On the constitutionality of being Homosexual

Status
Not open for further replies.

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
I have told this story before..but here is a refresher..
My nephew who came out to my sister and brother in law ..tried to kill himself 2 x BECAUSE his religious wacko parents would have 0 to do with his homosexuality.. and being raised in around the religious ways he was brain washed to believe he was going to that place nobody wants to go..
He is a wonderful young man now after many many years of therapy has a partner ...and yes NO mom and dad because they refuse to talk to him....how nice..
So this is why I get so bent out of shape when you k kw who starts with his hatred of gays.

They are people ..they did not choose this...there Americans as you and I ...and should have all the same rights....
 
Last edited:

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
If your evaluation were right, perhaps I'd agree. But you're a little off.
I think "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is an emotional over-simplification. Yet, still, when I say :censoredsign: or queer, or :censoredsign:gotry, I am, indeed, referring specifically to the commission of the perverse sex acts. You'll recall from various threads that I make a distinction, as does the Bible, between the temptation, which is not a sin, and the act, which is. I've said repeatedly that I can respect a guy who, though he has temptations, stands strong in the face of them and refuses to sin. He's fighting a great battle and will be rewarded in heaven.
I knew such a guy in the Air Force. He was effeminate. Very effeminate. Nobody knew how he got through basic training, because homosexuals were unceremoniously tossed and given the proverbial Bad Chicken Dinner. But I guess it was a matter of what you know vs. what you can prove because there he was.
He also hung around the same church groups that I did. He was Assembly of God, iirc, while I was a baptist, but the groups I was in were a bit eclectic.
One day, due to some shortcomings unrelated to his peculiarities, he was discharged, a general, I think. He found himself on the street, no money to speak of, nowhere to go. An officer who taught Bible study at my church took him in to help him get back on his feet. Had the Air Force found out about that, there would have been trouble.
It was only after he moved I'm there that some trouble came to light. He had a pair of high heeled shoes that he kept very prominently among his things. When asked, he said they were props in a play he had been in. Nobody believed out, and he would occasionally wear them. Then there was the gay porn found among his belongings.
Anyway, I'm sorry about the temptations he faced. I don't know if his effeminacy was due to a birth defect, or the domineering mother-absent or weak father theory, or what, but he wasn't normal. His predilection was obvious to everybody. Everybody. But having a birth defect isn't a sin. Homosexual sex is, and whether or not one engages in homosexual acts certainly is a choice.
So my use of words like :censoredsign: or :censoredsign:gotry isn't to denigrate somebody with the temptations this guy faced, which were apparently horrible. I didn't hate the poor kid. The sexual urge is strong and he had a horrible temptation. But the act is even more horrible, but we've got a huge segment of the population closing their eyes to it. :censoredsign:s became "gay," and now even fairly conservative people are thinking they're just like us and should marry. So ":censoredsign:" and "queer" is a bit of pushback, and that's why I post about such things a lot, and why I use terms like "committing homosexual perversion" -- emphasizing the act. I see our country in deep trouble, and I'm trying to paddle the other way as fast as I can.
I'm not optimistic, though. Did you see the recent premiere of the reality show called Forever Young? They take 5 young people and put them in a house with 5 seniors over 70 and watch the culture clash. One of the youngsters, a cute little thing, actually, revealed that she's a lesbian and is having trouble telling her mother. Now you wouldn't think the oldsters would be very sympathetic, and there could be some creative editing going on, but it appeared that none of the oldsters, all over 70, had any sort of objection to her lifestyle. If that group was all ok with it, we're in deep trouble.

your saying bible. Bible ..Bible.. I don't believe in the bible... so your argument has 0 merit with me..so that makes it right just because your book says so.??
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"They are people ..they did not choose this...there Americans as you and I ...and should have all the same rights...."


The same rights, but no special rights. Everyone should also be required to shoulder the same responsibilities as well. Keep in mind that at one time the US government sent troops against heterosexuals to stop their "marriage" beliefs. That has not happened to homosexuals.

That is exactly why "marriage" should not even be discussed at the federal level. It is strictly a state issue. Same with abortion.



 

ScottInBama

Expert Expediter
Driver
As a Christian I'm against homosexuality and gay marriage but I choose not to judge them but to love them. Never been into name calling; just to immature.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
" Conservatives at best frown upon gays and at worst hate them outright. Many moderates and liberals also harbor prejudices they don't like to think about."


I doubt that one can correctly make the statement that "conservatives" frown upon or hate homosexuals. Each person is an individual and harbors his, her or it's own brand of prejudice. The particular brand may or may not include homosexuals. One could even consider the blanket idea that "conservatives" frown upon or "hate" homosexuals a form of prejudice in itself.
Yeah, well, sure, painting with broad stokes will always be inaccurate and maybe incorrect, but let's get real here. Most conservatives, at least in this country, are of the religious fold, and since the Bible condemns homosexuality, or at the very least tells adherents to frown upon it, and since most Christians who are conservatives believe in the Bible, it's not all that incorrect to state conservatives frown upon homosexuals. In addition, since there have been many examples of conservative Christians displaying outright hatred for homosexuals and homosexuality, I'm not too far off base on that score, either.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yeah, well, sure, painting with broad stokes will always be inaccurate and maybe incorrect, but let's get real here. Most conservatives, at least in this country, are of the religious fold, and since the Bible condemns homosexuality, or at the very least tells adherents to frown upon it, and since most Christians who are conservatives believe in the Bible, it's not all that incorrect to state conservatives frown upon homosexuals. In addition, since there have been many examples of conservative Christians displaying outright hatred for homosexuals and homosexuality, I'm not too far off base on that score, either.

You must run in vastly different circles than I.

I find that the "conservatives" I know, and most people I hang around with fit that bill by today's use of the word, have greatly differing views on religion, the bible, homosexuality and many other subjects. The primary belief that makes them "conservative" is the belief that the individual has rights and that they control the government. I have not found an overwhelming sense of "frown" or "hatred" in the majority of them.

There have been many examples of just about any group hating another. Nothing is limited to Christian conservatives. Shoot, I bet there are even homosexuals who hate too.

When it comes to prejudice, people are people.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
If your evaluation were right, perhaps I'd agree. But you're a little off.
I think "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is an emotional over-simplification. Yet, still, when I say :censoredsign: or queer, or :censoredsign:gotry, I am, indeed, referring specifically to the commission of the perverse sex acts.
OK, let me see if I can simplify this a little. With regard to why the word has been, at least up to this point, allowed here on EO has absolutely nothing to do with whether you think the term applies to an act or a state of being. You can define terms any way you want, but it's how the term is most often used in the contextual lexicon that matters.

You'll recall from various threads that I make a distinction, as does the Bible, between the temptation, which is not a sin, and the act, which is.
Yes, I do recall, and it's an interpretation that not all Christians agree with (nor with reality, for that matter). But it doesn't really matter with respect to how you are using the word, since it's the word itself and how people receive it that matters.

Since you are apparently completely unaware that the word is an insult to many people, let me make it clear that it is, in fact, an insult. Now that you're aware of that fact, we ask you to scale down the use of the word here, and simply use the proper terms rather than derogatory slang. It's really not that hard to make your point without being disagreeable or purposefully insulting. I honestly think you're capable of doing that. If you cannot, then at the very least you should stick to the term that the Bible uses to describe homosexuality. Good luck with that.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Without question. I also read, and pay attention to what is going on in society.

And you seem assume that some others don't, which could be construed a prejudice in itself. If not a prejudice a form of "elitism". Either one could lead to a limited view of the "other" parts of society that you may not view as such.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
And you seem assume that some others don't, which could be construed a prejudice in itself.
It's not an assumption. It's based on observation of the clearly evident. And it could only be construed as a prejudice by someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word. When you draw conclusions about someone based on what they have done or have said, it's hardly a pre-judgment.

If not a prejudice a form of "elitism". Either one could lead to a limited view of the "other" parts of society that you may not view as such.
So can being unobservant and/or sticking your head in the sand. To think that conservatives, as a group, embrace or are ambivalent towards homosexuality is just ridiculous and doesn't correlate in any way with the reality of society. Why do you think homosexual rights, including same-sex marriage, is even the slightest bit controversial? It's certainly not because conservatives are on board with this whole Rainbow Coalition extravaganza. <snort>
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It's not an assumption. It's based on observation of the clearly evident. And it could only be construed as a prejudice by someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word. When you draw conclusions about someone based on what they have done or have said, it's hardly a pre-judgment.

So can being unobservant and/or sticking your head in the sand. To think that conservatives, as a group, embrace or are ambivalent towards homosexuality is just ridiculous and doesn't correlate in any way with the reality of society. Why do you think homosexual rights, including same-sex marriage, is even the slightest bit controversial? It's certainly not because conservatives are on board with this whole Rainbow Coalition extravaganza. <snort>

There is NO such thing as "homosexual rights" nor "woman's rights" for that matter. There are only rights. Human rights.

Right now, one of the BIGGEST road blocks to "gay marriage" are gay people. Many wish to be "in your face" and/or use the force of the federal government and/or the courts to impose THEIR idea of what is a "right" on others. It is really an easy fix. Keep the feds out of it, let the states settle it their own way. It would really only take the change of a few "words" to fix it. In reality, most everything that is being complained about, as far as "Marriage goes" can be solved by two parties drawing up a legal contract. Most of the other problems have been created by the government, as in SS, health care etc.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
There is NO such thing as "homosexual rights" nor "woman's rights" for that matter. There are only rights. Human rights.
See? You're not paying attention. Whether there should be homosexual or women's rights is certainly debatable, but their actual existence is not.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Just wow. A whole weekend of discussing the gay lifestyle. Simply amazing. As long as they aren't asking someone to "participate", I don't see the big deal. If we are going the way of religion, God says love everyone. Let God sort it out if he wants. Not our place to worry about what others are doing if we are not effected. I would probably say it is more of a sin to be constantly consumed with it.
Which of course many Christians are. Who do you think is the largest purchaser of gay and lesbian porn? Just follow the numbers. Not enough gay and lesbian people to support a billion dollar business. But to be fair, more are likely inclined to enjoy two chicks getting it on rather than the latter.;) If you are going to be self righteous, probably need to look at the whole picture and look at who you are actually hating. Might be surprised?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
See? You're not paying attention. Whether there should be homosexual or women's rights is certainly debatable, but their actual existence is not.

The problem is that the "special rights" are, for the most part, "made up" rights. They serve little value except to divide people, which is EXACTLY why they are pushed by certain "Neo-liberal" groups. A divided society is easier to control than a cohesive one.

The very idea of "Women's Rights", "Homosexual Rights", "Reproductive Rights" and any other form of "Limited Rights" should be abhorrent to anyone who respects the Constitution. The idea that the federal government can "grant" these "special limited rights", and that the idea that they can is acccepted, is VERY disturbing.

The "fact" that they exist does not bode well for our freedoms.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The problem is that the "special rights" are, for the most part, "made up" rights. They serve little value except to divide people, which is EXACTLY why they are pushed by certain "Neo-liberal" groups. A divided society is easier to control than a cohesive one.

The very idea of "Women's Rights", "Homosexual Rights", "Reproductive Rights" and any other form of "Limited Rights" should be abhorrent to anyone who respects the Constitution. The idea that the federal government can "grant" these "special limited rights", and that the idea that they can is acccepted, is VERY disturbing.

The "fact" that they exist does not bode well for our freedoms.

I agree. We need to go back to the way it was before the government started granting these special rights. Women having rights? Preposterous.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I agree. We need to go back to the way it was before the government started granting these special rights. Women having rights? Preposterous.


Nice try "Chubby", always trying to twist things. Women are entitled to nothing more than men are. Homosexuals are entitled to nothing more that heterosexuals are. Blacks no more than whites, etc etc etc. You knew what I meant. "Let's twist again, like we did last summer".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top