- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Atheists Denounce Call to Criminalize Homosexuality in U.S.
An Atheist civil rights group today denounced a statement by a representative of the American Family Association that gay and lesbian Americans should be forced to receive "Reparative Therapy" and compared homosexuals to intravenous drug users.
Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, said that the proposal "borders on Orwellian totalitarianism and seeks to further criminalize behavior over which the churches and the government should have no control whatsoever. Atheists have a wide variety of opinions about these
matters, and ours is not a gay rights organization, but we do firmly and consistently oppose privileging religious posturing in determining what is legally acceptable or to set government policy. Religionists who want to enlist government in their efforts to persecute others must be firmly
opposed."
Brian Fisher of the American Family Association told a radio audience earlier this week that homosexuals should be compelled to receive government-ordered psychotherapy for the same reason that drug users are often pushed into treatment.
"Compelling gays and lesbians to receive 'treatment' for consensual, adult behaviors is not only ineffective but politically unacceptable and ethically wrong," said Buckner. "This is the old religious right canard that gays are under the influence of Satan and are 'sick' because of
their sexual proclivities."
In a web posting, Fisher tried to justify his earlier statement by citing government statistics; he noted that the FDA, for instance, says that gay men have a greater chance of contracting HIV and other diseases than straight males. "That's a public health issue," said Buckner. "The AFA isn't really interested in public health hygiene; they're pushing a relentless religious agenda that stigmatizes Americans based on sexual preference."
Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that Fisher's remarks reflect the anti-gay, bible-based agenda of the AFA. "Since its founding in 1977 by Rev. Donald Wildmon, the American Family Associating has targeted gay men and women and done everything possible to deny this group of millions of Americans their civil rights."
"This proposal for government-mandated therapy sounds more like the old Soviet Union than the United States," added Silverman. "What is Fisher going to do when people refuse to be 'treated'? Will homosexuals who do not cooperate with this offensive bullying be put in jail or camps?"
Mr. Silverman says that when he learned of this proposal by AFA, he laughed at how the group is often mischaracterized as a "conservative" organization.
"Conservatives used to be suspicious of too much government. Now, we have AFA calling for the ultimate in government surveillance, control and compulsion. I wonder, if this proposal somehow became law, how much money and many police agents it would take to enforce it?"
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Where are the Christians?
And in Uganda, thanks in part to the influence of Senators Inhofe and Ensign and the C Street Family, they want to execute all homosexuals . Why don't we hear of other Christians denouncing this? No offense to Atheists, but the best people to answer the false Christianity of the AFA are the real Christians, with the humanizing message of God's love for all of us.
Why this organization?
Why does it take an organization of atheists to come out and say what all Americans should be stepping forward to say out loud? Every argument used to further the persecution of, and removal of rights from, gay people is anchored in religious reasoning. One of the most important principles this nation, and our Constitution, are based upon is the separation of church and state . The day we start letting our laws be based upon religious doctrine is the day we sink into madness and let the American dream die a horrible death like some junkie in a filthy alley.
Extremists
To associate such an extremest organization with Conservatives is the same as associating Liberals with extreme factions of Liberalism such as Communists. I would characterize the AFA as a Fascist or Communist organization as both philosophies often believe in government controlled morality.
That is not exactly what I found
I searched about their website and that is not exactly what I found . What I found was statements from former homosexuals who struggled and felt that they were helped with psychological and emotional. In this article they were looking to break the silence imposed on any dialog about helping those with gender identity issues with support therapy. It was not the start of a witch hunt or mass conditioning, it was a moderate statement that for those in pain and struggle to have their community support their support needs also.
Read article below ...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=890004
Hey thanks.
I wondered about that. One of the first things that struck me as odious about this article is that they don't cite their sources. And while they put plenty of their advocates' statements up word for word, they went ahead and just paraphrased the "statement" issued by an AFA representative. Which leads me to the second thing that detracts from this article's merit: one person at AFA might have said something stupid (we don't know, because they didn't cite it) - clearly that means the whole organization must be detestable. Good to know everyone's panties are in a bunch over something that didn't actually happen.
Thank you
I've seen it all in this world, enough so that I now speak in high schools and colleges about my life. I'm a gay man, who in my youth was attacked and assaulted by Christians , while they were quoting Leviticus, and put in the emergency room to where I am today, a legally married gay man raising happy, well adjusted children . It's been an incredible journey, an incredible story.
Occurrences like the AFA advocating a jail sentence for me, only makes me laugh now. It used to make me angry. Now I just shake my head. How desperate they are, how FINALLY they are on the losing side of history and will go down in history with the George Wallaces of the 50s.
Thank you atheists , whether or not you agree with homosexuality (and that's what the comment section ALWAYS boils down to), but thank you for speaking out against religious oppression. Because right here in America, in 2010, it's still happening. So thank you for all that you do, and for your advocacy for minorities such as my family to be free from religious oppression. A thousand thank yous.
Thank you
I can barely see through my tears of anger and my rage! I am a lapsed churchgoer, and while I am no atheist , I uphold anyones' right to believe whatever they want- and respect their choices, and would hope they would extend the same to me. But these new, old phony conservatives embarrass themselves with their unholy attitude toward others-the god they worship is Je$u$, and
it has nothing to do with religion.! I am speaking up against this abomination because I don't want to die leaving it unsaid. Gay marriage will happen, DADT will be dropped, people of good will
shall soon find their voice- and roar loudly! Thank you for allowing
me to speak.
Not a big deal
I'm not saying I agree with the AFA's proposal, but it doesn't seem to me anymore oppressive than the policies towards the GLB community enforced during the administrations of such liberal icons as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Just because some of us have changed our opinions doesn't mean everyone has to change .
Re:
fine, I can understand that. But the question then is why, in essence, are they trying to criminalize homosexuality ?
why not
hell, let's have a go at it with the AFA and see where it takes us...and if orwell is right, they too will face re- education (along with us all)...sometimes you just have to be willing to sink the whole ship to make your point (no matter how stupid your point might be)...you go AFA, evolution will win in the end (oops, I bet you've got thoughts about that too)...I've got some bath water and a baby , guess it's time to do some throwing out...
Spot On.
A great response from Mr. Silverman, spot on. Retraining camps for minorities sounds like something straight out of Orwell. Usually I am opposed to such analogies, but all too often these days they actually fit.
The Irrational
These persons with an unhealthy obsessive-compulsive fixation on the private sexuality of others are what I would term mentally dysfunctional and in need of cognitive therapy and perhaps other psychiatric treatments. It's no small irony they call for forced therapy of homosexuals and compare them to addicts.
One might easily say the same of bigots. These irrational individuals are in no position to genuinely critically analyze the behavior and lives of homosexuals. If this is their general position, what they have to say on the matter is essentially the irrelevant ravings of minds that have lost a good part of their ability to reason.
Un-American Bigotry
The AFA are nothing more than a crowd of Bible thumping bigots, many of whom can read the Bible backwards and forwards, but who cannot understand modern science , democracy or society . It is time to take on these theocrats and defend the separation of church and state that makes American a great democracy. AFA, keep your Bible to yourself and away from my God-ordained civil rights . Furthermore, I am a liberal Christian who reads the same Bible, but I don't read in the hate that fundamentalists do. If you want theocracy, move to Iran!
I agree
But I with he hadn't invoked the concept of "Orwellian totalitarianism"...that passion-inducing cliche is as tired as the nazi thing was one month ago.
I disagree also
The AFA has nothing Hitler didn't have, except which members of society are the master race and which are not. And, for those who haven't read anything by Orwell, you can always rent the movie. As I recall , 1984 was required reading when I was in school . It was a futuristic novel written back in the Cold War era when John Birchers were doing a continuation of McCarthyism, with paranoid dilusions of a commie behind every rock and shrub.
Truly, there is no new thing under the sun. I don't know how old you are, but I think it's fair to say that at some point in the lives of most people, after they've clocked a few years on their odometers, the old adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, really starts to sink in.
For example, we've traded in commies and the Cold War, for terrorists and the War on Terror. We traded Vietnam and Laos, for Iran and Afghanistan. But, hey, there's nothing like an imaginary enemy and a third world country to bomb into the stone age to boost deficit defense spending to the moon and beyond. Especially if the third world country just happens to have a decent climate for growing poppies, or some other all cash agricultural drug crop.
Meanwhile, back to Orwell... In the story, the government controls everything, all civil liberties are gone, and any "deviant" is rounded up by storm troopers to be sent away for re- education . While argument by analogy is often suspect, comparing AFA's agenda to Orwell's futuristic vision of society is fairly close. If you want something dead on, and like science fiction, try Robert Heinlein's short story, "If this goes on". Among other considerations, it's a lot better read than 1984.
The future in Heinlein's story is one that evolved after an evangelical fire and brimstone preacher is elected president. The story is set in a future some hundred years later when the US Constitution has vanished from memory, and the country is ruled by a fascist religious elite, where anyone who doesn't go along is in heap big trouble.
I was a bit suprised at first in seeing the atheist group's support of what superficially appears to be a gay issue. As an agnostic, I typically find the atheist view somewhat goofy. I'm no more convinced there is no god than I am that anyone knows god down to his last nasty habit. That aside, I thought the position taken was far more sound than what is typical of the group.
The threat is not imaginary. It is the very real threat our Country's founders fought against, in part against the Protestant Church of England . It is the very real evil they sought to guard against in the separation of church and state clause, and reiterated in the First Amendment. They saw the evil invisioned by both Orwell and Heinlein with their own eyes. The difference was that their's wasn't a view of the future, but one of the past.
Liberty rarely dies from a single stroke of the sword. It dies the slow death of a thousand tiny cuts.
"Totalitarian" is the right word, my friend. If a word causes outrage, the thing it describes is far worse. Forget the word and look to the thing it describes if you need meaning.
I'm not defending homophobia
I'm an atheist , and I also think that anyone who is gay is just as much a human as any other sexuality, and that they should have 100% of the same rights. I have read Orwell's books many times. I am just expressing some disquiet that my own side is now using these lazy metaphors. I am disquieted not because they are incorrect in all aspects, but because in so many other contexts references to 1984 and other such emotionally-charged notions have been nothing more than shibboleths, and I would rather not surrender my thinking to twisted and hysterical fantasies of fiction.
In the above I mean shibboleth as in the context of "slogans that take the place of hard thinking".
I understood your objection
I understood that you agreed in principal, and that your only objection was to terminology. According to my dictionary, a shibboleth refers to a catch phrase associated with a particular group. For example, I've never heard anyone not a Marxist use the term "bourgeoisies". Simply using the word in a sentence would likely create an impression the speaker may be associated with that group or subscribes to the philosophy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the term "Orwellian" has never created an impression in my mind of association with any particular group or philosophy. It's more or less synonomous with the word "tyranny". Why would the thought process involved in identifying a tyrant indicate an absence of "hard thinking"? If anything, that appeared to me to be the ultimate point of the piece in the first place. The article wasn't so much supportive of gay rights , as it was an opposition to tyranny.
The article laid out the foundation for how AFA advocates for rounding up citizens for re- education in a fashion substantially identical to that of George Orwell's futuristic 1984. In the absence of the reference, the article has no point.
Whatever. I usually try to avoid splitting rabbits over semantics - mainly for the convenience of avoiding these kind of discussions - so please pardon the digression. Since we're in agreement that it's not okay for government to round up citizens for re-education, that's probably as close to consensus as we need to get anyhow.
FWIW, you still may find Heinlein's speculative fiction about a religious dictatorship in America of interest:
http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-2100-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0671655892
Shibboleth
I got my definition from the start of this piece (again, this is just to satisfy any curiosity you might have had)
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu /~nroubini/NYT/krugeconairu.htm
Disagree
The Orwellian analogy is spot on. These persons propose the state use its power to forcibly compel an entire class of individuals to submit to "retraining". It not unlike the retraining forced on the main character in Orwell's "1984" to conform to tribalist/nationalist standards. Ironically, persons who think in the ways suggested by this article have from time to time suggested a "final solution" for homosexuals not unlike that of Nazi Germany. I suppose that analogy is spot on as well.
Of course, unless something goes tragically wrong in American politics , these persons will never have the power to enforce their Orwellian OR Nazi-like views.
Thank you!
While am not an atheist I am fully opposed to totalitarian religious agendas in politics . Anti-homosexual activists and so called ' family ' groups wish to keep the government from allowing citizens full rights and yet wish to use the government to further ostracize and criminalize who people are. I second the comparison to Soviet Russia - secret police were used to detect and detain people based on their associations and not explicit criminal actions. Forcing homosexuals into therapy will not only further polarize them but will also increase unwarranted fear of homosexuals and the 'homosexual lifestyle'.
I thank American atheists for logically opposing the Christianist agenda and protecting our rights.
Not Christian
This is certainly not a Christian agenda. The AFA may claim to be Christian based but they are merely spouting a very non Christian philosophy. Their philosophy is personal and they twist the teachings of Christ to fit their own personal beliefs. This is typical of the old Southern Baptist type of Fundamentalism.
here comes the logic hammer
> the more we accept gay rights and such. the more people will be influenced into turning homosexual.
> every one is born according to what their parents believe in as far as sexuality..
You really haven't paid a bit of attention to what modern, reputable research and millions of gay people have been trying to tell everyone, have you?
Homosexuality is not a choice that people make, it is the way that people are made. Since you claim that parents' beliefs regarding sexual orientation affects the children they raise, how do you explain the existence of gay people? Are you going to take that to its logical conclusion that the majority of parents of gay children are actually gay?
> the problem with allowing homosexuals CERTAIN rights is...
rights are things that are common to all human beings and shouldn't be removed on account of one group's feelings towards another.
> according to a statistic which Im currently working on I hope to show how continued years of homosexuality-acceptance in society would lead to a decrease in the human population
And a decrease in the rate of population growth would be a bad thing how? In light of our overpopulating this planet, I'd argue it would be a great thing if we could reduce our numbers by at least 10%. This "statistic" you are working on had better be pretty comprehensive in order to convince anyone that there will be a general continuing trend of decreasing population if we allow people to just live their lives in peace according to their needs.
There are plenty of heterosexual people out there with no desire to have children - would you be just as comfortable ordering them into re- education to convince them to procreate?
Your comparison of the single case of a homosexual couple producing no children does not scale to society at large, nor even to reality. Have you not seen any of the cases in the news
regarding the rights of gays to adopt children, or custody fights between separating gay couples over the children that they HAVE had? No, I'm not implying they created a child through homosexual intercourse, but they have used in-vitro fertilization or surrogates. As for all the homosexuals who would not have children if the law recognized them as equal in every single respect, how many of them are having children now?
> men cheating on women ..women cheating on men..failed relationships..all of these factors play a role in homosexuality
Would you be so kind as to locate one single, solitary case where someone who was not wrestling with their orientation beforehand (conflicted over what was expected of them versus how they felt inside) has decided to become gay as a result of a failed relationship or because someone cheated on them? I'm willing to wager that such a case does not exist.
Here's a little thought experiment for you to try: imagine a reasonably fit person the same sex as you.
Now imagine embracing them and giving them a deep and lingering wet kiss, and engaging in mutual genital fondling with them. Does that idea repulse you? That is how a gay person feels when confronted with intimate acts with someone of the opposite sex .
If you actually went through with that in the real world, and did perform an act like that, do you think it would actually turn you gay and make you like it, so much so that you gave up all interest in the opposite sex?
Likewise, do you think a few hours of counseling, followed by beatings whenever you are caught looking appreciatively at the opposite sex, would ever change you so that you could happily live as a gay person?
Some of us heterosexuals actually listen to what is being said by the people affected by this argument, and if you want to take it a step further, ask some of your gay friends these questions and see what answers you get.
Do you really want to force gay people into relationships with straight people just so they can have the right to marry? So rather than 2 happy people, we can have 4 seriously unhappy people?
I think as a nation we'd be better off if marriage was abolished as a legal institution (meaning churches could still do it, but it had no legal standing for anything) and civil unions were allowed for everyone, regardless of orientation, for the legal stuff.
almost forgot
And more info on why i believe it is not innate it the human body when you are an infant or developing inside your mother
Remember a boy and a girl are basically the same thing..how..because when the fetus is developing it starts off with the same part..
this might sound wierd but makes sense
the shaft of a penis and head are basically an extended version of the clitorus...same with the testicles and labium..the labium is basically an opened up version of the testicle..
Honestly this is so simple..look at the male and female genitals and you might see the comparison...some people are even born with both uterus and penis..
So how does this help in my idea..because if in reality men and women are the same being..then we could not have a specific preference at birth...its the same egg and sperm..so its impossible for it to automatically choose the opposite or same sex based on birth sex ..
and today we have technology to choose sex..what makes this possible..the idea that men and women are the same
Utter nonsense
"So how does this help in my idea..because if in reality men and women are the same being..then we could not have a specific preference at birth."
The above doesn't follow at all.
Yes, males and females develop their organs from the same kind of precursor tissue (by the way, the scrotum, not the testes is homologous to the labia). This does not mean they are the same thing. Moreover, it says nothing at all about whether the peculiarities of someone's brain (which are affected by genes, peculiarities of intrauterine development and a certain degree of chance) could later predispose them to liking people of the same sex.
As a matter of fact, we know that (like for many other kinds of preferences) there is non-zero heritability in homosexuality (see twin studies by Bailey & Pillard). We know that there are significant differences in brain anatomy (size of the third interstitial nucleus) that mirror the differences we see in the brains of gay rams vs. straight rams (yes, there are other species in which a small subset of the population exhibits homosexual orientation).
Your notions about how homosexuality can be changed by making a decision are laughable to all the people who grow up desperately wishing they weren't gay due to societal disapproval. You probably haven't really talked to any such people, or perhaps you simply didn't believe them.
It's roughly analogous to what it would be like for some people if society had a taboo against writing with your left hand . There's a small subset of the population that has a strong innate preference to do so. They can force themselves to go through the motions of awkwardly learning to use their other hand, but that does not change the fact that there's something innately different in what's natural for them. In the case of sexual orientation, it has to do with who they have the capacity to have feelings for, and this has far-reaching implications in their lives.
Kinda of late bro
I explained most of this in the couple of last post...as far as the first 3 thing you quote me on..here is what i had responded in another post
"I am no baby genius..but Ive been a step father and have seen nieces and nephew grow up from babies ...my current belief on homosexuality is that it is not something INNATE..that you are not born gay ..in other words..when you are an infant..you have no sexual preference because you know not the world..
It is possible that your mind/you chooses preference as you grown..(e.g. 1yr-4yrs or so).
in order for you to understand this just think about the question
"Why do you like men?"
could id be that a man resembles your father or someone loving
same for loving women ..Could it be that. that the love a mother gives to a son is something a man might be searching for in a women..
same would apply to homosexuals ...but the other way around..
maybe that young boy received more love from other boys or men than women and so when he grew up had a preference of men rather than women..I mean its not that hard to think about this working"
and with the population thing..yea you are partially right..as far as heterosexuals not wanting kids ..yea its true..that this happens..It might have been an understatement with what I said in regard to that..but I mean compare the middle ages to modern day..besides children costing more money to raise and such..back in those days..you benifited from having kids..they would take care of you when you aged and such...I mean its kinda dum to be a couple and not have kids..I mean whats the point of having a uterus for then?? and we are not neccesarily overpopulated....how many soldiers die in war yearly??? plus not to mention strokes, HIV / AIDS , Swine flu , and exc...
and as far as the rest of your writing
First I am totally against the mistreatment of homosexuals.
lol..you might have thought otherwise because of all the stuff I wrote..but gays are humans too..I just want whats best for humanity...yes beating them will NOT help them..again you should read my last posts.
I believe that the only way a homosexual can change back to heterosexual is on his/her own..or to say without anyone mentioning that change to them..I do believe it is possible..but also believe that it should not be the gov's option to do this or not..that should be the persons family 's choice or close enough
Anyhow I do agree with your test question..It is repulsive to them..to see opposite sex mates..But it is not theyre fault..It is all developed in the early childhood well at least I believe..as i explained in the beginning of this comment...Momma's boy...daddy's little girl ..makes perfect sense...Who would not want to be with the sex that treats them the best.
I love women because I love how women are to me..in the sense that my mother loved me alot when I was young and It wasnt the same for my father..I became more attached to women when it came to love..and so I would like to have a wife which has similar characteristics..as cooking ..and exc..things that women do well
Same goes for girls and fathers..women who are heterosexual..want a man to take care of them..and do things with them and such..just as the father daughter relationship...
although I just thought of all this yesterday after a long debate..I feel it is some how right..plus it would keep those religious extremist from trying to cleanse homosexuals..because it is not something which can be fixed..unless the person..chooses to be a bi-sexual or get with a diff-sex partner...
In conclusion..I do not believe it is right to criminalize homosexuals and I do NOT believe that homosexuality is INNATE..but rather developed at a very young age..
again with your last comments..I do not think we should force gays into anything..they are normal people...just have different tastes..
Now..as far as how I feel towards them..I have not problem with them..I have homosexual friends..and theyre pretty normal....except for transexuals and HIP-gays *LOL*..the ones that act like women and talk funny...those are just creepy..
I honestly have much respect for homo-sexuals that are brave enough to act like their sex and still be gay..because it takes courage to be normal and gay/lesbian..
Thank you
I can barely see through my tears of anger and my rage! I am a lapsed churchgoer, and while I am no atheist , I uphold anyones' right to believe whatever they want- and respect their choices, and would hope they would extend the same to me. But these new, old phony conservatives embarrass themselves with their unholy attitude toward others-the god they worship is Je$u$, and
it has nothing to do with religion.! I am speaking up against this abomination because I don't want to die leaving it unsaid. Gay marriage will happen, DADT will be dropped, people of good will
shall soon find their voice- and roar loudly! Thank you for allowing
me to speak.
boom..and your welcome
Who are you referring to as worshipping jesus and conservative..im confused..anyways..lol..are you talking about politicians
anyways..the thing i do not understand is why majority or gays and lesbians are so religious..I mean even women ..the bible clearly is against homosexuality and put men at a higher scale than women..
I only have a problem with the womens right movement having so much religious women and same goes for women who today continue to believe these millenium old superstitions which the gospel provides..
I believe that we are all equal..and do not believe in religion or gods
the sad thing is that the majority or the world believes in the things which are against them..so basically most are hypocrats
I mean muslim women are treated like dogs in theyre country..they have to wear those awful cloths..and they are so willing to accept their faith knowing that it isnt good for them
then again
the same chapter of the bible that mentions anything against gays also calls for the execution of anyone that eats shellfish, or that wears garments made out of mixed fibers.
Indeed
yes..Thats why I do not believe in it..I mean com on.. religion have no concrete evidence..and even more extreme..beliefs..
You have to be either very ignorant or very open to living a simple life to believe in all this...I mean that is why i get so upset when I see christian women preaching on the train (NYC)..because they have so much faith in it knowing that it says women are sinners and they will have the most pain at birth because of eating a fruit ..I mean it also ways men dominate over animals and land and women..
I am a man but even I dont believe all this crap against women or animals.
Regarding Muslims
I personally feel bad the way the Muslim religion has been assaulted by Christians and terrorists.....extremists of every religion are a problem for the entire earth. The funny thing is Islam and Christianity have much in common and live together
amazingly well in some areas. Nat. Geo. did a wonderful and very
enlightening program about Islam, and I learned surprising and truly wonderful things.. It's still a shame, aside from all the wars and stupid religions, we could get to know each other and share common interests-but then somehow, religion would intrude, as it usually does.......
I think ive see that special
and yes it is true..they are much similar..I mean we cannot dislike muslims for terrorism when the christians did it back in the middle ages...
I rather believe that a world with no religion but PHILOSOPHY based on some truth would be more successful that religion based on blind faith..
I mean I do not know if it is my arrogance but..I Refuse to bow down to a God or say amen everytime I pass a church .
I mean if I had to compare muslims..id say they are the most brainwashed in society of all religions..I mean these people believe in Allah and islam more than they believe that the world is round..I am currently in college and accidently peaked in the muslim club's prayer room..I was so shocked..they were all on there knees on some rug praying to the wall..like slaves..I mean that half an hour or w.e could have gone to studying
Another problem with religion...well at least in this country is
all the holidays ...and sundays..I mean why does everything need to be closed or no mail delivery on sundays..Schools closed on sundays..and all christian holidays being celebrated..I mean do you know how much days in the calendar are holidays
there is no wonder china beats the US is education
Regarding faith
Who cares who or what a person believes, as long as they are respectful of one another? Christianity is such a violent religion ,
and whatever anyone can say about Islam- they do not have missionaries, which is one of the most despicable things to me,
one religion trying to be supreme over another..yet historically speaking, a very old Christian monastery exists today at the foot of Mt. Sinai... completely surrounded by Muslims .. safe and protected by decree of Mohammed himself...apparently he sought refuge there and the brothers protected him...out of gratitude, he
ordered that no Muslim should ever harm the monastery...and so St. Katherines is still there-being a silent witness to the very real power of faith, all from an incident that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago--I totally admire and respect that!
That others misinterpret Islam and use it to jusify mistreatment of
women are no different than snake-handlers or some other crazy Christian fundamentalist group.
Regarding religion
Thank you for bringing this up- truthfully, all religions suck.. Wars have been fought, people and cultures subdued, one religion supplanted with the religion of the conquerer- it never fucking ends- on and on until each successive war is uglier than the last,
new horrors emerge, money is taken from here, added to there..
Disasters are ongoing-People are suffering all over the earth and there is one small thing I know: a religion, created by man is
not going to tell me that people I care about are any different than
anyone else...a religion or religious person is not going to hug them into being straight- homosexuals are BORN that way, period.
Every war is over religion..minus the american revolution..lol
Yes...almost every war ...as far as the last line...yes religious people are NOT going to hug them straight...because you cannot just change a person back into straight..I think thats all up to the person to change..at least if its psychological...then it would only make sense for the person to change on their own rather than because of another..as you know the human mind tends to disregard things opposite to their beliefs and block their minds..
anyhow I do not believe they are born that way..because..this is a snippet of one of my past posts
" I am no baby genius..but Ive been a step father and have seen nieces and nephew grow up from babies ...my current belief on homosexuality is that it is not something INNATE..that you are not born gay ..in other words..when you are an infant..you have no sexual preference because you know not the world..
It is possible that your mind/you chooses preference as you grown..(e.g. 1yr-4yrs or so).
in order for you to understand this just think about the question
"Why do you like men/ women ?"
could id be that a man resembles your father or someone loving
same for loving women ..Could it be that. that the love a mother gives to a son is something a man might be searching for in a women..
same would apply to homosexuals ...but the other way around..
maybe that young boy received more love from other boys or men than women and so when he grew up had a preference of men rather than women..I mean its not that hard to think about this working"
whether you agree or not this is just my opinion..there is no 100% proof...as I would have to study a reasonable sample of children growing up from babies..to really tell but It makes more sense to me than just saying...Homosexuals are born gay..since I can always say where is your evidence of this phenomena..same goes around
Using a mind to think
For one thing, I can see no amount of human experience or information is going to get you to see something from anothers'
viewpoint, as you already know everything in your own narrow view..and are unwilling to see things differently to what you already believe....
When did you decide...
...to be heterosexual?
FWIW, I am a heterosexual woman , married these 10 years to the same great man. From childhood, I was always attracted to men, even before I knew what sex was.
Having worked in the music business, I have had a lot of gay and lesbian friends. They have described their childhood experiences to me, and they are not far off from mine - only their attractions were for people of their own gender; feelings many of them had before they knew what sex was, either. Most of my gay friends have described being attracted to people of their gender from the time they can remember - just as I have been attracted to men since I can remember.
I never chose to be straight. I did not wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I should like men!" any more than my gay male friends did. Given the stigma that still exists, and the bigotry displayed by some (i.e., the AFA), I honestly don't think most gay people would choose to subject themselves to that. But given a choice between living as the people they are and living a lie, they'd rather not lie.
What, exactly, do you think will happen if homosexuality becomes "more accepted"? That everyone who is now straight will turn gay? If you think that, I suggest you get out more. If the entire world stood up tomorrow and said that it's great to be gay, I would not be leaving my husband, or seeking an affair with a woman. I'm just not wired that way - so why should I expect that gay people would be any different?
As for the " children " BS, I am a straight, married woman who never wanted, and does not have, kids . How do I fit into your paradigm? Am i also "unnatural" or "anti-humanity" and in need of re- education ? I knew that I was not cut out to be the mother of anything with fewer than 4 feet at about age 5. I guess that makes me a mutant. Sorry, no - or would it be better if I had had a couple kids that I didn't want, and neglected or abused them, or worse?
As for gayness somehow bringing about the end of the human race , surely you jest. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is already overpopulated. Gay people are a minority, and will likely always be a minority; I truly fail to see why you consider them such a big threat to humanity.
Even if gayness were criminalized, you can't compel people to conceive children if they don't want them, with people they're not attracted to (even if you could, that would be truly abominable and Nazi-like). All the "re-education" in the world will not achieve what you seem to want - a world of happy breeders.
Finally, I have to wonder - why is the sexuality of perfect strangers any of your concern? I could understand fixating on the sexuality of someone you were attracted to who did not return your feelings, but perfect strangers? That's kind of creepy.
Decision Time
Your response was perfect...right on point.
Sexual arousal is not a choice one makes... as any hormone riddled teenagr knows,
This fellow sounds frightened by what it is sexually that
arouses him. His "populaton fears" in a world of 6 billion and growing is fanatical.
LOL..Thank You
Thank you first for giving a nice response.
Yes you did not choose to like men..but Again it could have been influenced.well blindly..I mean do you honestly remember when you were a baby to know what you thought was right or wrong ?
I mean yes I am no baby genius..but Ive been a step father and have seen nieces and nephew grow up from babies ...my current belief on homosexuality is that it is not something INNATE..that you are not born gay ..in other words..when you are an infant..you have no sexual preference because you know not the world..
It is possible that your mind/you chooses preference as you grown..(e.g. 1yr-4yrs or so).
in order for you to understand this just think about the question
"Why do you like men?"
could id be that a man resembles your father or someone loving
same for loving women ..Could it be that. that the love a mother gives to a son is something a man might be searching for in a women..
same would apply to homosexuals ...but the other way around..
maybe that young boy received more love from other boys or men than women and so when he grew up had a preference of men rather than women..I mean its not that hard to think about this working
As far as homosexuality being accepted becoming a threat or w/e.
I did not mean it in such a harsh way..But I am saying that things as such do influence the next generation or children ..maybe it wont influence everyone now..but think if homosexuality were a norm and everywere it were accepted..then think if we had a gay president or pope or something (disregarding the fact that im not religious)
But would kids not later..say I want to be gay because my favorite president is gay..it could happen...Ok maybe not with alot of people this might be a rare case..Yes
but...actually now that you made me think about it more..I think id rather say that sexual-preference developes at a young age and can be altered later on life pending on whether society influences one or not...
yea..sounds more reasonable
but anyways..yes it isnt the worlds biggest threat..but just something to think about..I honestly do not care what people choose..I just dont want to come back 30 years from now and everyone is gay (JOKE) LOL..
and you do make a valid point with you not having kids...Yes it is true that homosexuals are not the only people who do not have kids..because some do ADOPT..BUT
thats why I mentioned in my earlier post that..Homosexuals arent the only cause of problems..
Society/Humanity is flawed..because its a shame that some parents do abandon their kids..that would just mean we would need to imply more laws so that people do the right thing..
Although the middle ages and such..had a whole lotta wrong things..
parents were more responsible and women did have more kids..which was a huge Plus at that time...
The kids would grow up and if the parents were poor the kids could join the military and hopefully bring back wealth to the family ..or such..thats why breeding was so imporant in the past.
of course in modern day it cost more money to have children around than to not have them because of education and health care and such..but its nature to have kids.
I mean women have uteruses..for a reason.and vise verse
to be honest..theyre are far too much issues with society and this country..I mean we are overpopulated..but only a minority of that population contribute to society or the world..of course most of which go on to college and exc..
overall after reflecting...I do believe that homosexuals being granted rights isnt the baddest thing around..although I still believe it to have an influence on society.
now that i think about it..whats the big deal with the rights..I mean ok this guy is wrong for wanting to criminalize them but why do homosexuals..want to marry so much..ok you want your partner to have the right to make certain decisions..but its not that big of a deal whether you grant rights or not.
ope..just noticed...You might have though I was with the criminilization...
I am against it..Im just not with the granting rights thing..but after all this..I really dont care..if they win or not..
but you know what grind my gears..homosexuals that act like women in behavior and transexuals..I mean i guess that answers your last stanza...plus it makes me sick when i see that kind of behavior
Sigh
"yes we should not criminalize them...but just dont have em around our youth...or allow same sex adoption ..(e.g two men adopting a son or two women adopting a daughter)"
Gee, how GENEROUS of you not to want to lock people up for being different. Why, they'd be downright ungrateful not to be happy with merely being denied the same rights. After all, you're being so gracious by supporting their privilege of being free.
"But would kids not later..say I want to be gay because my favorite president is gay..it could happen...Ok maybe not with alot of people this might be a rare case..Yes"
Though there's no evidence this can happen, it's telling that you think it'd be such a bad thing.
"but...actually now that you made me think about it more..I think id rather say that sexual-preference developes at a young age and can be altered later on life pending on whether society influences one or not..."
Um, any evidence there, or is it just the subjective impression of the moment?
"now that i think about it..whats the big deal with the rights..I mean ok this guy is wrong for wanting to criminalize them but why do homosexuals ..want to marry so much..ok you want your partner to have the right to make certain decisions..but its not that big of a deal whether you grant rights or not."
Yeah, what's the big deal if the person you love can't get citizenship like straight people can, or if, when they die or are incapacitated, their family (who has always had a problem with you) decides to make sure you have no say in their affairs. What's the big deal if they don't have the same options as everyone else?
Please, go talk to some gay actual people about these issues. Especially older ones who might have more experience. Maybe read some of what they have to say. The scenarios above are not hypothetical. I've met plenty who have been through similar or identical ones. It's obviously all theoretical for you, but equal rights before the law is something that would have a real effect on real people.
"ope..just noticed...You might have though I was with the criminilization...
I am against it..Im just not with the granting rights thing..but after all this..I really dont care..if they win or not.."
Do you not think you'd resent it if your rights were being decided by the whims of people who ultimately didn't care that much one way or another?
BFeliz: You need an education in psychology
Just tell me: What day did you wake up and decide you were heterosexual? Did you ever have homosexual feelings? Why do you have any say in someone elses sex life? Who made you God? Do you actually have such heterosupremist views because you are fighting some innate bisexual issues? You need to look inside yourself to find out why you hold such beliefs. Obviously you have some psychological issues with your own sexual urges.
Please bring a better response
Geeze..its just how I feel..and if told you i were god would you believe me?
Im a straight..I do not hate Gays/lesbians or such..I am friends with some lesbians..it is just a conclusion I have come to after much time of thinking and viewing society ..
Heterosupremist??..LMAO..this was everyone in society up until the 70's..you tell me if they were extremist or just normal people...Im not being extreme.it is a point of view..if you disagree present your case..do not bash me without an educated response..please
I mean come..on you are only responding to me right now because your parents are heterosexuals..if they were homosexuals you might not even be here.
Im just saying that there are some consequences with homosexual's being granted FULL rights..just like you might agree certain people should not be allowed to own guns or such..even with the second amend.
As i pointed out I disagree with the whole "Satan is why you are gay " idea..I simply believe that homosexuality is influenced upon humans..same with religion..when you are a baby you do what you see and believe your parents over every other stranger.
I do not wish to go out and begin a anti-homosexual holocaust because they are humans too..but I do not believe that they were born like that or that they can not change ...
I believe that homosexuality can change back into heterosexuality..but of course not with the special therapy thing..I think it can only be changed if the person changes it him/herself..its like vegetarianism vs meat eater..you can tell someone all day dont eat meat and they can still eat meat and one day they watch some video and never want to eat it again.
its ok if you disagree...I mean I have very different points of view..but its just an opinion..well at least until i get scientific proof..I mean i dont might people being gay..what i find as a threat is gays being gay in public or in front of children .
And I have taken psychology..This is exactly the point..if you understand child development they you understand the threat
Denying bigotry
@BFeliz- I used to be a bigot, regarding homosexuality ....I was never actually rude, I just never wanted to be around them. Then I found out that a dear friend was gay !... To make a long blah blah- I found out that my love for him, was greater than my dislike of homosexuals ! Amazing! Love softened my heart in a way that hatred could not. What an amazing gift: TOLERANCE
My heart is still changed- and changing! This simple thing has given me so much joy, I wish I could share the knowledge of it with the world: it could transfer to governments-other countries-
other religions-other races! Oh hell, I'm an idealist, I know- but
goodness does actually exist- in some- not all, of us.
HEY..Im an idealist too..I just have a dif approach
lol..Im not a bigot..i dont dislike them just cause..I dont hate them..I have gay friends..but theyre normal gay..lol this sounds so funny
I think if i were a bigot it would be to transexuals and those gays that try to act like women and talk funny..yes theyre all over NYC...
anyhow..I never hated gays..I never had a reason too..
In modern day. or as of today..I just feel that homosexuality is not normal and should never BE Normal..
yes we should not criminalize them...but just dont have em around our youth...or allow same sex adoption ..(e.g two men adopting a son or two women adopting a daughter)
im not sure if you read my last reply but I mentioned why im against this
Regarding gays
About gay adoption - it's a shocker, I know, but a gay or lesbian couple can raise HETEROSEXUAL children ! Gays are not perverts- although there can be perverts who happen to be gay.
I'm sure if you have gay friends, they've tried to enlighten you to this fact.. As for being around a child -good grief, like I said, I would ( and did) trust my gay friend with my daughter when she was a child- he's like her Uncle Joe.. She's 40 now with 2 children, and Uncle Joe is still a great guy..
LMAO?
Comparing human sexuality to eating preferences is about the ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
>"Heterosupremist??..LMAO..this was everyone in society up until the 70's.."
LMAO? You're kidding right? You actually think that same-sex relationships are some product of the sexual revolution? I have a hard time believing that you took psychology and failed to cover the diversity of human sexuality across more than a few decades. Try thousands of years according to Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Asian recorded history . Although the concept of human sexuality being a dichotomy is relatively new in the historical record in the grand picture.
Ultimately you have a right to your opinion. I have to ask though, what "scientific proof" do you have to support your own?
?
No..of course same-sex relationships existed before..but it was not OK or at least not accepted to be gay until the sexual revolution..well at least by society ..homosexuality was always a taboo..up until the revolution were it kinda broke that barrier.and became just an opposite view.
You're kidding right?
Some please get this person an education !