Question:
THere was a big (lie), story in the Boston Globe Mag. about gays and lesbians and how they stuggle becuase they are cast out of the christian churches. I’m puzzled by that becuase the idea that gay sex is a sin has been around long before the 60’s when sexual behavior went public and got political. The gays that come out are actually voluntarily splitting off from the church much the same way that Martin Luther did; there was no organized drive to hunt them down and force them out! So how did the story get turned around so that people are taught that the church forced gays out? Its just another example of journalistic media playing politics and manipulating people for the sake of a hidden agenda. In my opinion that is why straights are so worked up over gays! They keep trying to force their beliefs onto everybody else and when you don’t relent they scream persecution! It’s risky business and I bet there is going to be a backlash.
Response:
I understand your point. But your comparison with the situation of gays today and Martin Luther betrays an ignorance of Luther’s life and the 16th Century Reformation. First of all, Luther never left "the Church," he left the church of the papacy, and even this was done only after many years, and with regret, after long but futile efforts. And most importantly, Luther left because the papacy refused to tolerate the preaching of justification by grace through faith — the heart of the Christian faith. Also, LutherWAS actually hunted. After the 1521 diet of Worms, Luther was a political outlaw. From 1520 on he was an excommuicated heretic. If not for the protection of several strong princes of Saxony, Luther probably would have suffered martyrdom long before. I’m very thankful that beginning with the work of Joseph Lortz around WWII, RCC scholarship has seriously studied Luther’s life and theology. Gone, thankfully, is the nasty rhetoric that used to used to accompany RC assessment of Luther. To equate Luther’s breaking with Rome over the Biblical Gospel with the gay’s leaving the church over SIN is almost too much to take! Pastor R. Bucher Ev. Trinity Lutheran Church, LCMS www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/home.htm
Response:
THere was a big (lie), story in the Boston Globe Mag. about gays and lesbians and how they stuggle becuase they are cast out of the christian churches.
Now there’s a non-biased opinion. I’m puzzled by that becuase the idea that gay sex is a sin has been around long before the 60’s when sexual behavior went public and got political.
Oh, come now, Solomon (of the bible) had hundreds of wives and concubines — isn’t that public and political? And people think Clinton is bad! The gays that come out are actually voluntarily splitting off from the church much the same way that Martin Luther did;
Wrong and wrong. I’ve come out–and I take communion every time I attend Mass. Most likely, you are celebrating the Eucharist with gay people, in or out, every time you attend–remember that at the Sign of Peace. there was no organized drive to hunt them down and force them out!
Which is why the Vatican, seminaries and your diocese continue to be populated with unusually high numbers of closeted gay people. What we need is a good old-fashioned aggressive witchhunt which will expose not only gays and lesbians, but their supportive friends and families of origin, too! Maybe you could be in charge! So how did the story get turned around so that people are taught that the church forced gays out?
Because the other story is too ridiculous for thinking people to believe. Its just another example of journalistic media playing politics and manipulating people for the sake of a hidden agenda.
Ever tried haldol? It’s known to temper paranoid-delusional thinking. In my opinion that is why straights are so worked up over gays! They keep trying to force their beliefs onto everybody else and when you don’t relent they scream persecution!
Sure, like the "heterosexual agenda" hasn’t been forced down my throat on a daily basis for my entire life–TV, movies, books, education, media, politics, religion, government, etc., etc., etc. It’s risky business and I bet there is going to be a backlash.
Oh, yeah, be sure to bring your fag-bashing baseball bat to church with you. We’re not afraid of weak minds. Change for the better is happening while we sit here and type. Oscar
Response:
: THere was a big (lie), story in the Boston Globe Mag. about gays and : lesbians and how they stuggle becuase they are cast out of the : christian churches. : : I’m puzzled by that becuase the idea that gay sex is a sin has been : around long before the 60’s when sexual behavior went public and got : political. : : The gays that come out are actually voluntarily splitting off from the : church much the same way that Martin Luther did; Since when does recognizing a sexual orientation correspond to schism? Do you even understand the difference between action and orientation? Even your Church does. : there was no : organized drive to hunt them down and force them out! A few years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Klanwatch Project (an anti-racism group) published hatecrime statistics which said that hatred of homosexuals was the motive in half of all hate-motivated murders. That same year, _Vanity Fair_ did interviews of the perpetrators in Texas. Most were under 18; the most common justification was "God said it’s ok to kill these people." What could be a clearer example of rounding people up? : : So how did the story get turned around so that people are taught that : the church forced gays out? Can you really be this ignorant? In 1992 the CDF published a document which justified attacking the civil rights of known gays and lesbians– even those who are celibate. The letter went on to imply that gays and lesbians can’t be trusted to work with children. All this occurred at the height of the trial of Father Porter, the most notorious priestly pedophile in US history. It didn’t take much to see through the motive of the letter; the Church throwing someone-else to the wolves to save itself. Since then the Roman Catholic church has been and will be a constant target for protest. : Its just another example of journalistic : media playing politics and manipulating people for the sake of a : hidden agenda. : In my opinion that is why straights are so worked up : over gays! They keep trying to force their beliefs onto everybody : else and when you don’t relent they scream persecution! It’s risky : business and I bet there is going to be a backlash. You, a Catholic, are protected under almost every federal, state, and local civil rights ordinance passed in this century; yet you have the unmitigated gaul to pretend to be the wronged party. The threat of a "backlash" shows your true motivation. Moreover, your opinion of what straights want is somewhat inaccurate. For more than a decade 70% of New Yorker state residents have favored adding "sexual orientation" to state non-discrimination ordinances. Representatives of the Church have kept the bill from reaching the house floor. That won’t continue; the Church’s political credibility is evaporating here.
Response:
yes, I agree, it is silly when people try to take some sayings of Luther and judge the rest of his life on them. There are many saints for example who led holy pious lives, but were a wee bit nutzo in other areas!! However, you can understand the Catholic suspicion of Luther, since he does tend to get blamed for creating an atmosphere whereby any yahoo with a bible and a will to rebel could create-a-religion… to the situation we see today..20,000 plus "bible-only" flavours.. 
KJ ((I’m also biased since I love Wagner, and he wasn’t above bashing a few Jews now and then himself, and THOSE statements have been overblown too!))
Response:
: To equate Luther’s breaking with Rome over the Biblical Gospel with the gay’s : leaving the church over SIN is almost too much to take! Actually, both groups are challenging the Church on moral issues where it has failed. Nevertheless, I’d hardly recommend Martin Luther as a moral paragon. He did advocate herding jews into their synagogues and burning them alive inside those synagogues. : : : Pastor R. Bucher : Ev. Trinity Lutheran Church, LCMS : www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/home.htm Get over yourself, Mary.
Response:
Elliott: Actually, both groups are challenging the Church on moral issues where it has
failed. I must respectfully disagree. Several times in his writings, Luther specifically clarified that he was not out to change morals. He saw his own work as reforming doctrine, not morals, which for him were in two separate spheres. This fact sets Luther apart from most other reformers past and present. His was a doctrinal reformation that sought to restore the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Church and to reform the church by the Gospel. Put another way, most reforming movements have focused on sanctification (Christian living); Luther’s reformation had to do with justification (faith; that which God has done for us in Christ; how we are saved). Nevertheless, I’d hardly recommend Martin Luther as a moral paragon. He did advocate herding jews into their synagogues and burning them alive inside those synagogues.
You’re missing my point. Luther’s life is not the issue (though he lived a very pious life, was a faithful husband and father, refused payment for the hundreds of books that he wrote, etc.). I am objecting to someone comparing his reforming work and his break with Rome with that of the homosexual’s break with the church. As for his celebrated comments about the Jews: yes, he said these things, and they are terrribly wrong. When we look at all that he said about the Jews, however, we find that he has many more kind and loving things to say than he does negative. In fact the last sermon he ever preached contains a passage in which he asks his listeners to reach out in love to the Jews. The celebrated passages came at a very frustrating and bitter time in his life AND when compared with the writing style of other authors of the time, these comments are not that unusual. Pastor R. Bucher Ev. Trinity Lutheran Church, LCMS www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/home.htm
Response:
THere was a big (lie), story in the Boston Globe Mag. about gays and lesbians and how they stuggle becuase they are cast out of the christian churches. Now there’s a non-biased opinion.
How can an opinion be nonbiased? By its very nature it is biased or it wouldn’t be an opinion??? Duh.. I’m puzzled by that becuase the idea that gay sex is a sin has been around long before the 60’s when sexual behavior went public and got political. Oh, come now, Solomon (of the bible) had hundreds of wives and concubines — isn’t that public and political? And people think Clinton is bad!
Ah, you have some argumentation skills in that you know that if you can’t argue the facts your next best move is to take the focus off of them. Trouble is that it only works if the reader allows it. The gays that come out are actually voluntarily splitting off from the church much the same way that Martin Luther did; Wrong and wrong. I’ve come out–and I take communion every time I attend Mass. Most likely, you are celebrating the Eucharist with gay people, in or out, every time you attend–remember that at the Sign of Peace.
Nope, not wrong at all. I mean intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually splitting off from the church teachings. You say you can’t be doing that because you are not physically splitting off. I say in order to be a believer in a community you have to believe in the values and beliefs of that community or you are just going through the motions. You, like Martin Luther, have serious conflict with the teachings and yet you deny that reality? in order to confuse others? there was no organized drive to hunt them down and force them out! Which is why the Vatican, seminaries and your diocese continue to be populated with unusually high numbers of closeted gay people. What we need is a good old-fashioned aggressive witchhunt which will expose not only gays and lesbians, but their supportive friends and families of origin, too! Maybe you could be in charge!
See, this is another one of the tactics to use when you don’t have the facts on your side - take focus off the facts and better yet, -attack the opposing party and try to somehow associate them with a social group that the majority either fear or hate. It’s called using inflammatory "trigger" words. You have tried to label me a "witch-hunter" simply beucase I disagree with you regarding who split off with whom, and that I reject the "blame" that is placed on Catholics for simply practising their religion. Very clever but it’s getting really old and tired. Like last night’s Oscars where Billy Crystal lumped some of the trigger words "republican" "racist" "gay basher" "religious extremist" etc. etc. whle he was at the podium. Crystal and others use their celebrity status to manipulate the public ; they repeatedly do this so that the public will hear these associations enough to automatically think of them when someone gets up the courage to speak out on any of these hot issues; then, the speaker will be associated with these trigger words and the social stigma. It is a clever, somewhat complex trick; but people are catching on and don’t like to be manipulated out of their own values and beliefs by (con) artists such as these. There will be a backlash. So how did the story get turned around so that people are taught that the church forced gays out? Because the other story is too ridiculous for thinking people to believe.
Oh, I see. You focus away from the facts and try to portray anyone who would believe otherwise as an idiot. That isn’t clever but some people fall for it becuase they aren’t watching for it. You have to do better then that. The facts speak for themselves. Its just another example of journalistic media playing politics and manipulating people for the sake of a hidden agenda. Ever tried haldol? It’s known to temper paranoid-delusional thinking.
Yep, I must be making a solid case and have you worried. Becuase, if the facts start to get really uncomfortable you can pull out the big "trigger words" surrounding mental illness and see if they discredit the opposing party for any of the readers. They may not stick but they are inflammatory enough to take the focus off the facts which you are helpless against. And what about all those mentally ill people who are a minority too? You don’t really care about "people" or "minorities" per se. THey are just tools to be used to further your cause of encouraging a gay lifestyle onto the majority. In my opinion that is why straights are so worked up over gays! They keep trying to force their beliefs onto everybody else and when you don’t relent they scream persecution! Sure, like the "heterosexual agenda" hasn’t been forced down my throat on a daily basis for my entire life–TV, movies, books, education, media, politics, religion, government, etc., etc., etc.
Nobody is forcing you to emerse yourself in "heterosexual" reading. I haven’t seen "playboy" or "hustler" in any of the schools yet and I take it you don’t mean that if a heterosexual writes it is offensive to gays anymore than gay writers are to heterosexuals. There are plenty of havens for gays in the world and you know it. There is no place in the world where we are all in the majority all the time. The place you seek doesn’t exist. Remember that this is a heterosexual majority and if we were as hostile, stupid, paranoid, and mean as you like to portray then we would never have given gays any credit for anything in our society. You are just like Denzel Washington who cried that he would have to be satisfied at being only 1 of the top 10 box office draws in the country becuase some (some mind you) white people wont’ see his movies becuase he is black! Good Grief. If the majority of whites didn’t spend their hard earned cash to see him star in a movie he wouldn’t even be in the top 10! Not to pick on only black guys (or even Denzel who I like and don’t really hold his lapse against) Only in America could a minority be treated so well that he whines when he is not treated like royalty and worshipped by "ALL" the commoners. Being a minority in a majority does not give you the right to try to change the values and beliefs of the majority; be glad taht you are allowed your own values and beliefs and the freedom to pursue them; that is all that democracy gives you. It’s risky business and I bet there is going to be a backlash. Oh, yeah, be sure to bring your fag-bashing baseball bat to church with you. We’re not afraid of weak minds. Change for the better is happening while we sit here and type.
You sound very afraid; and I believe fear is your primary motivator; rightly so perhaps becuase being in the minority can be a real, and serious disadvantage in any situation. But, may I suggest the possibility that some political activists have you all stirred up so they can further their careers. I am not after gays. There are lots of gay people I admire and respect; I even did a portrait of a lesbian writer and have it on my bedroom wall as I write this. I also aim to respect their right to decide for themselves what is right and wrong in their lives becuase I believe that God will judge each of us on our own individual choices. You have nothing to fear from me as long as you let me live my life as the gift I see it to be –just like I would allow you to live yours. Don’t go to the church and demand that we change and spread lies that we are evil for our belief of what is right or wrong; set up your own branch like the Lutherans did and all the other protestants do and get busy practising your own values and beliefs. Nobody is hunting Lutherans down? Nobody will hunt you down unless you go hunting them first, which is politically what you guys are doing. The church teaching that the gay lifestyle is a sin and not to be encouraged is totally different from what you are doing by attacking the church and saying anybody who believes gay sex is sinful is evil. You are targeting the church and the church isn’t targeting you. So don’t go cry "bully" when you get a response to the lies that are spread about the church. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Oscar
Response:
THere was a big (lie), story in the Boston Globe Mag. about gays and lesbians and how they stuggle becuase they are cast out of the christian churches.
Lot’s of text snipped —
I am still! trying to figure out, why people are so easily influenced by Magazines, T.V comercials, Movies, Documentries, Men in a suit and tie, or Books that only quote myths. – http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/Faiths_and_Practices/ Either, over 75% of the world is insane OR I am.! JAMES CLARK (-C-I-S-)-Crystal Information Soulutions-(-C-I-S-) http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/ Thinketh for thineself, for they will doeth unto you. (Amen).
Response:
The church teaching that the gay lifestyle is a sin and not to be encouraged is totally different from what you are doing by attacking the church and saying anybody who believes gay sex is sinful is evil. You are targeting the church and the church isn’t targeting you. So don’t go cry "bully" when you get a response to the lies that are spread about the church.
Despite your talk about how being an oppressed "minority" could warp one’s perceptions (with which I somewhat agree, but in the context of the rest of your post sounds more like "majority" condescension), you are not much different than those who use clubs to bash gay people. Instead of clubs, you use *words* to illustrate your ignorance and spread lies and half-truths about gay people–as though we were all one "type", and as though it was all one single "lifestyle". This slightly more subtle version of oppression is widespread in the Church and directly contributes to the suicidal self-rejection of young gay people, as well as those who need your words to use their clubs. And Billy Crystal was right on. Oscar
Response:
Sure, like the "heterosexual agenda" hasn’t been forced down my throat on a daily basis for my entire life–TV, movies, books, education, media, politics, religion, government, etc., etc., etc. Nobody is forcing you to emerse yourself in "heterosexual" reading. I haven’t seen "playboy" or "hustler" in any of the schools yet and I take it you don’t mean that if a heterosexual writes it is offensive to gays anymore than gay writers are to heterosexuals.
Um, no, this isn’t what Oscar means, at least, it is not what I understand him to mean, and not what the term means, generally… "The heterosexual agenda" is a term commonly used for materials which uphold the heterosexual lifestyle as either the ONLY lifestyle, or the only legitimate lifestyle… which, in this country, includes all (new) school books, by law… (I say, "new", cause there are a few older ones, as in ancient, that they can’t really outlaw and still have students pass classics A levels, for one thing…). I am NOT saying that this agenda is wrong, (although it can, of course, be taken to extremes, but then, so can anything else…). But the heterosexual agenda does NOT consist of playboy and hustler!!! That is, unless you buy the radical feminist opinion, (are you reading, Pat??) :), that all heterosex is about power and domination and invasion… which I don’t think many, any (?) of us here, do buy… I for one think it’s well out of line… And I don’t think it’s what you meant, right? :) (I’ve only jumped in on that because I think there was a misunderstanding over terms…) [] Remember that this is a heterosexual majority and if we were as hostile, stupid, paranoid, and mean as you like to portray then we would never have given gays any credit for anything in our society. You are just like Denzel Washington who cried that he would have to be satisfied at being only 1 of the top 10 box office draws in the country becuase some (some mind you) white people wont’ see his movies becuase he is black! Good Grief. If the majority of whites didn’t spend their hard earned cash to see him star in a movie he wouldn’t even be in the top 10!
Which, oddly enough, doesn’t answer the question as to why some white people won’t watch shows with black people in them… Yes, they do exist, sigh… Not to pick on only black guys (or even Denzel who I like and don’t really hold his lapse against) Only in America could a minority be treated so well that he whines when he is not treated like royalty and worshipped by "ALL" the commoners. Being a minority in a majority does not give you the right to try to change the values and beliefs of the majority; be glad taht you are allowed your own values and beliefs and the freedom to pursue them; that is all that democracy gives you.
Ohhh, grin… I’m sorry, but that is a wonderful statement!!! RobinOak, Mitch, Stephanie, Suzanne, KJ, Beda (sorry if I missed anyone…) we’re in luck!! (women make up 52% of the population, worldwide…)… I also aim to respect their right to decide for themselves what is right and wrong in their lives becuase I believe that God will judge each of us on our own individual choices. You have nothing to fear from me as long as you let me live my life as the gift I see it to be –just like I would allow you to live yours.
That’s a breath of fresh air, thank you! Don’t go to the church and demand that we change and spread lies that we are evil for our belief of what is right or wrong; set up your own branch like the Lutherans did and all the other protestants do and get busy practising your own values and beliefs. Nobody is hunting Lutherans down?
Sigh… not now, maybe, but that was not always the case… Nobody will hunt you down unless you go hunting them first, which is politically what you guys are doing.
Again, untrue…unfortunately. Gay bashing is not just a phenomena of this age. Up till the mid-1800’s here, sodomy was a CAPITAL crime… when the punishment in law was lessened, it was done in such a way that the law itself became a blackmailer’s charter, because acts between consenting adults in private were still illegal… as was aiding and abetting them. That is no longer the situation here, of course, but I mention it to show that "bing hunted" is NOT necessarily a result of political activism… — janet Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure; I am sure, however, that ‘en famille’, they play Mozart Karl Barth
Response:
St. James 2:24 And before you tell me it has to do with Mosaic Law, it wouldn’t stand to reason, because ol’ Marty did want to get rid of it (he didn’t, tho).
Response:
Sure, like the "heterosexual agenda" hasn’t been forced down my throat on a daily basis for my entire life–TV, movies, books, education, media, politics, religion, government, etc., etc., etc. Nobody is forcing you to emerse yourself in "heterosexual" reading. I haven’t seen "playboy" or "hustler" in any of the schools yet and I take it you don’t mean that if a heterosexual writes it is offensive to gays anymore than gay writers are to heterosexuals. Um, no, this isn’t what Oscar means, at least, it is not what I understand him to mean, and not what the term means, generally…
Thanks for stepping in here, Janet… I used the term as rhetorical satire. I would ordinarily never use such a term as "heterosexual agenda". Why not? Because I don’t really believe there really *is* one. How could my sweet parents have an "agenda"? Most of my friends and aquaintances are heterosexual and I don’t believe they are carting around an agenda, either. "Homosexual agenda" is an epithet, really, a rallying cry for the supposedly threatened heterosexual masses out there who are convinced that gay people are out to plunder and destroy everything decent. It’s manipulative, polarizing, and paranoid. It defines gay people, en masse, as THE ENEMY. "The heterosexual agenda" is a term commonly used for materials which uphold the heterosexual lifestyle as either the ONLY lifestyle, or the only legitimate lifestyle… which, in this country, includes all (new) school books, by law… (I say, "new", cause there are a few older ones, as in ancient, that they can’t really outlaw and still have students pass classics A levels, for one thing…).
I agree with you here, Janet. This idea (that heterosex reality is the only one) is usually advocated by the very same folks who are screaming "homosexual agenda" in Chicken-Little-like terror. I don’t believe that most heterosexual people would see things that way. I think that most heterosexual people would lose their defensiveness about gays if they got to know "ordinary" gay people, or if they realized how many gay people they probably already know. I lost very few friends when I eventually came out to them. I am NOT saying that this agenda is wrong, (although it can, of course, be taken to extremes, but then, so can anything else…). But the heterosexual agenda does NOT consist of playboy and hustler!!!
I think this statement was made by s6364 because s/he is operating under the assumption that "gay"=predatory, obsessive sexual behavior. Oscar
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit THere was a big (lie), story in the Boston Globe Mag. about gays and lesbians and how they stuggle becuase they are cast out of the christian churches. Lot’s of text snipped — I am still! trying to figure out, why people are so easily influenced by Magazines, T.V comercials, Movies, Documentries, Men in a suit and tie, or Books that only quote myths.
Well, the influence goes back to the socially promoted ideal that people are "basically good" and so if they go get an education in journalism or film and get sanctioned by society to be responsible in these highly influencial roles then they will actually live up to the responsiblity that was given them! They will report information based on fact and cultural values and beliefs. Readers are taught/conditioned to believe this and do believe this, and so when they pick up a newspaper or watch a biography they are percieving it from that outlook. It’s called social responsibility. It’s too bad that most of the "trusted" professions decided in the 80s that the bottom line was much more important than any ole socially sanctioned responsibility! The far reaching consequences is that people are only "basically good" for two reasons; 1), they, unlike any other creature, have the capacity for determining right and wrong, and, 2), people have the free will to choose to use this information to either act in a good way or a bad one. Becuase of the values we held for religion in our society we almost always aimed to be "good." over the "bottom line". Not any more. Just today there was an article regarding Reggie White, an ordained minister, speaking a sermon to lawmakers. He said he belives homosexuality is a great sin and didn’t want homosexuality compared to racial inequalities. Apparently Reggie getting up there and saying what he believes goes against the bottom line so much that David Smith, spokesman for "Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian political group, stated that White showed "complete disrespect" for gay Americans and "I thinnk he has seriously jeopardized any future role as a sports pundit or analyzer" What this means is that you can’t speak out about your beliefs and also expect to have a job in your career field becuase you might upset a potential customer and profits may suffer. Reggie, and all of us, have to be willing to give up our right to free speech for "the bottom line." and the kicker, to then be told to vote for legislation so that gays cannot be fired from their jobs for speaking up! We’ve gone from one extreme of suppressing gays to the other extreme of suppressing straights using money as the leverage. How ’bout we go back to the real American bottom line…social responsibility being valued again, and free speech of opposing parites coexisting the way it is suppose to.
Response:
unto us: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sure, like the "heterosexual agenda" hasn’t been forced down my throat on a daily basis for my entire life–TV, movies, books, education, media, politics, religion, government, etc., etc., etc. Nobody is forcing you to emerse yourself in "heterosexual" reading. I haven’t seen "playboy" or "hustler" in any of the schools yet and I take it you don’t mean that if a heterosexual writes it is offensive to gays anymore than gay writers are to heterosexuals. Um, no, this isn’t what Oscar means, at least, it is not what I understand him to mean, and not what the term means, generally… Thanks for stepping in here, Janet…
Grin… as if I stay out of MANY conversations here? I used the term as rhetorical satire. I would ordinarily never use such a term as "heterosexual agenda".
Wondered about that… Why not? Because I don’t really believe there really *is* one.
Nor do I, and I don’t think many people do think there is one. It’s a term used to describe what happens, rather than a "plan of campaign…". How could my sweet parents have an "agenda"? Most of my friends and aquaintances are heterosexual and I don’t believe they are carting around an agenda, either.
Well, I cart round a few, but… that’s the nature of the job, meetings, meetings… ;) "Homosexual agenda" is an epithet, really, a rallying cry for the supposedly threatened heterosexual masses out there who are convinced that gay people are out to plunder and destroy everything decent. It’s manipulative, polarizing, and paranoid. It defines gay people, en masse, as THE ENEMY.
Does the term "othering" come in here? (Rhetorical question…). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "The heterosexual agenda" is a term commonly used for materials which uphold the heterosexual lifestyle as either the ONLY lifestyle, or the only legitimate lifestyle… which, in this country, includes all (new) school books, by law… (I say, "new", cause there are a few older ones, as in ancient, that they can’t really outlaw and still have students pass classics A levels, for one thing…). I agree with you here, Janet. This idea (that heterosex reality is the only one) is usually advocated by the very same folks who are screaming "homosexual agenda" in Chicken-Little-like terror. I don’t believe that most heterosexual people would see things that way. I think that most heterosexual people would lose their defensiveness about gays if they got to know "ordinary" gay people, or if they realized how many gay people they probably already know. I lost very few friends when I eventually came out to them.
I know. That government ordinance threw me for a loop, when it came out! (It doesn’t apply to tertiary ed….). It’s just that I felt it was unneeded! I am NOT saying that this agenda is wrong, (although it can, of course, be taken to extremes, but then, so can anything else…). But the heterosexual agenda does NOT consist of playboy and hustler!!! I think this statement was made by s6364 because s/he is operating under the assumption that "gay"=predatory, obsessive sexual behavior.
You know, I’m not sure about that… I think it was just typed quickly, for effect! But I picked up on it, because there ARE feminists, (radical, anti-porn types, Griffin, Dworkin, McKinnon…) who DO say that Hustler is used as an educational tool, to "teach men the reality of sex". Actually, (I think it is Griffin who says this) that they teach the "hidden reality of sex", that heterosex is eroticised power difference and so on… ;P to that, but it is worth knowing that there are those who SAY it! — janet Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure; I am sure, however, that ‘en famille’, they play Mozart Karl Barth
Response:
Hi Janet and Oscar I had to read your posts on deja news and got from memory: Hi Janet, thanks for helping out! Oscar I am not sure where I was being condescending, but I am all ears if you want to point it out. I am not ignorant about gay people. I know some casually and even went with two gay guys( not a couple) for a weekend in Dallas once when I was single. I have studied feminist theory and even have a portrait of gertrude stien (which I made myself) on my wall! I am not trying to threaten you or anything by discussing this topic and I do not advocate any violence against gay people or anybody else who is merely making their life choices as best they know how –like anybody else. Your words did remind me of the young gay male who is struggling to make sense of life in his teens when his hormones are going nuts anyway and it is a good point that many fall into depression and commit suicide. I felt bad and do agree that it is a very hard time and I would respond compassionately to him or her if they came to me. I would try to help them find what is right for them. It is wrong to reject people just becuase they don’t believe the same things you do. I wouldn’t do that nor would I try to dictate what the right choice for them would be. I think Janet hit on a jewel of an idea when she mentioned that the gay lifestyle was not always accepted and the majority hunted people down for sodomy years ago –not too long ago in this country even. When she wrote this it dawned on me that at no other time in history did our society seriously wrestle with the idea that "sodomy" was actually a bonafide lifestyle at all! We now call it a gay lifestyle instead of just a form of sex outside of marriage. That is the difference I think. To see ourselves in a historical context, right now there is a movement to have the mainstream accept the gay lifestyle as bonafide and it clashes with the traditional religious beliefs of most of the majority that any sex outside of marriage is a sin (even though we are all doing it). I say, nobody will win if both sides aim to convince the other that they are evil. The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. It isn’t like we can gather a bunch of signatures and petition to get into heaven! <g. In other words, if Oscar in his heart believes he and God are okay in their relationship then that is all that matters and the same goes for anybody else. God does not want us running around and punishing people who we think do wrong or he wouldn’t have said he was going to have his own judgement day. God’s instructions to us is to treat each other with respect and to value life becuase life is God’s greatest gift to us. but we also must be free to decide what we think is right or wrong and pass that down. If you lived next door to me I would judge you on how good a neighbor you were ( you know, stuff like did you return my shovel when you borrowed it). And I’d be the same way with Reggie White. But that doesn’t mean that I should conform my values of right and wrong to anybody else any more than you should, Oscar. I rail against people who try to suppress others no matter what the topic is ’cause to me its the oppression that starts wars and violence not the particular issue at hand. What else can we do when we honestly disagree?
Response:
Hi Janet and Oscar I had to read your posts on deja news and got from memory: Hi Janet, thanks for helping out! Oscar I am not sure where I was being condescending, but I am all ears if you want to point it out. I am not ignorant about gay people. I know some casually and even went with two gay guys( not a couple) for a weekend in Dallas once when I was single. I have studied feminist theory and even have a portrait of gertrude stien (which I made myself) on my wall!
Ack! :) What a forbidding contenence! (Thinking… I think we’ve got a picture of penguins… it didn’t go anywhere else in the house…) I think Janet hit on a jewel of an idea
Thanks, but it wasn’t all my own work… Duberman writes on this, as does Ferris and um, oh, flip… can’t remember the author of Sex, Death and Punishment, and I’ve loaned the book to someone… when she mentioned that the gay lifestyle was not always accepted and the majority hunted people down for sodomy years ago –not too long ago in this country even. When she wrote this it dawned on me that at no other time in history did our society seriously wrestle with the idea that "sodomy" was actually a bonafide lifestyle at all! We now call it a gay lifestyle instead of just a form of sex outside of marriage.
Um, that’s not QUITE what I meant. What I meant was that society had not recognised homosexual acts as EXCLUSIVE to heterosexual ones… that there were people who would practice one, and not the other… Undoubtedly there *were* people, but the idea that a significant proportion of society would fall into this category is new… And sodomy isn’t a lifestyle! It’s an act, just as heterosexual intercourse is. I’m married and heterosexual, but I don’t define my lifestyle as heterosexual intercourse! :} That is the difference I think. To see ourselves in a historical context, right now there is a movement to have the mainstream accept the gay lifestyle as bonafide
Not just as bonafide, but as a lifestyle at all, is the historical point I was trying to make… We’re actually back to nominalists and universalists here… and it clashes with the traditional religious beliefs of most of the majority that any sex outside of marriage is a sin (even though we are all doing it).
Oi!! :) I’m not!!! :) Nor would I say that this conflicts with the religious beleifs of the majority, although it may well conflict with the relgious beleifs of the majority in the Judeo/Christian world… I say, nobody will win if both sides aim to convince the other that they are evil.
The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. It isn’t like we can gather a bunch of signatures and petition to get into heaven! <g.
Oh, shucks, there goes that plan… <g You do realise you are proposing sense and sensibility on usenet? That may well not be allowed, I’ll have to check… :) In other words, if Oscar in his heart believes he and God are okay in their relationship then that is all that matters and the same goes for anybody else. God does not want us running around and punishing people who we think do wrong or he wouldn’t have said he was going to have his own judgement day. God’s instructions to us is to treat each other with respect and to value life becuase life is God’s greatest gift to us. but we also must be free to decide what we think is right or wrong and pass that down.
Yes, in theory, I agree. However, there are times when such decisions have to be made, by governments and so on, insurance companies, and the like… If you lived next door to me I would judge you on how good a neighbor you were ( you know, stuff like did you return my shovel when you borrowed it). And I’d be the same way with Reggie White. But that doesn’t mean that I should conform my values of right and wrong to anybody else any more than you should, Oscar. I rail against people who try to suppress others no matter what the topic is ’cause to me its the oppression that starts wars and violence not the particular issue at hand. What else can we do when we honestly disagree?
Holy moly, sense and sensibility! :) — janet Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure; I am sure, however, that ‘en famille’, they play Mozart Karl Barth
Response:
when she mentioned that the gay lifestyle was not always accepted and the majority hunted people down for sodomy years ago –not too long ago in this country even. When she wrote this it dawned on me that at no other time in history did our society seriously wrestle with the idea that "sodomy" was actually a bonafide lifestyle at all! We now call it a gay lifestyle instead of just a form of sex outside of marriage.
Re: "Gay lifestyle" (sorry, this is one of my pettest peeves)– this is a term coined not by gay people, but by seriously narrow, undereducated non-gays. The "gay lifestyle" no more exists than does an all-encompassing "heterosexual lifestyle". In addition, "sodomy" (depending on how it is defined) is something in which some gay people may not ever engage; and no matter how one defines it, sodomy is *not* an exclusively gay sexual practice. The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway.
But it *does* matter! We have to find ways of bettering our lives together. If we continue with your line of reasoning, then a disproportionate number of young gay children will continue to commit suicide and engage in other self-destructive behaviors. We need to not only accept them, but nurture them and affirm them as GOOD. This cannot simply be a privacy issue where we agree to leave each other alone. It is a life or death reality for so many. This is why the pastoral letter "Always Our Children" was published (and it is a good start, but didn’t go far enough). If you lived next door to me I would judge you on how good a neighbor you were ( you know, stuff like did you return my shovel when you borrowed it). And I’d be the same way with Reggie White. But that doesn’t mean that I should conform my values of right and wrong to anybody else any more than you should, Oscar. I rail against people who try to suppress others no matter what the topic is ’cause to me its the oppression that starts wars and violence not the particular issue at hand. What else can we do when we honestly disagree?
We could start by trying to learn why we "disagree". To me, someone who says "I disagree with homosexuality" with no real expalnation might as well be saying "I disagree with TUESDAY" or "I disagree with GREEN". I disagree that people should continue blindly on in their ignorance about gay people. After all, most people don’t seem to know that much about it, do they? We have to learn to live together, and we have to get to know one another much better. Oscar
Response:
found a way to copy messages from deja news! hurray! when she mentioned that the gay lifestyle was not always accepted and the majority hunted people down for sodomy years ago –not too long ago in this country even. When she wrote this it dawned on me that at no other time in history did our society seriously wrestle with the idea that "sodomy" was actually a bonafide lifestyle at all! We now call it a gay lifestyle instead of just a form of sex outside of marriage. Re: "Gay lifestyle" (sorry, this is one of my pettest peeves)– this is a term coined not by gay people, but by seriously narrow, undereducated non-gays.
Now you are the one "othering." The "gay lifestyle" no more exists than does an all-encompassing "heterosexual lifestyle".
It does too or you wouldn’t be so upset about not having your personal acts accepted by perfect strangers/others. You also wouldn’t be fighting for marriage and insurance coverage and assorted legislation etc. if you didn’t consider homosexual activity a very large definition of your life. In addition, "sodomy" (depending on how it is defined) is something in which some gay people may not ever engage; and no matter how one defines it, sodomy is *not* an exclusively gay sexual practice.
I’ll let you have this one becuase I am not sure what sodomy is technically. The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. But it *does* matter! We have to find ways of bettering our lives together. If we continue with your line of reasoning, then a disproportionate number of young gay children will continue to commit suicide and engage in other self-destructive behaviors.
You are going to have to explain futher when making such a strong accusation as this! I advocate for the individual to live their own life without suppression as long as what they do doens’t interfer with others doing the same. You are saying that if I don’t agree with you that homosexual activity is "good" then I am condemning you to commit suicide. That is not realistic and neither is the idea that your life depends on what the majority of people think of it. Part of growing up as an individual is arriving at the point where you realize that nobody else on the earth has any better answers to life’s problems than you do! That is why a relationship with a higher power is so paramount to good health and Christ is so important to both you and me. We need to not only accept them, but nurture them and affirm them as GOOD. This cannot simply be a privacy issue where we agree to leave each other alone. It is a life or death reality for so many. This is why the pastoral letter "Always Our Children" was published (and it is a good start, but didn’t go far enough).
I am not sure what your goal is here? I"m listening though, because I am learning allot with this conversation. If you lived next door to me I would judge you on how good a neighbor you were ( you know, stuff like did you return my shovel when you borrowed it). And I’d be the same way with Reggie White. But that doesn’t mean that I should conform my values of right and wrong to anybody else any more than you should, Oscar. I rail against people who try to suppress others no matter what the topic is ’cause to me its the oppression that starts wars and violence not the particular issue at hand. What else can we do when we honestly disagree? We could start by trying to learn why we "disagree". To me, someone who says "I disagree with homosexuality" with no real expalnation might as well be saying "I disagree with TUESDAY" or "I disagree with GREEN". I disagree that people should continue blindly on in their ignorance about gay people.
See, now you are "othering" again. I disagree about changing the definition of "sin" in the church. In my heart I feel that it amounts to cheating like you do in a Monopoly game where you change the rules halfway through. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think somebody is "good" just becuase they choose to practise a gay lifestyle; it means that I don’t think it is right and I wouldn’t teach my children that it is right. This is totally different from teaching my children to hate or reject someone who believes differently. After all, most people don’t seem to know that much about it, do they? We have to learn to live together, and we have to get to know one another much better.
If it isn’t a lifestyle then what is there to know, Oscar? I’m getting confused. Meg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Oscar
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<Picture: Deja News Toolbar I had to read your posts on deja news and got from memory: Hi Janet, thanks for helping out! Oscar I am not sure where I was being condescending, but I am all ears if you want to point it out. I am not ignorant about gay people. I know some casually and even went with two gay guys( not a couple) for a weekend in Dallas once when I was single. I have studied feminist theory and even have a portrait of gertrude stien (which I made myself) on my wall! Ack! :) What a forbidding contenence! (Thinking… I think we’ve got a picture of penguins… it didn’t go anywhere else in the house…)
well, it does shoot Oscar’s theory that I am a paranoid, ignorant gaybasher just becuase I dont’ agree with him on this issue. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I think Janet hit on a jewel of an idea Thanks, but it wasn’t all my own work… Duberman writes on this, as does Ferris and um, oh, flip… can’t remember the author of Sex, Death and Punishment, and I’ve loaned the book to someone… when she mentioned that the gay lifestyle was not always accepted and the majority hunted people down for sodomy years ago –not too long ago in this country even. When she wrote this it dawned on me that at no other time in history did our society seriously wrestle with the idea that "sodomy" was actually a bonafide lifestyle at all! We now call it a gay lifestyle instead of just a form of sex outside of marriage. Um, that’s not QUITE what I meant. What I meant was that society had not recognised homosexual acts as EXCLUSIVE to heterosexual ones… that there were people who would practice one, and not the other… Undoubtedly there *were* people, but the idea that a significant proportion of society would fall into this category is new…
but, janet, this doesnt’ matter becuase the "sin" was not categorized into acceptable vs. nonacceptable sex outside of marriage; the form of sex was irrelavant and now gay people want to change that. And sodomy isn’t a lifestyle! It’s an act, just as heterosexual intercourse is.
I don’t agree; we are talking about lifestyles and not just acts or we wouldn’t be talking insurance companies, legislation, etc. I’m married and heterosexual, but I don’t define my lifestyle as heterosexual intercourse! :}
in this context, you just did, yes? :) That is the difference I think. To see ourselves in a historical context, right now there is a movement to have the mainstream accept the gay lifestyle as bonafide Not just as bonafide, but as a lifestyle at all, is the historical point I was trying to make…
I thought you just said it wasn’t a lifestyle? and now you are saying your point was that it was a lifestyle? I am confused. We’re actually back to nominalists and universalists here…
I always get those terms confused; which one am I? and it clashes with the traditional religious beliefs of most of the majority that any sex outside of marriage is a sin (even though we are all doing it). Oi!! :) I’m not!!! :)
Ooops! I said more than I meant to here! <g Nor would I say that this conflicts with the religious beleifs of the majority, although it may well conflict with the relgious beleifs of the majority in the Judeo/Christian world…
well, the U.S. context this discussion is taking place has its roots in the Judeo/Christian world…so we are stuck with it. <g I say, nobody will win if both sides aim to convince the other that they are evil. The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. It isn’t like we can gather a bunch of signatures and petition to get into heaven! <g. Oh, shucks, there goes that plan… <g You do realise you are proposing sense and sensibility on usenet? That may well not be allowed, I’ll have to check… :)
<embarassed laughter but it is fun to explore here on the net when you don’t have to worry about somebody going over the deep end on you. In other words, if Oscar in his heart believes he and God are okay in their relationship then that is all that matters and the same goes for anybody else. God does not want us running around and punishing people who we think do wrong or he wouldn’t have said he was going to have his own judgement day. God’s instructions to us is to treat each other with respect and to value life becuase life is God’s greatest gift to us. but we also must be free to decide what we think is right or wrong and pass that down. Yes, in theory, I agree. However, there are times when such decisions have to be made, by governments and so on, insurance companies, and the like…
see, we are talking about lifestyles here and fundamental change that doesn’t just affect some gay people but the entire society. It warrants a respectful discussion from both sides in order to avoid violence and a strongest survives type outcome IMO. If you lived next door to me I would judge you on how good a neighbor you were ( you know, stuff like did you return my shovel when you borrowed it). And I’d be the same way with Reggie White. But that doesn’t mean that I should conform my values of right and wrong to anybody else any more than you should, Oscar. I rail against people who try to suppress others no matter what the topic is ’cause to me its the oppression that starts wars and violence not the particular issue at hand. What else can we do when we honestly disagree? Holy moly, sense and sensibility! :)
I know; but isnt’ that waht both sides always pretend to be after? in reality they just want what they want. Christians want to be left to their religion and gays want to be left to their lifestyle. The 64,000 dollar question is how to go about that without one suppressing hte rights of the other. Maybe we shouldn’t even be wasting time discussing which one is right or wrong, come to think of it? Or like Oscar said, we can focus on why we don’t agree, Meg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -janet
Response:
[] What I meant was that society had not recognised homosexual acts as EXCLUSIVE to heterosexual ones… that there were people who would practice one, and not the other… Undoubtedly there *were* people, but the idea that a significant proportion of society would fall into this category is new… but, janet, this doesnt’ matter becuase the "sin" was not categorized into acceptable vs. nonacceptable sex outside of marriage; the form of sex was irrelavant and now gay people want to change that.
Um, I was talking about the soceital categorisation of sexual activities… And sodomy isn’t a lifestyle! It’s an act, just as heterosexual intercourse is. I don’t agree; we are talking about lifestyles and not just acts or we wouldn’t be talking insurance companies, legislation, etc.
Then we would be talking about a homosexual, or homoerotic lifestyle. Sodomy is an act! (But I still don’t think "lifestyle" is the right word…) In fact, if we are talking about insurance companies, we’re talking about homosexual marriages/partnerships, yes? I’m married and heterosexual, but I don’t define my lifestyle as heterosexual intercourse! :} in this context, you just did, yes? :)
Nope! I’m married and heterosexual. But that is HARDLY the sum total of my life! I am also a mother, a daughter, a friend, an employee, and so on… That is the difference I think. To see ourselves in a historical context, right now there is a movement to have the mainstream accept the gay lifestyle as bonafide Not just as bonafide, but as a lifestyle at all, is the historical point I was trying to make… I thought you just said it wasn’t a lifestyle? and now you are saying your point was that it was a lifestyle? I am confused.
Cause I wasn’t clear, is why! :} That *is* the point I was trying to make: that the idea of a "gay lifestyle" being such, is not one that can be traced very far back into history… There have been societies where it was a part of some men’s lives for a certain, specified time, though… But still, hardly a life style. We’re actually back to nominalists and universalists here… I always get those terms confused; which one am I?
Whichever you want to be! :) (Sorry, I don’t apply labels to anything other than files and disks…). If you think categories exist, whether we see them or not, you are a universalist. If you think that they only exist cause we name them, you are a nominalist, ("naming-one"). I think. If I got that right… :} and it clashes with the traditional religious beliefs of most of the majority that any sex outside of marriage is a sin (even though we are all doing it). Oi!! :) I’m not!!! :) Ooops! I said more than I meant to here! <g
huge grin, thought you might have done! Nor would I say that this conflicts with the religious beleifs of the majority, although it may well conflict with the relgious beleifs of the majority in the Judeo/Christian world… well, the U.S. context this discussion is taking place has its roots in the Judeo/Christian world…so we are stuck with it. <g
phhhhttttthhhhppppphhhhttttt……<g Look at my return address… grin… ".co.uk"?? I’m a transplanted American, but I am across the pond! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I say, nobody will win if both sides aim to convince the other that they are evil. The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. It isn’t like we can gather a bunch of signatures and petition to get into heaven! <g. Oh, shucks, there goes that plan… <g You do realise you are proposing sense and sensibility on usenet? That may well not be allowed, I’ll have to check… :) <embarassed laughter but it is fun to explore here on the net when you don’t have to worry about somebody going over the deep end on you.
You don’t??? What ngs do YOU hang out on and can I come play, PULEEAASSEE??? :) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In other words, if Oscar in his heart believes he and God are okay in their relationship then that is all that matters and the same goes for anybody else. God does not want us running around and punishing people who we think do wrong or he wouldn’t have said he was going to have his own judgement day. God’s instructions to us is to treat each other with respect and to value life becuase life is God’s greatest gift to us. but we also must be free to decide what we think is right or wrong and pass that down. Yes, in theory, I agree. However, there are times when such decisions have to be made, by governments and so on, insurance companies, and the like… see, we are talking about lifestyles here
No, i think we are talking about specific BITS of lifestyles… and fundamental change that doesn’t just affect some gay people but the entire society. It warrants a respectful discussion from both sides in order to avoid violence and a strongest survives type outcome IMO.
See? Sense and sensibility! You mean we can discuss things and not agree and still discuss? :) [] Holy moly, sense and sensibility! :) I know; but isnt’ that waht both sides always pretend to be after? in reality they just want what they want. Christians want to be left to their religion and gays want to be left to their lifestyle. The 64,000 dollar question is how to go about that without one suppressing hte rights of the other.
And justice as well… Maybe we shouldn’t even be wasting time discussing which one is right or wrong, come to think of it? Or like Oscar said, we can focus on why we don’t agree, Meg
Well, we can focus on why we disagree to a certain extent, because I think that is quite often useful! (Noting quickly that I don’t think I have disagreed with anyone in this thread on anything major…). Sometimes, that’s the only way to any sort of compromise… because we have to know where the other is coming FROM if we are going to meet them half way… :) — janet Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure; I am sure, however, that ‘en famille’, they play Mozart Karl Barth
Response:
Hi Janet, I copied this off the deja news but forgot the first segment; darn it; Article Segment 2 of 2 (Get Previous Segment) (Get All 2 Segments) Look at my return address… grin… ".co.uk"?? I’m a transplanted American, but I am across the pond!
oh, good. the more the merrier! pip pip and all that! <g looks like I lost Oscar. I didn’t mean to insult you enough to make you not write Oscar, honest. I was trying to disagree and maintain respect. the internet is a good place to do that because you can just walk away when things get too heated and pick up again later not worrying about somebody retaliating or holding grudges; in real time we couldn’t have a discussion like this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I say, nobody will win if both sides aim to convince the other that they are evil. The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. It isn’t like we can gather a bunch of signatures and petition to get into heaven! <g. Oh, shucks, there goes that plan… <g You do realise you are proposing sense and sensibility on usenet? That may well not be allowed, I’ll have to check… :) <embarassed laughter but it is fun to explore here on the net when you don’t have to worry about somebody going over the deep end on you. You don’t??? What ngs do YOU hang out on and can I come play, PULEEAASSEE??? :)
well, I mean physically and there are some people who get so mad at somebody who doesn’t hold the same opinion or belief that they try to retaliate –you know, clan types and extremests. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In other words, if Oscar in his heart believes he and God are okay in their relationship then that is all that matters and the same goes for anybody else. God does not want us running around and punishing people who we think do wrong or he wouldn’t have said he was going to have his own judgement day. God’s instructions to us is to treat each other with respect and to value life becuase life is God’s greatest gift to us. but we also must be free to decide what we think is right or wrong and pass that down. Yes, in theory, I agree. However, there are times when such decisions have to be made, by governments and so on, insurance companies, and the like… see, we are talking about lifestyles here
well, I am not following the distinctions very well; I think that governments should allow both lifestyles and religions should be left to their own values and beliefs. that way nobody is repressed or suppressed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -No, i think we are talking about specific BITS of lifestyles… and fundamental change that doesn’t just affect some gay people but the entire society. It warrants a respectful discussion from both sides in order to avoid violence and a strongest survives type outcome IMO. See? Sense and sensibility! You mean we can discuss things and not agree and still discuss? :) [] Holy moly, sense and sensibility! :) I know; but isnt’ that waht both sides always pretend to be after? in reality they just want what they want. Christians want to be left to their religion and gays want to be left to their lifestyle. The 64,000 dollar question is how to go about that without one suppressing hte rights of the other. And justice as well…
I don’t have a problem with protecting both lifestyles thru government but one cannot take away from the other or society as a whole. Maybe we shouldn’t even be wasting time discussing which one is right or wrong, come to think of it? Or like Oscar said, we can focus on why we don’t agree, Meg Well, we can focus on why we disagree to a certain extent, because I think that is quite often useful! (Noting quickly that I don’t think I have disagreed with anyone in this thread on anything major…).
Heck, I disagree that sex outside of marriage is okay for homosexual acts as well as heterosexual ones. But I also know that I am not God and could very well be wrong so I have to just make my choice for myself and not everybody else. Sometimes, that’s the only way to any sort of compromise… because we have to know where the other is coming FROM if we are going to meet them half way… :)
true. true. have a good one, janet!
Response:
looks like I lost Oscar. I didn’t mean to insult you enough to make you not write Oscar, honest. I was trying to disagree and maintain respect.
I really wouldn’t go away like that, especially when I’m ahead 
Are you kidding? I *love* to disagree! My system crashed a few days ago, and just as I was starting to get past the withdrawal symptoms I was up and running again. Oscar
Response:
Hi Janet, I copied this off the deja news but forgot the first segment; darn it;
three lashes with a wet noodle! :) (sorry it’s taken so long…) Article Segment 2 of 2 (Get Previous Segment) (Get All 2 Segments) Look at my return address… grin… ".co.uk"?? I’m a transplanted American, but I am across the pond! oh, good. the more the merrier! pip pip and all that! <g
Yerk, never heard anyone actually say that! Round here, it’s more likely to be, "hey up, me duck!" Don’t ask, just don’t ask… looks like I lost Oscar. I didn’t mean to insult you enough to make you not write Oscar, honest. I was trying to disagree and maintain respect.
You haven’t lost him, he lost his computer, he’s back in the thread! :) [] <embarassed laughter but it is fun to explore here on the net when you don’t have to worry about somebody going over the deep end on you. You don’t??? What ngs do YOU hang out on and can I come play, PULEEAASSEE??? :) well, I mean physically and there are some people who get so mad at somebody who doesn’t hold the same opinion or belief that they try to retaliate –you know, clan types and extremests.
Grin… yup, met some of them, although mainly in cyberspace, thankfully! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In other words, if Oscar in his heart believes he and God are okay in their relationship then that is all that matters and the same goes for anybody else. God does not want us running around and punishing people who we think do wrong or he wouldn’t have said he was going to have his own judgement day. God’s instructions to us is to treat each other with respect and to value life becuase life is God’s greatest gift to us. but we also must be free to decide what we think is right or wrong and pass that down. Yes, in theory, I agree. However, there are times when such decisions have to be made, by governments and so on, insurance companies, and the like… see, we are talking about lifestyles here well, I am not following the distinctions very well; I think that governments should allow both lifestyles and religions should be left to their own values and beliefs. that way nobody is repressed or suppressed.
Yes, I agree. What I wasn’t agreeing with was that sodomy was a lifestyle, but I think we worked that one out! [] I don’t have a problem with protecting both lifestyles thru government but one cannot take away from the other or society as a whole.
Grin… welcome to the world of distributive justice! :) Maybe we shouldn’t even be wasting time discussing which one is right or wrong, come to think of it? Or like Oscar said, we can focus on why we don’t agree, Meg Well, we can focus on why we disagree to a certain extent, because I think that is quite often useful! (Noting quickly that I don’t think I have disagreed with anyone in this thread on anything major…).
You’re not trying, that’s all! :) Heck, I disagree that sex outside of marriage is okay for homosexual acts as well as heterosexual ones. But I also know that I am not God and could very well be wrong so I have to just make my choice for myself and not everybody else.
Again, I would agree. There are, of course, limits, and that’s where society and the government come into it: like setting age limits, defining what rape is and what consent is, and so on… Sometimes, that’s the only way to any sort of compromise… because we have to know where the other is coming FROM if we are going to meet them half way… :) true. true. have a good one, janet!
You, too! — janet Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure; I am sure, however, that ‘en famille’, they play Mozart Karl Barth
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – when she mentioned that the gay lifestyle was not always accepted and the majority hunted people down for sodomy years ago –not too long ago in this country even. When she wrote this it dawned on me that at no other time in history did our society seriously wrestle with the idea that "sodomy" was actually a bonafide lifestyle at all! We now call it a gay lifestyle instead of just a form of sex outside of marriage. Re: "Gay lifestyle" (sorry, this is one of my pettest peeves)– this is a term coined not by gay people, but by seriously narrow, undereducated non-gays. Now you are the one "othering."
See how it feels? Sorry, there is no single monolithic "gay lifestyle". The "gay lifestyle" no more exists than does an all-encompassing "heterosexual lifestyle". It does too or you wouldn’t be so upset about not having your personal acts accepted by perfect strangers/others. You also wouldn’t be fighting for marriage and insurance coverage and assorted legislation etc. if you didn’t consider homosexual activity a very large definition of your life.
I’m not following you. Is there a "African lifestyle" or a "female lifestyle" or a "Mexican lifestyle"? If there is, please define it for us. Or, why don’t you just tell us what you think the "gay lifestyle" is? In addition, "sodomy" (depending on how it is defined) is something in which some gay people may not ever engage; and no matter how one defines it, sodomy is *not* an exclusively gay sexual practice. I’ll let you have this one becuase I am not sure what sodomy is technically.
I’m questioning why you would choose to use a word which you are now admitting you do not understand. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The thing to do is to find a happy medium where people who truely believe sex outside of marriage is wrong are left to their beliefs and people who truely believe that a gay lifestyle is okay be left to their belief. It doesn’t matter in the end becuase we all face God alone anyway. But it *does* matter! We have to find ways of bettering our lives together. If we continue with your line of reasoning, then a disproportionate number of young gay children will continue to commit suicide and engage in other self-destructive behaviors. You are going to have to explain futher when making such a strong accusation as this! I advocate for the individual to live their own life without suppression as long as what they do doens’t interfer with others doing the same. You are saying that if I don’t agree with you that homosexual activity is "good" then I am condemning you to commit suicide. That is not realistic and neither is the idea that your life depends on what the majority of people think of it.
If the great majority of people believe that I, as a gay man, constitute some kind of threat, do you think that I will be able to live in peace? Part of the responsibility we have to each other as human beings is to understand each other, and there is no "me" or "I" without "you", unless one is a complete narcissist. Community is essential! Children internalize the messages we give them while they are growing; they look to us for how to live. How, then, can we nurture gay children so that they grow up with a positive sense of themselves? We could start by trying to learn why we "disagree". To me, someone who says "I disagree with homosexuality" with no real expalnation might as well be saying "I disagree with TUESDAY" or "I disagree with GREEN". I disagree that people should continue blindly on in their ignorance about gay people. See, now you are "othering" again.
I’m supposed to allow you to condemn my life as "wrong"? You are ignorant about gay people. Why should I be satisfied with that? I disagree about changing the definition of "sin" in the church. In my heart I feel that it amounts to cheating like you do in a Monopoly game where you change the rules halfway through. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think somebody is "good" just becuase they choose to practise a gay lifestyle; it means that I don’t think it is right and I wouldn’t teach my children that it is right. This is totally different from teaching my children to hate or reject someone who believes differently.
If you had a child who was gay, they would learn as they grew up that they were "not right"; they would learn eventually not to trust you and certainly not to go to you for any help in the matter. How would you deal with your child who was gay? After all, most people don’t seem to know that much about it, do they? We have to learn to live together, and we have to get to know one another much better. If it isn’t a lifestyle then what is there to know, Oscar? I’m getting confused.
You need to know that gay people’s lives are just as valuable as anyone else’s. That their relationships can have value. That they contribute in so many ways to the world every day. Things like that. Oscar
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.