Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Yeah, parents found out. Not happy. It sucks.

I can imagine. I hope that in time, they will come around, and accept your chosen way of life. In the meantime, use this as an opportunity to develop your independence, and start carving out your life. Don't let this set you back. Would that Love be all we needed.

[The last sane person]

Lord knows, but I'm currently looking for a job.

[BeardofPants]

Best of luck. Can you get grants and stuff if you choose to go to college?

[The last sane person]

Nah, for reasons best saved for pm. I'm just so tired. And sick at the moment. Had been fighting it off but its attacked me.

I am amazed at how fast my parents turned on me cause of this.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That's awful, Shah. I'm so sorry to hear that. It's an abomination that things like this happen. You have my utmost sympathies, and best wishes for creating a better life.

[Nurvingiel]

Best of luck Shah! I'm sorry you were hurt by your parents' actions and I hope you get through it all okay. Your friends at the Moot are always here for you.

Good luck with job hunting as well.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's awful, Shah. I'm so sorry to hear that. It's an abomination that things like this happen. You have my utmost sympathies, and best wishes for creating a better life.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but by that you mean 'best wishes in denying that which caused this to happen,and I hope you find the strength to renounce this sinful behaviour?'

If you believe homosexuality is sinful, what can you say that you don't say to someone who tells you that he can't remain chaste, or sober, or honest?

[Butterbeer]

I'm with you Greymouser - i think Gwaimir Windgem should clarify just what he means by the 'abomination' stuff - it appears at best an odd choice of words - and is very open to intepretation - if it is supportive of Shah then let's just be clear about it!

if it is effectively calling her an abomination for her preferences at a very hard time for her - well, i can only say that my respect for you is lessened by it...

Please be clear what you mean Gwai!

BB

[BeardofPants]

I'm assuming he's talkin' about the parents kicking her out, and by better life, I'm hoping he means that she'll find her feet and get that job she's looking for, and get the parents to come back around.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but by that you mean 'best wishes in denying that which caused this to happen,and I hope you find the strength to renounce this sinful behaviour?'

That is in fact not what I meant. I believe that homosexual acts are wrong, yes, but not everyone does, just as not everyone believes fornication is wrong, and I can understand that, and I sincerely wish Shah the best, despite our different views. I mean, quite simply, that I hope she is able to find a better life. Shee summed up my meaning pretty well, and I don't know quite is going on in your mind. Do you think that I just sit and wait for something terrible to happen, like a vulture, so I can spring down and tear out someone's innards? Sorry, GM, but I don't work that way.

Butterbeer, I must say that I am gravely offended by the implications of your post; I would hope that people don't think I am a total and complete monster, but I guess that is a vain hope. I am, after all, a Christian, and I suppose they don't come in any other variety.

I did NOT mean to say that Shah is an abomination; to say that would be itself abominable, vicious, and cruel. The wickedness of such a statement would be only aggravated by the terrible state of affairs. I meant that it is terrible and abominable when parents treat their children like this and act hatefully to them because of their homosexuality.

If it weren't too much to ask, I would ask that you give me the slightest modicum of credit in the future, and not twist my words to mean the most awful thing possible. Just because I disagree with you does not necessitate that I am a cruel and monstrous creature.

[klatukatt]

(Shah- I know not what to say. Do you need assistance? Anything I can do, you know...)

So, I have not been on the board for quite a while and have some serious catching up to do. I believe Nerdanel made a point near the bottom of page 27 to the effect that we have not really made the distinction between love in the same gender and lust.

My question to you, Gwaimir, is "Do you support loving same-gender relationships built on trust and security if there is absolutly no sex involved?"

I know the Church looks down upon any form of sex if it happens outside of wedlock, but can anyone enter into a loving, caring relationship without sex and be approved of by the Church? (Not that I'm saying you are the rule maker here, just that you seem to have the most knowledge and most passionate arguments.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This one. [link]

Care to comment on how the mathematics of homophobia stack up with societal discrimination such as the denial of equal "benefits"?

and this one: [link]

(your post #535)


I'm sorry but I just don't understand your comment - could you please elaborate? I read a lot of Nel's link, where there are sincere people trying to get society to accept their opinion, and I read your link, and murder is a terrible thing.

[The Gaffer]

The assertion was that denial of equal rights does not constitute "harm".

My argument is that denial of equal rights contributes towards the establishment and validation of homophobic attitudes.

[Butterbeer]

Gwai - no need to be offended.

I merely asked you to clarify what you meant because it could indeed be read in two ways - and for your own benefit i thought it best you clarify it.

Thankyou for doing so.

and as you yourself ask in your post there, please don't try and second guess my thoughts or opinions either! ..i don't think i have really stated any?

Nice image on the vulture thing there! ... i don't thiunk anyone would have actually thought that ...but the image is in my head now!!!

*imagines gwai perched high on the debating eyries of the Moot*

( but i am sure you are a nice vulture!! )

Just kidding ,

best, BB

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The assertion was that denial of equal rights does not constitute "harm".

I don't agree with (IIRC) Gwai's assertion that denial of a good isn't a harm.

My argument is that denial of equal rights contributes towards the establishment and validation of homophobic attitudes.

I hope you know me well enough to know that I'm not trying to get out of anything here when I feel that I need to clarify some things.

Re homophobic - I"m guessing we might differ on the definition of this very oddly-used term. It seems that it some people use it to include even people like me, who have no problem at ALL with homosexuals, but just happen to hold the opinion that homosexual acts are wrong. Personally, I think applying that term to me is the height of ridiculousness, but some people will do anything to push their agenda. Hopefully you don't include me in your opinion of who is homophobic. I challenge anyone to find anywhere, in my hundreds if not thousands of posts, where I've treated homo/bi/trans people differently than any one else here. I don't do that, because I don't feel that they're any different. End of story.

Second thing - "denial of equal rights" - well, IMO homosexuals have been trying to get special rights, not equal rights. Marriage is a matter of definition by society. Some societies allow polygamy. The U.S. doesn't. Neither do we allow same-sex marriage. Why should gays have special rights over, say, polygamists or advocates of youth-adult marriage? Marriage, in the US, has always been between one man and one woman. Just because something has "always been" that way does not NECESSARILY mean that it's right to change it. Murder, for example, has always been wrong here; change, in this case, is not right, IMO. And I feel that marriage falls into that same category.

Where the equal rights come into play is that ANYONE can try to change the definition of marriage. And gays are doing just that, and no one is stopping them - they have the right and freedom to try to impose their opinion on society.

As far as the main point of your question, which seems to be: are horrific crimes like the one you linked to directly due to the fact that homosexual marriage is not currently allowed? I really don't know; see, polygamists are in the same boat as homosexuals in the US (i.e., polygamous marriages are not allowed, even if the people are sincerely in love) and I don't see crimes like that against polygamists, although there seems to be a general distaste for polygamy. I think that there are people who will do terrible things all over the place, and I don't know that legalizing same-sex marriage will stop that. It might a bit, but I don't think that's a good reason to legalize same-sex marriage. One could use the same logic and say that perhaps legalizing pedophilia might lessen the violence that pedophiles are usually subjected to in prison.

(NOTE - I'm not saying homosexuals are the same as pedophiles - please don't trot out that tired lie again. Not you, Gaffer, but others who like to do that. What I'm pointing out is that the LOGIC is the same.)

I hate violence against anyone This world is truly awful sometimes.

[klatukatt]

Neat, Rian.

Of course, heterosexual marriages can be a lot worse that homosexual life-partnerships. Many marriages are abusive and love is absent, but still some states won't grant a divorce on those grounds.

We should talk about heterosexual rights being squashed because they are. There are people, politicians even, who want to ban all forms of birth control even to married couples therebye destroying a couples control over how many children they have.

Now THAT is scary.

[Rían]

Yes, I think non-abortive birth control is a very good thing!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

My question to you, Gwaimir, is "Do you support loving same-gender relationships built on trust and security if there is absolutly no sex involved?"

That's a sort of vague formulation; clarification would be appreciated. But my initial response (based solely on the words used) is "of course! That's what we call platonic, luv!"

I know the Church looks down upon any form of sex if it happens outside of wedlock, but can anyone enter into a loving, caring relationship without sex and be approved of by the Church? (Not that I'm saying you are the rule maker here, just that you seem to have the most knowledge and most passionate arguments.)

Again, in order for me to answer your question properly, I'm afraid you'll need to clarify exactly what you mean; please tell me what you mean by a "loving, caring relationship"? The simple signification of these words, again, leads me to say "yes", but I have the feeling that you mean something a bit more.

Butterbeer:

I suppose I didn't need to get so upset with you; according to your join date, you weren't around back when I was, so you wouldn't know me very well. Let's just say that, while I consider homosexual acts to be wrong, I am very sympathetic to homosexuals, and would never dream of calling them "abominations", and to suggest that I would do such a cruel thing at such a sensitive time is very offensive to me. However, you are right that I shouldn't have gotten quite so offended, and I apologise for that.

I'll try to be a nice vulture for your sake, BB!

*peers over the 'mootish deserts*

Originally Posted by Ri-kins

I don't agree with (IIRC) Gwai's assertion that denial of a good isn't a harm.

I'm rather surprised about that. What about the parable of the vineyard workers? The owner denied the morning workers the good of a wage that is proportional to the amount they worked in comparison with the evening workers, but I don't think he harmed them.

I don't [TREAT GLBT PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY], because I don't feel that they're any different. End of story.

Hear, hear!

I think that there are people who will do terrible things all over the place, and I don't know that legalizing same-sex marriage will stop that.

Nor do I. In fact, I think it actually might make it worse, because the homophobes would get riled up, and the sleeping giant could very well wake up.

Originally Posted by Klatty

We should talk about heterosexual rights being squashed because they are. There are people, politicians even, who want to ban all forms of birth control even to married couples therebye destroying a couples control over how many children they have.

"Even" to married couples? It seems that it would make even less sense to ban it to unmarried persons, since (often) a sexual relationship between unmarried persons does not imply the sort of commitment that marriage (usually) does, and which seems to be rather essential to the raising of children.

Yes, I think non-abortive birth control is a very good thing!

Feel free to keep thinking that. God and I will continue to believe otherwise.

[The Gaffer]

Just to make clear: I don't think that you or Gwai are homophobic. Your posts show that both of you are thoughtful and willing to engage with potential contradictions posed by your faith.

Also to propose a deal: I won't point the finger over the paedo analogy if you don't make it, nor the polygamy one. Gay people are just born that way; polygamists are just greedy. I don't need to tell you that arguments by analogy may seem to work because they have the same logical structure but that has no bearing on whether or not they're true.

I also agree that things shouldn't be changed just for the sake of it. However, I don't think they should be kept the same just for the sake of it either. Again, that's a non-argument IMO.

Clearly, prohibiting gay marriage is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for homophobia.

But don't you agree that it might facilitate homophobia by legitimising the idea that gays are outwith (sorry - Scots word for which there is no English equivalent) the bounds of acceptable society?

Do you agree that allowing gays equal rights might, in the long term, result in a reduction in the prevalence of those ideas?

And an ancillary question: if we don't allow gay marriage, what do you think SHOULD be done to eliminate homophobia?

[inked]

Well, just be assured that lawyers aren't homophobic...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixuknews.html

A whole new venue for money-making is now opening...........