The issue of gay intolerance

[Don_Schneider]

Daer Mardukm:

In the novel The Godfather, in explaining his reasons to a top level narcotics trafficker why he won’t assist him in going into the drug business, Vito Corleone notes that the trade is not like gambling or women (prostitution) which the political and police officials on his payroll view as harmless vices. Drugs are a dirty business.

When the gangster starts to argue, Corleone cuts him off with, “No, don’t protest. I’m telling you their thoughts, not mine.”

It is up to each individual as to what authority, if any, he or she will acknowledge in affairs of the conscience. Problems occur when the authority we wish to acknowledge will not tell us what we want to hear. If we attempt to dispute that authority, to argue with it to come around to our desired point of view, then one defeats the very purpose of wishing to acknowledge a moral authority external to one’s own conscience. One might as well act in accordance with one’s own conscience and, if one believes in a God/Creator, then rest assured that such will please God. If it should not please God, then how is convincing some authority external to one’s self to agree with one’s self going to change that?

If one is at sea and one’s compass indicates one is traveling north, while one wishes to travel south, does one break open the compass and point the needle in the desired direction or does one reverse course? On the other hand, if one doesn’t trust the reliability of one’s compass, then of what use is consulting it?

 

[CarlaOLS]

Mardukm wrote:

Like I said, I feel sympathy - that is not to say I am 100% convinced. For I have also had male heterosexual friends who have confided in me that when they were young, or very young, they do recall feeling a certain attraction to the same sex. They also told me it disappeared around the time of puberty. My theory is that EVERY child feels a certain attraction to the same sex at some point in his/her life. This is that stage when our psyche’s are involved in accepting “heroes” and “role models” in our lives. I do believe that without proper guidance, this natural psychological “hero worship” can be twisted into sexual attraction. This might be the case especially if a boy or girl does not have the proper male/female role models in their lives.

You are on the right track Mar - ALL OF US HAVE SAME-SEX NEEDS.
The problems with those who develop SSA (same-sex attraction) is that those needs became somewhat sexualized. BUT SEX AND EVEN THE SSA are usually not the biggest problem for these folks. INFACT the SSA is only a symtptom of unmet emotional needs and their psyches trying to subconsciously fulfil those unmet needs.
It doesn’t feel this way to them of course, which is why they misjudge their SSA so often. Almost all ex-gays will tell you that they too felt as if they were born that way.

Homosexuality is a symptom of deep, non-sexual problems from early life when complex interactions of social and psychological factors leave normal emotional needs unmet. Same sex attraction then occurs as the body’s unconscious attempt to fill legitimate homo-emotional needs.

Once you understand the affliction, its causes and cures - gay marriage can not be argued from the point of view that this is right that they need. The fact of the matter is NO GAY MARRIAGE CAN FULFILL THEIR SAME-SEX NEEDS. They are inwardly yearning for relationaships with same-sex heterosexual men or women for same-gender affirmation, and companionship. They are often coveting the qualities in others that they feel they lack themsleves - wanting to possess these qualities they admire vicariously through a close relationship. The sex itself becomes addictive and they sometimes use it much like a self-medicating drug because inside they are unbalanced and carry so much hurtful and or hidden baggage from youth.

There’s really too much information to share - but it can be studied and found even if it’s politicaly incorrect.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Carla:

I found your response to markdum most interesting.

I read in a book once that in most cases, the attraction towards sexual fetishes is present before the subject reaches sexual maturation, and then becomes sexualized upon reaching puberty. How does this fit in with your presented causative theory regarding homosexuality? What possible need could the psyche be attempting to fulfill, for example, by exhibiting an attraction towards certain material objects?

Thanks.

Don

 

[neophyte]

Hold your horses mister. Marriage is by definition a sacrament between two people that love each other. Homosexuals don’t not want to get married they just don’t want to get married to someone they don’t love.get your facts straight

No, you’re sadly mistaken. Marriage by definition can exist only between a man and a woman. Homosexuals do not wish to be in such a relationship, therefore by definition they do not wish to be married.

A first principle in dealing with those suffering from disordered psychological states is to NOT pander to their delusions, and you fail in that responsibility when you allow homosexual unions to be considered as marriage.

I love my father, but we cannot marry. I love my son, but we cannot marry. I love my brother-in-law, but we cannot marry. I love my first cousin, but we cannot marry. This inability to marry isn’t merely because of the civil law, it’s because of the nature of marriage. To say that two men or two women can marry is like saying that you can make bagels out of sand.

This idea that one can marry anyone one loves is nonsense. It’d be sophomoric if the “sopho” part weren’t missing.

 

[ladybri77]

Dear Carla:

I found your response to markdum most interesting.

I read in a book once that in most cases, the attraction towards sexual fetishes is present before the subject reaches sexual maturation, and then becomes sexualized upon reaching puberty. How does this fit in with your presented causative theory regarding homosexuality? What possible need could the psyche be attempting to fulfill, for example, by exhibiting an attraction towards certain material objects?

Thanks.

Don

What you are referring to is definitely acting out behavior. Usually when there has been sexual abuse or some sort of chaos occuring in the family, like the child being given mixed messages (covert or overt incest) or parental strife, one could “act out” these feelings of confusion by fixating on a material object.

Being in an unsafe environment like that can lead to all kinds of acting out behavior. One that comes to mind is obsessive/compulsive disorder where the person tries to control things in their present environment as a way of trying to feel in control since they felt out of control in their past or they might be trying to “fix” the confusion or insecurity they may be feeling in the present from these events.

 

[Newbie2]

**Hold your horses mister. Marriage is by definition a sacrament between two people that love each other. **

Um, we better clear that up. Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman that love each other.

 

[JOL]

I have not read all 484 posts before mine, but still thought I would like to chime in with my thought.

I think gays want to get ‘married’ as an afront to those who appose the idea of them getting ‘married’, I don’t think it is about the ‘marriage’ at all. There are certain laws in place in some areas where they are considered in a civil union and get the same benefits of a marriage. For instance, insurance coverage, being the person who can stand by the hospital bed of a ailing loved one, etc. Basically, the same rights a married couple (man and woman) have they are getting. These rights, which is what they say they were fighting for they are getting but it isn’t enough. They want to stand in front of churches and walk down the isle and the whole nine, to have a marriage ceremony like a male/female couple.

Marriage is between a man and woman ONLY.

I do like the one poster who said we can’t just marry something because we love it…it is so true…I love ice cream but I cannot marry ‘it’…LOL.

 

[CarlaOLS]

What you are referring to is definitely acting out behavior. Usually when there has been sexual abuse or some sort of chaos occuring in the family, like the child being given mixed messages (covert or overt incest) or parental strife, one could “act out” these feelings of confusion by fixating on a material object.

Being in an unsafe environment like that can lead to all kinds of acting out behavior. One that comes to mind is obsessive/compulsive disorder where the person tries to control things in their present environment as a way of trying to feel in control since they felt out of control in their past or they might be trying to “fix” the confusion or insecurity they may be feeling in the present from these events.

Thank you Lady - that’s informative.

Don- I’m not sure I follow you or what fetishes towards materials have to do with Homosexual attraction. But one thing I feel sure of - we are all complicated beings, a mix of unique personalities, perceptions, with varied upbringings and realtionships, all flawed, all sinful, a product of past and present, of experiences good and bad - but all created in God’s Image and for holiness.

Hypothetically…

Say a young boy found himself drawn to the feel of stockings on a woman’s leg, or perhaps to her feet - and let’s say in depth therapy uncovered that the child’s mother neglected to hold him enough, perhaps often ploppling him on the floor at her feet where the legs or feet were his only connection to her when not being held. Couldn’t such a fetish begin even at that tender age, lie hidden and begin to surface later alarming the young boy who just doesn’t know why he is irresistibly drawn to a woman’s feet or her calf.

Yet, God did not create this boy to be any different or to have this attraction - his enviroment caused it and once understood, the attraction could conceivably be lessened, controlled, or conquered.

Peace

 

[rinnie]

I was wondering about something. Now when two people of the same sex get married is it ever said what God has joined together? Does anyone know the answer to this?

 

[Newbie2]

I was wondering about something. Now when two people of the same sex get married is it ever said what God has joined together? Does anyone know the answer to this?

I’ll bet it is. Why not? If one can believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, it ain’t that far of a stretch to believe that God sanctions such “marriages”.

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Lady and Carla:

Your two answers taken together are most interesting, and I think answers my question nicely.

Lady’s answer provides the psychological mechanism form which fetishes arise, while Carla’s provides a reason for a specific focus of a fetish.

What I was getting at is that both homosexual attraction and sexual attractions to either material objects or specific behaviors that are nonessential to the sexual act itself, are both aberrant. Thus, I was searching for a suggested reason why these aberrant urges should develop when they would not serve what has always been suggested as the reason for sexual activity: the propagation of the species. They would seem to serve no evolutionary purpose.

Thanks again, to you both.

Don

 

[CarlaOLS]

Thank you, Don. You lead us to understand how things can develop but not have been the original plan.

 

[zachforn]

My opinions DO align. You are just misinformed about the subject. First, as regards the definition of “society”, you must remember that American society is not relegated solely to what is private or civilian. The US Government is the full representation of our society and what values we hold and enforce. You seem to be separating those two aspects and creating a false duality of society.

The Constitution was made by men who recognized that you could not separate morals from government, because that very concept would lead quickly to a Democracy, which was abhorred by our Founding Fathers.

There is no true separation of Church and State, and even now the morals that are being infused into laws do not reflect our traditional views of what is moral and right.

There are systems of morals that exist outside of Christianity, (you may not want to see this but it’s true) so to be unChristian is not to be un-moral (or immoral) and please, no the Founding Fathers were Christians and meant to have a Christian state argument ( e.g. Jefferson’s understanding of Christianity), because they also created a system that as you state is a “full representation” of the persons and peoples living within it. And thus we get to VOTE what our government is and who we are as a people. You get to vote and I get to vote. If you don’t like that system, then go somewhere else where you might be happier.

So, you take your children to see snuff films? You expose your children to evil by forcing them to view murder, rape, terroristic beheadings, etc, etc.?

No, but I do encourage them to read books like “Night”

 

[CarlaOLS]

Ok Zach - I hear what you are saying. Here is an excerpt by Margaret A. Bengs which I think explains well how gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

*The same-sex “marriage” movement is not, for all the civil rights rhetoric, about “equality,” “equal rights,” or “equal protection.” It is about claiming the term “marriage” for a relationship that has never been considered marriage. In the approximately 30 states where the issue has been put to a vote of the people, voters stood on the side of traditional marriage.

Equating the ban on same-sex “marriage” to the long-ago ban on interracial marriage, overturned by the courts, is also a false analogy to a civil rights issue. The ban on interracial marriage denied a certain class of people the right to marry. It was based on the true discrimination of asserting that one race is superior to another. It did not redefine marriage. The requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman does not discriminate against any race or gender. Same-sex “marriage” proponents, on the other hand, seek to radically alter the definition of marriage and to say that it has nothing to do with gender or procreating children.

Using emotive terms and false analogies to true victims of discrimination clouds the real issues, diminishes our discourse and confuses our efforts to explain and uphold constitutional principles. It also ignores the authentic civil rights of those who hold a deeply held belief of their own and are exercising their own civil rights to freedom of speech and religion.

There is no “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage in California – in the law or in the constitution. No one is being denied a right that was never there. Cloaking the push for same-sex “marriage” in civil rights terminology is a tactic that frays our social bonds and diminishes true civil rights violations. Authentic language about constitutional principles will bring about an authentic result, and diminish the anger and emotionalism surrounding this debate. *

 

[CWBetts]

Ok Zach - I hear what you are saying. Here is an excerpt by Margaret A. Bengs which I think explains well how gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

*The same-sex “marriage” movement is not, for all the civil rights rhetoric, about “equality,” “equal rights,” or “equal protection.” It is about claiming the term “marriage” for a relationship that has never been considered marriage. In the approximately 30 states where the issue has been put to a vote of the people, voters stood on the side of traditional marriage.

Equating the ban on same-sex “marriage” to the long-ago ban on interracial marriage, overturned by the courts, is also a false analogy to a civil rights issue. The ban on interracial marriage denied a certain class of people the right to marry. It was based on the true discrimination of asserting that one race is superior to another. It did not redefine marriage. The requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman does not discriminate against any race or gender. Same-sex “marriage” proponents, on the other hand, seek to radically alter the definition of marriage and to say that it has nothing to do with gender or procreating children.

Using emotive terms and false analogies to true victims of discrimination clouds the real issues, diminishes our discourse and confuses our efforts to explain and uphold constitutional principles. It also ignores the authentic civil rights of those who hold a deeply held belief of their own and are exercising their own civil rights to freedom of speech and religion.

There is no “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage in California – in the law or in the constitution. No one is being denied a right that was never there. Cloaking the push for same-sex “marriage” in civil rights terminology is a tactic that frays our social bonds and diminishes true civil rights violations. Authentic language about constitutional principles will bring about an authentic result, and diminish the anger and emotionalism surrounding this debate. *

Excellent post!!

 

[zachforn]

Ok Zach - I hear what you are saying. Here is an excerpt by Margaret A. Bengs which I think explains well how gay marriage is not a civil rights issue…

The only issue I have with Bengs is that she has no idea what she is talking about. She has no historical understanding of the progression of the term and concept of “marriage.”

For instance, she has no idea that the word “marriage” has been usurped by modern Christians. Modern Christians think the word “marriage” is their word. More liberal thinking Christians will say, “Fine, be a couple, you gay folks, but use the word civil-union, not MARRIAGE, because the word is ours, that word God created to represent the union of a man and woman.” Again, there people, like Bengs, have no idea about the etymology of the word “marriage” or “husband” or “wife.”

Biblical Hebrew did not even have a single word for “marriage,” nor did they have a term for “husband” or “wife” as we understand them today, the terms used in Hebrew represent the concepts of “master” and “woman” / “servant” / “slave.” Hardly, the modern concept of a marriage.

And with this we can already see a redefining of the concept of marriage. Without constant redefining of the institution we would still conceive marriage as they did in the Old Testament/Hebrew, as a master/slave bond (“and they shall be one flesh” is not an equality, it is a subsuming of the woman/slave’s body as property, into the man’s so that the woman/slave is now no longer her own Self, but rather she is now under the control of a new master. In a way it’s kind of warped that defenders of marriage use Gen 2:24) Thank goodness Christians redefined marriage!

And that’s my second gripe with people like Bengs, they don’t understand that marriage as been CONSTANTLY redefined! And that is pre-dates Christianity! Let’s see some ways marriage has been redefined over the years:

1. In Ancient Greece and Rome a marriage did not require government approval nor religious approval. Now it needs at leas government sanction. Redefined.
2. In the early culture of Judaism polygamy was condoned as a marriage. It is no longer sanctions. Redefined.
3. The Theodosian Code issued in the 4th century in the Roman Empire allowed same-sex marriages. Redefined.
4. In the early Christian era, marriages were mutual consent, and required no government nor religious validity. In fact, witness were not even required, a couple could simply state that they were married and they were. Certainly, that is not how it’s done today, so: Redefined.
5. For most of Medieval European history, marriage was understood as a business arrangement between aristocratic families, controlling the extent and access to their material wealth and land holdings. In fact, the idea of Love existing within a marriage was ridiculous. Love was sought outside the marriage. Thus, the Love Courts of Italy and the Church’s condemnation of Courtly Love. Obviously, this is no the case today, thus: Redefined.
6. These are just some simple, obvious, and superficial ways in which Marriage has been REDEFINED over its history. Research it a little to find the deeper progressions.

To frown over the “homosexual agenda’s” attempt to redefine marriage is to not understand that marriage, like EVERY OTHER human institution, can ONLY redefine itself, it ALWAYS has and in all likelihood always will, for human institutions define themselves according to the wants and needs of the people those institutions serve. (I say “human institution” because it pre-dates Christianity and most of its history was not linked to religion)

 

[ladybri77]

The only issue I have with Bengs is that she has no idea what she is talking about. She has no historical understanding of the progression of the term and concept of “marriage.”

For instance, she has no idea that the word “marriage” has been usurped by modern Christians. Modern Christians think the word “marriage” is their word. More liberal thinking Christians will say, “Fine, be a couple, you gay folks, but use the word civil-union, not MARRIAGE, because the word is ours, that word God created to represent the union of a man and woman.” Again, there people, like Bengs, have no idea about the etymology of the word “marriage” or “husband” or “wife.”

Biblical Hebrew did not even have a single word for “marriage,” nor did they have a term for “husband” or “wife” as we understand them today, the terms used in Hebrew represent the concepts of “master” and “woman” / “servant” / “slave.” Hardly, the modern concept of a marriage.

And with this we can already see a redefining of the concept of marriage. Without constant redefining of the institution we would still conceive marriage as they did in the Old Testament/Hebrew, as a master/slave bond (“and they shall be one flesh” is not an equality, it is a subsuming of the woman/slave’s body as property, into the man’s so that the woman/slave is now no longer her own Self, but rather she is now under the control of a new master. In a way it’s kind of warped that defenders of marriage use Gen 2:24) Thank goodness Christians redefined marriage!

And that’s my second gripe with people like Bengs, they don’t understand that marriage as been CONSTANTLY redefined! And that is pre-dates Christianity! Let’s see some ways marriage has been redefined over the years:

1. In Ancient Greece and Rome a marriage did not require government approval nor religious approval. Now it needs at leas government sanction. Redefined.
2. In the early culture of Judaism polygamy was condoned as a marriage. It is no longer sanctions. Redefined.
3. The Theodosian Code issued in the 4th century in the Roman Empire allowed same-sex marriages. Redefined.
4. In the early Christian era, marriages were mutual consent, and required no government nor religious validity. In fact, witness were not even required, a couple could simply state that they were married and they were. Certainly, that is not how it’s done today, so: Redefined.

Well in our “history” dating back a few hundred years, it’s always been between a man and a woman; even polygamy was heterosexual. Most of us don’t “remember” when it was redefined in the early Christian era or before. All we know is that it has been like this for the past few hundred years and ordained by God.

Please don’t twist scripture around to mean something different than what it was intended. “And the two shall become one flesh…” is authentic in meaning exactly what it says. I don’t see the word “slave” or any other hidden meaning from it’s original intent.

 

[zachforn]

Well in our “history” dating back a few hundred years, it’s always been between a man and a woman; even polygamy was heterosexual. Most of us don’t “remember” when it was redefined in the early Christian era or before. All we know is that it has been like this for the past few hundred years and ordained by God.

Please don’t twist scripture around to mean something different than what it was intended. “And the two shall become one flesh…” is authentic in meaning exactly what it says. I don’t see the word “slave” or any other hidden meaning from it’s original intent.

Ladybri,

Do you think history goes back further than a few hundred years ago?

Even a hundred years ago in Victorian England marriages in the upper-classes were not based on Love, but rather on the control and access to material wealth. Also, before Women’s Suffrage the understanding that a woman is equal within a marriage did not exist (of course this taps into Gen 3:16). So your statement is incorrect.

I agree, there is no hidden meaning in Gen 2:24 it states exactly what it states. But of course it wasn’t written in English it had to be translated into our language. And of course, in the process of translation things become altered, because languages don’t have a tit-for-tat commonality between them, thus translators pick the best word they can in their language to match as close as they can the original meaning of the language. Which is to say English is of course not the language of the Bible. Do you know how to read Hebrew?

I don’t think one can seriously suggest that men and woman were equal in marriage in the Old Testament, as they are in today’s marriage.

 

[PCM]

Jeffman is absolutely right. it is like calling cats “dogs” -because cat owners want to use the dogparks.

 

[ladybri77]

Ladybri,

Do you think history goes back further than a few hundred years ago?

Even a hundred years ago in Victorian England marriages in the upper-classes were not based on Love, but rather on the control and access to material wealth. Also, before Women’s Suffrage the understanding that a woman is equal within a marriage did not exist (of course this taps into Gen 3:16). So your statement is incorrect.

I agree, there is no hidden meaning in Gen 2:24 it states exactly what it states. But of course it wasn’t written in English it had to be translated into our language. And of course, in the process of translation things become altered, because languages don’t have a tit-for-tat commonality between them, thus translators pick the best word they can in their language to match as close as they can the original meaning of the language. Which is to say English is of course not the language of the Bible. Do you know how to read Hebrew?

I don’t think one can seriously suggest that men and woman were equal in marriage in the Old Testament, as they are in today’s marriage.

Yes, of course I see how marriage has been redefined more than hundreds of years ago. I was just saying the significance to us as a people of the 20th & 21st centuries and what we understand marriage to be has been the same for that long. Even looking at the Old Testament, even though a man and a woman may have been unequal, marriage was still between a man and a woman (or wives).

I agree that the text is a little different between each translation because of what you said, but I do not believe it changes the original meaning of the scripture of which God intended. Maybe in some small, obscure cases, but not in the “basic” or most obvious meanings. I think common sense then plays a role and the wisdom given to us by the Holy Spirit to discern the word of God and the true meaning behind each scripture.

So, I think the original and true meaning of this particular scripture is one in the same and actually what God meant. I don’t think one can realistically change what God meant by twisting the original meaning of scripture around to justify sin nor change a meaning completely even through all the translations, etc. I mean one could, but in the real world (the spiritual realm) scripture stands as being the One True Word of God with the original message delivered into men’s hearts by the Holy Spirit. So, no matter what man does, Truth is still Divine Truth.