The Current Political Climate & The Gay Identity

[MindOverMatter2]

Support for homosexuality is an inevitable result of the split between Church and state, and also the removal of the idea that sexual education is the responsibility of the parents and not the state. This split necessarily includes how the state responds to religious beliefs. If any religious law is included in state law, it is only because it supports the pragmatic survival of the state and not because the state recognises the absolute authority of Catholic morality or any religion for that matter. In fact, so long as this split exists, the state has no power to recognise Catholic morality unless it evidently provides a practical solution on a purely pragmatic basis - having nothing to do with religion. Any appearance that would suggest that the state law is in principle grounded in Catholic or Christian morality, or even just natural law, is an illusion; nothing more than the substance of social engineering. They may have made you think (through clever deceptions in-order to gain your support), that your Christian beliefs matter by given the appearance of support, but they never really did. The political implication of the split is as such that your inclusion in the voting process never truly included the power to define what’s legally right and wrong according to your religion.

Its true that the realisation of what the split between church and state actually means has only come to full fruitation in recent decades; but the seeds were always there ready and able to grow. What is sad, is not simply that Catholics have no power to implement their beliefs in circular society through the process of legality, but it is the fact that Christians think in the first place that this war can be won on legal grounds at all. Its kind of reminiscent of Christians who try to convince people of Gods existence by flaunting intelligent design as a science which should be taught in science classrooms, rather than presenting it in its proper context as a philosophy. Christians in this case are suffering from the same delusion in that they fail to see the context in which a particular kind of knowledge or ruling operates. Christians are once again using the wrong tools for the job, and there continuous attempts to deter the teaching of homosexuality to children though the legal process only shows their ignorance of what is actually happening. Wasting ones time with the wrong tool is only feeding the cancer.

In fact we may find our selves feeding two cancers, because the reality is, however false the depiction may be, propaganda has succeeded in making Catholics appear as prejudiced bigots hiding behind an outdated religion. And it really does look that way when taking in to account that religious belief can and has been used as a tool for justifying hatred against a group or minority, and it only fuels paranoia when Catholics front a legal battle in support of their beliefs about the nature of sex; especially when the term “gay” has already been accepted as a legal sexual identity. We should not feel comfortable with the fact that our belief in “one true sexuality” is being compared with the beliefs of bigots, racists, and far right Nazis. We do not want “one true sexuality” to have the immoral implications that surrounds the idea of “one true pure race”. We do not want to be viewed as oppressors, since that will only defeat the object of what we are trying to do, and that is to preserve the “good” of what God has given us; that which we all have in our nature.

I do not want to be standing in the same line as the oppressor and the Nazi, so making sure your reputation and appearance is clean is very important. We must recognise that change by legal force can sometimes be the cause of a greater evil, even if its based on good moral intentions. This is all the more reason to be cautious about how we attack legal justifications of homosexuality in society. There is no point ignoring this. We have to tread very carefully and intelligently, rather than loudly without any coherence. Homophobia (irrational hatred or dislike of those who are either known to have or suspected of having same sex attraction or is openly involved in a gay relationship) needs to be stamped on and rejected by Catholics.

To be continued…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Bold emphasis added to the quoted sections are my own.

What is sad, is not simply that Catholics have no power to implement their beliefs in circular society through the process of legality, but it is the fact that Christians think in the first place that this **war **can be won on legal grounds at all.

There’s a war?

And it really does look that way when taking in to account that religious belief can and has been used as a tool for justifying hatred against a group or minority, and it only fuels paranoia when Catholics front a legal battle in support of their beliefs about the nature of sex; especially when the term “gay” has already been accepted as a legal sexual identity.

Would the use of some other term for homosexuality make things better in some way?

This is all the more reason to be cautious about how we attack legal justifications of homosexuality in society.

Why attack them at all? From where I stand attacking it just appears to be from some unnecessary concern for what consenting adults are doing in their own privacy.

 

[havana1]

Would the use of some other term for homosexuality make things better in some way?

The word is, in fact, “homosexuality.” Not SSA. I think calling it “SSA” has led to considerable confusion, particularly when it’s not even in the Catechism. What the Catechism calls it in Paragraph # 2357 is: “predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,” or PSATPOTSS. That’s PSATOPOTSS. You can’t re-arrange words like a crossword puzzle to form a new words and phrases. Paragraph #2358 refers to “homosexual tendencies,” so the correct phraseology according to the Catechism is “homosexual tendencies,” not SSA.

I have yet to see SSA, as it’s described by the “ex-gay” folks, anywhere in the Catechism. It just ain’t there. The term PSATPOTSS is there, and the term “homosexual tendencies” is there, but not SSA.

There would be less confusion if more people stuck to the word of the Magisterium and stopped “inventing” new words and phrases (e.g., SSA) to make a point that’s already made in the Catechism.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That was probably a Freudian (unconscious) slip about “circular” society, but I find it cute even if not deliberate. The phrase is certainly Food for Thought that we could start a discussion about…

 

[The_Reginator]

Why attack them at all? From where I stand attacking it just appears to be from some unnecessary concern for what consenting adults are doing in their own privacy.

You must be standing outside of God’s Church and, I imagine, outside of His Grace as well.

If consenting adults are putting their immortal souls in danger it is our duty to be very concerned. Not to be concerned is not to love. In addition the agenda that is being ‘stuffed down our throats’, and being fed to our young, puts us all in danger of spending eternity without God (should we start to believe it).

Eternity. That’s a lot longer than our few years here on earth.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The word is, in fact, “homosexuality.” Not SSA. I think calling it “SSA” has led to considerable confusion, particularly when it’s not even in the Catechism. What the Catechism calls it in Paragraph # 2357 is: “predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,” or PSATPOTSS. That’s PSATOPOTSS. You can’t re-arrange words like a crossword puzzle to form a new words and phrases. Paragraph #2358 refers to “homosexual tendencies,” so the correct phraseology according to the Catechism is “homosexual tendencies,” not SSA.

I have yet to see SSA, as it’s described by the “ex-gay” folks, anywhere in the Catechism. It just ain’t there. The term PSATPOTSS is there, and the term “homosexual tendencies” is there, but not SSA.

There would be less confusion if more people stuck to the word of the Magisterium and stopped “inventing” new words and phrases (e.g., SSA) to make a point that’s already made in the Catechism.

Its irrelevant that the catechism prefers using the words “homosexual tendencies”. In the context of action, choice, or lifestyle, it is perhaps relevant to use those words. But In the context of “identity”, it is not appropriate or correct. The word SSA is used by Catholic and Christian groups such as “Courage” to differentiate between those who have same sex attraction disorder, and those who identify their attraction as their natural “sexuality”, or “sexual identity”, using the term “homosexuality” in-order to objectify it; in the attempt to put it on the same substantial grounding as heterosexuality. The concept of homosexuality is based on the idea that there can be more than one type of sexuality in human beings, simply because they believe that sexual identity begins with attraction. The catholic, on the other hand, has the understanding that this definition of sexuality is unjustified and purely ideological; and in response to such a claim they present the fact that sexual identity begins with, and can only be meaningfully defined by, ones “gender identity”; as such that a healthy sexuality or sexual attraction by definition is one that conforms to your “gender identity”. To be a man or a women is to be a heterosexual. There is no such thing as a “Homosexual” person. But there is such a thing as a heterosexual who happens to have “same sex attractions” or SSA for short.

 

[St_Francis]

Mind over Matter: check out Mass Resistance (I think the Mass refers to Massachusetts). They have reprinted an article written in 87 about how to “overcome” resistance to active homosexuality. They also have a page which discusses a section of the book After the Ball, in which the ideas of the first article are expanded upon.

Thinking Sapiens: the issue of what people do (name removed by moderator)rivacy is one problem; they are committing mortal sin and risking an eternity in Hell for some momentary pleasure in this world, and it is indeed our duty to warn them.

In terms of the rest of what activist homosexuals want, acceptance by society of their problem as normal, read the stuff I recommended to Mind over Matter: if they have to mount a propaganda campaign so that others will think that their difficulties should be accepted as normal, as American as apple pie. Do you still feel comfortable, knowing that your attitudes and the attitudes of others have been deliberately and subversively shaped for their own selfish reasons? Personally, that would make me think twice about the conclusions I had come to.

We do not want to go out and beat homosexuals up. We want to encoirage them to chastity, and we wantto limit the damage they do to society, a society in which we also live. It may be too late, the damage heterosexuals ha e done to marriage and the family by birth control, no-fault divorce, and the like may already be too great, but otoh, it may be that this will be a wake-up call to people to realize the damage they have done and possibly turn away from these ideas which are so destructive to our society.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If consenting adults are putting their immortal souls in danger it is our duty to be very concerned. Not to be concerned is not to love.

Starting at square one, why/how does homosexuality endanger one’s soul?

In addition the agenda that is being ‘stuffed down our throats’, and being fed to our young, puts us all in danger of spending eternity without God (should we start to believe it).

What’s on this “agenda”? More specifically what parts of this agenda endanger’s ones of spending eternity without Yehweh? And how is it being “stuffed down our throats”? I’m assuming that is a reference to the “war” that MindOverMatter2 mentioned.

 

[St_Francis]

Check out bluepints for the homosexual (activist) agenda–the ones I mentioned above. Sorry I didn’t post the links there.

First, from 1987

From the book After the Ball:

I hate to say this, but those who seem to support the acceptance of homosexual activity ad normal really need to stop trying to fool people into believing that the homosexual agenda doesn’t exist. Really, we think too, and we are not as stupid as you apparently think we are.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Darn, just realized I made a type in “Yahweh” in my previous post. But moving on…

Check out bluepints for the homosexual (activist) agenda–the ones I mentioned above. Sorry I didn’t post the links there.

First, from 1987

From the book After the Ball:

Thanks, now that’s something more tangible from which to speak. I’m still going through the two documents now. But from what I’ve seen this appears to be the section that describes the end goal:
STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT:

. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.

Why is it problematic for a group of people to work towards legal and social rights?

 

[mrld20]

I think we need to distinguish between the “homosexual” and the “active homosexual.”

The Church says a homosexual orientation in itself is not sinful… It teaches that any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful… This includes same gender sexual activities.

As a Catholic with a deep seated homosexual orientation I adheare to the following philosophy. It’s okay to have a gay/homosexual/same-sex orientation (whichever term you prefer to use) but any kind of sexual activity is wrong.

On the ex-gay side of things I tried therapy and it didn’t do much for me other than making me depressed (it could work for others).

So for me it’s fine to be gay; but I have to stay away from sexual activity, the gay lifestyle, and other kinds of temptations. Some people here may object to me using the term “gay.”

For me “gay” just means the orientation or same-sex attractions. I’m celibate and plan on remaining that way. I stay away from the whole “gay lifestyle.”

I also believe that marriage belongs between a man and a woman.

I think that Catholics have to be very careful on this issue. I think a lot more Catholics need to be more compassionate and loving on the issue. It doesn’t mean abandoning our traditional values. But we can do a lot better on issues such as bullying, certain kinds of discrimination, and hate crimes. Something we have a very poor track record on.

Is there a gay agenda? Yeah there is… But most of the time we’re so busy screaming religious discrimination we fail to see how we’ve hurt people. We don’t hurt people when we defend marriage or family. No, we hurt people when we decide to use the same hate filled tactics the gays respond with.

Wonder why the gay agenda is so aggressive? Because we made it that way. Should we accept same-gender sex or relationships? Absolutely not… But when homosexuality began to come into the spotlight in the 1940’s-1970’s we (not just Catholics, but protestants, and Orthodox groups as well) responded with hate. We refused to condemn the gay bashings, we turned a blind eye towards the early part of the AIDS crisis, and we supported discrimination in areas where discrimination is never warranted (housing, education, employment, healthcare, equal protection under the law etc)…

There is a nasty gay agenda. But gay people like me are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of anti-Catholicism. Yeah the Church is unjustly potrayed… But that doesn’t give us a right to be nasty back… We respond to hate with Christ’s love…

 

[St_Francis]

…Why is it problematic for a group of people to work towards legal and social rights?

Well, I started answering your question and wrote so much I thought that no one would wade through it! So I will skip all the stuff I wrote and go directly to what I think is the worst problem.

And that is the entry of what I can only call active homosexual indoctrination into our schools starting at a very young age.

The active homosexual lifestyle is portrayed as a choice of no more importance than choosing a flavor of ice cream. The downside is not presented except for STD’s for which the (not terribly effective) solution of condom is advised.

And this is even adrressed in the article: that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course–we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies (and some of the heterosexual stereotypes may be lies in that they do not apply to all those with homosexual tendencies, but which are much less dangerous than are those lies which the activist homosexuals admit to telling).

However, there are 3 problems I will outline here:

1. that there is so much potential for physical damage that is completely ignored. I won’t go into detail on that.
2. that at this time of a young person’s life, they are not even permitted to sign a contract without their parents’ permission, and the young people are not fully formed. Their sexual direction may not yet be set, but this sort of activity can lead them away from being able to manage what would otherwise have been a more fulfilling direction.
3. One of the main problems with abandoning the ways down which God leads us is that we then have no basis for any boundaries to our behavior except what we find personally repugnant. Like a person who needs increasing amounts of a drug to satisfy his craving, the active homosexual often desires increasing titillation to fill his. I am not saying every active homosexual will engage in every possible perversion, but many will go far afield in search of satisfaction: they will seek out younger partners, they will enhance with drugs or dangerous practises, they will use strange means of stimulation.

A person who starts down this path at a younger age is more likely to experiment at some point in the future.

I see a lot of other problems, but decided just to stop with this.

 

[The_Reginator]

Starting at square one, why/how does homosexuality endanger one’s soul?

ThinkingSapien, sorry I wasn’t able to get back to you sooner. I see that St Francis has answered at least one of your questions.
From square one – here’s how homosexuality can endanger one’s immortal soul:
(Thanks to Catholic Doors.)

Q. 1. If one has a homosexual desire, is that a mortal sin?

A. 1. If of all, we have to consider if one can sin by desire. What would Jesus say on this matter? In the Gospel of Matthew, we read: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already commited adultery with her in his heart.’ [Mt. 5:27-28]

Equally, it can be said, anyone who craves for a person of the same gender, who longs for such a person, who desires such a person, has already committed the sin of homosexuality in his heart.

It is not a sin to have a sinful thought, providing one is not intentionally attracting or entertaining such a thought.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must exist at the same time.

1. It must be of a grave matter;
2. It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin;
3. It must be committed with full consent. [Full consent means to do it "voluntarily."] (C.C.C. # 1857)

To be denied entry into the Kingdom of God, the sinner must:

1. Commit one or more sins of a grave matter;
2. Have full knowledge that the sin(s) is a mortal sin;
3. Voluntarily consent to commit the sin;
4. Reject the grace of God;
5. Reject the mercy of God by refusing to confess his sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a mortal sin as follows:

"Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the Sacrament of Confession." (C.C.C. # 1856)

"Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the private of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance of God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." (C.C.C. # 1861)

"**To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin**. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. **Unrepented, it brings eternal death**." (C.C.C. # 1874)

I would sum it up this way: Giving in to any immoral sexual acts, or even thoughts, prevents us from the possibility of entering heaven. We of course can go to confession if we have any mortal sins on our conscience. As is quoted above, for a sin to be a mortal sin there are three conditions.
1. Commit one or more sins of a grave matter;
2. Have full knowledge that the sin(s) is a mortal sin;
3. Voluntarily consent to commit the sin.

What’s on this “agenda”? More specifically what parts of this agenda endanger’s ones of spending eternity without Yehweh? And how is it being “stuffed down our throats”? I’m assuming that is a reference to the “war” that MindOverMatter2 mentioned.

Thanks to St. Francis for posts # 9 & 12.
That’s about what I would have said, but not so eloquently.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The active homosexual lifestyle is portrayed as a choice of no more importance than choosing a flavor of ice cream.

When I read this it immediately made me think of claims that there is a biological factor in one sexuality. It reminds me of that because there’s also a biological explanation behind the preferences that my older sister and I have with respect to ice cream. She won’t eat certain flavours because they taste like other foods that cause her to vomit. I don’t eat ice cream at all any more. Some time during the past five years the gradually decreasing expression of my LCT gene has reached the level at which I can consume ice cream or milk without experiencing intestinal pains and other disgusting symptoms. Though to people observing our behaviour because of these preferences I’m sure the behaviour looks completely arbitrary.

The downside is not presented except for STD’s for which the (not terribly effective) solution of condom is advised.

This only seems applicable to male homosexuality. From what I understand female homosexuals have a lower STD contraction rate than male homosexuals or heterosexuals.

And this is even adrressed in the article: *that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. *
That sounds descriptive of how things are done in the marketing world in general. What is it that sets this apart from other marketing in which a product is associated with gorgeous people and the plethora of other desirables that are not actually include with the product.

1. that there is so much potential for physical damage that is completely ignored. I won’t go into detail on that.

I’m assuming here you are talking about an injury that two males engaging in sexual activity could encounter.

1. that at this time of a young person’s life, they are not even permitted to sign a contract without their parents’ permission, and the young people are not fully formed. Their sexual direction may not yet be set, but this sort of activity can lead them away from being able to manage what would otherwise have been a more fulfilling direction.

Okay, so to me this means one would like to be able to better ensure their child develops into a heterosexual. I can understand that.

1. One of the main problems with abandoning the ways down which God leads us is that we then have no basis for any boundaries to our behavior except what we find personally repugnant.

I think this sufficiently explains why you find the issue problematic.

In trying to extend it to being more objective the first obstacle encountered is that we don’t live in a religiously homogeneous society. Given your declared religion and your user name I’ve got an idea of what you mean by “God”; it could be used interchangeably with “Yahweh” here. Even if this statement is completely true it may still carry little weight or meaning among those who are not of the same religion of following a similar interpretation (including myself). So I can understand this concern, but I don’t share this concern.

I did ask a couple of other people about this. One person was a Christian lawyer that is against the idea of “gay rights.” The other person was a bisexual man (I couldn’t immediately reach any gay males, but he may be a close enough approximation).

The main concerns that the lawyer expressed were centered around tradition and the inconvenience of having to find new wording for certain standard contracts. But something that both she and the bisexual man highlighted was that that there are significantly more difficulties in gay pairs engaging in certain agreements and the entitlements that come with them. For example, a Marriage contract declares more than just individuals wanting to spend the rest of their life with each other. For many people the married status entitles them to also cover their spouse under their health and insurance benefits. It’s also a consideration in what happens to properties if one dies without a will, or who can make medical decisions when one becomes incapable of doing so. So from what I see there are two topics of interest here: (1) whether or not homosexual behaviour should be discouraged/prevented and (2) whether or not homosexuals should be able to engage in certain contracts and agreements that are only available to heterosexual couples (in most states).

I used to work as a Software Engineer for a company that was in the travel industry. The companies with which I interacted had a lot of people that had no hesitation of making their sexual orientations known. But there was one individual in particular that stands out in my mind. He was gay and he had a wife that didn’t know he was gay. He even had children by her. As it turns out the wife was part of his cover story for keeping his sexual orientation hidden in some of the communities in which he interacted. Some might argue that if public attitudes towards non-heterosexuals were different then he might not have been as motivated to hide behind this heterosexual veil. Though don’t get me wrong, I think this guys behaviour is totally deplorable.

Like a person who needs increasing amounts of a drug to satisfy his craving, the active homosexual often desires increasing titillation to fill his.

That sounds like some addictive personality disorder and something not unique to homosexuals. Unfortunately I don’t have my DSM in reach to verify.

 

[mrld20]

The Church itself admits it doesn’t know the causes of a homosexual orientation…

 

[St_Francis]

When I read this it immediately made me think of claims that there is a biological factor in one sexuality. It reminds me of that because there’s also a biological explanation behind the preferences… I don’t eat ice cream… [due to lactose intolerance]. …I’m sure the behaviour looks completely arbitrary.

I don’t think that picking up my analogy and putting it in a totally different category carries over to what I was analogizing. The schools are trivializing all sexual decisions, including this one, and the fact that you have trouble eating ice cream does not change that.*

This only seems applicable to male homosexuality. From what I understand female homosexuals have a lower STD contraction rate than male homosexuals or heterosexuals

True.

But it does in fact still apply to male homosexual behavior, and is still not mentioned.

That sounds descriptive of how things are done in the marketing world in general. What is it that sets this apart from other marketing in which a product is associated with gorgeous people and the plethora of other desirables that are not actually include with the product.?]

Wow… where should I start?

1. The difference is that when people are advertising, we know about it. Even when people make the ad look like a story or something, the word advertisement is on the ad to delineate it.
2. Advertising is not included in school curriculums.
3. Fraudulent advertising is against the law. If someone sells me a house and doesn’t tell me what is wrong with it, I can sue. Same with cars.

I’m assuming here you are talking about an injury that two males engaging in sexual activity could encounter.

Yes. And those injuries can be severe and require extensive surgery, or cause a lifetime of diffficulty. And are not mentioned in the paeans to homosexual behavior or active homosexuals.

Okay, so to me this means one would like to be able to better ensure their child develops into a heterosexual. I can understand that.

I would say that the majority of parents want their children to grow up heterosexual. Do their wishes count for nothing? Is it really ok for homosexuals to do their advertising on the taxpayers’ dime, against the wishes of the parents?

I think this sufficiently explains why you find the issue problematic.

Nothing else I’ve said sufficiently explains why I find active and activist homosexual activity problematic?

In trying to extend it to being more objective the first obstacle encountered is that we don’t live in a religiously homogeneous society.

Reality is not democratic. The fact in and of itself that others do not believe is no more evidence than the fact that I myself believe for the rxistence of God.

Moreover, only the truth can be considered to be objective. It is not more objective to eliminate God from the equation if He does in fact exist.*

In fact, by departing from God’s law or natural law, ie, outside standards, you are getting away from objectivity as I expand on below.

Given your declared religion and your user name I’ve got an idea of what you mean by “God”; it could be used interchangeably with “Yahweh” here. Even if this statement is completely true it may still carry little weight or meaning among those who are not of the same religion of following a similar interpretation (including myself). So I can understand this concern, but I don’t share this concern.

I don’t understand the relevance of the names unless perhaps you are Jewish.

The concern I brought up, though, is the question of boundaries to our behavior. When we follow God’s laws or natural law, we have boundaries to our behavior. When we do not follow a set of principles, just making up things as we go along, then we do not have boundaries to our behavior.

For example, children are taught not to steal. What is the boundary there? The difference between what belongs to them and what does not belong to them.*

When we look at sexual activity, we see that some people follow God’s law, no sex outside of (heterosexual) marriage. We see that others follow natural law: that sex is ordered to procreation. marriage occurs between people of the opposite sex, but may not be limited to a couple as ours is.

When people fall away from one or the other, there is no longer any, as you put it, objectivity. Everything rests entirely in the minds of whomever chooses to get involved. In the 70’s, it was open marriage, today it is homosexual marriage. But there is no objectivity because there is no outside rule or logic.*

continued below…

 

[St_Francis]

…continued from above

I did ask a couple of other people about this. One person was a Christian lawyer that is against the idea of “gay rights.” The other person was a bisexual man (I couldn’t immediately reach any gay males, but he may be a close enough approximation).

The main concerns that the lawyer expressed were centered around tradition and the inconvenience of having to find new wording for certain standard contracts. But something that both she and the bisexual man highlighted was that that there are significantly more difficulties in gay pairs engaging in certain agreements and the entitlements that come with them. For example, a Marriage contract declares more than just individuals wanting to spend the rest of their life with each other. For many people the married status entitles them to also cover their spouse under their health and insurance benefits. It’s also a consideration in what happens to properties if one dies without a will, or who can make medical decisions when one becomes incapable of doing so. So from what I see there are two topics of interest here: (1) whether or not homosexual behaviour should be discouraged/prevented *and (2) whether or not homosexuals should be able to engage in certain contracts and agreements that are only available to heterosexual couples (in most states).

The reason these differences exist for married couples is that they were developed when people who married were starting a family and thus contributing to the future of the society. No children, no future.*

Society was structures to protect families, because families are the true unit of society. Here in the US, we all too often think of socciety as being made up of individuals, but that is not what makes up a true society. A bunch of men on a desert island are not a true society–they behave as if they were only because they came from a true society. Look at a group of people in which marriage is not highly regarded, in which men have their pleasure and abandon the mothers of their children, and you have what was once the murder capital of the world: Washington DC.*

So, the types of legal agreements and benefits which accrue automatically to married people do so because the two people involved are contributing to the future of the society. They do not get these benefits because they are in love, they get these because they are taking risks and making investments which will benefit society.

The acceptance of artificial birth control disrupted that system and threw the emphhasis of marriage on the idea of love. But why should two people who are not doing anything for society, who probably both work, get these benefits just because they are or were in love and they live together and have sex together? If they have the piece of paper, they get the goodies. But they are not fulfilling their end of the bargain: they get the perks but not the obligations of the institution of marriage.

So, no, I do not think that we should further degrade an institution which I admit that heterosexuals have messed up by allowing people who cannot by their nature procreate. I think we should instead use this issue to discuss what has already gone wrong and led us to this place.

And as it turns out many of the contractual arrangements you mention can indeed be made without marriage.

… He was gay and he had a wife that didn’t know he was gay. He even had children by her. As it turns out the wife was part of his cover story for keeping his sexual orientation hidden in some of the communities in which he interacted. Some might argue that if public attitudes towards non-heterosexuals were different then he might not have been as motivated to hide behind this heterosexual veil. Though don’t get me wrong, I think this guys behaviour is totally deplorable.

why do you think his behavior was deplorable? He had a cross to bear, he bore it as well as he could. He doesn’t seem to have been particularly happy about the idea of being"gay," but instead chose to live a normal life, with a wife and family despite the fact that his attractions were in a different direction.

Every person who marries excludes the possibility of a romantic or sexual relationship with others. He chose to marry a woman over following his attraction. It is not wrong to do that, any more than it is wrong for a kleptomaniac to keep his hands in his pockets to prevent himself from stealing.

That sounds like some addictive personality disorder and something not unique to homosexuals. Unfortunately I don’t have my DSM in reach to verify.

No… it’s not limited to addictive personality types. You can see it all around you, you can feel the tendency in yourself. It’s a part of human nature *to always want more.

And it generally shows itself the most in those areas with which we have difficulties. A gambler may show it in gambling, but then again, a professional gambler, someone who picked it up just because he was good at it and didn’t feel like getting a regular job, might have it come up in some other area, like playing a musical instrument. What? Yes, the same drive for more can drive us to improve our experience in good areas as well as bad areas. A gourmet gets pleasure out of making a meal perfectly, but if he made the same meal perfectly every day, the pleasure would pall. So he learns to make other things. He may even go on to invent new things. It’s all a part of human nature which can be used for good or evil.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would say that the majority of parents want their children to grow up heterosexual. Do their wishes count for nothing?

I think they count for a lot. If it sounded like I was discounting the significance of the parent’s opinion it was not my intent.

Nothing else I’ve said sufficiently explains why I find active and activist homosexual activity problematic?

On the contrary. I meant to acknowledge that you had answered my question on why you find it problematic. Further and discussion and questions from me on this matter are thus not because I feel you have insufficiently explained your position in any way even though you had to leave out some of your thoughts to keep your response short enough to be mentally digested.

Reality is not democratic. The fact in and of itself that others do not believe is no more evidence than the fact that I myself believe for the rxistence of God.

I’ve got no argument over whether or not reality is democratic. Though our understanding of reality is imperfect and our (as in human’s collectively) perspectives of reality vary.

I don’t understand the relevance of the names unless perhaps you are Jewish.

Nope, not Jewish. I tend to use the name when ever I wish to qualify that the Judea-Christian concept of God is being used, or in this case to mention it’s not the same concept used by all that ascribe the name “God” to some concept or entity. Even among those that equate Yahweh to their personal God I’ve encountered variances in how they believe that their God “feels” on homosexuality.

But there is no objectivity because there is no outside rule or logic.*

I think I may have introduced an ambiguity in using the word “objective.” I was seeking a term to express “less dependent on one’s personal view or disposition.”

The acceptance of artificial birth control disrupted that system and threw the emphhasis of marriage on the idea of love.

Technology tends to be disruptive to tradition in general. Marriage isn’t alone in being redefined because of the impact of a technology or invention. But that’s a topic in and of itself.

But why should two people who are not doing anything for society, who probably both work, get these benefits just because they are or were in love and they live together and have sex together?

I would not exclude some one that has no plans to reproduce from being considered as one that makes contributions to society. Nor would I automatically include some one that reproduces frequently as being some that that is making big contributions to society. More would have to be known about the individuals to make this judgement.

And as it turns out many of the contractual arrangements you mention can indeed be made without marriage.

Many, but not all. And necessitating the individual acquisition of these agreements is far from the equality being sought. It also has some similarities with some USA laws that existed up to the 1960s in which people that were not considered to be of the same race could not be legally recognized as married and claims to properties were revoke when one of the members of the couples passed away.

why do you think his behavior was deplorable?

I forgot to mention one very important piece of information. He was married but he was still having sex with guys. I’ll try to still spell out why it bothered me though including spelling out some assumptions.

The most significant factor that causes me to find his behaviour deplorable is based the deception to some one that is seemingly emotionally vulnerable to his actions. According to him his wife had no idea that he was actually gay. I assume that his perception on his wife’s knowledge on this matter is in agreement with her actual knowledge. I involuntarily project myself into her situation and the emotion that first arises is a feeling of betrayal. I’m making the assumption that when they got married there was an an understood agreement on sexual exclusivity. Engaging with sexual activity with others (whether those others be male or female) would constitute a violation of that agreement. Some one at the same company had a female that he presented as his girlfriend. She knew his disposition but for reasons unknown to me she participated in his facade. Unknown to the public was that his person had a boyfriend. His situation doesn’t bother me.

For both situations I think the motivation was to avoid the social punishments that come with being in the sexuality out-group. I think that without these social punishments the motivation for the facade goes away.

 

[St_Francis]

Oh, no wonder you found his actions deplorable!

I agree that we’ve each probably said most of what we need to say, and it was nice to have a good peaceful conversation about what is so often a contentious subject.

I must also apologize for my strong comments when I originally posted the info about the homosexual comments. You were saying something I have seen frequently lately, and I over-reacted. I appreciate your graciously totally ignoring that

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I must also apologize for my strong comments when I originally posted the info about the homosexual comments. You were saying something I have seen frequently lately, and I over-reacted. I appreciate your graciously totally ignoring that

I can’t say that I had noticed anything that stood out as over-reacting, so no worries there. Perhaps if I looked again I could find it, but I won’t bother. It is a sensitive topic so there are bound to be feelings in all directions on it. I’ve enjoyed the exchange too.