Homosexual 'rights'

[John_Carlton]

Begging your pardon, as this post will probably become rather breathy.

Now here is an issue that’s always plagued me. Before I came to the conclusion that God is real and His word can be found in your local Bible, I, like everyone else outside of a philosophical camp entreatied to morality, thought that the homosexuals should be allowed to do all the same things. Then I thought about it. Even from a totally secular point of view, the only thing homosexual relations will accomplish is curb the population and allow for the survival of the fittest (thank you darwin.) That said, in my mind, the utterly obvious procreative deficiency of the homosexual trend would seem to negate it. Now, this obviously is not the case. And I’m starting to ramble, so allow me to digress. I can no longer see any true value in the homosexual community, insofar as society and ethics are concerned, and do not believe that the gay-community should be given any more power than it has, lest they become more than equal to hetereosexuals in the secular community. Though the question, for me, remains: just how is it that things have spiralled so far? Why are there so many gays, and why is this such a heated issue? Now, obviously, ignoring them and waiting for them to go away doesn’t work, and caving to their demands doesn’t work, because when you give in, they just want more. Is there a solution to this debate, because it seems every time I turn on the radio, I hear about it. I actually stopped watching TV because everywhere I looked there was some discontented social majority/minority part lobbying for this, that and the other thing. I suppose my last question would be, what is the difference between the gays and any other aggravated social party? I read about things like this, and find them suspiciously simmilar to the demands made by other radical parties, the black panthers, communists, nazis, ETC… I know this is a dramatic comparison, but if you strip the different paradigms away, the basic tenet is that they’re all freak organisations that want to have their major oddities and dysfunctions covered up while their weaknesses and general deficiencies are lauded.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Begging your pardon, as this post will probably become rather breathy.

Now here is an issue that’s always plagued me. Before I came to the conclusion that God is real and His word can be found in your local Bible, I, like everyone else outside of a philosophical camp entreatied to morality, thought that the homosexuals should be allowed to do all the same things. Then I thought about it. Even from a totally secular point of view, the only thing homosexual relations will accomplish is curb the population and allow for the survival of the fittest (thank you darwin.) That said, in my mind, the utterly obvious procreative deficiency of the homosexual trend would seem to negate it. Now, this obviously is not the case. And I’m starting to ramble, so allow me to digress. I can no longer see any true value in the homosexual community, insofar as society and ethics are concerned, and do not believe that the gay-community should be given any more power than it has, lest they become more than equal to hetereosexuals in the secular community. Though the question, for me, remains: just how is it that things have spiralled so far? Why are there so many gays, and why is this such a heated issue? Now, obviously, ignoring them and waiting for them to go away doesn’t work, and caving to their demands doesn’t work, because when you give in, they just want more. Is there a solution to this debate, because it seems every time I turn on the radio, I hear about it. I actually stopped watching TV because everywhere I looked there was some discontented social majority/minority part lobbying for this, that and the other thing. I suppose my last question would be, what is the difference between the gays and any other aggravated social party? I read about things like this, and find them suspiciously simmilar to the demands made by other radical parties, the black panthers, communists, nazis, ETC… I know this is a dramatic comparison, but if you strip the different paradigms away, the basic tenet is that they’re all freak organisations that want to have their major oddities and dysfunctions covered up while their weaknesses and general deficiencies are lauded.

I completely agree with you, and I think you’re speaking to something that has become a controlling dynamic in modern Ameican society (especially). It speaks to lots of things, in fact: to the celebration of dysfunction over function, of personal disintegration over wholeness, of the fragmentation of society over its unity, of anarchy over common norms. And none of these four states of dis-ease should be causes for celebration. The “celebration,” i.m.o., is merely compensation for deep personal disappointment. (Identifying with a group allows a channel for personal anger.) And the unending attempt to seek “rights” and “recognition” for such dysfunction, because it’s too painful to deal directly with the personal anger, loss, maladjustment, etc., is not a “goal” that can ever be fulfilled, because the roots --and the solution – are individual, not societal.

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;7036308:

Enough with this.

If you’ve had enough of this conversation, you are not required to continue. If you’re saying that you get the last word and that you’re right and everyone who disagrees is wrong, well, you’re entitled to your opinion but I beg to differ.

I said “enough of this” because it doesn’t seem like what the OP was intending this thread to be about. I just made a brief comment, and this going back and forth seems to have re-directed this thread. I tried not to respond, but I’m giving into the temptation.

***“I’m not presuming only two possible choices. ***I’m saying ******that in this hypothetical scenario it happens, for whatever reason, that these are the only two choices because the other options aren’t available.”

So you ARE presuming, in your hypothetical, only two choices…which is what I said.

The other choice in your hypothetical, perhaps, is for the gay couple to temporarily foster (redundant term, perhaps) the child until a suitable permanent home can be found. Perhaps this is the least of the evils?

Saying that in a made up situation there are only two choices is much different from saying any case with similarities to that situation has only two options.

Some children are never adopted into a permanent home. Many children grow up in orphanages.

The scenario I presented was foster home vs adoption. It seems you’re saying that an desperate alternative would be to allow a gay couple to be foster parents/temporary adoptive parents. Considering that there are always children who need to be adopted, taking the child that was temporarily adopted by the gay couple would mean another child would not be adopted.

I’m not sure…is exposing a child to a homosexual couple, presented as a “norm” or just another choice less of an evil than being in an abusive household? Suppose (another hypothetical condition) that the child would be more likely to become homosexual him or herself? I don’t know if this is the case or not, but certainly foster children **may be **susceptable to influences that kids with their “regular” parents may not be.

From what I’ve studied, a being around a homosexual person won’t cause a homosexual orientation to develop, but there may be the danger that the person is desensitized to the immorality of homosexual behavior.

There still needs to be more research done on the overall effects of gay couple’s raising children. On one hand, some preliminary research suggests that it doesn’t cause as many problems as one might think, on the other hand there’s reason to be weary.

Personally, a child being adopted by a gay couple doesn’t sit well with me. If I had a child, then died, I wouldn’t want him/her to be adopted by a gay couple.

However, I still feel that while hypothetical situations can occur in real life, this one is unusually straw-mannish. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that this situation is so unlikely to occur as to not be within the realm of reasonable possibility.

There are children who were in need of adoption, but never were adopted. This may only be a small percentage of children, but yet a small percentage can be large numbers. The following page suggests that there were 2.8 million homeless orphans in the US in 2007 (although that may have included those who were adopted out):

unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html

The following answer roughly confirms this:

wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_orphans_live_in_the_US

 

[BobObob]

Why are there so many gays, and why is this such a heated issue? Now, obviously, ignoring them and waiting for them to go away doesn’t work, and caving to their demands doesn’t work, because when you give in, they just want more.

As to why there are so many gays, CCC 2357 indicates that “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. It has baffled scientists. Members of NARTH think they have insight in this issue (www.narth.com), although NARTH isn’t the most reputable.

As to why it is such a heated issue and why some are militant about their sexual behavior, I have a couple ideas. One idea is that many with a homosexual orientation view others as persecuting (hearing stories of people murdered because they were homosexual). Another is that it’s easier to demand that people accept one’s sexual behavior rather than abstain from sex.

Here’s an excellent video related to this:

youtube.com/watch?v=HFKWH4d4jsw&p=AE5EB49B3BADE049&playnext=1&index=58

 

[Newbie2]

I said “enough of this” because it doesn’t seem like what the OP was intending this thread to be about. I just made a brief comment, and this going back and forth seems to have re-directed this thread. I tried not to respond, but I’m giving into the temptation.

Tempting, ain’t it? I’ve done the same myself.

The scenario I presented was foster home vs adoption. It seems you’re saying that an desperate alternative would be to allow a gay couple to be foster parents/temporary adoptive parents.

Given sexual abuse vs. gay foster parents, perhaps.

Considering that there are always children who need to be adopted, taking the child that was temporarily adopted by the gay couple would mean another child would not be adopted.

You lost me here.

From what I’ve studied, a being around a homosexual person won’t cause a homosexual orientation to develop, but there may be the danger that the person is desensitized to the immorality of homosexual behavior.

Yeah, that makes sense. It’s not like it’s “catchy”, but you make an excellent point that homosexuality becomes part of a new “norm” for that child.

There still needs to be more research done on the overall effects of gay couple’s raising children. On one hand, some preliminary research suggests that it doesn’t cause as many problems as one might think, on the other hand there’s reason to be weary.

I agree, although I would take most social studies with a grain of salt, since there is usually a political agend behind many of them. A well designed, well done retrospective study might be useful.

Personally, a child being adopted by a gay couple doesn’t sit well with me. If I had a child, then died, I wouldn’t want him/her to be adopted by a gay couple.

Dittos.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Some people seem to think that treating homosexuals with respect means embracing and celebrating their mortally sinful behavior—AND exposing innocent children to it.

I fail to understand what is loving or compassionate about that philosophy.

 

[edwest2]

Begging your pardon, as this post will probably become rather breathy.

Now here is an issue that’s always plagued me. Before I came to the conclusion that God is real and His word can be found in your local Bible, I, like everyone else outside of a philosophical camp entreatied to morality, thought that the homosexuals should be allowed to do all the same things. Then I thought about it. Even from a totally secular point of view, the only thing homosexual relations will accomplish is curb the population and allow for the survival of the fittest (thank you darwin.) That said, in my mind, the utterly obvious procreative deficiency of the homosexual trend would seem to negate it. Now, this obviously is not the case. And I’m starting to ramble, so allow me to digress. I can no longer see any true value in the homosexual community, insofar as society and ethics are concerned, and do not believe that the gay-community should be given any more power than it has, lest they become more than equal to hetereosexuals in the secular community. Though the question, for me, remains: just how is it that things have spiralled so far? Why are there so many gays, and why is this such a heated issue? Now, obviously, ignoring them and waiting for them to go away doesn’t work, and caving to their demands doesn’t work, because when you give in, they just want more. Is there a solution to this debate, because it seems every time I turn on the radio, I hear about it. I actually stopped watching TV because everywhere I looked there was some discontented social majority/minority part lobbying for this, that and the other thing. I suppose my last question would be, what is the difference between the gays and any other aggravated social party? I read about things like this, and find them suspiciously simmilar to the demands made by other radical parties, the black panthers, communists, nazis, ETC… I know this is a dramatic comparison, but if you strip the different paradigms away, the basic tenet is that they’re all freak organisations that want to have their major oddities and dysfunctions covered up while their weaknesses and general deficiencies are lauded.

The question is not, Why are there so many gays? The question is, Why are they getting such massive media support?

This did not happen overnight. A little background:

In 1973, by nonscientific vote, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by gay activists. After that, a movement began to legitimize homosexual behavior. In the meantime, movies and television programs turned from functional to dysfunctional. What was scandalous, began to be shown. Then it was made to seem OK, or average. In the 1960s:

Divorce was a scandal.
Cohabitation with sex was a scandal.
Wearing skimpy and provocative clothing was a scandal.

Today, after 40 years of being told to mind your own business, nothing is a scandal.

People get divorced all the time.
Abortion happens all the time.
Britney on a magazine cover without any modesty.

Now, after being told to mind our own business, and being told “Just leave us alone!” Gays want non-gays to give them rights they invented.

If ‘gay rights’ was based on a truth statement, that would be one thing. By demanding what they call marriage and by presenting what they call marriage as being 100% equal to heterosexual marriage, they want to turn gay sex into an institution.

AIDS killed a lot of gay people but it’s not spread through the air or by casual contact. It requires an exchange of bodily fluids. Like heterosexuals who have been wrongly led to believe they can’t control their own bodies when it comes to sex, gays learned, and then stopped learning. HIV/AIDS is still a big problem in the gay community.

The difference between gays and any other minority group with a grievance is that in many cases, there is a real grievance that needs to be addressed that is based on truth. The Same Sex Attraction experienced by some people can be treated. No, they will not lose their same-sex attraction in most cases, but it is not something they’re born with even though they might think they are.

So when looking at any grievance from any group, find the truth in it. If it does not contain truth then it becomes “this is what we want to do.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I completely agree with you, and I think you’re speaking to something that has become a controlling dynamic in modern Ameican society (especially). It speaks to lots of things, in fact: to the celebration of dysfunction over function, of personal disintegration over wholeness, of the fragmentation of society over its unity, of anarchy over common norms. And none of these four states of dis-ease should be causes for celebration. The “celebration,” i.m.o., is merely compensation for deep personal disappointment. (Identifying with a group allows a channel for personal anger.) And the unending attempt to seek “rights” and “recognition” for such dysfunction, because it’s too painful to deal directly with the personal anger, loss, maladjustment, etc., is not a “goal” that can ever be fulfilled, because the roots --and the solution – are individual, not societal.

Beautifully written. First, now that this ‘controlling dynamic’ has been identified, we need to reject it. Do not watch movies or TV shows that celebrate dysfunction. A perfect example of this is the opening theme to Family Guy which denies “those values on which we used to rely.” Like it or not, people who watch and listen can be subtly influenced to “like” an idea that is truly dysfunctional. That’s why ‘gay rights’ has been packaged into a form that straights might find more agreeable.

God bless,
Ed

 

[bingbang]

How far should we go when opposing homosexual marriage, adoption and ‘rights’? I always see groups on facebook and people at work talking about how good it is. I want to speak up more. I think I need to just stop thinking what other people think and start getting the message out there that this type of thing isn’t good for society. I never hear about Catholics speaking out and it makes society think that there isn’t a problem with it. What do you think?

If you speak against gay rights you will be labeled a bigot, ostracized by your co workers, and possibly even be in jeopardy of losing your job. People know that the Catholic church opposes gay marriage and you explaining this to them will result in two things: them lowering their opinion of you and them lowering their opinion of the church. Literally nothing good will come of you speaking up against homosexuality.

 

[edwest2]

If you speak against gay rights you will be labeled a bigot, ostracized by your co workers, and possibly even be in jeopardy of losing your job. People know that the Catholic church opposes gay marriage and you explaining this to them will result in two things: them lowering their opinion of you and them lowering their opinion of the church. Literally nothing good will come of you speaking up against homosexuality.

How do you know what will happen? If you talk to someone about something the two of you have not discussed before, how can you know beforehand, how that person is going to react? He might say: Yeah. I agree with you. The truth is the truth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

Some people seem to think that treating homosexuals with respect means embracing and celebrating their mortally sinful behavior—AND exposing innocent children to it.

I fail to understand what is loving or compassionate about that philosophy.

Treating homosexuals with respect does not mean embracing or celebrating homosexual behavior. It rather means accepting the person themselves, even if they commit sin.

I want to ask you, do you think homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity?” (CCC 2358) If so, what do you think this means?

 

[John_Carlton]

The question is not, Why are there so many gays? The question is, Why are they getting such massive media support?

This did not happen overnight. A little background:

In 1973, by nonscientific vote, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by gay activists. After that, a movement began to legitimize homosexual behavior. In the meantime, movies and television programs turned from functional to dysfunctional. What was scandalous, began to be shown. Then it was made to seem OK, or average. In the 1960s:

Divorce was a scandal.
Cohabitation with sex was a scandal.
Wearing skimpy and provocative clothing was a scandal.

Today, after 40 years of being told to mind your own business, nothing is a scandal.

People get divorced all the time.
Abortion happens all the time.
Britney on a magazine cover without any modesty.

Now, after being told to mind our own business, and being told “Just leave us alone!” Gays want non-gays to give them rights they invented.

If ‘gay rights’ was based on a truth statement, that would be one thing. By demanding what they call marriage and by presenting what they call marriage as being 100% equal to heterosexual marriage, they want to turn gay sex into an institution.

AIDS killed a lot of gay people but it’s not spread through the air or by casual contact. It requires an exchange of bodily fluids. Like heterosexuals who have been wrongly led to believe they can’t control their own bodies when it comes to sex, gays learned, and then stopped learning. HIV/AIDS is still a big problem in the gay community.

The difference between gays and any other minority group with a grievance is that in many cases, there is a real grievance that needs to be addressed that is based on truth. The Same Sex Attraction experienced by some people can be treated. No, they will not lose their same-sex attraction in most cases, but it is not something they’re born with even though they might think they are.

So when looking at any grievance from any group, find the truth in it. If it does not contain truth then it becomes “this is what we want to do.”

God bless,
Ed

Well, thank you. That certainly clears some things up. Now, I know it didn’t happen over night, but I am constantly amazed by the power of complacence, which, and forgive me as I’m forced to get political, but I have noticed that such complacence is a hallmark of the liberal movements in general. This mass exodus from morality is what originally drew me into the politics of religion. Anyway, thanks for the information and background. God bless.

 

[PassingThru]

The question is not, Why are there so many gays? The question is, Why are they getting such massive media support?

This did not happen overnight. A little background:

In 1973, by nonscientific vote, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by gay activists. After that, a movement began to legitimize homosexual behavior. In the meantime, movies and television programs turned from functional to dysfunctional. What was scandalous, began to be shown. Then it was made to seem OK, or average. In the 1960s:

Divorce was a scandal.
Cohabitation with sex was a scandal.
Wearing skimpy and provocative clothing was a scandal.

Today, after 40 years of being told to mind your own business, nothing is a scandal.

People get divorced all the time.
Abortion happens all the time.
Britney on a magazine cover without any modesty.

Now, after being told to mind our own business, and being told “Just leave us alone!” Gays want non-gays to give them rights they invented.

If ‘gay rights’ was based on a truth statement, that would be one thing. By demanding what they call marriage and by presenting what they call marriage as being 100% equal to heterosexual marriage, they want to turn gay sex into an institution.

AIDS killed a lot of gay people but it’s not spread through the air or by casual contact. It requires an exchange of bodily fluids. Like heterosexuals who have been wrongly led to believe they can’t control their own bodies when it comes to sex, gays learned, and then stopped learning. HIV/AIDS is still a big problem in the gay community.

The difference between gays and any other minority group with a grievance is that in many cases, there is a real grievance that needs to be addressed that is based on truth. The Same Sex Attraction experienced by some people can be treated. No, they will not lose their same-sex attraction in most cases, but it is not something they’re born with even though they might think they are.

So when looking at any grievance from any group, find the truth in it. If it does not contain truth then it becomes “this is what we want to do.”

God bless,
Ed

And thank you for posting a perfect example of why you are destined to lose the argument with ideas like this.

Implying they deserved AIDS, and telling them they chose their sexual orientation. Gee, I really am at a loss to figure out why they aren’t lining for Mass every Sunday!

/sarcasm

 

[edwest2]

And thank you for posting a perfect example of why you are destined to lose the argument with ideas like this.

Implying they deserved AIDS, and telling them they chose their sexual orientation. Gee, I really am at a loss to figure out why they aren’t lining for Mass every Sunday!

/sarcasm

Wow. No thanks for twisting my words around by implying something I never wrote.

I never used the word deserved. At one time the gay community was getting the message out about HIV/AIDS then a few drugs appeared and gay people began engaging in risky behavior again. If LGBT groups can get gay marriage going around the world, why can’t they get the message out about anonymous multiple sex partners?

Do you think I make this stuff up? I read the gay press.

As far as choosing their orientation, what I was including was the idea that some gay men believe they were born that way. I’ve heard it said on TV. But again, regarding the orientation, I’m not making that up either:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed