The Same People

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: SaywhatuwantImademychoice @ 06/03/2008 7:37:08 PM

    No, my god doesn't teach exclusion and discrimination, but he did flood the earth because of man's sin, (all types) and he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. So please stop calling him your god, and tailoring him to fit your life.

    • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 7:43:48 PM

      I notice you didn't answer the question I posed. How do you know for sure that being gay is a lifestyle choice? Could you be wrong? What if you are?

      • Posted By: SoonerJay13 @ 06/03/2008 8:12:28 PM

        Because we are not animals as liberals would like us conduct ourselves, we are free moral agents. Yes I'm sure. There's no possibility that I'm wrong.

        See how simple life becomes when you acknowledge that God, not man, is the arbiter of morality. If truth were, as you assert, subject to the whims of highly flawed men, we would de-evolve into chaos - kind of like California - and really the world - is doing..

        • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 11:09:32 AM

          I think a bit more humility and less certainty is called for in these circumstances.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:50:32 AM

          Ok, well in that case...autism doesn't exist, mental disorders don't exist, ADHD doesn't exist (which, I don't think it does, but that's another topic) etc. I mean, if we're free moral agents, then nothing can be genetically encoded into our brains to make us act a certain way, right? Try arguing that with just about any scientist or doctor. There are genetic predispositions in life. That is known. Research has suggested that being gay comes from a biological root. More research has to be done, of course, but the preliminary findings are that it IS in fact ingrained in us when we are born.

        • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 8:35:36 PM

          I don't know what that was...but it did not answer my question.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:39:53 PM

      My god is made of spaghetti.

      • Posted By: SoonerJay13 @ 06/03/2008 8:20:20 PM

        If that's what you're comfortable with when you die, good for you. Enjoy your pasta.

  • Posted By: JustX @ 06/03/2008 7:43:13 PM

    My problem is with the idea that homosexuality is immoral. Just because YOU think it's immoral doesn't make it to be true. According to the bible it's okay to give your daughters to a group of rapist to protect your guests from being raped. If the bible is the source of morality that you turn to, wouldn't that mean that it's moral to let your kids get raped to keep your guest comfortable? Here's the Quote:

    Genesis 19
    1Now the (A)two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When (B)Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

    2And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."

    3Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; (C)and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

    4Before they lay down, (D)the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

    5and they called to Lot and said to him, "(E)Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

    6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,

    7and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

    8"Now behold, (F)I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

    • Posted By: SoonerJay13 @ 06/03/2008 8:04:49 PM

      Great, now show me where God promoted or condoned Lot's behavior. Lot was an excellent example of a terrible husband, father, leader. You can quote scripture, but you can't make God say what He doesn't say. Homosexuality is sin. Scripture is clear. That's not the reason to continue to define marriage as it has always been defined by civilized people.

      You liberals are renown for making God in your image. The problem is that if God is God, you don't define Him, he defines you - but that's not a God you can manipulate, is it?

      • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 11:07:03 AM

        Jesus said the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

    • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 8:16:09 PM

      I'll grant the supposition that you are aware that it is nigh to impossible not to break Levitical law. That is its entire point, that is, to expose the need for a perfect atonement, once and for all.
      Also, culturally, Lot was demonstrating the required courtesy and protection to guests that was expected at the time. He called the bluff of those outside.

  • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 9:26:21 PM

    The point of the author's article is this...Those who are against gay marriage are fighting a losing battle. LOVE & FAIRNESS WILL WIN, people.

    And P.S. - If you don't want a gay marriage...guess what? DON'T HAVE ONE.

    • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/03/2008 10:30:55 PM

      It's that people are infuriated that the public policy of marriage is changing against the wishes of the majority. Their government hijacked by an activist few.

      • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 10:36:25 PM

        I understand your point. But, actually the majority is dwindling on this particle issue everyday. People are realizing that gay people are not evil, and are not out to corrupt the world. We are your neighbors, friends, and family...and just wish to have our relationships recognize and benefit from the same rights. I don't care if you call it marriage or not.

        • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/04/2008 12:36:39 PM

          Well, here's something that the founders intended - they didn't base constitutional changes on a public opinion projection. They based it on 2/3 of the states and 2/3 of Congress. No one said that gays were evil (any more than anyone else! :-)). What they did say - in various elections, etc., is that they don't want the public policy changed. No one is saying to persecute anyone. No one is saying gays are less equal. What they are saying is marriage as a policy should not change. Equal protection has never meant necessarily equal benefits or status - ergo we prevent cousins from marrying because we believe it is in society's (and their) best interest - even though those cousins may feel put upon by the rule. Bad policy: when you make legal and proclaim normal an act or behavior that is viewed as unhealthy or abnormal. Even worse when the accomodations are not hammered out in a legislature and are imposed by an activist judge.

          • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 5:18:56 PM

            I remember when interracial marriage was viewed as immoral and abnormal. Please discuss the difference if you can.

            • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/04/2008 10:15:07 PM

              You make a good point. The people who argued that have done no favors to the counter gay marriage argument. My short version is that inter-racial marriage was viewed as culturally wrong by many folks, but it was not based on behavior - it was based race. This debate on gay marriage should be on policy and normative views of behavior - and as a matter of process, voters have overwhelmingly decided that the behavior is not something they deem as normal. I would argue that the changes in the Diagnostic Support Manual (DSM) from 2 thru 4 were a farce. Gay behavior went from dysfunction to normal for completely bogus and political reasons. Laws recognize and proscribe all kinds of behaviors - that's what they do. Now with inter-racial marriage, that was truly a bi-product of a racially unjust past and system - not based on any behavior. Right now there is no pattern of oppression or injustice visited upon the gay community. AND, there is no consensus or popular support for changing the status quo on marriage. The framers required lots of support to make major changes (2/3 of states, and 2/3 of congress). Here we have four people of seven in essence taking on the mantel of constitutional convention and bypassing the process. This is a formula for tearing the country apart....until such time opinion changes.

              • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 11:04:09 AM

                You keep citing the DSM. Some of the pioneering research done decades ago showed that psychologists could not tell who was gay and who was straight in a group of psychologically healthy people. Sure, there are dysfunctional people in all social groups, but that should not deprive the majority of their right to form family. Some people seem like they can't stand the thought of a healthy, happy gay person!

              • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 11:19:27 PM

                If you are talking about behavior, you must believe that being gay is choice. Like everyone got together and said I am going to choose to be gay....and make my life more difficult...(ie..be judged, worry about friend & family's acceptance, not receive certain benefits.) You seem like a logical and very smart person. Does that make sense? And if you are str8...did you make a choice who you were attracted to...or was it something you just knew?

          • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 5:15:46 PM

            I remember when interracial marriage was viewed as immoral and abnormal. Please discuss the difference if you can.

            • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/04/2008 10:22:03 PM

              I would add that the framers would have used their understanding of Natural Law and Reason. They would have universally said that gay marriage is "Physiologically Unreasonable" and defies Natural Law.

          • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 5:08:27 PM

            I remember when interracial marriage was viewed as immoral and abnormal. Please discuss the difference if you can.

  • Posted By: philosopherqueen @ 06/03/2008 10:34:07 PM

    I hope that the opposition is aging out, but I fear it is not the case. More and more young people are joining right wing mega churches where they are taught that being gay is a sin. I teach ethics at a large public university and the number of my students, who proudly and publicly say that their response to their gay classmates is to love the sinner but hate the sin, is appalling.

    • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 10:45:40 PM

      Why am I not surprised that the ethics professor at a large public university is pro gay-marriage? And that same ethics professor thinks that going to church is a bad thing? Let's talk about ethics and compassion for a moment. Did you know that according to a recent Barna poll, only 5% of American adults give at least 10% of their income to charitable groups. The group who gives the most?.... Evangelical Christians (24% give at least 10% of their money away. That's the same group you are calling "unethical" and yet their actions show that they give of themselves to help others.

      What exactly is wrong with "hating sin but loving the sinner?" Which part is unethical? Should we love sin? Should we hate the sinner? What combination is best in the mind of a large public school ethics professor?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:36:50 AM

        She didn't say church was unethical, nor the people that attend church. She merely referenced right-wing mega churches. Some of them ARE like cults and some of the do preach extremely discriminatory ideas. Just because someone says some churches are nutty...and some are...doesn't mean she thinks all churches are bad.
        Churches are good, in essence. They promote peace and love, and provide a way for the community to come together. Not only that, they provide a way for an individual to understand themselves and the world, and in hard times draw from the strength that their faith brings. However, true Christian churches should preach the love and acceptance that Jesus was so adamant about. They should not teach people to shun and cast stones.

        • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/04/2008 3:43:55 PM

          She referenced churches for the purpose of insinuating that their teaching to love sinners but hate sin is unethical. Jesus definitely preached about both forgiveness and repentance (see Matthew 3:2 or Luke 13:5). To call homosexual acts sin is not "casting stones." That's ridiculous. Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery using that phrase, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone." But then he told the woman to "go and sin no more." In that instance Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin.

          • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 10:57:41 AM

            Jesus loved the sexually different. See His comments about eunuchs--outcasts in their time, seen as unclean, fit only to sit with the women in the temple. What Would Jesus Do today? I have no doubt.

  • Posted By: OldManRiver @ 06/03/2008 10:34:56 PM

    Yes, homosexuality has been around since the Roman empire. . . and long before that. What is more interesting to me is the fact that any societies that have promoted such activities have not flourished over time. Typically, as a society becomes more wealthy, it also tends to liberalize over time, turning to its pleasures, rather than its discipline. Then, that society weakens and fails. For thousands of years certain values have been present as a society flourishes, and similarly, certain vices rear their head a society begins to wane. Why is it that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, and has enjoyed acceptance in certain societies at different points in history, but has never been generally accepted throughout the world or in any culture for long periods of time? It is because homosexuality is not a behavior that will make a society strong. Yest, it will be accepted in our country much more 30 years from now than it is today. But, I would venture to say that 300 years down the road, our society will be weakend and the dominant cultures in our world will be the ones that do not accept it. History repeats itself. Those reveling in ths new "openness and acceptance" should enjoy it, but also know that, yes, it is the mark of a society that is on the decline.

    • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 10:40:22 PM

      I love this arguement. Gay Marriage = decline of society. Yeah, love and fairness are the real threats....nevermind....crime, global warming, nuclear weapons, etc. Please...

      • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 10:55:02 AM

        ALL societies decline. ALL. I'm personally much more concerned about globalization of the economy, deterioration of the environment, tolerance of torture, etc. , as likely to be harbingers of decline. We need every last person to claim their full citizenship in this society; we cannot afford to leave anyone behind. Also, ALL societies have had gay people. Some (Native Americans) have found a way to integrate us. At the other extreme, some have been quite brutal (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia). What kind of society do you want?

      • Posted By: Bhamdude40s @ 06/04/2008 5:14:55 PM

        So what causes the country to fail... Homosexuality or the hate there of homosexuality? Seems to me most countrys fail by crazed presidents jumping the gun and taking over a country and not being able to contorl it.... Leme see Germany is still around. Korea. Vietnam, Iraq. Guess Teh US wasnt arounf to save Rome. But if there is not Rome. Where is the vadicent ....

      • Posted By: bluesouth73 @ 06/04/2008 4:15:20 PM

        i totally agree with you great comment

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:32:17 AM

        Not to mention that the world's societies follow a cyclical pattern. No country is going to hold power for eternity. The Greeks, the Romans, Chinese, Aztecs, Mayans, Spanish, English, French, Germans, Americans, Russians...I really could go on and on. Every country of those I've mentioned has experienced a time of power and a time of decline. It's a natural ebb and flow. (And yeah, you're right...nuclear weapons, disease, wars, natural disasters...yeah...those are all due to gays according to him.) I'm pretty sure Germany fell because of the 2 world wars and the Holocaust...Russia fell because of it's failed political systems and natural/nuclear disasters...America is falling due to our own greed and lack of consideration for the world. Gays have nothing to do with that.

  • Posted By: troschne @ 06/03/2008 11:35:58 PM

    Great column, Anna--thanks for your support, and your forward thinking. I happen to agree with you, but I hope we're both right. And to all of you mouth-breathers who have been flame-throwing. I hope you curl up with your "legal" spouses tonight, and tell them how much you love them, how much you cherish your right to be legally married, and that you can't wait to spend the rest of your lives with him or her. 50/50, at best, you'll be doing that in a year. Sweet dreams, haters!

    • Posted By: zimme71 @ 06/04/2008 9:53:54 AM

      The only 'hating' I've seen in these comments aren't coming from those of us who are using Biblically based concepts to put forward our argument. I have many gay friends, most of whom I never hear from anymore because they know where I stand (with God and the Bible). It isn't because I said something, or did something to them for that matter. Heck, my wife and I have tried to keep in touch, sending CHRISTmas cards and the like. But they are the ones who have chosen to ruin a friendship over what I and my wife believe. How is that being 'tolerant' and 'accepting'? I haven't seen that from many of the posters.

      • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 10:46:53 AM

        Read Acts: Do not call unclean that which God has called holy. I have seen many holy acts of self-giving love in gay relationships. UCC has it right: "God is still speaking." Please listen.

      • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 11:10:29 PM

        Keep your Bible out of everyone's government, and all would be fine.

        • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/05/2008 12:49:25 AM

          The Bible and beliefs have always been a part of American public life. To think otherwise would historically ignorant and constitutionally illiterate.

          • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/05/2008 8:09:24 PM

            Imposing your beliefs on others is not what this government is about....Separation of Church and State?

            • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/06/2008 10:32:58 AM

              Separation of Church and State is not the same as separation of beliefs (norms, more's, etc) from politics. As a matter of fact, the northern Churches led the fight to end slavery and Churches in the south split over the issue. Women's sufferance was led by Christian groups, one of the most famous leaders was Susan B. Anthony. MLK Jr., Lincoln, Carter, Reagan all reflected publically on faith in the political process. Laws DO impose beliefs: stealing, assault, etc. It is not Theocracy to say "I believe the law should be this way because of .....whatever belief. After the passage of the bill of rights (1st 10 amendments to the constitution), Thomas Jefferson and others held a big Thanksgiving service in the Capital. So, Separation of Church state does not mean separation of belief from public life.

              • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 10:44:52 AM

                Yes, and there are some churches & religious institutions that support gay unions (UCC, MCC, the Society of Friends, Reform Judaism). They have a right to express their views, too. But in a religiously diverse country, government must not favor one religious view over another but must recognize the civil rights of all. Don't confuse marriage as a civil/legal issue with marriage as a spiritual/religious issue. You can have any views you like on the latter. Best, noahsdad

  • Posted By: punkzanyj @ 06/05/2008 10:58:48 PM

    Look, there's no scientific proof that someone can go from gay to straight. Those who advertise and promote change are being dishonest. What most people would consider "change" is not at ALL what actually happens. The sexuality never changes, only the reaction to it. Every single "success" story say they still "struggle" and that their so-called heterosexuality is "complicated". This is not change, it's an extreme makeover, they look and act different, but they are still gay.

    • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/05/2008 11:56:57 PM

      That's silly. Many people have made this transition. The debate is whether it is real or necessary. So, scientific proof...i.e. observation, is present. Duh.

      • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/06/2008 7:43:21 PM

        No one has made this transition....do not believe this lie...and he has no scientific proof of this...and if you are talking about exodus international....exodus international scares gays by telling them they will burn in hell for all eternity...scaring someone into being str8...real scientific...what a joke!

        • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/06/2008 8:04:42 PM

          I've never even heard exodus international. Mostly I know from various readings and gleanings on the subject. Even the DSMs say folks do come out of it, although that would mean they were never homosexual in the first place according to that! Lol. Definitely no one should be coerced to change unless they seek it - which again in the DSM would mean that their homosexuality is not normal. The DSM is shifting sand right now. DSM 2 listed homosexuality (all varieties) as a disorder. By DSM 4 it was only a disorder if you could not live normally in other aspects of life. From my own experience most of the gay men I've met seemed odd, but a few definitely seemed totally normal. In women I saw different styles of dress but nothing I picked up in terms of demeanor (like with men). But that's not scientific, just my personal experience.

          • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 10:22:50 AM

            There are some who have claimed to transition, but there is reason to be skeptical. Some of them--the "ex-ex-gays"--have reclaimed their truer selves, having found the "ex-gay" identity as inconsistent with who they really are. For others--perhaps a tiny minority--their sexuality may be a bit more malleable (i.e., they're really bisexual), but seem happier living as heterosexuals. But that just isn't the case for most gay people. At any rate, the fact that sexuality may be fluid for a few people should not deprive others of "the pursuit of happiness," as Ms. Quindlen points out. We all face the same spiritual task: know who you are, love yourself and others, live responsibly.

    • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/05/2008 11:56:57 PM

      That's silly. Many people have made this transition. The debate is whether it is real or necessary. So, scientific proof...i.e. observation, is present. Duh.

  • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 10:04:33 AM

    THANK YOU, Ms. Quindlen! We're a gay couple--a schoolteacher and a bureaucrat--blessed with a challenging, kind, affectionate child who has autism. Our experience with our son has shown us that love does indeed win out. Perhaps we're seeing the little miracles that love can work in changing hearts and minds on a societal level now. As someone who believes such miracles are signs of God's love for all people, let us say that "God is good--ALL THE TIME!" Peace, noahsdad

  • Posted By: noahsdad @ 06/07/2008 9:55:48 AM

    THANK YOU, Ms. Quindlen! We're a gay couple--a bureaucrat and a schoolteacher--doing our best to raise a wonderful child who has autism. Our family deserves the same respect as other families. You're right than love wins out--our experience with our son is that love can indeed work miracles. Perhaps we're seeing similar miracles--the changing of hearts and minds--on a societal level now. As someone who believes that such miracles are evidence of God's love for all people, let me say that "God is good--ALL THE TIME!" Peace, noahsdad

  • Posted By: aaron.ashcraft @ 06/07/2008 4:31:19 AM

    The CA Supreme Court properly defines marriage as a legal term that is often confused with the Sacrament of Marriage religious term. The judges granted equal civil rights to gay couples that is long overdue, no matter what religious fanatics may say

  • Posted By: USAVoter @ 06/04/2008 10:13:55 AM

    If you won't even for one minute consider that God warns us that homosexualtiy will lead us down a destructive path and He will help us deal with this attraction and help us overcome it, please look at empirical scientific study on the subject. Wit hthe utmost respect read the documentation located at www.narth.com. All this organization does is study homosexuality. Face up to the truth with some dignity and intellectualism and stop forcing political agenda .

    • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/04/2008 6:57:29 PM

      You are an idiot if you think homosexuality is learned or a choice. Notice the people that say these things are str8. Do you choose to be str8? Or is it something that is innately in you? I didn't make a choice, nor am i am very politcal or have an agenda. I am just trying to enlighten the ignorant. How do you know what it is like to be gay? How can you say a 100% sure that it is a choice. Why would I choice to make my life more difficult, and have to talk to the likes of you?

      • Posted By: zimme71 @ 06/05/2008 8:17:37 AM

        Homosexuality is a choice. Just because someone has homosexual feelings doesn't mean that the individual has to give into those feelings. Humans are fallen beings, and have been since Adam and Eve. We have had a fallen, sinful nature since that time. So as a result, some are afflicted with homosexual feelings, addictions, etc. The key is to place your burden upon the Lord, and surrender to Him so that one can overcome those feelings, addictions, or whatever burden one carries in life. Part of the lie of satan is that homosexuals are 'born' gay, thus justifying their lifestyle.

        • Posted By: tonyla64 @ 06/07/2008 4:09:59 AM

          Do you turn your prejudice, bigotry and judgement over to the Lord, because last I heard he was the one who would be doing the judging ?
          Furthermore, I have just celebrated 20 years with my boyfriend (notice I can't use any terms related to marriage for him) and I don't want to change. We have been together longer than almost every heterosexual I know. Maybe hard to believe but we are happy, productive citizens of this fine country.
          I'm guessing here, but are all the homosexuals you know in the closet ? And you know plenty, no matter where you live, they are there.

        • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/05/2008 8:06:53 PM

          Typical answer from someone who isn't gay. So sure and right...and u don't even know what it is like to be gay....wish you did for 1 day....

      • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/05/2008 12:45:20 AM

        Homosexual behavior is part choice, part developmental and likely part genetic proclivity. So are alcoholism, child abuse, and even pedophilia. We are integrated people, but those facts do not make those behaviors desireable or or deserving of public sanction. Despite the "hate propaganda" accusations of proponents of gay lifestyles, there are people who emerge from the behavior. Even the current DSMs do not count all forms of homosexual behavior as normal. It is all about this question: What should be the policy, and should it be arrived at through consensus and process or imposed by minorities through the judicial process when there are no agravating or chronic injustices associated with the status quo (i.e. like historical racist structures and the long history segregation). Further, are accomodations going to made for people have serious objections of conscience in there exercise of non-association (like a family who doesn't want to rent to a gay couple).

  • Posted By: Acefrenzy @ 06/04/2008 7:48:18 AM

    So when your kid comes home and says something like that like it's nothing and you take it like that and don't remember, who's fault is that? Your kid for being brain washed by this society or the parent by just letting it go like it's nothing? There's a reason why gay marriage has been looked down upon for thousands of years and why it's slipping away now. Our world is falling apart and fast and who doe it start with? The parents.

    • Posted By: tonyla64 @ 06/07/2008 3:58:28 AM

      The world is falling apart ?
      Yes, I suppose the world was so much better when gay men and women had no choice but to marry someone of the opposite sex and be miserable, cheat on there spouses, and live a life that was a lie..........
      You write as though homosexuality is something new and disrupting to our world today. The only thing different today is that your little sheltered picture perfect world doesn't look the way you want it to.........
      Well join the club, because with the exception of the last 20 - 30 years, millions of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered human beings put here by the same GOD you were, have felt exactly the same way.

    • Posted By: ixmarcusd @ 06/04/2008 5:33:17 PM

      We live in a world that suggest anything and everything is O.K., so why does this matter, morals are a thing of the past, just embrace our soft porn society and all is well.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:22:41 AM

      Every generation has thought the sky is falling. However, I agree with your point about parents not taking responsibility like they used to. But I'm more concerned about violence, young mothers, and drug use due to parents not properly caring for their children than someone being gay. I believe that most gays are peaceful, intelligent, productive members of society. We have greater things to worry about for our childrens' futures than who they sleep with...the environment, social security, and health care just to name a few.
      I also don't believe the number of homosexuals has increased. There are well-documented cases of homosexuality throughout history. I think it's just becoming more accepted, so more are coming out.

  • Posted By: punkzanyj @ 06/06/2008 9:05:37 PM

    eLIEzer,
    You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the basics of addictive disorders. Addictive disorders get in the way of family, friendships, being able to function. Addictions keep you from being able to work, to eat healthy, to take care of yourself and your loved ones. Homosexuality does not prevent any of those things.
    The second thing you don't understand is that an addiction is something mild or normal taken too far. If there are alcoholics (out of control) and people who merely enjoy the occassional drink (in control) then there must be a level of gayness that is well within control. Something only becomes addictive once the person can no longer moderate their use.
    The third thing is that many, if not most gay people recall knowing they were gay long before they ever had sex. People arrive at addiction through use. There has never been the case of someone who knew they were an addict prior to ever having exposure to the substance in question. There are no smokers who, at age three, realized they were "different". No one hangs around with their friends and realizes "my goodness, I think I might be a heroin addict!" without ever having done the drug.
    Finally you are wrong in asserting that gays account for most molestation cases. This is patently false. When a man sexually assaults a boy, that does not make him gay, that makes him a child molestor. Gay people have healthy relationships with adults, not children. Pedophiles, on the other hand, either are fixated on children and have no interest in a sexual relationship with adults of either gender OR claim vehemently to be straight and have girlfriends, wives, and sometimes children of their own to prove it. Even IF you suggested that men who attack boys must be homosexual, then the facts show these are not out, proud, homosexuals who have relationships with adults. Which would mean it is the CLOSETED homosexuals, are the ones you should worry about, not the Out Proud Gays such as myself.

  • Posted By: punkzanyj @ 06/06/2008 9:05:21 PM

    eLIEzer,
    You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the basics of addictive disorders. Addictive disorders get in the way of family, friendships, being able to function. Addictions keep you from being able to work, to eat healthy, to take care of yourself and your loved ones. Homosexuality does not prevent any of those things.
    The second thing you don't understand is that an addiction is something mild or normal taken too far. If there are alcoholics (out of control) and people who merely enjoy the occassional drink (in control) then there must be a level of gayness that is well within control. Something only becomes addictive once the person can no longer moderate their use.
    The third thing is that many, if not most gay people recall knowing they were gay long before they ever had sex. People arrive at addiction through use. There has never been the case of someone who knew they were an addict prior to ever having exposure to the substance in question. There are no smokers who, at age three, realized they were "different". No one hangs around with their friends and realizes "my goodness, I think I might be a heroin addict!" without ever having done the drug.
    Finally you are wrong in asserting that gays account for most molestation cases. This is patently false. When a man sexually assaults a boy, that does not make him gay, that makes him a child molestor. Gay people have healthy relationships with adults, not children. Pedophiles, on the other hand, either are fixated on children and have no interest in a sexual relationship with adults of either gender OR claim vehemently to be straight and have girlfriends, wives, and sometimes children of their own to prove it. Even IF you suggested that men who attack boys must be homosexual, then the facts show these are not out, proud, homosexuals who have relationships with adults. Which would mean it is the CLOSETED homosexuals, are the ones you should worry about, not the Out Proud Gays such as myself.

  • Posted By: bluesouth73 @ 06/04/2008 3:47:30 PM

    i am not a gay man but i do believe that everyone has the right to be happy as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and if two men or two women feel happy together than so be it.plus all of you closet homosexuals need to keep your mouths shut ,usually the ones with the biggest mouths are the ones who secretly want it.just remember all of you religous freeks if your beliefs are true and there is a god then guess what he made gays to.so i guess your saying your god makes mistakes well he did make you.no one asked the straight people to join the gays just ignore them if you don't like it.let them be happy.

    • Posted By: KingJosiah @ 06/06/2008 7:21:12 PM

      Thank you for telling it like it is.

  • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/05/2008 8:34:44 PM

    I pose this question to anyone who is religious and objects to gay marriage on the grounds of religion...

    Some people on here are saying that gay people should overcome and supress their homosexual feelings... so what do you propose gay people do? Marry someone of the other sex?....that doesn't seem very honest....and even if you were honest with your opposite-sex spouse of your homosexual feelings..who would want to marry someone that would not love you to their fullest? Think about it. How honest would that life be? Doesn't seem very Christian to me, and seems like that would cause alot more pain in the world than my gay marriage. Feel free to disuss.

    • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/06/2008 12:14:03 AM

      The question is whether policy should change. An Orthodox, Reformed, or Catholic view of the behavior itself would focus on serving and supporting that person to overcome the disorder, if that person is a professing believer. The same traditions would be concerned about the children raised and patterned in that environment, and the generational consequences. That's why those faith traditions believe it is unjust to give public sanction to the behavior. It would be unjust for all concerned. The teaching of new normality in places like public schools would raise serious objections, when at least at the physiological level homosexual behavior is not normal - the parts are made to work a certain way. Each of those traditions might speculate that reasons for the behavior involve under-development in the emotional domain, genetic proclivity (remember that "the fall" impacted the physical aspects of all persons), and other developmental/psychological/spiritual factors.

      • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/06/2008 6:29:22 PM

        That is all good...It didn't answer my post.

  • Posted By: Eliezer @ 06/06/2008 5:23:28 PM

    The homo-erotic dysfunction is a compulsive addictive disorder, more addictive the longer it is practiced & to the degree environment is supportive. It takes mettle & insight to overcome personal limitations, qualities seldom mentioned. Just as there is AA, sexual addicts anonymous groups inculcating healthy psycho-sexual dispositions are needed. Over time, the fictional homo-erotic persona can be overcome. The environment must be supportive. The greatest challenge??? The predatory & skewed disposition of our places of learning & the tendency to place monetary values on every sphere of human existence. Once again, victimology is a "science" of the regressive left & it's fellow travelers, who exploit & take advantage. Weaknesses are pragmatically used for political goals. Social engineering is... social engineering, & it's difficult for anyone in today's world to rise to positions of authority unless they ARE corruptible & CAN be manipulated. Sexual indiscretions are frequently playmates to blackmail. When it comes to homosexuality, the word for adult sexual induction of youth, is pederasty, not the catch-all, pedophilia. Proportionately, "gays" molest far more youth than those referred to as the "heterosexual" community. According to "gay" speak, one IS a pederast, & thus has no choice but to seek out sex with young boys. As a society of human beings ostensibly constituted to uplift & guard human dignity, especially the youth among us, we have serious issue. The sexualization of Kulture, & the Kinsey "everything and everyone," he construed as a legitimate sexual "outlet," does not imply a positive prognosis. Far from it, the major places of learning, the American Bar & Legal Associations, & policy shaping bodies like the APA & "Justice," have all been infected with Kinsey's virus to varying degrees. Kinsey engineered the scientific pretext for the "solution," which for Rockefeller was the dissolution of the American Constitutional Republic based upon moral principle apllied in common law & the unalienable rights to life, liberty and property. These guarantees are anathema to the interests of the CORPORATE COLLECTIVE, operating under commercial or Admiralty law. Under such color-of-law, human beings are cast AS brainless animals & "sexual outlets." The scope of this project is far greater than so-called "gay" rights. It reaches to the very core & foundations of the New World. Today were are assaulted by an appendage of the Old World... a New World Odor. The two pillars of human civilization are, honest weights & measures & a moral & healthy sexual constitution. For Americans to survive with their rights to life, liberty & property in tact - for America to be preserved as a bastion OF these rights, Americans must forgo entertainment (brainwashing) & convenience -

  • Posted By: krissyrose81 @ 06/04/2008 5:22:25 PM

    Why is it that those who espouse hatred get more attention than those that offer a simple human point of view? If you are lucky enough to find love, you should not have to face puritanical obstacles, that have never had a logical basis for existing in the first place. My dream is that someday my children will never have to live in a world where hatred trumps humanity and due to conversations of this nature they won't have to. Thank you for a very timely article.

    • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/04/2008 10:26:19 PM

      Krissy, not supporting gay marriage is not the same as hatred. It is a desire for justice and a cry for adherence to the democratic process.

      • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/05/2008 5:23:59 AM

        MDDave, I believe that "supporting gay marriage" is a "desire for justice". As far as "adherence to the democratic process", gay marriage HAS adhered to the democratic process in both massachusetts and california, according to their charters/constitutions. In massachusetts , the matter was a legitimate interpretation of the constitution by the Mass Supreme Court. In California, don't forget that the legislature voted FOR same sex marriage and then the governor refused to sign it. THEN the court declared (as is totally within their right and duty) to declare that same sex couples are entitled to marriage. This has ALL been within the democratic process.

        The courts have often taken steps to protect the rights of minorities, regardless of the "vote" of the majority of the populace. Do you think we would have racial equality (at least in law, if not totally yet in practice) if it had been voted on -- Especially at a time when racial minorities were NOT allowed to vote??

        In 1948 the California Court struck down laws outlawing interracial marriage; at that time, some polls showed that 90% ( !!! ) of the populace was AGAINST this ruling.

        As far as your aleged "hatred" of gay people, after reading your other posts I can see why peple would accuse you of hatred, but MY theory is that you're just scared of what you don't understand, and your anti-gay rhetoric is a direct result of that fear. I suggest you make a point of confronting your lack of underatandin -- go out and meet more gay people -- you'll find that they are NOT all that scary.

        And Krissy, you're RIGHT ON!!!!

        • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/05/2008 9:14:35 AM

          That's hillarious. I know gay people and they are fine. It has nothing to do with that. You missed the point entirely. The governor's refusal to sign legislation IS the democratic process. The voters have the option of tossing him or their legislators out. A judge creating a "constitutional event" in the absence of grievous injustice (like segregation or widespread discrimination) is taking it out of the hands of policy makers. Even many proponents of gay marriage agree that this process is flawed for this reason. I find it hard to believe you read my posts and thought I was scared of gays. Even more amazed that you think anyone could my posts as hatred - which is clearly just you filter for the information you don't agree with. You don't agree with me, therefore you hate - the classic left wing accusation; which is a non sequitur. The big issue in this process is the preeminence and rising dominance of the judiciary. They ignore case law and the people when they make such rulings. (Oh, and last I checked the Mass Supreme Judical Court did not enforce the legislature's will over the Governor. Mass had passed a DOMA prior to that ruling) So the real question is do we want our courts to become mini-constitutional conventions when it comes to such issues. As far as the dysfunction of homosexual behavior - I still do believe that, but we all have various things like that going on in our lives. The DSM even addresses this with homosexuality. It's not the person, it's whether to society has to be forced to sanction the behavior. Concurrently, it's do we punish those folks who, like a small business in Arizona recently, choose to not participate out of conscience.

          • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/06/2008 2:15:02 AM

            Well, MDDave, you certainly described yourself when you said: "you filter for the information you don't agree with". Thanks for that!!

            I'm surprised that you say you "know gay people", yet you also say there is no "segregation or widespread discrimination" -- what the heck is "you people arent entitled to marry" if inot segregation and discrimination?? What about people being denied housing, or jobs do you not see as segregation and discrimination? Granted, there is now SOME protecction from California laws, but gay people ARE still discriminated against despite the laws (and much more blantently in state without any legislation). It IS an act of "discrimination" to try to amend the constitution to say that gay people are specifically prohibited from one of the most important institutions that hetero people are entitled to!!! Don't you see THAT as discrimination??

            California and Mass were different situations, but BOTH were within the constitution: Yes, the governor's refusal to sign legislation IS the democratic process, but it is only ONE PART of the process -- another part is when the California court agreed with the legislature; in fact, the governor accepted the court's decision. In Mass there was no specific DOMA to begin with, the court was responding to a suit brought about by several same-sex couples who wanted to get married. Again, all within the rules of the constitution.

            As far as whether "society has to be forced to sanction the behavior", I am first of all amazed how you seem to equate homosexuality with "behavior". Are you just obsessed with what you think same sex couples do together sexually, or do you really NOT understand the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual ORIENTATION?? But more directly to your question, there all kinds of behaviors out there that society MAKES WAY FOR (ie that society does not declare illegal), for example the Bible condemns divorce and eating shellfish, but they are not illegal. I personally don't like people who talk on cellphones at the shopping mall, or who dart out of a long line at the checkout to pick up an additional item, but these behaviors aren't illegal.

            • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/06/2008 1:47:30 PM

              AuntieEm: Well, it is true; we all filter information with our worldview, don't we.
              People can disagree, and consensus can occur - but not with sweeping seismic rulings the bench (although there are cases where that is called for in the case of systemic discrimination or injustice).

              Yes, I feel some people should not marry: Cousins, brothers and sisters,
              minors without safeguards, and people of the same sex. That is not unlawful
              discrimination because the rationale is reasonable. Cousins may feel put
              upon by this, because they may want love to win out, but that does not
              compel a change from society's policy on marriage.

              Gays are generally more economically well off than the rest of the
              population and have found excellent roles in society. As for Mass, the process was followed up to a certain point and the governor was right to accept (and disagree) with the ruling. The people chose to have a ballot referendum to change the constitution, but it was killed by parliamentary maneuver. They knew it would have passed. The democrats killed the voter initiative. Hardly democratic or fair to the voters of the state.

              Homosexuality is demonstrated by a behavior. Orientation is something else. As for the Bible references you quote, let me say this: There are three kinds of laws in the Bible: Moral, Ceremonial (incl. dietary), and Civil. Orthodox faith groups all agree that the moral law applies, but is not necessarily civilly enforced. Orthodox/Conservative Jews still hold to many of the ceremonial laws but do not apply those to the state. Christians believe that the ceremonial laws have been abolished for believers. The Civil law in the bible applied to Israel and then Judah during the periods of those kingdoms. Civil laws demonstrate principles for government now: protect the innocent, ensure justice for the widow and orphan, ensure safety, protect the land, humane treatment of animals, work conditions, limitations on slavery, etc. That's why no faith group is concerned with outlawing lobster at the dinner table.

              Lots of folks have orientations: Alcoholism, pedophilia, compulsive
              gambling, violence, eating disorders, etc. That does not confer a form of
              protected class status and it does not compel the people to support changing
              policies that mitigate the behaviors associated with those orientations. So not all discrimination is necessarily bad or unlawful.

              Now if political accommodations could be made to protect those whose consciences are "in the way," that would be step forward. For example, there is no reason why a faith based adoption organization should be forced to close its doors because the state forces them to violate their fundamental values by placing a child in a homosexual home - but that is what is happening now. This is just a form of soft-totalitarianism that the left is all to willing to impose on the rest of us - thus crushing true protections of the first amendment.

  • Posted By: The Great Molloy @ 06/06/2008 12:29:53 PM

    Thank you Anna Quindlen for your insightful article, and thank you California, for helping a wrong to finally be righted. All people are equal and all people deserve the same basic rights as everyone else. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What a concept!
    For all of you out there that have a problem with gay marriage, that is what it is, your problem. What gives you the right to decide what is right for others? As the Martin Luther King Jr. said, and preached: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Equality for all. Amen.

  • Posted By: BoGilles @ 06/06/2008 7:23:00 AM

    AuntieEm,
    Thanks for clarifying somewhat the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. I have always been torn between the notion that gay people are born that way and the teaching of my Church which vehemently sees it as a choice.
    As for me I cannot imagine what situations in life could lead me to homosexual activities. It never enter my mind.
    By the same token, as you said, I have to enlarge my horizon concerning homosexuality. What complicates my views and feelings is what is attached to homosexuality, like pedophilia, which I know is not been gay. Are they born pedophile or is it a choice?
    Now come the question for same-sex marriage and it goes on and on. Sometimes it's good to explore our inner self, but we don't always find any answer.

    • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/06/2008 10:13:33 AM

      A lot of studies and genome research have pretty much found genetic links or proclivities to homosexuality (they use this to support the case that it is not a choice). On the other hand, they have also found such links for alcoholism, domestic violence, and pedophilia. In the case of alcoholism we all say it is a "disease" because of the fact that it acts like one - i.e. not a choice. In reality such conditions are (I think) combinations of events: perhaps genetic leanings, developmental issues, and of course, choices made. An alcoholic, to fight his "sickness" must make conscious choices just like a diabetic would (alcohol and food consumption). So, the answer is clouded. As others have said in these comments, it really boils down to whether the policy of guidelines of marriage should change.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse