Church attitude towards Gays.

[Gwen]

The use of rainbow flags has a long tradition; they are displayed in many cultures around the world as a sign of diversity and inclusiveness, of hope and of yearning.

Rainbow flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This makes it rather easy to see how it became chosen for the LGBT movement. I just can't be all that bent out of shape about it, it's a fair choice and a fair request from a group that has historically lived with bigotry.

Like it or not a fear of something has nothing to do with your reaction. You don't have to want to kill someone to have a phobia of them. Yes it's not usually called a phobia until it's an extreme fear but at what point would you call it extreme?

If you see someone whose car has broken down and you refuse them a ride for fear of being seen with or helping them? I would call that extreme.

Refusing to give them a job or work in the same office? I would call that extreme.

Telling your own child that they can't bring their committed partner to thanksgiving dinner? I think disowning your family is extreme.

As for words like gay meaning happy and queer meaning strange.... to my knowledge they didn't chose those words. It's like the term mormon. We didn't pick it, it was intended to hurt. Instead it was adopted and became the norm. Gay is the same, the words were picked for them. How upset can you be that they went along with the term given to them to work with?

I see a lot of upset/fear/frustration/revulsion where there should be none...... if it's not a phobia then what exactly is it? I would like to know the correct term to use.

[carlimac]

Rainbow flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see a lot of upset/fear/frustration/revulsion where there should be none...... if it's not a phobia then what exactly is it? I would like to know the correct term to use.

Dislike, animosity, antipathy, aversion, disapprobation, disapproval, disinclination, displeasure, dissatisfaction, distaste, enmity, loathing

(..."Un-adulterated loathing..."- from Wicked ), objection, opposition

The word "phobia" indicates there is some pathologic problem, something most definitely wrong with the individual. I think that's why gays like to use it so much. It's really just an underhanded insult- a way to stick it to anyone who doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

For many years my daughter had a genuine phobia of flushing public toilets and throw up. Her eyes would fly open and I could see a phsiological change come into her demeanor. She would get as far away from those two situations as she could. That old fight or flight kicked in and she always took flight. I don't think that happens too often when hetero people happen upon homosexuals.

Edited April 26, 2012 by carlimac

[annewandering]

Who gave them the name gay? I really do believe they took it for themselves without help. When did a rainbow start meaning inclusive? Not when I was young. It did not mean that. It was a sign of God's promise to us is the only meaning I ever heard assigned to rainbows which is why it is so offensive to be used as it is used often now.

Edited April 26, 2012 by annewandering

[bytor2112]

Yep. Generally the term is used to denote someone who feels threatened by the presence of homosexuality around them. Feeling fear/threatened does not necessarily mean that you are afraid a gay person is going to attack you or overwhelm you, it means that your actions towards them derive from your revulsion. Anytime you place a group of people into the category of the "abject", one consequence is abuse and violence. After all, we have a tendency to want to be as far away from the abject as possible.

Compare homophobia with the concept of heteronormativity. Homophobia is literally a fear of gay people. That fear can manifest in a variety of ways. Heteronormativity is a more subtle assumption that heterosexual sex/culture is "normal" while anything that falls outside that paradigm is deviant. In my opinion, heteronormativity as it exists today is a relatively new (and pervasive) social force that sets the stage for homophobia. The two are interrelated.

I think it boils down to most guys think homosexuality is sick and disgusting....the act of two men engaged in sex acts with one another. The act rather than the person.....

[carlimac]

I think it boils down to most guys think homosexuality is sick and disgusting....the act of two men engaged in sex acts with one another. The act rather than the person.....

To be completely honest, I agree. And it's not just guys who think that.

But then my kids think the idea of hetero sex is pretty sick and disgusting, too. What's with that?

[annewandering]

I think it boils down to most guys think homosexuality is sick and disgusting....the act of two men engaged in sex acts with one another. The act rather than the person.....

I suspect that is well true and not restricted to men being the only ones feeling disgust either.

[annewandering]

To be completely honest, I agree. And it's not just guys who think that.

But then my kids think the idea of hetero sex is pretty sick and disgusting, too.

lol along with most kids, especially if it concerns their parents.

[circusboy01]

Who gave them the name gay? I really do believe they took it for themselves without help. When did a rainbow start meaning inclusive? Not when I was young. It did not mean that. It was a sign of God's promise to us is the only meaning I ever heard assigned to rainbows which is why it is so offensive to be used as it is used often now.

You're right. A Rainbow is a sign of Gods promise to us, and that's all it should be known as.

[Wingnut]

A phobia is not ' I dont want you around me" kinda thing. There are lots of things I dont want around me but they dont revolt me and they dont scare me.

We seem to have downgraded this particular word to mean a lot less than a phobia.

Honestly the arrogance of changing words around to their satisfaction is one of the things I really get ticked off about. Go have your sex in your house but leave me alone. Leave things I love like rainbows alone. Leave psychiatric definitions alone. And to have taken a word meaning very happy to apply to an unnatural act is just beyond arrogant. If the homosexual population had given any concern to anyone besides themselves they would not have done this. I just dont care one way or other how perverted someone is if they leave my life alone.

You know it's not personal right? Because this sounds like you're taking it awful personally.

[annewandering]

Why exactly is it not personal? Arent we talking about our personal opinions here?

[Wingnut]

Why exactly is it not personal? Arent we talking about our personal opinions here?

Gay people are not out to make your life miserable. That's what I meant. Yet you keep talking like everything they do is directed at you, but it's not.

[annewandering]

Gay people are not out to make your life miserable. That's what I meant. Yet you keep talking like everything they do is directed at you, but it's not.

It is directed at a way of life. I see it as one of the ways that satan has planned out to destroy the family and the foundations of our culture. I may not be able to do much but I will speak out against it whenever allowed.

I do not have anything against gay people as such. It is the agendas I worry about. It is a cliche but yes I do have gay/lesbian friends. Actively gay but not activists.

[Vort]

So anyone who finds homosexuality revolting (which it is, almost by definition) is a homophobe?

Yep.

So that settles it. By (the homosexual lobby's) definition, most of the population is "homophobic" -- not because of what they do or what they choose, but because of how they feel.

Ironic, no?

Generally the term is used to denote someone who feels threatened by the presence of homosexuality around them.

Yet you just very clearly agreed that anyone who finds homosexuality revolting is a "homophobe". Feeling threatened has nothing to do with it.

Compare homophobia with the concept of heteronormativity. Homophobia is literally a fear of gay people.

Yes, that is what it is supposed to mean. But you and those like you make it clear that merely finding homosexuality revolting is enough to be labeled "homophobic".

The term has no useful meaning. It is used only as a label to bash those who refuse to acknowledge homosexuality as "beautiful" or "normative".

Heteronormativity is a more subtle assumption that heterosexual sex/culture is "normal" while anything that falls outside that paradigm is deviant.

But by the definitions of the words "normal" and "deviant", this is true.

[Traveler]

Or, to put it another way: "You don't have a right to marry your loved one because I might have to see it or recognize it." Then it becomes a problem.

What a person does in private is their affair and as long as they keep it private and they do not harm anyone else (physically or physiologically) they do not have to justify what they do in private – but when they insist that what they do becomes public and by force of law considered just as important and valuable as other behavior (including other private behavior) – Then I believe they must and are under obligation to demonstrate and prove that such behavior is beneficial to that public and society from which they expect acceptance and approval.

Since you are a proponent of gay behavior and gay marriage – I ask you to demonstrate or prove that gay sex has any benefit to society beyond the pleasuring of self for the immediate participants. And while you are thinking on this matter – I would point out that even the nefariously evil act of deviant heterosexual rape in the pursuit of pleasuring of self – at least has the possible benefit of providing offspring that can propitiate the human species and can be argued as natural behavior in many species (as is homosexuality). I have asked the question of possible benefits many times of gay proponents and they have refused to answer or even continue a reasonable dialog without divergent propaganda tactics employing explosive terms such as homophobe; which in reality adds absolutely nothing intelligent to the discussion. All of which convinces me that the proponents of gays are illogical, unreasonable and unwilling to consider what is honestly beneficial to society – beyond their immediate drive to self-pleasure. So let us begin the discussion of why gays are necessary.

I purport that gays are not necessary to human society and that if suddenly, for some reason, all propensities toward gay behavior were to be eliminated in human society that even in 10,000 years there would be no measurable ill effect of any significance to the propitiation of the human species. Why then is this issue of the social acceptance of gays such an important issue – beyond those seeking the self-pleasuring of it?

The Traveler

[carlimac]

What a person does in private is their affair and as long as they keep it private and they do not harm anyone else (physically or physiologically) they do not have to justify what they do in private – but when they insist that what they do becomes public and by force of law considered just as important and valuable as other behavior (including other private behavior) – Then I believe they must and are under obligation to demonstrate and prove that such behavior is beneficial to that public and society from which they expect acceptance and approval.

Since you are a proponent of gay behavior and gay marriage – I ask you to demonstrate or prove that gay sex has any benefit to society beyond the pleasuring of self for the immediate participants. And while you are thinking on this matter – I would point out that even the nefariously evil act of deviant heterosexual rape in the pursuit of pleasuring of self – at least has the possible benefit of providing offspring that can propitiate the human species and can be argued as natural behavior in many species (as is homosexuality). I have asked the question of possible benefits many times of gay proponents and they have refused to answer or even continue a reasonable dialog without divergent propaganda tactics employing explosive terms such as homophobe; which in reality adds absolutely nothing intelligent to the discussion. All of which convinces me that the proponents of gays are illogical, unreasonable and unwilling to consider what is honestly beneficial to society – beyond their immediate drive to self-pleasure. So let us begin the discussion of why gays are necessary.

I purport that gays are not necessary to human society and that if suddenly, for some reason, all propensities toward gay behavior were to be eliminated in human society that even in 10,000 years there would be no measurable ill effect of any significance to the propitiation of the human species. Why then is this issue of the social acceptance of gays such an important issue – beyond those seeking the self-pleasuring of it?

The Traveler

I agree with everything except the bolded part. There is nothing beneficial about heterosexual rape. Yes a child might come of it but the price is just too high. The worth of life of that child should never ever be tied to the circumstances in which it was concieved. One should never say..."well at least I got a baby out of it."

[Traveler]

I agree with everything except the bolded part. There is nothing beneficial about heterosexual rape. Yes a child might come of it but the price is just too high. The worth of life of that child should never ever be tied to the circumstances in which it was concieved. One should never say..."well at least I got a baby out of it."

You have missed a very important point. And I do not want to deviate at all from it's importance in relationship to the discussion of this thread.

From the worst understanding of "possible" heterosexual relationships, mankind can survive and continue to exist through the birth of a child. No such benefit is even remotely possible even in the most loving, caring homosexual relationship. A primary argument of homosexual marriage is that it is an individual's G-d given right to marry someone they have learned to love and that such a relationship should be considered equal to all over possible relationships of love.

As a mathematician, a scientist and an engineer - I contend that to say all "loving" relationships are equal (or even should be thought to be equal) - is logically flawed and absolutely not true. The best that can be hoped for in one; cannot produce any, evenly remotely conceived (pun intended) benefit from the worst of the other.

The Traveler

[carlimac]

You have missed a very important point. And I do not want to deviate at all from it's importance in relationship to the discussion of this thread.

From the worst understanding of "possible" heterosexual relationships, mankind can survive and continue to exist through the birth of a child. No such benefit is even remotely possible even in the most loving, caring homosexual relationship. A primary argument of homosexual marriage is that it is an individual's G-d given right to marry someone they have learned to love and that such a relationship should be considered equal to all over possible relationships of love.

As a mathematician, a scientist and an engineer - I contend that to say all "loving" relationships are equal (or even should be thought to be equal) - is logically flawed and absolutely not true. The best that can be hoped for in one; cannot produce any, evenly remotely conceived (pun intended) benefit from the worst of the other.

The Traveler

Ok but I still don't think it's a very smart way to argue the point. Even as a hetero it comes across to me as an extreme and unnecessary example- one that would offend and distract more than illustrate a point.

[mordorbund]

To be completely honest, I agree. And it's not just guys who think that.

But then my kids think the idea of hetero sex is pretty sick and disgusting, too. What's with that?

Heterophobes.

[pntkl]

Heterophobes.

Hahahah! I see laugh stats, but I can't find the laugh button...

[circusboy01]

I agree with everything except the bolded part. There is nothing beneficial about heterosexual rape. Yes a child might come of it but the price is just too high. The worth of life of that child should never ever be tied to the circumstances in which it was concieved. One should never say..."well at least I got a baby out of it."

A woman who was raped might never say or think, " well at least I got a baby out of it."

But she still might have the baby, and raise it up to be an upstanding member of society.

Brother Ray

[carlimac]

It would be nice if both sides took a step back, took a look at what they are saying and doing and apply the Golden Rule.

Here is yet another example of what I'm talking about.

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Apparently he's the instigator of the "It Gets Better" movement. I wonder if he realizes that what he did in that convention isn't going to help things get any better for himself or any other gay youth. I want to ask, "What was he smoking?"

Edited April 28, 2012 by carlimac

[Traveler]

Ok but I still don't think it's a very smart way to argue the point. Even as a hetero it comes across to me as an extreme and unnecessary example- one that would offend and distract more than illustrate a point.

It is not in any way intended to offend - nor is it to just argue a point. The purpose is to clearly and openly state an obvious fact and very important truth that is blatantly discarded and foolishly forgotten.

What I strongly suggest is the extreme and very unnecessary demand that something that is so obviously wrong be argued without intellect and ignoring reasonable rhetorical logic - akin to standing at noon day in the sun and declaring it night. Homosexual marriage is nothing at all similar - even in the most extreme thinking anything at all of equal importance to society and the necessity of propagating human society and even the species as the marriage between a man and a woman.

I suggested that if all homosexual tendencies and behaviors were to suddenly end - that I do not think that in 10,000 years that even a single serious problem arise from it. Someone can correct me if I have missed some point - obscure or pronounced. On the other hand if all heterosexual tendencies and behaviors were to suddenly end - not only would human society suffer irreversible damage but would cease to even exist in just one generation. Mankind has not yet fought even a war with greater ill possibilities.

The Traveler

[carlimac]

It is not in any way intended to offend - nor is it to just argue a point. The purpose is to clearly and openly state an obvious fact and very important truth that is blatantly discarded and foolishly forgotten.

What I strongly suggest is the extreme and very unnecessary demand that something that is so obviously wrong be argued without intellect and ignoring reasonable rhetorical logic - akin to standing at noon day in the sun and declaring it night. Homosexual marriage is nothing at all similar - even in the most extreme thinking anything at all of equal importance to society and the necessity of propagating human society and even the species as the marriage between a man and a woman.

I suggested that if all homosexual tendencies and behaviors were to suddenly end - that I do not think that in 10,000 years that even a single serious problem arise from it. Someone can correct me if I have missed some point - obscure or pronounced. On the other hand if all heterosexual tendencies and behaviors were to suddenly end - not only would human society suffer irreversible damage but would cease to even exist in just one generation. Mankind has not yet fought even a war with greater ill possibilities.

The Traveler

While what you state is true, the part I bolded seems extraneous and unnecessary to the conversation. Rape of any kind doesn't help the argument for either side.

[Vort]

Here is yet another example of what I'm talking about.

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Apparently he's the instigator of the "It Gets Better" movement. I wonder if he realizes that what he did in that convention isn't going to help things get any better for himself or any other gay youth. I want to ask, "What was he smoking?"

We already knew Dan Savage was a liar and a hypocrite. This just proves he's a moron.

[mordorbund]

I'll toss this out there Traveler. In an ideal system, there would be absolutely no benefit to gay marriage. A broken system, not unlike the rape case you mentioned, introduces areas where gay marriage can be beneficial. I know a 4 year old girl who was the result of a young teenager raped by her step-father. This family was producing children (meeting your criterion for societal growth), but in most other respects they were not contributing members of society. Their quality of child rearing was such that the neutral-to-negative impact they had was getting passed on to the next generation, with an increase. The State decided that the child deserved a better home.

I admittedly don't know the stats on the ratio of parents willing to adopt compared to the number of children available; assuming the adoption rate is low on account of a lack of adopters, increasing the number of stable, committed marriages will increase that pool. I've heard some conflicting reports about the child rearing abilities of gay couples. I've heard of some that rate them the same as single-parent households, while just this week I heard a report that said they rate the same as traditional couples.

Gay couples are already permitted to adopt. They do not independently increase society's numbers, but they can increase society's quality. Gay marriage adds stability to this group, increasing their effectiveness.