10 Best reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

34 comments:

Rhology said...

Hi Aint-Christian!

Just wondering if you were open to discussing these points or if it's a facetious post or a post meant to be light-hearted. I had some comments but I don't want to make you mad w/ too serious content if you were just messing around.

Peace,
ALAN

Moth said...

Sure, I don't mind if you comment.

I don't think the points are a direct comment on christian attitudes but rather a poke at homophobic people in general.

Also bear in mind that I didn't write the post even though I'm trying to write most of my own material here. Nevertheless, they give an interesting perception of the way gay people are viewed.

Sometimes I hunt and gather and this time i forgot to reference to the original author.

Rhology said...

Cool! Thanks for letting me comment. Just thought you'd be interested in the viewpoint of an evangelical Christian.
If you would like to respond, I welcome the interaction w/ open arms.

1) The implication is that being gay is actually natural. 2 questions:
A: Where is the evidence that being born w/ a tendency toward being gay is "natural"?
B: Aren't alcoholism, a born dependence on crack, and a violent disposition also "natural" traits w/ which one can be born? Does being "born that way" automatically make it OK? Why?

2) See #1.

3) Marriage has always had a specific definition - the joining of one man and one woman. If you change it to ANYthing else, why might one not argue for the inclusion of some other category?
3 people married? No? What are you, bigoted against numbers? Anti-numeralist?
Married to your baby? No? What are you, bigoted against different ages? Age-ist?
Married to your sister? Familialist? Anti-incestist? Who are you to judge?

4) Usually in more ancient times, wives were not so much the same as property. Concubines and female slaves were more of the 'property' category, weren't they?
That's just an aside, I mostly agree w/ this one.

5) So the argument is: Since other people do violence to the institution, that makes it acceptable to do it further violence?

6) Straight marriages CAN produce children. The sexual anatomy of man and woman are compatible. The rectum, for example, OTOH, is not remotely well-suited for the reception of a penis.
And see #5 as far as the "too many children" comment.

7) There will be MORE gay children. And they will in turn lead (statistically speaking) much shorter, more violent, and more diseased lives than their straight counterparts.
(Not that we should care about that, right?)

8) Gay marriage is supported by American Secularism, which has all the hallmarks of a religion, so it IS supported by religion. The question is: to which religion will we listen?

9) See #5.

10) See #1.

Peace,
ALAN

Moth said...

3) If you change it to ANYthing else, why might one not argue for the inclusion of some other category?
3 people married?


I'll get to your other points later. Straight up on this one I'd have to ask what was up with the bridegroom who was getting ten virgins to marry. This is New Testament stuff, even though he only ended up with 5. That's still a weird precedent.

Moth said...

There's a christian school of thought that Aids was sent by God to punish the homosexuals and their lifestyle. Just for fun, let's see what the bible says about it... (I realise I"m arguing with nobody in particular here.. nevertheless...) The best question we could ask would be the one the disciples asked about the man born blind, "Who did sin?" "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" John 9:1-3

To believe that God sent AIDS, but not cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, or sickle cell anemia is to identify only a few groups of people in our society and say that God wants to destroy them. (This belief also ignores the fact that lesbians are not among the groups at risk.) - another two cents from the moth.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality in Leviticus is condemned as ritually impure, an abomination, the same as eating pork. The rules of the Hebrews were designed for a very specific purpose in a very particular setting. They were to stand out as a different people than the others. In addition:

they would honor their parents,
keep the Sabbath, forbid cattle interbreeding, forbid sowing fields with two different kinds of seeds, not to wear garments with two different types of materials.
Fruit trees could not be harvested on every fifth year and various dietary laws had to be kept.

It was a ritual purity, an external one, that would prove the Hebrews as a holy people, different from their neighbors, the Canaanites. Homosexuality in Leviticus is condemned as ritually impure, an abomination, the same as eating pork. An abomination is by definition what the Gentiles do, but that in and of itself is not necessarily evil or a violation of the Commandments. Thus homosexuality is an abomination in Leviticus not because it is inherently evil but because the Gentiles do it, and it is therefore ritually impure.

Moth said...

"The rectum, for example, OTOH, is not remotely well-suited for the reception of a penis."

I actually know many women and a few men who would disagree with you on that (I could be hanging around witht the wrong crowd from your perspective lol).

Anonymous said...

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Thu Oct 12, 8:46 AM ET

OSLO (Reuters) - The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature," told reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples among the animals.

"The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality among animals.

One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest -- birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males.

One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles.

Rhology said...

Hey Moth and Anon,

--what was up with the bridegroom who was getting ten virgins to marry(?)
>>He wasn't marrying them; they were guests at the wedding party. On top of that, it's a parable indicating the necessity of being spiritually ready for the return of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
How much experience do you have accurately exegeting the text of Scripture? Saying things like this makes me think that you don't have much.
Also, would you mind telling me how this responds to my original point? You said in essence that opening marriage up to gay unions would not lead to the opening-up of marriage to other relationships. But this reasoning is based on anti-"bigotry" (ie, that keeping marriage one man and one woman ONLY represents bigotry against homosexuals). But w/ this type of reasoning in place and the precedent set to change the definition, what would be, for example, YOUR argument to prevent marriage from being extended to a pet (species-ism) or an infant (age-ism) or 4 people (bigotry against polygamy)?

--Aids was sent by God to punish the homosexuals and their lifestyle.
>>To me that's an open question, but I doubt it. I'd say more that AIDS is a *consequence* of sin in the world, but so are all other bad things. I don't have the obsession w/ all things anti-homosexual that others do. (Though that doesn't mean I don't consider this a question worth debating.)

--"Who did sin?" "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" John 9:1-3
>>You cited this in regards to AIDS, and unfortunately again display bad exegetical skills. This would only be relevant if we were discussing children born w/ AIDS (which we can if you want, but that's not the question at hand). Living gay, however, is not sthg you're born w/. If you disagree, please give evidence and answer my 2 questions I asked in response to point #1.

--(This belief also ignores the fact that lesbians are not among the groups at risk.)
>>Not so much for AIDS if they're strict lesbians, but the stats reveal that lesbians have a much shorter life expectancy than straight women, so it's still an important discussion. That is, IF we care about lesbians and their well-being, and I would argue that your position is the most callous and least caring.

Anon--Homosexuality in Leviticus is condemned as ritually impure,
>>This is a mere assertion. What is your argument?

--they would honor their parents,
>>Would you argue that this also has to do w/ ritual impurity?

--keep the Sabbath,
>>That was one of the 10 Commandments and the death penalty was for breakers of that law. Not ritual purity.

--the other rules
>>Yes, they had to do w/ impurity. But do you know how to distinguish between ritual purity and moral/societal laws of Old Testament Israel? I'll be very interested to see your response.

--An abomination is by definition what the Gentiles do but that in and of itself is not necessarily evil
>>What is your argument for that?

Also, all this citation of Leviticus ignores the clear passages in the New Testament that clearly state the evil of homosexuality. You are wrong about Leviticus, but I think it's by far the least relevant and so I'm not sure why you chose to bring it up at the expense of other psgs.

Moth--I actually know many women and a few men who would disagree with you on that
>>I'm sure they do, but that doesn't change anything. The anus is designed for one thing principally - the elimination of waste. Introducing foreign objects INTO it, such as a penis, a fist, or a tool, results in dangerous and painful tearing of the mucous membranes and the easy introduction of bacteria and infectious agents into the bloodstream. It's not made for that.

Anon--Animals are gay.
>>Would you mind answering my 2 questions in reponse to Moth's assertion for question #1?

Thanks! I hope this is enjoyable for you - the interaction is enjoyable for me (though I still hope to persuade you ;-) ).

Peace,
ALAN

Moth said...

No I'm no bible exegesist, but the guys on the following website claim to be:

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/

Ten virginal women went to meet a bridegroom then five went in with him when he arrived and you don't think there's any hint at all that they were there for him? Okkkkaayyy...

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ...While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; ...And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage:" Matthew 25:1-2,5-6c,10a-c (See verses 1-13).

It should be noted, however, that this is not a literal, physical marriage to literal, physical women. While it was only a parable, even so, Jesus would never have described Himself this way in a parable if polygamy was a sin.

Rhology said...

Moth,

--No I'm no bible exegesist
>>No offense, but it's obvious.

--Ten virginal women went to meet a bridegroom then five went in with him when he arrived and you don't think there's any hint at all that they were there for him?
>>You know, a wedding was a big deal back in the day and the celebration would last a long time and include a lot of people. Why not believe that they were waiting for the party at his house?
If you're getting married, you're not waiting outside his house. He comes to get you at your parents' house, according to Jewish marriage custom.
And, this is the same Jesus Who said this:

And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

(That's Matthew 19:4-6.) Why do you suppose He keeps referring to ONE man and ONE woman, and that the TWO shall be joined and become one flesh? Not "the man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wiVES..."
That is an example of exegesis.


Finally, I note that you haven't dealt w/ any of my other points or questions. What does that mean? Do you concede the points? If so, will you stop making those same arguments in favor of gay marriage in the future?
If not, why not?
Or are you just tired of discussing it? It's your blog, you can be tired of it. ;-)

Peace,
ALAN

Moth said...

--No I'm no bible exegesist
>>No offense, but it's obvious.

Can you stop saying that? I already said I"m not. I'm also not a piano player or a skydiver.

Gays can get married, they get my ok. they can stick there shabobs anywhere that's conceptual except my nether regions. I concede that the bible doesn't approve of such relationships yet people have them and some men are repulsed by women by their genetic make up. The bible doesn't approve of a lot of things. But there are some shades of bible grey on the subject and I'll get to them at a later date.

Rhology said...

Moth,

--Can you stop saying that? I already said I"m not.
>>I'll stop saying it when you stop trying to exegete the Bible and making obvious mistakes. Is that a good deal?


--they can stick there (their) shabobs anywhere that's conceptual (consensual)
>>Well, they CAN. But like I mentioned, the anus is not made for that and it destroys the health of many of them. Which is why I say what I say and why I hold that the position you hold is the least loving and helpful of all possible positions.

--some men are repulsed by women by their genetic make up
>>I asked you for evidence of that and also the relevance even if there were evidence in my response to Question #1, but you haven't answered yet.

--But there are some shades of bible grey on the subject
>>On this subject?
Hold on, I thought you just said that you are not an Bible exegete (interestingly, and no offence, you don't even know the word that describes "one who performs exegesis". It's "exegete"), didn't you? And yet you are making claims that you would have to backup exegetically? How do you plan to do that since you've had 2 opportunities in this thread to exegete the Bible correctly, have missed badly each of those times, and say explicitly that you can't exegete the Bible?

Peace,
ALAN

Moth said...

I wish to end this argument with following words from John Spong, for I don't think I can say it any better.

Even if one is a biblical literalist, the biblical references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but the ever-present prejudice born our of a pervasive ignorance that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

If new knowledge about the cause and meaning of homosexuality confronts us, then we must be willing to relinquish our prejudice and the prejudice of Holy Scripture and turn our attention to loving our gay and lesbian brethren.

That will inevitable include accepting, affirming, and blessing those gay and lesbian relationships that, like all holy relationships, produce the fruits of the Spirit

- and to do so in the confidence that thought this may not be in accordance with the literal letter of the biblical texts, it is in touch with the life-giving Spirit that always breaks the bondage of literalism.

Rhology said...

Hi Moth,

--Even if one is a biblical literalist, the biblical references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation.
>>Yes they do. Once again, to say they don't is to make an exegetical claim. Which you've specifically said you don't do. And I'm familiar w/ Spong's writings. He can't either.

--If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all,
>>I'd be interested in hearing the argument behind that assertion.

--unchangeable sexual predisposition
>>You've presented no argument for it being a PREdisposition though I've asked for it 4 times.
And what is your argument for it being unchangeable? What about the cases of homosexuals who have turned away from that lifestyle?

--the prejudice of Holy Scripture
>>An exegetical claim.

--loving our gay and lesbian brethren.
>>As mentioned before, your position of accepting them **and their behavior** carte blanche is the LEAST loving thing you could do.

Very well, I'll be happy to leave the discussion here. Good talking to you on this subject.

Peace,
ALAN

Moth said...

Ok Let me conclude: It seems there certainly isn't any evidence to say homosexuality have a predisposition via genetics etc.

Personally, I find homosexual sex a shuddering thought, but then some of them find hetero sex something to vomit about also. I Have 'known' women to enjoy anal sex as well, so perhaps there is a remote chance that it work for them as a receptacle for penis insertion.

I know gay men, and they believe that is the way the born. Well, if not then they certainly are now, and although some move out of that lifestyle into a more mainstream one, there are plenty who don't.

I can see why Christians would want to throw the book at them for it, but I've already thrown the book, and therefore, in my opinion, they can poke each other silly, as long as they do it as safely as they can.

Anonymous said...

The only people that I think are threatening the traditional definition of marriage are those who physically, mentally, or emotionally abuse their spouses. The religious should attack that problem. Good luck. George Metcalf

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Anonymous said...

Is your baby gay?

NEW YORK (March 15) - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality - which they view as sinful - is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual.

"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."

Mohler said he was aware of the invective being directed at him on gay-rights blogs, where some participants have likened him to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor notorious for death-camp experimentation.

"I wonder if people actually read what I wrote," Mohler said in a telephone interview. "But I wrote the article intending to start a conversation, and I think I've been successful at that."

The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"

Mohler began by summarizing some recent research into sexual orientation, and advising his Christian readership that they should brace for the possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven.

Mohler wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, but said the discovery would be "of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."

He also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents - even liberals who support gay rights - might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality.

Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment - if such a technology were developed - to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus.

"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."

Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI 's U.S. publisher.

"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."

Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families.

"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."

Paul Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, wrote a detailed critique of Mohler's column, contending that there could be many genes contributing to sexual orientation and that medical attempts to alter it could be risky.

"If there are such genes, they will also contribute to other aspects of social and sexual interactions," Myers wrote. "Disentangling the nuances of preference from the whole damn problem of loving people might well be impossible."

Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.

"This represents a major shift," Drescher said. "This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it."

James said...

Excellent and witty. I love sarcasm. I am going to repost this on my blog and I'll link to you. I'd also like to link to your blog. You've got a good one.

Anonymous said...

Hi.
My name is Mari, and I think it's time someone who is actually homosexual stepped in here and said something. I don't know about the other Anonymous comments, but it seems like the others are all heterosexual, and while you have valid viewpoints, I'd like to put in my two cents, having actual experience.

I apologize if this becomes lengthy.

1) The implication is that being gay is actually natural. 2 questions:
A: Where is the evidence that being born w/ a tendency toward being gay is "natural"?
B: Aren't alcoholism, a born dependence on crack, and a violent disposition also "natural" traits w/ which one can be born? Does being "born that way" automatically make it OK? Why?

In one of the above anonymous posts, the poster posted an article about homosexuality present in animals. This answers your first question, because animals are not born with the capability of sin or extreme freewill. They have instinct, and rely on what their genetic make-ups and their natures tell them to do. But if homosexuality isn't natural, then how is it that animals can express it?

Alcoholism, a born dependence on crack, and a violent disposition ARE all traits one can be born with, but they aren't NATURAL. You can be born with alcoholism and a dependency on crack if your mother is an alcoholic or crack addict, but if your mother is perfectly healthy, then you will never be born with either of those diseases. Yes, people can be born with violent tendencies, just like people can be born without a single violent bone in their bodies. There are two ends to this spectrum.



3) Marriage has always had a specific definition - the joining of one man and one woman. If you change it to ANYthing else, why might one not argue for the inclusion of some other category?
3 people married? No? What are you, bigoted against numbers? Anti-numeralist?
Married to your baby? No? What are you, bigoted against different ages? Age-ist?
Married to your sister? Familialist? Anti-incestist? Who are you to judge?

I am no one to judge. No one expressed the desire to censor these people from marriage, and I am not one who would. But consider his original post: would a baby, much like a dog, be able to sign a marriage certificate or speak its vows? If 3 people wished to get married, what would be the problem with that? If 3 people all expressed enough love towards each other that they would wish to make it binding, why would you stop that? Why would you stop love?

5) So the argument is: Since other people do violence to the institution, that makes it acceptable to do it further violence?

No, it does not. But show me how a homosexual marriage would be doing violence to the institution? From all that I have said so far and will say in the future, you will find that you can't.

6) Straight marriages CAN produce children. The sexual anatomy of man and woman are compatible. The rectum, for example, OTOH, is not remotely well-suited for the reception of a penis.
And see #5 as far as the "too many children" comment.

7) There will be MORE gay children. And they will in turn lead (statistically speaking) much shorter, more violent, and more diseased lives than their straight counterparts.
(Not that we should care about that, right?)

I would like to respond to both of these statements together.

Yes, straight marriages can produce children. But you're making the statement that just because someone is a homosexual and they are not anatomically compatible, they can not have children, which is not true in the slightest. Artificial insemination, adoption, and surrogate mothers are all options available to gay people. And as for the comment about the children, there are far too many children in orphanages or out on the streets. If you had the choice between letting a child starve to death in the cold rain or letting it live with two women would love and nurture that child, would you banish it to death, depression, or mental and physical sickness simply because it's two women and not a man and a woman? Because that is what you are doing when you stand out against homosexual adoption. You are banishing children that deserve love to death.

You seem very attached to your "statistics", so here's one for you.
Children who grow up in an orphanage, in and out of foster care, and on the streets, have much shorter, more violent, and more diseased lives than homosexual people.



I have been calm, polite, and rational throughout my comment, even though you are against who I am, and I'd like to say this: I find this offensive. I am not a violent or diseased person. I would never harm another person unless it was in defense of my life or of those that I hold dearest, and if that's not something you can say for yourself, then you are weak and callow. I am going to live for a long time, unless there is some sort of disease or accident that takes me before my time. And if that does happen, I can assure you that it will have nothing to do with me being homosexual, unless I am beaten or murdered by someone who is against me for being homosexual. Do not scoff. There are hundreds of murders every year of homosexual people simply because they are homosexual. Do you agree with this? Would it scare you? To be afraid to walk down the street at night, or to walk through the shadows in the hallways of your school or work because you're fearful for your life? Welcome to my world. My world, which is made this way by people like you. You may be against this extreme action against homosexuals, but it's the premise. There are many uninformed individuals who listen to ones such as yourself, then go out and commit these murders because they believe they are doing the world a favor, a justice. I ask you again. Do you agree with this?

And how can you say that simply because someone's parents are homosexuals, they will be homosexual themselves? My parents are both heterosexual, yet I'm homosexual. There isn't a point to make here, it has already been made. Homosexual parents don't make JUST homosexual children, like heterosexual parents don't make JUST heterosexual children. Because of they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

As an aside, in response to the topic of AIDS, and diseases. You, and I mean all of you, are uninformed. AIDS was not NOT created by homosexual people, it was given to humans when a chimpanzee in Africa bit a human. The chimp was carrying the disease, and the human contracted it. And again, since you seem very attached to your statistics, consider this. There are more heterosexual people in this world with AIDS than homosexual. ANYone can get AIDS, male, female, heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual, and homosexuals are not pre-disposed to this wretched disease. This is a horrible strike against the homosexual community.
Please, I beg of you, get your facts straight. Become informed.


8) Gay marriage is supported by American Secularism, which has all the hallmarks of a religion, so it IS supported by religion. The question is: to which religion will we listen?

The answer is: Any which we choose. America is not governed by religions. Separation of church and state.

I am lesbian. I am not a lesbian, I am lesbian. It is not something I choose to be, it is something that I am, and I accept myself. I love, and I am loved. Nothing will ever change that.
I think something about this post that bothers me the most is that you all revolve around sex. Homosexuals aren't sex fiends pretending to have relationships, just like heterosexuals aren't. There is no difference. Not once did I see the word love mentioned. It is NOT. ABOUT. SEX. It is about love. LOVE. Love, which transcends the boundaries of age, race, or gender. It is driving me to tears to see anyone so blinded and misled by their notions of what true love is.

And it is driving me to tears to see anyone who thinks that they have the right to tell someone that they are not in love, and they can not bind that love eternally, like "normal" people.

You speak of nature. If there is something more natural than love, I would like to see it.
This isn't about science or politics or starving children or anything you brought up in your argument. It's about people, simply wanting to be in love, and together forever. Yes, with all of the benefits and struggles that comes with. But all of that, everything else, is secondary.

I am not trying to change your opinion. You're the only one who can do that. But I make a plea to you to understand.
And even if my entire post falls on deaf ears, I have spoken. And SOMEONE has heard me.

I hope you have a nice day, and I know that I certainly will.

Anonymous said...

Hello. My name is Christina, and I'm a friend of Mari's. I am also lesbian, and I thought I'd put forward some actual statistics from reputable organizations to back up the claim that homosexuality is natural. (By the way, I'm a Christian, and I go to church every sunday, study the Bible, and pray, so I'm not going to argue from a secular viewpoint).

---

The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

~*~

In 1994-AUGUST, The APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical:
bullet attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or
bullet referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation

~*~

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

~*~

1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation." 3 They:
Expressed concern about harassment of gay and lesbian youth

Condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness

Describe transformational ministries as representing only one part of Christianity -- those faith groups which view homosexuality as outside God's will, and incompatible with Christianity. They cite other denominations as supporting equal rights, and protection against discrimination, for gays and lesbians.

---


After stating these facts, I would like to make a comment about how homosexual marriage is different from marrying your dog or a child. Animals, as well as inexperienced children, are not capable of 'choosing' to have sex with someone based on experience and moral reasoning. A dog does not understand what sex and love and marriage mean. Neither does a child. Any two loving, consenting individuals of appropriate age should be allowed to marry. A child and a dog cannot consent to marriage like two adults can and understand what it entails.

By the way, the argument that homosexuality is a predisposition is a very simple one. If it weren't, why the hell would we do it when we're facing rejection from friends and family? Hell, I'm in love with a girl, and many of the people I love most in the world hate me for it. Would people put themselves through hell just for kicks? I think not.

Oh, and then there's the fact that homosexual statistics remain constant throughout the world despite the various opinions that different societies have about their actions. Ex: there are just as many homosexuals in America as there are in less open-minded countries. Although there are lots of discriminatory people in America as well, I must admit. But at least we aren't being LEGALLY killed here.

Anonymous said...

Well said Mari. I applaud you for your comment. It says everything that I wanted to say being a bisexual man. I'll just called myself "Rick" because I do not want to be stalked by some psycho for being bisexual.

The issue that I'd like to bring up is how Christians who are anti-gay use the Bible to argue with people who don't believe in the Bible!! It's absurd. This is like trying to convince a Christian that being Christian is evil because the book I found says so. Totally absurd.

Also, comparing homosexuality to incest and the like is a straw man's argument. Of COURSE incest is and always should be illegal as it's FORCING sex upon an innocent child. It is rape and rape should NEVER be legal or compared to homosexuality.

And as with Mari I don't have a problem with 3 (or more even) consenting adults wanting to get married. Why should I or you care?

And as for someone wanting to marry their animal? Well that's another absurd comparison because an animal isn't a legal citizen. Nor are they rational agents able to make a logical decision like wanting to be married as obviously homosexuals can.

Turning toward the sexual issue with animals--of course it's wrong. Because an animal is not able to decide for themselves if they want to have sex with a human being. Therefore sex (with humans) is abusive to animals and animal abuse is obviously illegal.

James said...

Hey Moth...you might be interested in my current post about growing up in Mormonism.

Dot said...

I read the OT where it says homosexuality is a sin and then I read right next to it about not wearing clothes woven of the same cloth, stoning to death disobedient children etc (I can't remember exactly what it says any more)

So I went to the elders and I said "Why are we so sure that homosexuality is a sin? You say these other laws are 'cultural' - what if the homosexuality law is also 'cultural'?" They said "Oh no - it is not cultural." I said "What makes you so sure?" They said "It's obvious. Read Paul's letters - they are very clear"

I went to read Paul's letters. Again - I can't remember now exactly what is written there but I read something along the lines of 'homosexuals are going to hell' next to something about 'I do not permit a woman to teach', 'a woman should cover her head'. And I thought - "well hold on - this is the same thing! I don't cover my head and one elders wife is a teacher." And I started to think "Who is this Paul guy? And why am I supposed to believe what HE writes?"

I went back to the elders and said "this is the same thing! Why don't I cover my head?" And they said "It's a cultural law." And I said "How do you know 'no homosexuality' isn't a cultural law?" And they said "It's definitely not, the bible is very clear." And I said "It is not at all clear. Who has decided which laws are cultural and which are not?"

They said "You are very clever. For such a young christian to be asking such questions is remarkable. We will explain it to you some time" I said "How about explaining it now?" They said "No, not now, it is very complicated and we are tired." And I said "You don't know do you?" And they said "You are experiencing a crisis. You need to pray and read the bible."

Well, I did both. Alot. And I started to think along these lines. Paul has written these letters to his mates. There's no reason I have to believe everything he says. Indeed I can look at some of his stuff as 'cultural'. At some point someone has decided what we should take note of and what we should ignore. But who was this person? And who is to say that THEY were right? The logical conclusion I came to was that the bible may be inspired by god but it was written by men, therefore I can make up my own mind about homosexuality, and indeed every other 'sin', depending on what my god-given conscience tells me.

Anonymous said...

I think the 50% divorce rate of heterosexual marriage is all the evidence I need for "abuse" of it.

Amazing how smug and hypocritical these so-called "Christians" are toward people they show love. I'm sure Jesus Christ is proud.

Here is some food for thought:

Would Jesus Discriminate?

As for the quip of lesbians dying early - it has nothing to do with the fact of being homosexual. It has to do with the fact that lesbians may be more likely to smoke and be overweight. Both of these factors would hurt ANY persons health. Plus, because society is so harsh on homosexuals, they are more likely to suffer from depression.

Yes, denying acceptance to these people has really done them a lot of good, hasn't it?

Anonymous said...

"they show love"

they SHOULD love, thank you.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand something. Why is slavery not expressly condemed in the New Testament, whereas homosexuality is expressly condemed in the New Testament? Is one not more un-Christian than the other? Just trying to understand.

tina FCD said...

Good conversations going on here.
I loved Mari's response to all of this.

bridgeout said...

Hey! Stumbled on your blog today and loved the 10 best reasons gay marriage is wrong! :-) Can I post that on my blog giving full credit to you? Good stuff!
Wendy

snakey said...

Mari - Christina, great stuff. It might be interesting to know that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)once described 'homosexuality' as a mental disorder/deviency. I don't think it was that long ago that it was updated. (1960's?)


Attitudes towards homosexuality certainly are 'cultural'. That's commonsense.

Its also 'cultural' in terms of which version of christianity you are looking to for this kind of 'truth'. There are many xians who don't believe that homosexuality - including gender identity issues etc are 'sins'. They are usually people who don't believe in 'hell' either. Funny about that!



Hi Dot...if you think about it further you could say that any kind of 'book' could also be inspired by a 'god'? What gives the bible a 'special' kind of 'authority'?

Sex is so much the business of christianity. Its almost like a challenge to the person by the organisation to not be human - a sexual being ? crazy shit?

I love that beastiality is mentioned quite a good deal in the bible book. Okay the old guys liked a 'nice' donkey now and then - who am I to judge. I think that should be on the preachers hit parade of weekly sermons!!
Hahah...Can you imagine it?

Nissa said...

People should read this.

reb said...

Respeck to da Moth!

K.K. said...

yall are all stupid. not what i was looking for. but homosexuality is wrong. remember, that Satan has some grasp on the world because it was the people's fault we let him in. that is why people are homosexual. but if they get saved, then surely they will see the light

Bryce Thomason said...

What is irrefutable is that there absolutely seems to be a ""gay agenda." If you accept my premise, you might want to know what that agenda is? It would appear to be general acceptance and the patina of normalcy. For years the American Psychological Association had classified homosexuality as an illness.