Update (12:12 p.m.): I’ve gotten e-mails, Facebook comments, and tweets about why I’ve closed comments on the blog. Life is just easier without them, and I can focus on other things during the day. When I get three comments on a long post, I spend too much time wondering why. When a post brings out the trolls, I kick myself for opening comments. (It is liberating to say what you’ve got to say “soapbox” style and not wonder about or even expect feedback.) But this topic is worth it, so I’ll open the post up for discussion.
—————————————————————————
God, did you bring me all the way to California so I could join the front line of the battle to protect traditional marriage?
Wow. I might be on to something. I was seething last night when I read about a pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd blocking traffic in the Westwood area of Los Angeles near the Mormon temple. Allow me to digress for a moment. I’ve never blogged my view of Mormonism, but here goes: Mormonism is not historic Christianity. [The rest I deleted. Too distracting, and it belongs in a different post.]
With that out of the way, I wholly support Mormons’ decision to support Proposition 8, a measure that amends California’s constitution to define marriage as between only a man and a woman. I will defend and stand with Mormons on this issue.
Back to the point of the post. Last night my sister and I watched a live camera feed on CBS2 of a group of homosexual “marriage” supporters holding up traffic as they “protested” their way to the gate of the Mormon Temple. They claim Mormons spent millions on “deceptive” ads supporting Prop 8, which a spokesman denies. The man wasn’t denying that his church supported the measure. He said the church as an institution didn’t pay for any ads.
The details aren’t overly important. As I watched people blocking traffic, protesting for their so-called right to make a mockery of marriage, my mind flashed to that grainy black-and-white footage from the 1960s. You know what I’m talking about, right? Blacks were fighting to be treated as first class citizens – to be allowed to vote in peace, to sit wherever they wanted to sit on a bus or train, to live where they wanted to live, to take advantage of all the rights and protections everyone else enjoyed. Legal segregation and discrimination were so demeaning that people were willing to pay with their lives, so their children and grandchildren could be FREE.
And to think some homosexuals compare themselves to civil rights-era blacks! It burns me up, man. To calm myself down, I came up with this idea. Let homosexuals experience an authentic “civil rights movement” moment, complete with billy clubs upside the head, firehoses in the face, and attack dogs at the rear. I don’t condone violence for the sake of violence, but if these people want to co-opt a legitimate movement, they ought to experience it in full.
Let’s spit on them and shout nasty things as they march by. Let’s throw things and push and shove. Let’s pour stuff on their heads (the wrath of God?) and pelt them with rocks. Let’s run them off the road, pull them out of cars and do mock-lynchings to scare the…out of them.
But that would be ridiculous, just as ridiculous as homosexuals comparing their so-called plight to what black Americans went through.
As I’ve said before (and I’ll quote myself), homosexuals hear this:
“Two people, three people, four or more people of any sex can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of the same sex. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, or whatever, are under those same protections. But what homosexuals want are special rights, one of which involves overhauling the institution of marriage. You have no civil right to do that.
Trying to turn your desire for acceptance into a right is clever. We’re big on rights in this country. In California, homosexuals can register as domestic partners, and they’ll have rights, protections, and benefits. But that’s not enough! People warned that once we relented on the domestic partnership issue, homosexuals would be clamoring for marriage. That’s exactly what they’re doing, and they’re willing to nullify the votes of millions of people to do it.
Here’s a slope slippery enough to sicken even the unreasonable: You know the old sayings…give a man a rope, and he wants to be a cowboy…Give them an inch, they take a yard? Just as allowing “civil unions” has given way to a demand for marriage, allowing marriage will give way to such horrors as men “marrying” boys. I can clearly see nutso parents consenting to allow their sons to “marry” some pervert. With homosexual marriage on one end and a lowered age of consent on the other, the kid wouldn’t even need his parents’ permission! Think I’m crazy? You better believe it can and will happen.
Isn’t it ironic that homosexuals, once rebels in a culture that shut them away in a closet, now want to encroach on heterosexuals and make a mockery of the institution of marriage? That’s revenge, my friends. It was nothing to do with so-called rights and “being with my partner forever” and “the right to love who I want to love” and the rest of that nonsense. They seek acceptance for something that appalls most people, something that God calls sin. If you think my opposing homosexual “marriage” means I hate homosexuals, you’re wrong. I hate the sin. I will never accept what is perverse in God’s eyes as normal, and I will continue to speak out against homosexual “marriage” and do what I can to prevent it.
You have to pick your battles in life. Where are my sword and shield?
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 83 comments }
All I can say is…
AMEN!
I’ve said it before and I’ll probably have to say it again…
Dear gay folk: Take the “civil rights” nonsense off the table. You want to inherit, visit in hospital, go into debt together, sign off on advance directives, whatever… fine. You can register your domestic union (whether loving and committed or not) and have the same legal privileges as anyone else.
But you have to come up with a word other than “married” to describe your state. You can’t be “married” any more than I can be a “mother”.
You’re not husband and husband, nor wife and wife. Those are gender-specific terms *defined in relation to the opposite gender*. You can be spouse and spouse; those are gender-nuetral terms.
“What’s the big deal over a word?” you ask. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…,” you say.
You can dress a dog in feathers and flippers, and train it to walk on its hind legs and quack. But that doesn’t make it a duck.
Way to go… Especially the paragraphs starting with:
And to think some homosexuals…
Let’s spit on them…..
Not because we should do so, but to give a great frame from which to view this ridiculousness!
Preach it, Lashawn!!! Amen and amen! Homosexuality is sin, plain and simple. They can deny that all they want, but either in this life or the next, they will have to accept that truth. I do not hate homosexuals either, but be prepared, Lashawn, to have them screaming that we are homophobic.
God bless you! Keep up the good work,
Libby
First, now I finally know why you don’t do the comment thing. I went crazy looking for a way to leave comments. Of course all of mine will likely be praise, such as this one. I agree. There’s not much more I can add to it, but I agree wholeheartedly.
I’m so glad I found your blog : )
There is no comparison. The fact that people try to liken the two boils my blood.
BTW, gay readers, do you really want to be subject to the same divorce laws that us straights are? Think about it.
chsw
I think that homosexuals do themselves a disservice by continually comparing their plight to that of black people in America. And, as a black man it offends me, and I know it offends a lot of other black people. For example, in California, 70 percent of black people voted against Proposition 8. Honestly I could care less either way if gay people got “married” or not. (Sorry La Shawn). I’m neither for, nor am I against it. But there are a few things I do care about. First, fighting for gay rights is in no way, shape, or form similar to the fight that black people went through in America. It wasn’t until 1860 that we were actually considered “people” in this country. And last time a checked, a gay person has never been denied the right to vote, attend as school, or drink at a water fountain. Come on now!! Second, the right to marry someone who is of the same sex as you is not a “civil right”. It’s not protected anywhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has never held that the right to marry a person of the same sex is a protected right (1L Con Law ya La Shawn). Third, “marriage” is an institution created by religion. Therefore, since they created it, they should have the right to define what it is. The only time the government gets involved in marriage is in determining what rights existed as the result of a marriage. And if the government makes no distinction between the rights that exist between individuals involved in a marriage and a civil union, than homosexuals, you don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
By the way La Shawn, keep the anti Obama stories coming, because I’m gonna take you to task on ‘em!!
Let’s be fair, everybody. We have a history of using the Bible to justify hatred, prejudice, and ignorance. It’s been used to justify slavery, murder, and war. Does any of that sound like Jesus’ intention?
This argument of the “corruption” of marriage is just another shadow. Why haven’t we protested at divorce courts, with a 50% divorce rate in this country? Why didn’t we protest Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire, which has done more to cheapen and corrupt the purity of marriage more than any two loving individuals ever did, no matter their gender.
Beyond Leviticus - which hardly applies, since the New Testament - there is no Biblical support that God is against homosexuals or their behavior.
If you are truly Christians, your concern should be that of the soul, not of the flesh.
I believe you have found another calling. You’re are right on target. This is how Americans feel-no matter what their stripe is. Americans are just that, Americans. No hyphens!
I have fought this same battle with gays on gay web sites.
Homosexuality is strictly limited to how two or more engage in sex. To make dead end sexual gratification a civil right is the height of insanity.
Kudo’s to LaShawn on her smackdown on the folly of comparing gay “rights” to the civil rights movement and struggles.
Beyond Leviticus - which hardly applies, since the New Testament - there is no Biblical support that God is against homosexuals or their behavior.
Earl
What bible are you reading there Earl? The Bible according to Earl?
Ever read Romans 1?
“18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Or how about I Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Marvin - which translation is that?
The New International Version.
Earl,
It says the same thing in every version. NKJV, NASB, ESV.
I haven’t read the Message Bible (and never will), but I doubt even that translation could gloss over Romans 1.
Amen!
Well said!
Gays were gassed by the Nazis, are routinely hanged in Iran, treated like vermin in many African countries, brutally murdered in Jamaica, outlawed in Singapore and are now relegated to second class citizens in CA. Personally, I don’t care for any comparisons with the Civil Rights movement for blacks in the US. I am delighted that Barack Obama is our new president, but after 40+ years of relentlessly challenging my white friends over their racist opinions on African Americans, it’s time to move on. Gay people are now officially this nation’s most oppressed minority. Please keep the ‘Civil Rights movement’ name - it’s all yours.
Beautifully done La Shawn! I’m recommending it to others. And your Corner is now on my daily read list. Actually, it has been for a few days now.
All the best, and God Bless.
Shawn I am glad too, but how many of those people who voted against this law, voted for Obama. The contradiction is sad! Very , very sad!
Slam Dunk, La Shawn! BTW, you won.
>>”Gay people are now officially this nation’s most oppressed minority.”
That is a laughable statement. They are sooo oppressed that they have their gay day parade at Disney World, that they flaunt their gayness on tv and movies and magazines, that they hold regular and high-paying/high profile jobs, that they have special hate crime laws written just for them. Are you going by the 2-year-old’s definition of “oppressed?” To them, anything that isn’t “getting their own way” is oppression, but that doesn’t play in real life.
I’ve been offended by that comparison to blacks a long time. You said what needs to be said. Say it, Sister.
Let’s spit on them and shout nasty things as they march by. Let’s throw things and push and shove. Let’s pour stuff on their heads (the wrath of God?) and pelt them with rocks. Let’s run them off the road, pull them out of cars and do mock-lynchings to scare the…out of them.
That kind of stuff might not happen in California, but it’s happened to friends and acquaintances of mine in the rural South. Trust me, it’s not like all gays are wealthy couples from San Francisco.
Of course I’m a Christian and I’m committed to celibacy to boot, so this really doesn’t concern my own life. However, I do think attitudes need to change, even if traditional marriage is protected. A teenager doesn’t need to be afraid that his parents will kick him out of the house if he admits to having homosexual feelings. A teacher doesn’t have to worry about being fired just for revealing her orientation to a coworker (I’ve known it to happen). A Christian shouldn’t be made to feel beneath “normal straight” Christians just because he struggles with homosexuality (which is a reality I live with every day despite my celibacy).
So yeah, maybe the gay community in California has gone too far in demanding acceptance when they already have domestic partnerships. But some people in other states aren’t even allowed that. Some people in rural areas of the country still have to worry about being beaten and killed (and let’s not even mention parts of the world like the Middle East).
Upholding morality is fine, but accepting those who are different is OK too. We must be slow to anger and quick to love, and we mustn’t let visceral reactions get in the way of reaching out to people who need it. The more graceful Christians come across looking in this, the better it will be for Christians like me who are struggling with homosexuality. That’s something to think about.
Just who gave 2% of the population so much power?
I am confused as to why the Black community does not think it is a civil rights issue?? Clearly the same protections and benefits are not being offered to the gay community. It is fine to a religious stance on a topic, but that stance should not impede someone rights in this country.
Just for the record - gay and lesbians have been discriminated a lot longer than the Black community. It is still punishable by death in many countries and right now it feels like the U.S. doesn’t respect the community at all.
They will not be satisfied until they get gay marriage accepted under federal law and any defeat in a state is a strike against that goal. Currently gays can get the monetary benefits married people get in the states that recognize their marriage. However, that is not the case at the federal level. They cannot file as married on federal income tax returns. They are not considered legally married when it comes to federal inheritance tax (or exemptions), and so on.
Follow the money, people.
So glad you are back…and it sounds like you are enjoying your new home. I think that the gay movement came up with the “civil rights” thing to try to sell it! I mean, every one believes in civil rights, so how could you be against gay civil right?? It is a fraud that Libs have come up with (just like Pro-Choice) to try to sell it to America. They are teaching it to our children in schools…pounding the message away to whomever they can. But, I wholeheartedly believe as you do…they can do whatever they want (that is legal) but IT IS NOT MARRAIGE..No Way!! ..and I have quite a few conservative gay friends who agree…this is an ultra-liberal agenda!!
PS I have a facebook page that I have only gotten on once…I just did not get it..you have inspired me to get back on and see who is there!!
La Shawn, I just have to say that I have read your blog for a while now and that this is one of the most impressive posts so far. I commend you for telling it like it is. I didn’t live through the horrible nightmare of the Civil Rights Movement, but I do live in the South now and grew up in a town with a horrible sterotype with the black community. It was deserved then, but is not now. To know what blacks went through on a daily basis just because of their skin color and then to have the gay community even try to compare themselves is just ridiculous. First, the Bible does not say that being black is a sin. Second, what rights do gays not have that I do? I mean in the Constitution? They have everything that I have, as far as I can tell. They even have special parades and communities for them. I do not ever get a special parade. When they have one in California for short, fat, white Christian housewives will you let me know because I am totally feeling left out and oppressed.
Homosexuality is strictly limited to how two or more engage in sex. To make dead end sexual gratification a civil right is the height of insanity.
Heliotrope: I think that’s just a little mean. I’m celibate for the sake of my religion but I also struggle with homosexuality, and trust me, there are emotional desires there that are just as strong as the ones heterosexuals feel.
Those desires are also very hard to meet outside of a sexual relationship, which is why Christians who struggle with homosexuality often need extra support and companionship from the Church. I think it does a disservice to all parties involved as to write of homosexuality as merely a sexual thing. There is love and self-sacrifice in those relationships as well. It may be misdirected, but it’s still there. I wrote a blog post about this very recently called “What It’s Not Always About.” You should check it out.
We should be fighting abortion, which is murder, rather than gay marriage which is merely silly.
“Two people, three people, four or more people of any sex can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of the same sex. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, or whatever, are under those same protections. But what homosexuals want are special rights, one of which involves overhauling the institution of marriage. You have no civil right to do that.”
Let’s see…
“Hispanics, black people people, white people people can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of a different race. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or whatever, are under those same protections. But what interracial couples want want are special rights, one of which involves overhauling the institution of marriage. You have no civil right to do that.”
See how easy it is?
The differences between the black struggle for civil rights and the gay struggle for civil rights stem almost entirely from one thing: black people, for the most part, are identifiable on sight. Gay people, for the most part, aren’t. If gay people were all visually identifiable to the extent that black people are, you can bet every cent you’ve got we’d have separate drinking fountains and such, assuming we weren’t all killed at birth. There are tenured university professors at this moment getting papers published in scientific journals calling for a way to screen for homosexuality in the womb so the gay population can be wiped out by selective abortions:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf
“Let’s spit on them and shout nasty things as they march by. Let’s throw things and push and shove. Let’s pour stuff on their heads (the wrath of God?) and pelt them with rocks. Let’s run them off the road, pull them out of cars and do mock-lynchings to scare the…out of them.”
You actually believe this doesn’t happen? What planet are you living on, and how can I get there? Are our full civil rights somehow predicated on how much victimization we receive? Is it a contest? Are there, like, only so many rights to go around and if we get more you’ll have to make do with less?
And btw, the Black civil rights movement got most of its ideas from Gandhi, but you don’t hear Indians complaining. Oh, and also btw, the guy most responsible for bringing Gandhi’s ideas to the civil rights movement? Bayard Rustin? Yeah, the gay one.
The stat about 70% of blacks voting for Prop. 8 is interesting. I voted No on 8, which puts me in the 30% minority of black people.
Maybe the state should not vest the power to marry in preachers, pastors, rabbis, imams, etc., and just vest Notary Publics or something. Get the signature of the parties to this most private contract, record it, and call it a day.
Take the church out of the contractual side of marrying people, so that they can focus on helping couples with the spiritual side. You can still have the church ceremony or anyting else people do, but whether two consenting men or two consenting women want to marry has absolutely no impact on my marriage or how I rear my kids.
“The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”
“In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship.”
none other than jesse jackson, de-nutter of obama and one of LB’s fave people.
‘Oppression’ comes in many forms. Looking around at various messageboards tofay, I have heard gays called: pedophiles, feces-eaters, sex-obsessed, disgusting, perverted, sick; that they choose to be gay, are trying to destroy Western civilization and that ‘Aids is not a disease - it’s the cure’. There are even rap and reggae songs advocating the beating and murder of gays. Alongside this, are thousands of much more reasonably phrased - but no less discriminatory - comments about gays not deserving marriage or families. Name ONE other minority in this country that routinely gets these insults thrown at them, FL Mom.
Not about this post but the previous post.
You be careful about a “meet up”.
Hi Lady,
Am sorry you have so many problems with comments. Am glad that you still address issues with a high degree of clarity.
Christ applied a stricter law than Moses with respect to marriage. Adultery is a more serious problem than other sexual sin because marriage (if done as a christian) is a contract not just with other but with the Lord as well. Read scripture and it is clear that he is against homo sex as well as all other types of sin.
No valid argument here, just an attempt by lazy individuals to tell others that what they have read and studied is wrong. If Gay people want to read and discuss, Great . . . if they want to toss out an invalid argument for lack of anything relevant, that says something about the quality of their thinking.
Lady,
you do not need to allow comments to get me to read your site. Some of the people who comment on your site also have my respect. Trolls are a fact of life and say more about themselves than they realize.
Billy clubs, dogs, murder and intimidation were and are wrong. It happened (for a long time) and it having happened does not justify advocating it again. I understand frustration but Christ expects us to learn to control ourselves. We say things that are half in jest that are still wrong. I’ve told people that with the state my 401 is in that my plan for retirement is to strap on 24 sticks and go see what a mosque looks like. It will get a laugh but the truth of the matter is that I cannot do that because two wrongs will not make a right.
The Mormons and the Catholics and the Protestants did not fund ads about prop 8. Members of those faiths did. The churches themselves find more important things to do with their money.
Sincerely
Thomas-
“The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”
Except we’re talking about the civil rights movement, not slavery per se. And if your logic holds up, then slavery can’t even be compared with slavery, in that some slave masters were black:
http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/1995/3037.html
It would appear to me that the issue needs to begin, at least for those who are wanting to allow marriage to be open to same sex couples, with a redefening of what exactly marriage is. Good luck with that. I can’t think of any civilization that has allowed for same sex couples being recognized in the rite of matrimony.
Marriage is certainly a religious institution. It has it’s origin in religion and not the State, regardless, the comparison to the plight of blacks in this country in their struggle for equality is simply obscene and deceptive. Your sexual proclivities should not and do not define you as a person. At least I would hope a person would be of more substance than that.
“I can’t think of any civilization that has allowed for same sex couples being recognized in the rite of matrimony.”
Well, let me help you out with that:
The Netherlands
Belgium
Canda
Spain
South Africa
Massachusets
Norway starting January 1, 2009
“Marriage is certainly a religious institution.”
Hence why many religious denominations perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. But it’s also a legal institution. That’s the part we’re interested in. Fortunately for you, when same sex marriage is fully legalized in this country, it won’t affect any religious organization’s views on marriage.
“It has it’s origin in religion and not the State, regardless, the comparison to the plight of blacks in this country in their struggle for equality is simply obscene and deceptive.”
Because… um…, well, just ’cause.
“Your sexual proclivities should not and do not define you as a person.”
I don’t believe anyone ever claimed that they did, at least not completely. Gay people’s sexual proclivities define us just as much as straight people’s proclivities do. Or would you like to spend a month not shoving your heterosexuality down everyone’s throat? Try it. For one month:
Do not make any mention whatsoever outside of your home of anything related in any way to your sexual orientation.
Do not acknowledge your bf/gf/husband/wife in any manner other than as a strictly platonic friend in any form of public setting whatsoever. You must refer to them solely as “my friend.”
If you have children, do not acknowledge them in any way outside your residence.
It goes without saying you can’t hold hands or engage in any form of PDA with your kids or spouse.
Do not file taxes jointly.
Do not expect any special visitation rights should your spouse or child be hospitalized.
Expect to be fired from your job should you slip up and accidentally make reference to your bf/gf/huband/wife at work in any way.
One month. Let us know how it goes.
the questions is: where do you stop? if two of the same gender is marriage, why can’t polygamy be considered marriage?
would i be a bigot polygamyphobe if i voiced my opposition to that?
This brings up the obvious question of why not get Federal and State governments out of the marriage business altogether? Stop providing ANY benefit to married people. No exceptions, no special rights for heterosexual couples. If you want a marriage before god, well that’s between you and your church and is no business of the any government. Do we really need government involvement in this aspect of our lives? Ever heard of the principle render unto god that which is god’s, unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s?
People could record their unions with the county/parish clerks and that’s it. If you want to define your how your stuff is inherited, record a will with the county. Ditto for parenting arrangements, power of attorney, etc. And of course, remove the married tax filing categories and social security benefits for spouses. Everybody can get a job, right? And everybody can get healthcare from that job, right? I suppose that’s why there are 45 million uninsured Americans.
I think that you will find that most married heterosexual couples would balk at losing these benefits and would no surrender them merely to be fair to the homosexuals. Since the majority of married society is unlikely to shed their “marriage privileges” to be equal - this would cost them thousands of dollars extra per year and require them to get a job to have insurance. It seems the most reasonable thing we as a society can do is just to grant the right to marry to consenting adults.
You know, some of those “gay perverts” [sic] that many of you fundamentalist types bash actually have much more stable families than your own. Food for thought, self-examination.
“the questions is: where do you stop? if two of the same gender is marriage, why can’t polygamy be considered marriage?
would i be a bigot polygamyphobe if i voiced my opposition to that?”
Oh, is that the question? So your opposition to same sex marriage is not based on same sex marriage itself, but on something other than same sex marriage? Interesting.
The answer, of course, is that you stop wherever there is a reason to stop. Is there a legitimate reason for the government not to sanction polygamous marriage? I mean, other than people thinking it’s icky. If so, then it holds true regardless of the status of same sex marriage. Are you honestly trying to say that you can’t think of a good argument against polygamy on its own merits?
#32 Jay notes:
Mean?
It is a definition. One can not have sex with one’s self. If one is attracted to the same sex, but celibate, one is not homosexual. That person is acting on his sexual appetites by refusing to engage in sex.
Jay, you are not a homosexual until to engage in homosexuality. I would not demand that you shun your sexual appetites. But since you have chosen to fight your urges, I consider you a brave and remarkable person.
When homosexuals drag their mixed up children out to the Fulton Street Fair and act out sexual fantasies and perversions for public review, I am heartbroken for their children. The adults are merely libertines who are consumed by their same sex gratification drive.
Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is how sex is actively conducted.
Excellent Article! Your words are such a blessing to others. You have articulated very well what is in the hearts of a majority of your readers. A friend of ours called us over the weekend in dismay at the disruptions (putting it mildly), that are going on there. The civil rights movement cannot even be compared and it also grieves me when gays or any other special interest group tries to do this. My mother lived in GA for a season in the 40’s and as a young white girl she recalled to me an account of when she was walking down the street and a young black man quickly jumped out of her path and off the curb to let her pass. She said to him, “oh, you don’t have to do that”, but sadly, he could not even *look* at her for fear of what might be done to him. I believe they are both happily conversing and fellow-shipping in heaven now! :o) This account pales in comparison to the atrocities that were committed but serves to illustrate one more perspective, ((that those who have chosen the gay lifestyle have NO idea AND can look at whomever they want, with arrogance at that!!)) What if we could all legislate what we thought was right in our own minds without the Lord’s absolute standards? We are all born with a bent toward sin, including unnatural affections. Just imagine if; “I think _______ (fill in the blank) should be the law of the land because from birth I’ve had this in me even though most say it’s wrong,” huh, we would be in trouble! My prayers are with the Body of Christ in CA. I also pray that those who have chosen to participate in the gay lifestyle would come to know what “true love” is through Jesus. What they are longing for can be satisfied in Him and His Word.
boo, so where would you stop? ‘wherever there is reason to stop’ is too vague.
So faceless insults from internetz trolls = oppression. If that were the basis for a claim, Michelle Malkin could apply for her own special protection. No, I don’t believe defining ‘oppression’ down to “my feelings were hurt” will help anyone.
>>”There are even rap and reggae songs advocating the beating and murder of gays.”
There are rap songs advocating the murder of cops and, more commonly, the abuse of women.
>>”Name ONE other minority in this country that routinely gets these insults thrown at them, FL Mom.”
Muslims. And on the majority side, Christians. Parents who refuse to vaccinate, illegal aliens, fat people, Sarah Palin, etc.
Jay at #25: Thanks for sharing your views. I think I’ll visit your blog.
I thought you might like to refer to the website: IPerceive.net for another sane perspective on the problem in LA.
Thanks LaShawn for your words and your website, but sometime we need to converse about what Mormons are and are not.
Love ya
Heliotrope: Okay, so I don’t really buy into the belief that “homosexual” is strictly a noun-verb. That would mean that “heterosexual” would be one too (and are you really going to say that you weren’t heterosexual until you had sex?) “Asexual” would also be one, and since asexuals don’t have sex at all… Well, you see where I’m going with this. It could get ridiculous.
I mean, several versions of the Bible use the words “practicing homosexuals” in their lists of sinners in 1 Corinthians (implying that there are non-practicing ones, which there are, like myself). Even if you refuse to call a non-practicing homosexual a “homosexual,” you really do need find a word for people who predominately experience same-sex desires. You don’t have to use “homosexual” if you don’t want to, but it’s a condition that deserves its own term just for the sake of clarity in conversation.
Also, what does the Folsom Street fair have to do with this? For one, that’s sadomasochism. It’s practiced by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, and I’m certainly not going to argue that it’s a wretched event. Two, I’m not saying that there isn’t a sexual component to homosexuality (I mean, duh). I’m just saying that sex isn’t all there is, and it is unproductive when Christians fail to recognize that fact in their dealings with gay people (practicing or not).
I may be celibate but I still desire companionship, and to be frank I desire male companionship simply because I find it easier to be emotionally intimate with men (just like a straight man finds it easier to be emotionally intimate with women). Even though I’m celibate and you likely hold nothing against me, even I get offended when you write off homosexuality as simply a sexual issue, because it means that you are being willfully ignorant of the emotional factors that are a big reality in my life (and the lives of others).
“boo, so where would you stop? ‘wherever there is reason to stop’ is too vague.”
Your question doesn’t make any sense. We’re not talking about points along some sort of continuum. If they lower taxes, what’s next? Are they going to legalize drugs?! The one has nothing to do with the other.
The question to you and anyone else who brings up polygamy is: can you think of a legitimate reason for the secular government to disallow legal recognition of polygamous marriages or not? If you can, it holds true regardless of the status of same-sex marriage. You’re the one who brought it up, so I assume you must have some rational basis for opposing legalized polygamy.
“>>”There are even rap and reggae songs advocating the beating and murder of gays.”
There are rap songs advocating the murder of cops and, more commonly, the abuse of women.”
Yes, and those are all bad things, so what’s your point exactly? Is oppression a competition or something? Are there shiny prizes?
FL Mom, are you honestly saying that parents who refuse to vaccinate or Sarah Palin are called feces-eating perverts who need to constitionally banned from marrying the people they love. I agree that Muslims and illegal aliens are targeted - just look at the American Family Association’s website for its anti-Muslim/gay/immigrant and now its bete noire - if you excuse the pun - Obama. And as much as I believe Sarah Palin is an ignorant, fearmongering and laughably ill-equipped vice-presidental candidate - and delighted she failed miserably and is now spitting bitterness from the Alaskan wasteland - I would never conceive of a law to relegate her to second class citizen. Boo, there is indeed a shiny prize for gay people: marriage equality. It’s shiny, it’s gleaming and it has just been kicked slightly out of reach in CA. FL Mom, may the Lord have mercy on any child of yours who is gay, for your bigotry will surely destroy them.
boo, it comes down to what one considers right/wrong, even morally right/wrong. it’s against the law to do things such as steal, lie, murder, rape, assault, etc., but it’s deeper than that. it’s morally wrong to attack another human being, to force oneself upon another, deceive, take what is not theirs, etc . no one is saying gays/lesbians can’t be together, but to call their union marriage is what a number of people cannot morally accept.
as for gays/lesbians being oppressed, i’d have to disagree. if the venom, bigotry, desire to oppress were there, ellen and portia would be dead or have no career, same w/rosie and her partner, doogie howser, lance bass, marc jacobs, etc. barney frank, christine quinn, scott mccoy jackie biskupski and christine johnson would not be able to hold political positions. gay pride events occur w/o water cannons or nightsticks being used to disperse the crowd. for the most part people are tolerant, but only up to a certain point.
The gays want to compare their ‘plight’ with the black’s civil rights struggle to gain a false veneer of legitimacy in their struggle against nature. The fault with their reasoning is that being black is a skin color, integral to the individual. You can’t take it off, or pretend to not be black. Homosexuality is a behavior. That means it is a choice.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. I draw the line when it comes to my tax dollars being used against my will to teach my children in school that two men getting married to each other is acceptable behavior. Not in this lifetime.
“boo, it comes down to what one considers right/wrong, even morally right/wrong. it’s against the law to do things such as steal, lie, murder, rape, assault, etc., but it’s deeper than that. it’s morally wrong to attack another human being, to force oneself upon another, deceive, take what is not theirs, etc .”
So which “one” gets to decide what is right and wrong for other people whose behavior is harming no one? (btw, don’t think I haven’t noticed all the bobbing and weaving you’re doing) Two consenting adults in a lifelong mutual commitment does not involve attacking people, forcing themselves on others, deceiving, or taking what is not theirs, unless you took some reeeeaaallly weird vows at your wedding.
“no one is saying gays/lesbians can’t be together”
Again, where is this odd yet beautiful planet you come from, and how can I go live there? Here on planet Earth, there are an awful lot of people who would love to see Lawrence vs. Texas overturned. And that’s not even mentioning those who intellect does not rise to the level of considering Supreme Court decisions, and so content themselves with beating the crap out of couples for the sin of holding hands in public.
“but to call their union marriage is what a number of people cannot morally accept”
The Catholic Church does not morally accept the union of my brother and sister-in-law because he didn’t sign a document promising to raise their kids Catholic. They can morally unaccept it to their heart’s content all the day live long, but should they force their religious views on the government and deny my brother and sister-in-law legal recognition?
“as for gays/lesbians being oppressed, i’d have to disagree. if the venom, bigotry, desire to oppress were there, ellen and portia would be dead or have no career, same w/rosie and her partner, doogie howser, lance bass, marc jacobs, etc. barney frank, christine quinn, scott mccoy jackie biskupski and christine johnson would not be able to hold political positions.”
Ah, so black people have not been oppressed at least since the 20s, because Duke Ellington was alive and had a career. Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for Gone With The Wind, which proves the civil rights movement of the 50s was completely unnecessary! Thanks for clearing that up.
“gay pride events occur w/o water cannons or nightsticks being used to disperse the crowd.”
Again, one more time, just for you, try to pay attention: THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION. This isn’t about who’s had it worse for how long. This is about equality. Nothing more, nothing less. By your logic, since Jews in this country didn’t have it as bad as blacks, therefore it should be okay to discriminate against Jews.
“The gays want to compare their ‘plight’ with the black’s civil rights struggle to gain a false veneer of legitimacy in their struggle against nature. The fault with their reasoning is that being black is a skin color, integral to the individual. You can’t take it off, or pretend to not be black. Homosexuality is a behavior. That means it is a choice.”
I see. Of course, your argument necessarily includes the predicate that black people ought to turn white if they could, but since they can’t, we must pity them their poor unfortunate condition. Is that what you really want to be saying? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a behavior, so there’s no merit there anyway. A heterosexual Catholic priest who maintains his vow of chastity is still heterosexual.
And of course, civil rights protections are already afforded for choices. Religious affiliation in most definitely a choice, yet we haven’t outlawed interfaith marriages and religion is included in pretty much all hate crimes statutes.
“Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. I draw the line when it comes to my tax dollars being used against my will to teach my children in school that two men getting married to each other is acceptable behavior. Not in this lifetime.”
Sorry, yes in this lifetime, unless you’re really really old. Younger voters were most against prop 8, senior voters for it. Which means that every day, somebody who opposes same sex marriage dies and someone who supports it turns 18.
Much as you may wish otherwise, it’s not like we’re going anywhere.
“Beyond Leviticus - which hardly applies, since the New Testament - there is no Biblical support that God is against homosexuals or their behavior.”
Sorry, The new testament doesn’t nullify the old. It adds to it. Forgiveness can be given, but that does NOT mean it’s condoned.
#52 Jay: You are larding the term “homosexual” with positive characteristics that should draw sympathy. That is how one morphs a clear term into a concept that leads to “victim of society.” I doubt that you are willing to add the actions of Queer Nation or NAMBLA to the selective inclusions you cited to expand the homosexuality definition.
The fact that you said I was being “mean” (#32) in stating that “homosexuality is strictly limited to how two or more engage in sex” is clear evidence that you are seeking the victim’s status.
Look, I can image that polygamy, father/son or mother/daughter relationships of love and closeness can be described in the same way you speak of homosexuality, but without the sex.
I refuse to search the Bible or specific translations of the Bible to address this issue. Webster’s, the OED, and myriad other dictionaries suffice.
No one is confused about what differentiates lesbians from unmarried women housemates.
I fully understand your desire to put a human face on homosexuality and to personalize celibates who know they would engage in homosexuality.
Homosexuals are a tiny part of the population. There is much debate over the nurture/nature influences. The Human Genome Project has led to a search for the “homosexual gene.”
At the end of the day, homosexuals can not reproduce without incorporating the opposite sex. That is clear proof that homosexuality is about the mechanics of sex. Whether one is psychologically drawn to the same sex or an animal or a close relative or a three or four people or a merry-go-round of associates or a series of intense, brief relationships is truly a different matter.
I’m not making selective inclusions. I simply said that to be homosexual one does not have to engage in a sexual act. The term describes desire, not action. You mentioned Webster’s, so here we go. The first definition of “homosexual” in that dictionary is:
“1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex”
Not a word about action. It’s only referring to desire. Thus, even a celibate individual like myself who is still attracted to the same sex (as I am) is a homosexual. Now, I don’t like the term because of its cultural connotations (I prefer the neutral “SSA” instead, but that hasn’t caught on). But being totally honest, the term fits with me.
Also, don’t get me wrong. I’m not seeking a victim’s status. But if you’re going to be this willfully ignorant of other people’s realities so you don’t have to budge on your incorrect preconceived notions, well… Don’t expect me to not call you out on that.
I’m sorry to hear that you guys are so upset about these protets and political activism among gays that the idea of violence towards a group of people would even come to your minds, even hypothetically.
I’m sorry that LaShawn has decided to ignore the violence gays have gone through over the decades, and even today.
I’m sorry that, for whatever reason, many of you can’t even seem to realize these gay people yall are laughing about billy clubbing are actual people with real thoughts and emotions, real families and friends, real hopes and dreams.
Most of all, I’m sorry to see that this is coming from a group of Christians. If you don’t agree with homosexuality, or gay marriage, or the comparison of the gay political movement with the civil rights movement, that is certainly your right. But, for a group of Christians not to even realize how hateful a post like this sounds. To not realize how there is 0 compassion in the words of the post or the comments. Not to realize how the words of Jesus seem worlds away from this type of attitude is really what I’m most sorry about.
There are ways to speak out against and fight against what you think is wrong. But, refusing to even acknowledge the common decency of the people involved in this issue, the ones it affects personally, is surely not the way to go about it.
I am very much enjoying your blog. Thank you for your no-nonsense, level-headed commentary. (Yep, I’m now a subscriber.)
Boo sez: I see. Of course, your argument necessarily includes the predicate that black people ought to turn white if they could, but since they can’t, we must pity them their poor unfortunate condition. Is that what you really want to be saying? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a behavior, so there’s no merit there anyway. A heterosexual Catholic priest who maintains his vow of chastity is still heterosexual.
I don’t pity black people, nor do I think they should be used as a tool of the gay community to forward their BEHAVIOR agenda. If a Catholic priest maintains his vow of chastity, then it doesn’t matter what his sexual ‘orientation’ is. His sexual BEHAVIOR does matter. You may feel an irresistible urge to have sex with your pet dog, but how can you be considered a zoosexual until you manifest it with your BEHAVIOR.
But this is immaterial to marriage being between one man and one woman. Have any sex you want with whatever or whoever you want. I only draw the line when you demand that I pay, with my property taxes, to have your deviant behavior taught to my children.
Jay,
“A tendency to direct desire” is not an inaction.
Furthermore, that convoluted salute to political correctness ought to offend every gay who is of the mind that homosexuality is not a choice.
But, even if this sanitized Webster’s you have cited said “A strong desire” it still would not be talking about a noun. A strong desire is an action acted upon or resisted.
“I don’t pity black people, nor do I think they should be used as a tool of the gay community to forward their BEHAVIOR agenda.”
I’m not aware of anyone using black people as a tool of the gay community. You’re dodging the point. You claimed that the reason it is illegitimate to compare the LGBT civil rights struggle with the black civil rights struggle is because, according to you, gays can change and blacks can’t. A necessary part of that equation is the assumption that it would be preferable for blacks not to be black if that were possible. You said it, I didn’t.
“You may feel an irresistible urge to have sex with your pet dog, but how can you be considered a zoosexual until you manifest it with your BEHAVIOR.”
If you feel sexual attraction to animals, then you are a zoophile, whatever your behavior.
“But this is immaterial to marriage being between one man and one woman.”
On that, we agree. On the experience of Massachusets and all the other countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, all this hysteria about polygamy and zoophilia and whatever never actually amounts to anything.
“Have any sex you want with whatever or whoever you want. I only draw the line when you demand that I pay, with my property taxes, to have your deviant behavior taught to my children.”
I’m sorry if you think that our existence infringes on your right to pretend we don’t exist, but like it or not, we exist, and as I said, it ain’t like we’re going anywhere. And as far as behavior, you can always opt your kids out of sex ed.
Heliotrope: How is my version of Webster’s sanitized? It’s the same version that’s online. And how is a desire an action? It can be acted upon, but a desire is not an action in itself.
And even if you think that a desire is an action (which, like I said, is a foolish concept), then you would have to admit that a celibate person attracted to the same sex is, indeed, a homosexual (because they have desires for the same sex, whether acted upon or not).
I mean, I just really don’t understand what you’re trying to gain by fighting against this fairly simple concept. If “homosexual” was based solely on action, then “heterosexual” would have to be as well, and that is clearly not the case.
Oh yeah, I forgot that you simply ignored that line of argument when I made it earlier. Not surprising.
Homosexual desires aren’t a choice, and no one would find that official Webster’s definition to be offensive because most people have the common sense to know that desires can’t be willfully directed. They just are, and the definition assumes that people understand this fact. I guess you don’t, though.
boo,
i was using the murder, rape, assault example to establish the concept of morally wrong, or what people consider to be morally wrong, not to be tied in any way to mm/ff. as for the one who gets to decide what is right and wrong for other people: it is the people, who do it by voting (ca,fl) or by petitioning their local legislature (megan’s law ‘94, NJ)
what i meant by “…gays/lesbians can’t be together” is that no law or ballot measure has been enacted or presented stating that gays/lesbians can’t have relationships, ie: date.
maybe where you live gay couples are routinely beaten, but not where i live (10 mins from NYC). at the very least, news of such an event would make the papers (daily news, ny post) if not the nightly news. but as of today, i can’t recall a proven incident in the recent past where the motive for assault was ‘they were gay’.
“but to call their union marriage is what a number of people cannot morally accept” the ‘their’ i was referring to is of a gay couple; you mention your brother and sister-in-law, a man and a woman. the catholic church definitely doesn’t have a problem with his union.
“as for gays/lesbians being oppressed, i’d have to disagree. if the venom, bigotry, desire to oppress were there, ellen and portia would be dead or have no career, same w/rosie and her partner, doogie howser, lance bass, marc jacobs, etc. barney frank, christine quinn, scott mccoy jackie biskupski and christine johnson would not be able to hold political positions.”
i don’t know how you inferred anything about blacks and the civil rights movement from this statement when i was referring to gays/lesbians but i’ll go so far as to say blacks, in our present day society, aren’t oppressed. consider professional sports, the rap industry, clothing lines (fubu, rocawear, sean john), entertainment (BET founder, cedric, bernie mac, steve harvey, samuel l. jackson), govt (powell, rice, obama, patterson [ny], dinkins [ny], charlie rangel). if oppression of the black man/woman existed as it did years ago, they would not be where they presently are.
i’m not implying or stating any type of competition. i’m saying that your claim of gay oppression, in our present day society, is a stretch.
“what i meant by “…gays/lesbians can’t be together” is that no law or ballot measure has been enacted or presented stating that gays/lesbians can’t have relationships, ie: date.”
And as I pointed out, there are still many who would like to see Lawrence vs. Texas, which was only 5 years ago, overturned. Virginia even continued to prosecute under their sodomy statute after the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.
“maybe where you live gay couples are routinely beaten, but not where i live (10 mins from NYC). at the very least, news of such an event would make the papers (daily news, ny post) if not the nightly news. but as of today, i can’t recall a proven incident in the recent past where the motive for assault was ‘they were gay’.”
Then you’re not trying hard enough. Our rate of hate crimes is still over 50% higher than blacks:
http://www.centeronhalsted.org/programs/Williams_Institues_Hate_Crimes_Report.pdf
“”but to call their union marriage is what a number of people cannot morally accept” the ‘their’ i was referring to is of a gay couple; you mention your brother and sister-in-law, a man and a woman. the catholic church definitely doesn’t have a problem with his union.”
Yes, they do. As I stated and you ignored, they refused to sanction their marriage because my brother didn’t sign a document promising to raise their kids Catholic. My point, which you ignored, is that this is a religious objection, just as 99.9% of the objections to same-sex unions boil down to religion. If the Catholic church attempted to enforce by legal statute their religious nonrecognition of unions between Catholics and non-Catholics, I’m sure you’d agree that would be wrong. So why is it okay to enfroce by legal statute religious objections to same sex marriage?
“i don’t know how you inferred anything about blacks and the civil rights movement from this statement when i was referring to gays/lesbians but i’ll go so far as to say blacks, in our present day society, aren’t oppressed. consider professional sports, the rap industry, clothing lines (fubu, rocawear, sean john), entertainment (BET founder, cedric, bernie mac, steve harvey, samuel l. jackson), govt (powell, rice, obama, patterson [ny], dinkins [ny], charlie rangel). if oppression of the black man/woman existed as it did years ago, they would not be where they presently are.”
You stated that since there are famous gay people who have careers and aren’t dead, this means gays aren’t oppressed. My point, which you again ignored, is that in the 1920s and 30s, there were famous blacks who had careers and weren’t dead, so by your logic we must conclude that blacks in the 20s and 30s weren’t oppressed. As it is obviously ridiculous to conclude this, you then moved the goalposts to our present day society so as to avoid having to admit you were in error in your original assertion. (And to claim that racism no longer affects us today is just silly.)
“i’m not implying or stating any type of competition. i’m saying that your claim of gay oppression, in our present day society, is a stretch.”
The thrust of many comments on this thread, including some of yours, is to claim that since it can be argued that gays in the present aren’t as oppressed as blacks in the civil rights era, therefore we have enough and shouldn’t keep pressing for more. That most definitely turns it into a competition where oppression has to reach a certain tipping point before one is allowed to fight back against it. As you yourself said with this delightful little gem:
“for the most part people are tolerant, but only up to a certain point.”
No doubt the eerie similarity to statements by white southerners resisting integration was lost on you. George Wallace was plenty “tolerant, but only up to a certain point.”
So in case there’s any doubts, let me make it clear to you: we’re not interested in being tolerated up to a certain point. We want equality, and we’re going to get it. And as long as you’re opposed to that, you’re going to have to deal every year with seeing the rest of the world slip a little further away from you. You can either learn to live with us, or eventually have a stroke.
Jay,
1) Dictionaries are edited. Over time, editorial boards vote to “update” definitions to reflect current usage. Webster’s on line has apparently done this. That is why the OED is so valuable. You can see how a term has changed due to temporary cultural influence.
2) A heterosexual is a person who has sex with a person of the opposite sex. What makes a person a heterosexual is what sexual action he takes or would take if sexual intercourse were involved.
3) Heterosexual, Bi-sexual, pedophile, homosexual, etc. are all nouns that identify a person by the sexual actions he takes or retrains himself from taking.
4) The idea that desire is not an action is amazing to me. Parse this sentence: I desire a chocolate chip cookie. What word is the verb?
5) Please, lets not go the sophomoric route of weighing intransitive and transitive verbs against one another.
6) You say you are a homosexual. That means that your natural tendency in intimacy is directed, propelled, focused, aimed, (verb), (verb), (verb), (action), (action), (action) toward someone of the same sex and should you engage in sex it will be with a same sex person.
7.) You proclaim: “I am a homosexual.” OK, everyone in the room knows that your preference in having sex is with another male. To claim that the term homosexual is not about how one would or does have sex is astounding.
8.) As a side note, there is a growing number of Americans who insist that Thanksgiving has no religious component. (As if devoutly religious pilgrims sat down and praised themselves and their neighbors and shunned God.) There are a lot of homosexuals who want the world to believe that they are “just like” heterosexuals. Sorry, but there is one huge difference. Guess what it is? Hint: it involves an action.
Heliotrope, you are clearly contradicting yourself now. In your first reply to me, you said: “If one is attracted to the same sex, but celibate, one is not homosexual.”
Now you’re saying: “Heterosexual, Bi-sexual, pedophile, homosexual, etc. are all nouns that identify a person by the sexual actions he takes or restrains himself from taking.”
That’s what I’ve been saying all along! The fact that I restrain myself from “acting out” my sexuality doesn’t mean I’m not still homosexual. Thanks for agreeing with me, finally. I think it’s safe to say I won the argument.
I go to an interview and I judged based on the color of my skin, not for the content of my character.
I go to get a drink of water down an discover I can’t drink from this fountain because it only for whites.
There are no seats in the back of the bus so I have to stand because I’m not allowed to sit at the front of the bus.
Before I vote I have to pay a poll tax or take a test. Why? Because I’m black. I’m colored. I’m a Afro-American.
I live in fear because I don’t know if I’ll wake up and find a cross burning on my lawn, or men breaking down my door.
These are just snippets of the stories my grand parents and great-grand parents told me when I was growing up. How can you compare a life decision to something that wasn’t a decision at all?
You can call it what you want, but don’t compare it to the “Civil Rights Movement” at all!
>>”FL Mom, are you honestly saying that parents who refuse to vaccinate or Sarah Palin are called feces-eating perverts who need to constitionally banned from marrying the people they love.”
I didn’t say that. You asked for an example of people who get venomous insults thrown at them so I obliged.
Kevin- the fact that you are calling this a life decision saddens me. It saddens me that all of you have done this.
What it says to me is that you guys haven’t sat down and spoken to a gay person. I’m not talking about these “gay activist” sorts. I’m talking about a real gay person.
I can tell you that I never wanted to be gay. I don’t know any gay people that wanted to be gay. I know very, very few that didn’t struggle with hating themselves for the attractions they were feeling or just because they felt different. This is not a “decision” they just made–being gay. It’s something that happened. They didn’t choose it, they didn’t want it, and they certainly didn’t hope for it. It just is, and to tell gay people they chose it is not only absurd, but actually pretty insulting, since nearly all gay people would’ve at some point in their lives chosen to be straight if they had the choice.
I thought Christians were supposed to sit down and understand and offer grace and compassion? When you guys call being gay a choice…when you continue to use the word “homosexual” instead of gay, even know you know people see that as offensive, it’s not compassion or grace.
This isn’t a competition. But it honestly amazes me that people calling themselves Christians can refuse to even try to sit down and understand and empathize with gay people.
On a side note (and I hesitate to even say this because I’m not interested in comparing the gay political movement to the civil rights era, but I will anyway)–all of your statements are well taken. But like I said, this isn’t a competition. At least half of all states, including my state of TX, still make it legal to fire or not hire someone for being gay. Gay people are still the most likely minority group in the country to be the victim of a hate crime. I could go on. Again, this isn’t a competition, but let’s not just go on pretending that discrimination doesn’t actually take place against gays.
Jay,
I quit. I have guided graduate students in the intricacies of the language for decades, You are an eel. No matter what I say, you slip to another position.
Where is the contradiction? You deny that homosexual connotes an action. After disregarding that you now claim that I have inelegantly corrupted my original statement.
Here it is again. “If one is attracted to the same sex, but celibate, one is not homosexual.” No action has taken place. However,”Heterosexual, Bi-sexual, pedophile, homosexual, etc. are all nouns that identify a person by the sexual actions he takes or restrains himself from taking.” Here, one has identified himself and the action is either direct or restrained.
Joe is unknown to me as we talk. But, he says he is an arsonist. I didn’t see him set a fire, but I have no reason to doubt him. You tell me you are homosexual. I have no way of knowing if you engage in homosexual activities or not, but by definition I have every logical reason to believe you do. If you tell me that you are a homosexual who has never acted on his desires, I have reason to ask you why you identify yourself as a homosexual.
If the arsonist tells me he has an urge to set fires, but has restrained himself, I can only suggest he see a shrink before he slips over the line.
Jay, I really am worn out with your wriggling on this point. I have homosexuals in my immediate family and I know the problems and angst very well. But trying to redefine or fudge terms is not only counterproductive, it is self destructive. Get off it. You can not confront homosexuality by denying reality.
I only denied that homosexuality denoted an action before you said that you saw desires as an action. After that, I conceded the point and tried to argue on your premises.
But if desires are an action, then your original comment about a same-sex attracted person not being a homosexual if he/she is celibate is contradictory to your initial argument, since “attraction” constitutes “desire,” doesn’t it?
I’m not being an eel (way to be Christlike to a younger brother in Christ, by the way); I just can’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not a graduate student. I just turned 20, for Pete’s sake, so give me a break and level with me.
Also, what reality am I denying, exactly? Please let me know, since you seem to think you know my life better than I do.
“Joe is unknown to me as we talk. But, he says he is an arsonist. I didn’t see him set a fire, but I have no reason to doubt him. You tell me you are homosexual. I have no way of knowing if you engage in homosexual activities or not, but by definition I have every logical reason to believe you do. If you tell me that you are a homosexual who has never acted on his desires, I have reason to ask you why you identify yourself as a homosexual.”
It’s a pretty simple mistake you’ve made. Homosexuality refers to predominating attractions to the same sex, whether accompanied by actions or not. Heterosexual celibate Catholic priests (there have to be one or two out there somewhere) remain heterosexual. By your way of thinking, someone who has been married to the opposite sex purely as a way of consciously denying their attraction to the same sex and then comes out and admits being gay is still heterosexual.
“I have homosexuals in my immediate family and I know the problems and angst very well.”
No doubt having helped to cause quite a few yourself.
Boo
If you have made a logical point, it has gone completely over or around me.
At issue here is the word homosexual. A male standing naked in a doctor’s office for examination with his mouth shut and no revealing tattoos can fairly be determined to be male. With no other evidence, the doctor can list the biological functions of the man’s sex organs. The doctor’s tacit assumption is that they are reproductive in nature and part of his professional concern will revolve around this particular man’s ability to function sexually and to carry out his role as sperm to egg supplier.
Here we have a “neutral” assignment to the word male. But, if the naked male tells the doctor he is a homosexual and says no more, the entire examination changes. The doctor knows at this point that this male is part of a male sub-group that is under 4.5% of the male population. The doctor knows from research that within the sub-group there are those who are experimenting with homosexuality, those who have medically identifiable identity problems and those who are “true*” homosexuals. (*The doctor knows that medical science has not discovered the markers for identifying a homosexual.) The doctor has had patients who fathered and raised a family and “switched” to being homosexual in their later years.
So, the doctor does not know who this male standing in front of him is. He will have concerns for STDs that predominate among homosexuals. Now, however, the self-identified homosexual subject says he is celibate. The doctor must now look to the man’s mental health, because repressing sexual urges is one of the keystones of Freudian psychology.
A homosexual is one who has same sex relations with one or more people. A “latent” homosexual is fighting one of nature’s strongest drives. But, he is not yet a homosexual. He is a male who is a non-participant in the male sex role.
What is lacking in our vocabulary is a word for a person who acts the eunuch without the castration. There are virgin spinsters and “virgin” bachelors who go to their graves after 90 years of never engaging in sex. Were they homosexual or heterosexual? We can not know. We have no word for them. They could identify themselves as one or the other. They could have stacks of magazines they leave behind that reflect what their propensity may have been. But it is a misnomer to label them as homosexual or heterosexual or bi-sexual or pedophile or cannibal or any other definitive label if they never acted on their presumed impulses.
As to people who have homosexual relations and then switch to heterosexual relations and maybe swing between the two, what is your point?
I made the error of trying to include the concept of homosexual impulses in my general points. Without the act of sex, you are just male or female.
Homosexuality is a tribulation for most homosexuals. I am delighted when homosexuals come to grips with their identities and are able to live happy lives that stretch beyond their sexuality. But from a medical perspective, homosexuals have a far higher rate of serious psychological problems than the general population. At this point, the studies go off in all directions. For some, the problems are due to reactions to repressive relationships with individuals or society. For others, there are deep seated angers. For others, there is turmoil over having adopted the submissive role. For others, there is a strong drive to publicly identify themselves. And on and on.
It is a huge mistake to ever talk about “the gay community” as if it is a singular cultural, political or societal force. The thread that runs through the homosexual population is how they have sex. Beyond that, they are individuals like everyone else. The thread that runs through the heterosexual population is how they have sex. Beyond that, they are individuals like everyone else.
Thank you very much for the vote of no confidence, but I have worked hard and long with my homosexual family and many homosexual friends at helping them deal with their unique problems and finding a satisfying balance in their lives. If I were a chump failure, they would not introduce me to their friends and ask me to help them understand who they are and how to cope. As with all drives and impulses, the first hurdle is to be honest with yourself and move on from there.
Trying to redefine terms to ease you psyche is not only a waste of time, it is destructive.
Now, however, the self-identified homosexual subject says he is celibate. The doctor must now look to the man’s mental health, because repressing sexual urges is one of the keystones of Freudian psychology.
I think I made the assumption that you were a Christian who would have supported the fact that a person with homosexual desires should strive to remain celibate, due to the prohibition on homosexual practice in the Bible. Seeing as you consider celibacy — an honorable spiritual practice — as repression, I’m not so sure.
Surely if one is not celibate for religious reasons, they may have some psychological problems. But if one has a strong faith in God, and hands their sexuality over to God, it is not repression. It’s difficult, for sure, like fighting any other temptation (and we all deal with temptation). But it’s also rewarding and it allows an individual to channel these strong urges into more spiritually beneficial activities — not sinful ones. The emotional side of sexuality (the desires for companionship and love), must be fulfilled in alternate, perhaps even unconventional, but always Christ-honoring means.
Jay,
I do not push the sin of homosexuality in my dealings with homosexuals. In fact, I would suggest that the sinner route has done more to alienate than it has done significant good. Witness the current gay attacks on the Mormon Church.
On the other side of the coin, in my work with felons, alcoholics, and others I am always gratified when Christian principles take hold and the individual turns to Christ.
LaShawn in a wonderful Christian and her site reaches out to a lot of people. Many of her avid readers are strong Christians as well. However, my own motivation for reaching out to others is not restricted to the person accepting Christian beliefs.
I know several “celibate” men who are resisting their sexual temptations without the strength of religious faith to bolster their resolve. One is a Jew in the cultural, not religious, definition of the term. I would not guide him to Christian principle. That is for the missionary, not one who acts on Christian love with those outside the Christian circle.
But this is not about me. It is about the burden of homosexuality. The first question a homosexual needs to answer is if there were a genetic splice that would make the person heterosexual, would the person opt for the procedure.
If there were a genetic marker for homosexuality, what would happen to the unborn bearing that marker?
I’m not sure if I would undergo such a procedure or not. I have avoided ex-gay ministries and similar types of therapy because I do not believe it to have any real scientific backing (plus from my own research of such practices, the underlying theories behind them don’t really fit with my own experiences). But if there was a definite “genetic splice” as you say, and it was guaranteed to make me desire the opposite sex instead of the same sex, then yes, I’d probably do it.
However, there would be no spiritual benefit to such a procedure. At most, it would simply allow me to achieve emotional fulfillment in the more conventional means of heterosexual marriage. But there is nothing inherently holy about being heterosexually-oriented. If an individual doesn’t have Christ, it doesn’t matter how healthy, happy, or successful he/she is. We are saved by our faith in Christ alone. And all Christians need to recognize that when we deal with others. We’re all missionaries.
If there were a genetic marker for homosexuality, what would happen to the unborn bearing that marker?
Among the faithful, they would be born and raised and loved by their parents, just like any other child, but perhaps with a little more understanding and preparation for the struggles they would face later on in life. My own mother is a Christian, and she was pregnant with me at the age of 45. I was a definite threat to her life, and I had a 25% chance of being severely mentally handicapped as well. She didn’t even consider an abortion, though (despite the doctor’s suggestion). So I don’t see why she (or any Christian woman) would have considered one if she knew I’d be homosexual.
Among the unfaithful, well… I’m sure it would be a mixed bag. It would break my heart if a woman decided to abort a child simply because he or she could grow up to be gay. But then, it breaks my heart if a woman aborts a child for any reason.
Helitrope- a question. Have any of the gay people you have befriended ever spoken to you about the use of the word homosexual in the way that you are using it? It is typically considered somewhat derogatory to use it in the way you are…gay being the preferred word. I just point it out now that you are talking about the Christian love you offer to the gay folks you know…it seems it would be easier to express that love if you were speaking on their terms (i.e. using a noun that are accepted by most of gays vs. one that is typically looked down upon by them).
Brady,
I use the term”gay” almost exclusively.
My comments here are the result of my observations in #12 and things unwind from there.
If you are bound to draw conclusions about my character from my comments here, so be it. That is a trap I try to avoid.
If you review what I have written, you should see that “gay” is a euphemism which evades the core meaning of homosexual. I have used the word homosexual in my comments because it is the word LaShawn used throughout her blog.
Comment #1=no reference; #2=gay reference; #3=homosexual reference; #4=homosexuality/homophobe reference; #5=no reference; #6=no reference; #7=no reference; #8=gay reference; #9=homosexual reference; #10=no reference; #11=homosexual reference.
My comment #12 references gays and then defines homosexual and returns to using the word gay.
My comments are #12, #47, #60, #65, #70, #75, #78, #80 and this one. I really have nothing more to add. If some of you do not approve of me, I am content to give you leave to think what you like.
In my community, I help run a shelter for alcoholics, a free clinic, an offender aid and restoration project and sit on the board of directors of a hospital. I work with black students who are having a tough time making their way through the rigors of a top university. I am a retired teacher who is constantly called back to the lecture hall. I am comfortable that my little gallery of citations well reflects the gratitude of liberals, conservatives, agnostics, the religious, wealthy, the poor, Republicans, Democrats and others who appreciate my interests and concerns.
That is more about me than anyone should ever have to endure. I do not feel the need to defend myself against opinions gleaned from the gauze of disjointed comments posted on a blog site.
Ya, this one (prop
could get ugly folks. It might actually cost us something, in a good way. Actually, its already cost several people (Scott Eckern). We’re not used to having our beliefs cost us. We’ll have to show some backbone.
Heliotrope- let’s not jump to conclusions. I didn’t say I didn’t like you, nor did I draw any conclusions about your character. I find your logic in your discussion with Jay a bit circuitous, but that also has nothing to do with me drawing conclusions about you.
I was merely making a comment that most gay people find the word homosexual used as LaShawn used it, and used as you used it several times, to be offensive. Thus, for someone that has friends and family that are gay, it might put a barrier of sorts (even if a small one) between that person and his friends if he uses the word homosexual. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on that, but the comment had nothing to do with your character or personhood.
If you do use the word gay almost exclusively, then I’m glad to hear it. It simply didn’t come off that way in your posts. My apologies if I’ve upset you by making the observation.
Heliotrope- this isn’t really that difficult, your long-winded pompous rant notwithstanding. A person who is predominately attracted to members of the same sex is homosexual. A person who is predominately attracted to members of the opposite sex is heterosexual. A person who is attracted to both sexes is bisexual. A heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual person practicing celibacy doesn’t suddenly lose their sex drive. A homosexual person who marries someone of the opposite sex as part of an attempt to deny their attraction to the same sex is still homosexual.
Admittedly, you have acknowledged that logic is not your strong point, but perhaps the APA can help you understand these terms, see especially question 1:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Also, note that Person A’s sexual orientation and Person B’s ability to determine Person A’s sexual orientation are two different things.
Would the average father want his daughter to marry an “ex-gay” man? Of course not, because despite striving with varying degrees of success to change their behavior, your average “ex-gay” is still queer as a three dollar bill.
“That is more about me than anyone should ever have to endure.”
Then stop trying to make it about you. You’re the one who brought up you. You’re the one posting on and on about yourself. Your exploitation of your gay acquaintences self-hatred is not a subject of great interest to me. Once we get equal rights and as attitudes of str8 parents towards their gay kids change over time, that problem will largely take care of itself.
Thanks, Boo.
You expose your motives quite adequately.
You are on a crusade and you resent “str8″ dominance of the cultural norm. You have made yourself radically clear. And you have how many thousands of years of culture to erase? And you can point to exactly which model in the world for the Elysian Fields of people who make no sexual distinctions? And does democracy apply?
You will find far less helpful and understanding “str8’s” than I standing in your way.
May I assume that your views of Christians is not extremely charitable?
Pompously and long-windedly yours,
A man who learned not to deal with ideologues a long time ago.
Comments on this entry are closed.