifer666
Lucifer: I would ask why I shouldn't act on my feelings and if I got a logical answer I might consider it (doubtful but I would consider it)

Jen: Perhaps God would answer because sometimes what we “feel” isn’t always good. I might feel like getting drunk every night. I might feel like I have a strong physical attraction to a 17 year old student I teach. I might feel like hitting my kids when I’m mad at them, etc. It’s obvious that feelings aren’t always a good way to decide on certain actions. Although, feelings can be normal and might not be helped, they shouldn’t necessarily be indicators of behavior.

Perhaps God would say I designed men and women in a way where when they express their love, it brings about new life. Perhaps God explains how he created males and females differently for the benefit of raising a family – differences which aren’t always obvious, but since I am Almighty God I am wiser than you and perhaps have a little more wisdom in viewing the situation then yourself. You either believe I am God your creator and know ALL or you do not.

Lucifer: Question for you what if God said he/she didn't have an issue with Homosexuals what would be your response?

Jen: I would probably ask God why he didn’t make male parts fit together so easily? I would ask why God designed it that when men put parts of themselves into parts of other men where they don’t belong, why it fosters disease. I would ask why can’t two men have a baby.

I would simply be curious as to the reason behind His apparent design, but if He told me He was cool with homosexuality, then I would be too. Unfortunately, so far, this is not what God has said.

The Geek writes,

"The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition."

----------

Well, then Rosie and Jodie Foster and Mary Cheney and all those older gay male couples who are adopting the high-risk or dysfunctional children should be able to marry (in a church!) if they want to. There are certainly enough examples of gays with kids to let them into the "clubhouse".


Gestell
People have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism that actually has an evidentiary basis, but you notice nobody says they ought to be able to drink to excess and drive or beat their wives and children or .... We expect them to control their genetic predisposition.

Instead, we say homosexuality has a genetic predisposition (though the evidence is pretty scant for that) and we insist they're not hurting anyone when in fact, every lesbian I've ever met (work in the social work field where there are lots) was first turned onto homosexuality by an older woman when she was a teen. So, excuse me while I doubt the "no harm" argument. We call it child sexual abuse, but the homosexual community turns a blind eye to it because it's how they create more like them.

And it still doesn't negate Tallman's premise. My 5-year-old had never heard of homosexuality before he saw those two men kissing and he immediately wanted a shower. It was the grossest thing he'd seen up to that point. At the same age, when he would see heterosexuals kissing, he'd just look embarrassed. Maybe his reaction was different because he instinctively knew that the activity he was witnesses was different. The natural reaction of most heterosexuals to homosexual sexual activity is a shudder. Where's that coming from? Homosexuals want to say theirs is a genetic, and therefore, protected, status and that heterosexual reaction to their behavior is a culturally conditioned response that should be modified. Where's the evidence for that premise? You want it both ways, and Tallman is being ridiculous to show you can't support your argument. Heterosexuals are naturally opposed to homosexual behavior because we know instinctively that it's wrong. Maybe that whole accepting it as a "natural part of the human spectrum" is the culturally conditioned response.

You still can't have it both ways!

I'm torn..
Will No Talent _ever_ learn?

"Homo" is Latin is "man" and it is from that that we derive "homo sapiens," which No Talent claims he is. LOL!

"Homo" in Greek is "same" (and "hetero" means "different.)

Now, No Talent claims he's a homo. Should I be pleased he's finally come out? Or should I worry about the devaluation of "sapiens"?

Josh said:
**there are certainly enough examples of gays with kids to let them into the "clubhouse".**

I worked for a doctor who was gay, "married" and had adopted two children, both from the same low-life mother, different fathers. You have never seen more mixed up children in your life. Neither parent had a clue as to how to raise a child. They let them run rampant, excusing their behavior by pointing at the mother's drug addiction. Truth was, they were making a statement to the world and the children suffered. Oh, I think they cared about the kids but I think the political statement came first.

Another friend's wife left him and their kids for their girl's female soccer coach. Another bunch of messed up kids.

The kids bear the brunt of all our bad behavior. I don't think using kids as a political statement benefits the kids and neither does putting our own wants ahead of our kids needs. Why couldn't the mother of our friend's kids waited until they were up and out of the house to make her move?

Old_n_in_the_WAY OUT
We do have drunk parades. Everywhere.

They are called St. Patrick's Day parades

reply to aurorawatcher
YOu're still not getting it Here's your problem. You write: "Heterosexuals are naturally opposed to homosexual behavior because we know instinctively that it's wrong."

The way in which you think you know this is totally obscure, at least to me. It sounds like you're saying "we know because we just know," and I'm sorry, that's not an argument at all. Your "evidence" is simply your gut feeling (assisted by all of the hate-mongering religious conservatives). Again, that's not an argument based on evidence.

Any hatred of any group can be 'justified' in this same way.

Ultimately, all you're really saying is that gays offend you, and that you have some sort of perfect right to act on the basis of this. Well, religious conservatives offend me, but I'm not about to snub one on the street. I certainly don't have any sort of right to impose my views on them.

Now just so you don't get riled here--gays are not trying to "impose" anything on you religious conservatives. They want the same perfectly generic, default respect that you give to anyone else (unless you get to know them and discover that they're really evil people).

So just ignore them when they hold hands in public. Hum the national anthem to yourself when you happen to see Ellen deGeneres on TV. Think of just how wonderful you are to be in possession of God's truth when you read about some gay couple adopting a kid. There. Don't you feel better already?

Oh those Irishmen! AlphaOmega
Flaunting their Irishness! Painting the town green!

Why don't they just shut up about it? I don't want any four-leafed clovers, and I don't want them exposing my children to their debauchery.

And anyway, why can't we have White Mongrel Days? Why do the Irish think we have to accept their lifestyle?

JOSH
I think it's about time for a couple of those pills now.

Josh et al
Are you practicing Homosexual tolerance towards IdahoGal?

An American citizen (singular) can adopt a child.

An American citizen (singular) can name any other Citizen as the beneficiary to their life insurance policy.

An American citizen (singular) can name any other Citizen as the sole recepient of their estate.

An American citizen (singular) can name any other Citizen with the power of attorney when incapacitated.

An American citizen (singular) can name any other Citizen in their living will and medical power of attorney to make medical decisions which would include visiting in the hospital.

An American citizen (singular) can own property jointly with one or any number of other citizens.

An American citizen (singular) can live in the same dwelling with any other consenting citizen(s).

A married couple pays more income tax than two individual citizens.

What exactly does homosexual marriage give other than a false sense of 'Normalcy'.

Another Tack

The writer says “But then it was explained to me that sexual urges are such a deep element of real human nature that it’s wrong to suppress them.”

Surely he applies that behavior only to homosexuals. What kind of society would we have if all people did not suppress their sexual urges? In heterosexual land, that could easily be rape. Except with your spouse, to sumit to a sexual urge is certainly adultery or fornication, sins known to man since the beginning. Therein lies the fallacy of the homosexual faith. You are homosexual only when you submit to your sexual urges. Therefore, if you adopt the morality of heterosexuals, you have sex only with your spouse.

Very few die having had sex only with their spouse, but that makes the abstention from out of wedlock sex no less desirable. Contrary to the teaching of many TV preachers who suggest we "give up worldly pleasures," I am convinced a life devoted sexually to only one person is a richer one by far. I believe a person through deviant and promiscuous sexual behavior lessens the extreme pleasure of sexual relations to the point of virtually no pleasure at all. Celibate homosexual? Why not?

josh
What you say about IdahoGal is a bit over the top, though I dare say quite true.

Did it ever occur to her that these were just bad parents? When she sees a straight couple with badly behaved kids (and I see that a lot), does she think that these parents are just making a statement? "See? I can breed!" Has she thought that generalizing across an entire community based on a very few cases is foolish?

Why do we spend so much time...

On such a small portion of our population?

Homosexuality affects about 1 in 1,000 persons at the very high end. That's about 300,000 Gays in America. About the population of a mid-sized City.

As far as 'abuse' of Gays goes... I have never met an abused Gay, or ever known anyone who be inclined to hurt a Gay person.

I have seen several abused Gays in the emergency room. However, all were beaten by their 'Partners'.


So much for civil speech
**What a complete and utter B # T C H your are! (can I technically do that? I want to keep it clean!) for saying gay men & women with kids are only making a "political statement".

You are so VILE. I wonder if you are as ugly on the outside as you've proved to be on the inside. Pity your children. Don't they deserve better? Mary Cheney would be a much better mother than you.**

I said the doctor I worked for was making a political statement. Since you haven't seen the situation or heard him and his partner talking about it, how would you know?

I believe that children need a mother and a father. Nothing less. I raised children by myself. My children suffered for it. It was MY fault they suffered. Children need a strong MALE figure and a nurturing MOTHER figure in their lives. We've proven that over and over. If I'm a (insert whatever expletive that suits your fancy here), then I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm very sorry you felt the need to descend to the depths here.

A mother who raised her own two and then raised her niece and nephew - what have you done lately?


GAL IN IDAHO
Someone once gave very wise suggestion on TH. To attempt to reason with Josh in CA is futile. When he throws his temper tantrums, it's too bad when he holds his breath, he just passes out and begins breathing again.

J. Howard: Celibate homosexual? Why not?
Because we will not choose to cut off a significant part of who we are just to satisfy a bunch of bible thumpers' idea of moral behavior.

People had better:
understand the big picture. Once this abnormal behavior is forced down America's throat, it sets the stage for the next in a series of battles.

Leaders of all religions who remain true to the word of God will be attacked through the courts by homosexuals and those who support their behavior. If a church openly teaches that homosexuality is wrong then they will run the risk of being fined or arrested or both for "hate speech".

This is what happens when good people do nothing and allow themselves to be walked on. Freedom is stolen inch by inch not mile by mile. Evil is alive and well in this country and it is hoping that Christian's do not fight back.

gettingoldernwiser
Thanks, dude! It was going so well, too! But I guess no one else is allowed a different opinion in Josh's world!

There will be no absolutes! Absolutely! I love the left - they do provide comic relief at times!

He never answered my other question, either. I guess if you just get indignant enough, maybe everyone will forget!

Carlos off Subject
I agree with your assertion that Obama is a Narcisist. I have a hard time believing Obama could pick a VP that could possibly 'Outshine' him.

What is your opinion?

MellorSJ2

We have had a civil debate before.

Would you explain what Homosexuals 'Hope' to gain through Homosexual Marriage that they cannot attain through other means (see my previous posts).

I believe that every individual must answer to God individually.

An honest question

"Again, I will ask you- as someone who seems to be a reasonable and thinking sort- why is it that some verses are to be taken as literal, and some not?"=quote

The New Testament of the Bible is the key to understanding the Old. Most things to be taken figurative give hints as to this fact, or are exposed as such by the New Testament. But not always. There are scriptures I can think of that actually have more than one correct interpretation.

The reason homosexuality is repugnant to Christiandom is because of the holiness with which they see "Holy Matrimony". It would kind of be like taking a hog into a Mosque to pervert it.

Few today have the strength of Spirit to live up to these standards. Which is the reason we need a saviour. Love is why we should seek to point others to him. If I truly believe your actions are a danger to you, how could I be loving and not at least warn you?

If you are truly serious about learning to interpret scripture, I recommend Matthew Henry's commentary. It is available free online. Its a good start.

About those translations being different, all translation into English is a paraphrase. To translate word for word Greek or Hebrew into English would make no sense. The language structure is too different. Some languages put pronouns after instead of before the noun, etc. Different people may phrase an idea differently while meaning the exact same thing. Some translations are in dispute as to which manuscript to go by, such as Psalm 22:16. But overall, the disputed verses are few.

Ranger
What I have described happens all the time in the U.K. They used to enjoy freedom of religious expression. They do not any longer.

You can very easily find these examples for yourself. You will not do so because you have made your choice. Good luck with that

You couldn't be further from the truth!
Andrew, as a fellow but real Christian aware of and accepting of the teachings of Jesus Christ through the living, oral and wriiten traditions of the Church that he established and commanded we build, I find each and every claim/statement you made to be completely off the mark of what true Christian theology is. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so ignorant of what the fullness of 2000 years of true Christian tradition has taught us. Please try reading some truely Christian theolgy instead of making up your own ego misopinions of what Scripture, the written Word as well as the oral and living traditions have taught us. The Church in it's collectively informed and Holy Spirit inspired wisdom has interpreted all that you claimed completely the opposite of your personal interpretations. Humility is part of the corporate that you somehow miss having or just choose not to tune into. You sound as confused as you most probably are. Again, I say to you, there is absolutely NOTHING in sacred Christian living, oral or written tradition that comes close to what you have stated. Good luck in someday finding the truth that continues to evade you.
Sincerely,
Rob

IdahoGal et al

Josh or Will is trapped in limbo neither child or adult.

He wants to be accepted as a 'Normal' human being those who think sexual deviancy is abnormal.

He knows very well that God does NOT accept his sin but that God would forgive his sin and tell him to go and sin NO more.

In desperation he states that he is the victim of predispostion and therefore God is responsible and NOT him.

Everyone and everything is responsible for his sexual deviancy BUT him.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Re: An honest question
**
"Again, I will ask you- as someone who seems to be a reasonable and thinking sort- why is it that some verses are to be taken as literal, and some not?"=quote
**

My question: don't you find that people who talk about the different interpretations of the Bible have never spent an honest moment studying it themselves? They are just regurgitating something that some other "wise" person said, who regurgitated something that another "wise" person said, who...you get the picture.

Those of us who have spent the hours studying scripture don't ask those kind of questions. Our questions are very different - we try to apply what we've studied, we don't waste valuable time on trying to disprove Truth because a word here or there is in dispute. The overall message of the Bible is the same, no matter what version you read.

Retired Geek
I believe credit for the "reasoning with Josh in CA is futile" and a waste of effort is to you. Perhaps he is in the middle of a trash-his-own-apartment fit. I believe he is lashing out because he is unsuccessful in gaining acceptance for deviant behavior. But, he never will. Hopeless.

I agree with Tallman
Homophobia has a significant genetic and nurture component. It stems from people born with strong homosexual tendencies who are raised in environments that frown on homosexuality. These people grow to hate their own desires, which can be controlled but not quelled. They grow to be more and more self-hating as they grow older, and they are especially infuriated by other homosexuals who are not similarly fettered.

I believe we should have sympathy and tolerance for those who suffer from homophobia, and try to help them whenever we can.

It is hard to live when one is consumed by hate. It is so much better to allow love to rule you, than hate.

Opposition to Gay Marriage

I have already stated my case here in previous posts.

Retired Geek
"Would you explain what Homosexuals 'Hope' to gain through Homosexual Marriage that they cannot attain through other means (see my previous posts)."

Now, why is "hope" in quotes, hmm?

What I want (I can't speak for anyone else) is equality under the law. In retirement, inheritance, certain transactions involving federal property and so on.

There are 1100 or so of these, as Henry Hyde found out when he asked the GAO.

"I believe that every individual must answer to God individually."

And what does this have to do with anything?

Ranger
Have there been people in this country that have been arrested, fined or both for speech that has been deemed hateful?

Ranger
Do you believe that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin?

Animalgirl:
**Homophobia has a significant genetic and nurture component. It stems from people born with strong homosexual tendencies who are raised in environments that frown on homosexuality. These people grow to hate their own desires, which can be controlled but not quelled. They grow to be more and more self-hating as they grow older, and they are especially infuriated by other homosexuals who are not similarly fettered.**

Oh, my, can't you do better than that old saw?

No, my resistance to same sex coupling is that it is unnatural behavior, practiced indiscriminately, and spreads disease because those orifices weren't meant to be used that way. My distaste also extends to those hetero "hook ups" so common today. There is nothing uplifting about degrading one's body in this manner - look around you - how many happy promiscuous people do you know? It's not fun to be used like toilet paper and then discarded.

Not Trying to Impose
Just the other day I read someone's blog who was calling a mom a "hate monger" because she wanted to keep a book about two princes getting married (they kiss at the end) out of her kid's elem school library. Can't we all agree that some controversial topics should just be avoided in public elem schools? I am pro-life, but I don't expect my child's library to carry pro-life books (even though most people in my area would agree with that view), and I would not expect them to carry pro-choice books either. It just isn't a subject that we can assume all children in Elem. school have been exposed to and we should allow parents to choose when to expose their children to such topics, just as we should keep all sexual orientation books out of children's libraries. Middle school might be a different story, but if you are going to have a book stating that abortion is right, you should have a book stating that abortion is wrong, and if you are going to have a book stating that homosexuality is right, you should have a book stating that homosexuality is wrong. These are issues that we have not come to a consensus on as a country (although our forefathers agreed both were wrong) and not imposing your values goes both ways.


Forcing
your beliefs on me are ya Robert?

Ranger
I agree with you on that one. I also would like to see as many people as possible overcome their sin whatever it may be. This is why I cannot sit quietly on this issue. I would not want my worst enemy to experience hell. Have a great evening and take care.

Oxymoron

The very definition of oxymoron is Gay marriage.
I think you know very well where this is headed, just as I do.

One of our liberties will be trampled and you know it!

sodomites are so weird
They do not even have a word in any language to describe their deviant sexual depravity.
So they steal words such as "gay" ha ha, so very funny when these foul tempered reprobates are anything but gay.

Then the other word they have stolen for us normal sweet and truly gay people who despise the sickness of depraved sexual practice by deviants.

I try to stay gay on this subject and often times find it hard to do, but I will overcome.

homophobic, such a stupid name for being normal, sweet and gay as I am.


MELLOR
Now settle down and take your thumb out of your mouth. If that's all it takes to tick you off, how in the world do you get through this life? The minimalistic tendencies of people to get their poor feelers hurt is amazing.

Retired Geek...
"I agree with your assertion that Obama is a Narcissist. I have a hard time believing Obama could pick a VP that could possibly 'Outshine' him.

What is your opinion?
--------------------------------------------
Now that is something to ponder... Hard to tell.

A Narcissist only holds "respect" for that which he fears. And at this career high-point, Obama has but one fear, John McCain.
Which leads me to think Obama believes he outshines the entire Democrat field. Leaving a big opening in that field.

But a Narcissist will hold a deep grudge against anyone he believes has slighted him. This likely rules out Hillary Clinton. And since Hillary is a woman, this may rule out all women.

Narcissists sometimes 'empathize' with fellow Narcissists. Leading me to think there is still a chance for a Gore/Kerry type choice.

Not to mention, Gore and Kerry are just dumb enough to think they can "Get it Right" this time around.

(As you have taught me, Liberals don't think very well)





Carlos
"On such a small portion of our population?

Homosexuality affects about 1 in 1,000 persons at the very high end. That's about 300,000 Gays in America. About the population of a mid-sized City."
--------
It seems that there is a never ending quest for surveys intending to identify what percentage of the population is gay or bisexual. Prominent researchers have reached vastly different conclusions. Most recently, Hunter College concluded that 2.9% is the magic number. An oversimplification of the Kinsey research suggests that it’s over 10%. The team of Mosher, Chandra and Jones puts the rate somewhere around 8%. Many people seem "satisfied" with a 5% result while the far right seems wed to a 1% conclusion. All of the studies are, to some extent, inherently flawed by issues such as stigma, sample selection and data correlation. Some are intentionally biased.

Ultimately, I would suggest that the percentage of the population that is gay or bisexual is entirely
irrelevant.

You can read the rest of this at:
http://www.tips-q.com/content/does-size-matter

David Hart



Mellor
**The reason Josh is distressed is because the first thing this "vile" "B # T C H" did when she saw badly behaved children was to blame it on the sexuality of the parents.

I'm angry too. Or I would be if I weren't so used to this kind of hatred.**

No, you're displaying hatred. I said I believed the doctor and his partner were making a social statement because that's what THEY said. His partner was a Universal Church minister and they got "married" before it was legal anywhere. THEY said they were bringing children into their relationship because they wanted to prove they could do it. Interestingly, because I'm so "hateful," the doc would come to me for advice on raising the kids. I told him exactly what I said here. The kids needed a MOTHER! They hired a live-in older woman who said she'd be around for a while and they moved from the city to the coast.

They made no bones about it being a political statement - why are your shorts in a bunch?

Retired Geek
You have a lot to answer for.

You say, why do homosexuals want marriage; why can't they settle for almost the same thing.

Go ask a black person, why does he want to sit in the front of the bus. He can sit in the back, and the bus can take him to the same place just as fast.
Do it. Ask a black person that. See what kind of answer you get.

Robert

But where is it in the constitution.

The congress shall pass no laws establishing religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!

Nope, don't see it there, so where is it?

this "man" is pathetic
Does Tallman write on any other topic? He is a disgrace to the Townhall website. Gays are the way God made them. Tallman chooses to condemn them then twist Bible phrases to support his hatred. He is sick and needs to get psychiatric help.

BTW, I am not gay and free to choose refers to Milton Freidman.

freetochoose

May I suggest freely choosing another column?

AlphaOmega
Now you've gone and done it; comparing blacks to gays ;-)

They will claim that black is a race and that being gay is a behavior. Of course, the exact same biblical justifications were used in support of slavery and segregation.

No. There is no evidence of a "gay gene." Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Beyond that, sexual orientation is involuntary - regardless of the cause. There is even some correlation to sexuality and order of birth among siblings. As the APA has concluded, there are a number of factors BUT one can no more change their sexual orientation than their eye color. Most gay people had straight parents.

All that we want is equal protection under the law - nothing more and nothing less. "Special" rights are a construction of the religious right. It's easier to get people to oppose special rights than equal rights.

David Hart
http://www.tips-q.com

Still no wiser
No, gettingolder, my "feelers" aren't hurt. I'm angry.

And we're doing something about it. From 1969 until today our anger has brought us very far indeed--from police-sponsored gay bashing to same-sex marriage.

So long as we're not equal, or the likes of IdahoGal can find it perfectly acceptable to say what she said, or there are bigots like joycey around, our anger will continue to push you back.


I know, I know

I see the whips and chains on you already. I am one Christian who will not be intimidated by your antics.

You said your piece, I will say mine. Whether you like it or not!

The likes of you will not change my position. I have as much right to my stance as you yours. Last I checked I am still an American and a Christian and have as much say in the laws of this land as you have.

For Idaho Gal
You are using one example to stigmatize the entire population of gay parents, and that is unfair and false.
There are hundreds of bad heterosexual parents that I know; you need a licence for fishing, and for driving, but any fool idiot can be a parent. There are parents right here in this thread, who teach their kids from infancy, how to hate black people, or moslems, or white people or gays. They think that they are the pillars of their church. But they are raising THEIR kids with a political reason in mind.

These things are true, but I don't run out to proclaim that hetero parenthood does not work.

Have a sense of proportion. Every homophobe has come out and pitches his voice with the choir, that a child will be abnormal, unless he has one mommy and one daddy. That is nonsense. A kid needs at least one, and preferably several members in his family to love him, feed him, comfort him, and teach him or her how to have respect for himself. What good would a mother do if she is a drunk, or a psychopath?

Dave, more from the vile B
**All that we want is equal protection under the law - nothing more and nothing less. "Special" rights are a construction of the religious right. It's easier to get people to oppose special rights than equal rights.

David Hart**

That is so NOT true. You have the same rights as I have. You want to change the way society behaves. You can have any legal arrangement you want but that's not good enough - but you want to change the defini