KSFO's Sussman invited guest to talk about his claim that "gay and lesbian radicals actively recruit through our schools and the media"
SUMMARY: Discussing gay marriage, San Francisco radio host Brian Sussman said to guest Charlie Self: "On your website -- it's interesting you're addressing this very topic, Dr. Self, and you talk about how gay and lesbian radicals actively recruit through our schools and the media in order to swell their ranks. Talk to us about that for a moment." Self asserted that there has been "a rash of [TV] programs in the last 10 years" that are "normalizing this particular chosen lifestyle." Self added, "The only way that you are going to grow the ranks of this kind of movement is this kind of onslaught because it is simply not part of the nature of things as designed or as evolved or as historically recorded for thousands of years."
On the June 16 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show, guest host Brian Sussman hosted theologian Charlie Self, whom Sussman called "Dr. History," to discuss the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriages. In the course of the discussion, Sussman referenced a post on Self's blog and said to Self: "On your website -- it's interesting you're addressing this very topic, Dr. Self, and you talk about how gay and lesbian radicals actively recruit through our schools and the media in order to swell their ranks. Talk to us about that for a moment." After asserting, "It is amazing how little the traditional family is pictured in either drama or comedy on TV anymore," Self added:
SELF: It is amazing how little the traditional family is pictured in either drama or comedy on TV anymore. In fact, I just gave an address for Father's Day yesterday and I just wanted to remind all the dads that fathers are not all the sitcom boobs that they're made out to be on TV, so you have the negative. Positively, of course, you have just a rash in the last 10 years of programs of all types normalizing this particular chosen lifestyle. Along with that, you find all kinds of organizations, especially ones like GLAAD and others -- G-L-A-A-D -- and other organizations advertising opportunities for young people and for especially junior high, high school, and college students to want to discover, to search, to understand this gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender -- these options and lifestyles that are available. The only way that you are going to grow the ranks of this kind of movement is this kind of onslaught because it is simply not part of the nature of things as designed or as evolved or as historically recorded for thousands of years.
Earlier, Sussman said about graduation at Stanford University: "One of the speakers during the course of the weekend gave what I'm told was a very moving and compelling speech regarding Darwinism. And I'm thinking, Darwinism, OK, everyone's buying into Darwinism. Darwinism's the new thing, and it's becoming very, very popular. Darwinism just doesn't jibe with gay marriage, Dr. History."
Moments later, Self said:
SELF: I find it interesting that you were talking about Darwinism. It's one thing to talk about evolution on a variety of levels and to talk about the evidence of how nature has conducted herself. It's quite another to create an ideology, and that's really what you're watching. And what you're in danger of, Brian, with homosexual marriage, with gay marriage, is the creation of human life in a test tube. What's interesting is you're going to see more and more pushing for adoption, more and more pushing for a variety of in-vitro fertilizations and other forms of reproduction, because gay marriages by definition can't produce their own child. So, we're not only redefining marriage. We're redefining parenting, we're redefining how human life comes to be. Instead of a face-to-face covenantal relationship of love producing new life, we're now going to look to a laboratory, we're going to look to impersonal means, and there's something dehumanizing, there's something destabilizing, about the entire affair.
Sussman then asked: "What happens when you devalue marriage, when a society devalues that covenant relationship as you described it, between a husband and a wife? What does history tell us?" Self responded:
SELF: Well, we don't have to -- well, first of all, history tells us very clearly that when marriage begins to break down, and family and clan ties break down, you become -- it becomes a state of anarchy, and anarchy can only last so long until totalitarianism comes in, and some form of state, either under a dictator or under a cabal, some form of totalitarian state will move in and then begin to re-establish some kind of social order, based on whatever their ideology may be. Now, by the way, if you'd just like an example of what the breakdown of marriage does, go to our urban war zones here in this country in the last 40 to 50 years. And with the rise of the welfare state, with the rise of no consequences for divorce, with the rise of people having sex without responsibility or consequences or at least the perception thereof, you can begin to discover what the consequences are, Brian.
Sussman interjected: "OK, so you have, you have gay -- let's go with a lesbian couple who have adopted a young boy. That boy may have two parents, but that boy's still missing a vital ingredient, and that's a father," to which Self replied:
SELF: The secular research of the last 60 years -- again, we're not -- you've noticed we haven't quoted a single scripture from any tradition. We have not tried to make an appeal to religious authority. The secular research of the last 60 years tells us that Johnny and Jane need a mom and a dad. They need mentors, they need adult role models of both genders in order to become the person they want to be. You see, the real -- the real agenda here, Brian, is to make gender something that people choose, as opposed to something that they are born with and develop. And it's amazing, they want to claim a civil right for what they call natural, but at the same time, they're spending enormous amounts of energy recruiting, causing adolescents and young adults to question whether or not they may be of a particular gender. And the most disingenuous thing that I have been observing is that, again, if you have married and had a family but decide that you're gay and come out of the closet, you're celebrated and put on the cover of a magazine. If, however, that you -- that you have lived a gay lifestyle and decided that you want to change that lifestyle, your therapist gets their license pulled for even considering the thought. And so what we have is a real agenda to increase the nanny state's influence on our lives and to have people who really do know better help guide us through this process of discovering who we are.
Toward the end of the discussion, Sussman told Self: "OK, now, let's talk about something else that has been recorded for thousands of years, and that is the whole idea of equality. We're born equal, but we're all different. I mean, there's no question about that. And in terms of marriage, societies have said that, yeah, it's between a man and a woman, and in our society we say, here are the rules: man and a woman, you can't marry anyone under this particular age, you can't marry a family member. So, the rules are the same for all of us, Dr. History. But, for some reason, the gays want to change those rules. I just don't understand it. Talk to me about that."
From the June 16 edition of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show:
SUSSMAN: It is 14 minutes past 6 on KSFO. Sherry, do we have the theme music for Dr. History? Let's do a little Village People for Dr. History as we're about to enter into a discussion on gay marriage. Ladies and gentlemen, would you welcome a man who is far too brilliant to have to appear with this music behind him, Dr. Charlie Self, the man with more degrees than a thermometer, on KSFO. Hello, Dr. Self.
SELF: Hey, I am glad to be with you, Brian. Happy Monday. And brilliant, not brilliant, or whatever I may be, that's a lot of fun and put a smile on my face here.
SUSSMAN: All right. Dr. History, gay marriage -- it's going to begin in the state of California. It's official now, our state Supreme Court has chosen to override the will of the voters from the 2000 election, where 61.4 percent of us said, yeah, marriage should be between a man and a woman. Tell us how this stacks up from an historical perspective.
SELF: Well, a couple levels, Brian. First of all, just recent history alone should have cause for concern. In the 1970s, Governor [Jerry] Brown passed the Consenting Adults Act that allowed consenting adults to do whatever they wanted in private, kind of removed all the old anti-sodomy statutes, and most people didn't really worry about that; it was the 1970s, we're all at the disco floor. And they said, we don't care about marriage or anything else, we just want to be able to be left alone.
By the 1980s and early '90s, it was domestic partnerships and benefits from private corporations. And of course, corporations made their decisions that way. Once again, we were told, you know, don't worry, it won't matter, it's just -- it's a private issue, we're not trying to redefine things for other people. And by the late '90s and early part of this decade, it's completely changed, to now, whether there's any substance behind it at all, they want the symbolism of marriage, they want to completely normalize and equalize a same-sex relationship as a relationship that every culture and society for recorded history has made the most important one for the continuance of that society.
SUSSMAN: OK, let's -- let's talk about that. Because, again, you're Dr. History, you study this stuff, you enjoy looking back on history. What you're telling us is that never in recorded history has a society decided, OK, we're just going to redefine marriage, we think that that's going to be fine, there will be no consequences. Talk to us from a historical perspective -- I mean, obviously, this isn't a religious issue.
SELF: No, this is not a religious issue. There are people of deep faith who have concerns about it, but in terms of just basic anthropology and history, you will not find any culture that makes a homosexual relationship on the same level as a covenantal, socially bound heterosexual relationship. Now, all through history, from the time people began to record these things, people have had all kinds of -- variety of sexual experiences, both above ground and underground, but when it comes to marriage and family, the continuance of society, marriage, traditional marriage as we know it, has always been the preference of every culture in every location. And I've -- I've tried to find exceptions to that, and I have not. Now, some societies have been more or less tolerant of other behavior, kind of going wink-wink at various behaviors. But when it comes to defining family -- and you know, there's kind of a basic point, even if you're a complete naturalist, if everything is biology, you aren't going to continue the species if you try to encourage relationships that don't allow reproduction.
SUSSMAN: You know, that's kind of an interesting point. We were just talking about Stanford's graduation yesterday, and Oprah speaking, and again, I was at this post-graduation party in Stanford for a dear friend's daughter, and so many at this event were talking about one of the speakers -- I think that it may have been a baccalaureate address. One of the speakers during the course of the weekend gave what I'm told was a very moving and compelling speech regarding Darwinism. And I'm thinking, Darwinism, OK, everyone's buying into Darwinism. Darwinism's the new thing, and it's becoming very, very popular. Darwinism just doesn't jibe with gay marriage, Dr. History. I mean, that's what you were sort of saying a moment ago.
SELF: First of all, what we're dealing with statistically is a 1 to 2 percent exclusive identification of the population anyway. The 10 percent figure you've heard bandied about is a politically correct figure based on flawed science half a century ago, but the actual numbers are very small, and, you know, in nature, there are exceptions, but those exceptions don't become the rule for the propagation and the forward momentum of any species. Now, that sounds all very scientific. I find it interesting that you were talking about Darwinism. It's one thing to talk about evolution on a variety of levels and to talk about the evidence of how nature has conducted herself. It's quite another to create an ideology, and that's really what you're watching. And what you're in danger of, Brian, with homosexual marriage, with gay marriage, is the creation of human life in a test tube. What's interesting is you're going to see more and more pushing for adoption, more and more pushing for a variety of in-vitro fertilizations and other forms of reproduction, because gay marriages by definition can't produce their own child. So, we're not only redefining marriage. We're redefining parenting, we're redefining how human life comes to be. Instead of a face-to-face covenantal relationship of love producing new life, we're now going to look to a laboratory, we're going to look to impersonal means, and there's something dehumanizing, there's something destabilizing, about the entire affair.
SUSSMAN: What happens when you devalue marriage, when a society devalues that covenant relationship, as you described it, between a husband and a wife? What does history tell us?
SELF: Well, we don't have to -- well, first of all, history tells us very clearly that when marriage begins to break down, and family and clan ties break down, you become -- it becomes a state of anarchy, and anarchy can only last so long until totalitarianism comes in, and some form of state, either under a dictator or under a cabal, some form of totalitarian state will move in and then begin to re-establish some kind of social order, based on whatever their ideology may be. Now, by the way, if you'd just like an example of what the breakdown of marriage does, go to our urban war zones here in this country in the last 40 to 50 years. And with the rise of the welfare state, with the rise of no consequences for divorce, with the rise of people having sex without responsibility or consequences or at least the perception thereof, you can begin to discover what the consequences are, Brian.
SUSSMAN: OK, so you have, you have gay -- let's go with a lesbian couple who have adopted a young boy. That boy may have two parents, but that boy's still missing a vital ingredient, and that's a father.
SELF: The secular research of the last 60 years -- again, we're not -- you've noticed we haven't quoted a single scripture from any tradition. We have not tried to make an appeal to religious authority. The secular research of the last 60 years tells us that Johnny and Jane need a mom and a dad. They need mentors, they need adult role models of both genders in order to become the person they want to be. You see, the real -- the real agenda here, Brian, is to make gender something that people choose, as opposed to something that they are born with and develop. And it's amazing, they want to claim a civil right for what they call natural, but at the same time, they're spending enormous amounts of energy recruiting, causing adolescents and young adults to question whether or not they may be of a particular gender. And the most disingenuous thing that I have been observing is that, again, if you have married and had a family but decide that you're gay and come out of the closet, you're celebrated and put on the cover of a magazine. If, however, that you -- that you have lived a gay lifestyle and decided that you want to change that lifestyle, your therapist gets their license pulled for even considering the thought. And so what we have is a real agenda to increase the nanny state's influence on our lives and to have people who really do know better help guide us through this process of discovering who we are.
SUSSMAN: Dr. History on KSFO, here on Hot Talk 560, KSFO. We're talking, obviously, gay marriage. It becomes the law of our land, here in the state of California, at 5:01. That's when many counties are going to start marrying people. Dr. History, it's interesting. There's something that I don't think a lot of people have discussed. There are going to be folks racing to this state from all corners to get married. Then they're going to go back to their home state with their marriage license. This is obviously going to put pressure on those states to come forward and adopt the same practices, isn't it?
SELF: Oh, it's going to put pressure there, plus our Constitution creates the opportunity for states to honor the contracts and the legal arrangements in other states. Now, states' rights still exist, in very small measure, but they still do exist in America, but this will be another wave of momentum against the states being able to determine whether or not they'll validate the marriage licenses of California. Right now, somebody can go get married in Georgia or Nevada or wherever, and it would be honored in other states. It's being called into question now, but the pressure will be enormous to acknowledge another state's legal sanction of a relationship, and this also tears at the fabric of our Constitution, tears at the fabric of what -- of what federalism really meant as our founders tried to put it together. And, Brian, it's going to be a very serious thing, because what you're going to have is, you're not only going to have the pressure to recognize marriages, but you're going to immediately have divorces, you're going to have a huge amount of legal, social, and psychological disruption because we've opened the door to alternatives.
SUSSMAN: Dr. Charlie Self is our guest on KSFO. We call him Dr. History. Now, here's the doctor of traffic checking in. This would be Dr. Officer Vic.
[...]
SUSSMAN: Gay marriage officially comes to California at the close of business today, 5:01, so a lot of counties will stay open past close of business in order to accommodate those who want to get married the gay way. Now, Dr. History, that's Dr. Charlie Self -- by the way, his website is drcharlieself.com, that's d-r "Charlie" with an i-e and Self s-e-l-f dot com. On your website -- it's interesting you're addressing this very topic, Dr. Self, and you talk about how gay and lesbian radicals actively recruit through our schools and the media in order to swell their ranks. Talk to us about that for a moment.
SELF: Well, Brian, we can come at it from about three different angles. It is amazing how little the traditional family is pictured in either drama or comedy on TV anymore. In fact, I just gave an address for Father's Day yesterday and I just wanted to remind all the dads that fathers are not all the sitcom boobs that they're made out to be on TV, so you have the negative. Positively, of course, you have just a rash in the last 10 years of programs of all types normalizing this particular chosen lifestyle. Along with that, you find all kinds of organizations, especially ones like GLAAD and others -- G-L-A-A-D -- and other organizations advertising opportunities for young people and for especially junior high, high school, and college students to want to discover, to search, to understand this gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender -- these options and lifestyles that are available. The only way that you are going to grow the ranks of this kind of movement is this kind of onslaught because it is simply not part of the nature of things as designed or as evolved or as historically recorded for thousands of years.
SUSSMAN: OK, now, let's talk about something else that has been recorded for thousands of years, and that is the whole idea of equality. We're born equal, but we're all different. I mean, there's no question about that. And in terms of marriage, societies have said that, yeah, it's between a man and a woman, and in our society we say, here are the rules: man and a woman, you can't marry anyone under this particular age, you can't marry a family member. So, the rules are the same for all of us, Dr. History. But, for some reason, the gays want to change those rules. I just don't understand it. Talk to me about that.
SELF: Well, let's just do a little genetic history, Brian. The royal houses of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries suffered immeasurably, physically and perhaps even affected some the decisions of the state that led to some of the 20th century disasters, because of marrying far too close. It's interesting that throughout history, in a variety of traditions, people did not want you to marry any closer than a second or third cousin. And there have been reasons for that, some of them religious, some of them practical, but the more we study this, the more we realize that variety, rather than over similarity, is far better in the continuance of a healthy human generation. And so what you're watching, as history will tell you, that some of the basic rules -- again, whether they are religious or secular -- stand up pretty well in producing healthy people.
SUSSMAN: Dr. Charlie Self has been our guest on KSFO. His website, www.drcharlieself.com. We call him Dr. History, and it's always a pleasure, my friend, to have you on the program. Enlightening stuff.
SELF: Well, it's a delight, Brian. And we have a light here coming in November with an opportunity to overturn the Supremes.
SUSSMAN: Yes, with our opportunity to vote on this issue. Dr. Charlie Self, thanks for being with us on KSFO.
"It is amazing how little the traditional family is pictured in either drama or comedy on TV anymore"
Yes, as oppossed to real life. What era are you stuck in? The 1950s?
MM: "KSFO's Sussman ... "
"KFO's Sussman"?? Is MM digging in the bottom of the barrel, or what? Is "conservative misinformation" really a problem in the American media when you have to scrounge local radio stations to try to fulfill your so-called mission?
KSFO is not even in the top 5 in SanFran. Sussman's name is nowhere to be found in the Talkers Heavy 100.
Pretty weak, MM, IMHO.
Hey, your tagline is back, good for you!
And you'll notice that the intern posted this. Just because the talker's not important doesn't mean it's not misinformation (and to an absurd degree.)
Pretty weak, Shoes, IMHO (actually no, just pretty weak.)
TV's with knobs don't have remotes (but you know that). :)ChristopherPKing's stuck in the 50's. I'll bet he has a 50's model TV.
However, I can not agree with the direction of hollywierd these days.
Yeah, that Disney dreck gave me diabetes.
I simply don't understand these wierdos' language.
What the heck is a gay-or-lesbian "radical"?
And what do they mean by "recruiting"? - are they literally claiming there are "radicals" maybe setting up booths in schools, and encouraging straight kids to join them in the wonderful (and "radical") world of teh gay?
Cos that's, you know, friggin' nuts.
I know it's obvious to anybody with a brain, and it's been said many times, but do these nuts ever see their own confusion?
The idea that a person could be recruited to another sexual orientation could only be taken seriously by one who is a little fuzzy about their own feelings.
"The idea that a person could be recruited to another sexual orientation could only be taken seriously by one who is a little fuzzy about their own feelings"
Like most kids under 18-20?
I did not make an intellectual choice to desire women. It was more like being set on fire. If you think that the choice of sexual orientation is subject to argument or marketing, I'd wager you don't know many homosexuals. It's the same, only worse, because it's and eeevil preverrrrrsion.
What the visibility of homosexuality does do is tell those youn people who are on fire in that way that they aren't alone.
Ask anyone. They'll tell you.
That is, if you want to hear.
The idea that a person could be recruited to another sexual orientation could only be taken seriously by one who is a little fuzzy about their own feelings.
Actually, I've found that the funny-mentalists take this idea very seriously. In their [tiny] minds even being aware of teh gay is more likely to TURN your young child gay later in life. To them, gays are made, not born, and no amount of actual information will dissuade them. (Of course these people believe in the rapture too, so I don't put anything past them.)
Don't laugh.
By November, "gay marriage" is going to be the number one political issue. More than war, more than oil.
It's all any of the pundits are going to talk about-- and then they'll say, "why are people only talking about this?" And then they'll keep talking about it.
The Repubs are going to dump 50 million dollars + into the California initiative, and it will probably win, taking Obama down with it.
Wedge issues always work. Always.
These people will stop at nothing-- they are not going to allow a Democrat to win in November.
Wedge issues always work. Always.
Not this time:
Americans' equity in their homes -- usually their single biggest asset -- now has dropped to the lowest level on record in figures going back to the end of World War II. Homeowners' portion of equity fell to 46.2 percent, which means the amount of debt tied up in their homes exceeds the equity they have built up.
Wages and salaries have grown at a 1.9 percent average annual rate, after adjusting for inflation. In previous post-World War II recoveries, wages and salaries grew at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent.
Corporate profits have grown at a 12.8 percent average annual rate, after adjusting for inflation, as compared with an average annual growth rate of 8.3 percent in the equivalent periods of past post-World War II business cycles.
Retail prices on staple American foods rose by double-digit percentages in the last year, according to new data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The cost of milk rose 26 percent, and egg prices grew by 40 percent.
The average gallon of regular gas cost only $1.44 when Bush took office on January 20, 2001, and diesel cost just $1.53 per gallon. Today, gasoline and diesel fuel prices are at all-time highs, with gas prices at $4.08 per gallon and diesel prices at $4.69 per gallon.
The nation’s unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent in May — the biggest monthly rise since 1986.
Republicans will find that keeping your home, job and food on the table is Americas #1 priority.
"Usually, someone will at least get something right, like the year or the color of the sky"
This has to be one of the best comments I have ever read from anyone describing the idiocy of another's ridiculous statements. Your whole posting was genius and competely correct. You summed it up better than anyone. This absolutely made my whole day!
From one gay man to one straight man - Your statement has the credibility that might have been lacking had I made this comment . Thank you for adding credence to what most people already know.
This article is a synopsis of most every "gay" lie I've ever read! The part I like most of course is "...the real agenda here, Brian, is to make gender something that people choose, as opposed to something that they are born with and develop." Yep - Give in to "the gay agenda" and everyone will be out shopping for a new sexual identity every few years.
I also always love when they come up with percentages of 1-2%. First off encouraging the notion that minorities mean nothing so can be abused or ignored. Getting a true percentage of homosexuals won't happen until they come up with that "mind-reader" machine. Think of how great it will be then when we will finally have solid honest statistics for everything from political leanings, to religious beliefs, to sexual orientation! - And the government forces every American though the "mind-reader machine" every 4 years for "census purposes". (This would funny - except that I really see it coming!)
"I also always love when they come up with percentages of 1-2%. First off encouraging the notion that minorities mean nothing so can be abused or ignored."--Clevenative
That is true. These rightwing Christians hate the idea that these supposedly "inferior" minorities share or want to share the exact same rights that they have always had. Whenever some group wants those rights, these wingnuts have the gall to call them "special" rights. What a bunch of self-centered creeps.
You guys are right on.
I'm sorry, Cleve. I don't know you and I'm sure you're a great guy, but no matter how socially acceptable it is, I'm not going to want to marry you. If a right-winger is worried that he will be lured into having sex with or marrying a gay man because it is socially acceptable, I have a news flash for them: THEY ARE GAY AND DENYING IT.
And how in the world could they "recruit" at schools? Set up a booth with pictures on Career Day?
"Johnny, we know you think like girls, but if you just put something that looks like this in your mouth, entire worlds of opportunity will open up to you!"
Y'know...I'm a little hurt.
I'm a reasonably good looking guy. I've got a sense of humor. Great (I think) taste in music, film and literature. I can cook.
Where were all these homosexual recruiters when I was in high-school and college? I never got hit on once.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a confident hetero; but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to get noticed!
Or is it that this recruitment agenda simply don't exist and never has?
er..."simply doesn't exist"
Despite my many other positive traits (see above), sometimes I think faster than I can type...
There is absolutely no difference in a homosexual male hitting on another guy and a straight guy hitting on a girl. If every guy who ever encouraged a girl to lose her virginity (or at least "have sex" with him) can be considered a "recruiter" then ok , I can but into the "recruitment" thing. But the suggestion of any widespread or organized "recruitment agenda" is simply absurd!
Nope - I was schooled in the 50s and 60s - The generation that I believe now has the most confused members of society in their ranks when it comes to issues of sexuality. As a whole, today's generations are starting to "get it" - and are starting to accept sexual orientation as a normal fact of life.
So I suppose you are now saying that "Alliance" groups are not a good thing - or that they "recruit" and have some secret "agenda"?
I guess they're supposed to just shut up and take the abuse the have coming to them. Sissy little f-g--ts.
(Do I need a </sarcasm> here?)
It is amazing how traditonal reasoning is missing from todays' radio shows.
Who are these guys? Without verbal nosense and hate, what would they do? Next week, they will be saying that straight people should start recruiting gays to become "normal" and settle down and marry with a nice girl. Then, get a divorce.
Swell their "ranks"?
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Swell their "ranks"?
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Does that have anything to do with Viagra? :-)
The hypocrisy here is stunning. Self says:
"We're redefining parenting, we're redefining how human life comes to be. Instead of a face-to-face covenantal relationship of love producing new life ... we're going to look to impersonal means, and there's something dehumanizing, there's something destabilizing, about the entire affair."
This is exactly what will happen if these same wingnuts succeed in outlawing abortion. If a woman becomes pregnant for any reason, whether she wants to have a child or not, the government will force her to become a "parent". It won't matter whether she is in a "face-to-face covenantal relationship of love"; her responsibility will be to "produce new life". Sounds pretty "impersonal", "dehumanizing", and "destabilizing" for the woman. They say they're against "redefining parenting", but what they really want is to redefine parenting.
"We're redefining parenting, we're redefining how human life comes to be. Instead of a face-to-face covenantal relationship of love producing new life ... we're going to look to impersonal means, and there's something dehumanizing, there's something destabilizing, about the entire affair."
My first wife and I re-defined parenting as our kids were growing up. A few years after we were divorced in 1979, my ex came out as a lesbian. The kids lived with her and her partners as they were growing up, at the same time that I was either dating or married to other women.
And do you know what my kids learned as a result? They learned that there are all types of people in this world, and they are all of value. They learned TOLERANCE, which is one thing that is sorely lacking on the right.
And BTW - while my children lived with lesbians and knew many gay men and women through their mother, they're both in their 30s now and straight. So much for the "recruitment" crap.....
The question I like to ask of homophobes is if they remember choosing to be heterosexual. At age twelve, did they look at boys the same way they looked at girls, and have to flip a coin? Many reflexively insist that they did, but if you can get them to be honest about it, most will realize the absolute stupidity of that claim, even if they can't admit it. Their blind adherence to Bronze Age superstition requires that they maintain an intellectually bankrupt position on the issue.
Personally, I gradually became fascinated by female anatomy. It was an overpowering obsession which endures to this day, and "choosing" the opposite never occurred to me.
I don't think it has to do so much with choice as much as exposure. There are plenty women who grow up heterosexual, and for whatever reason become homosexual. Some of these women become disenfranchised with men, some probably had an attraction to women all along, but were afraid of societies view of them.
Look the bottom line is we're heading into unchartered terrirtory and many people, including myself, are still uncomfortable with the idea of homosexualism being a "norm" in our society, in terms of marriage. Anyone who is offended by my comment or just wants to respond is welcomed. I am definitely open for debate on the issue!
Really? Plenty? How do you know this? Did they really grow up heterosexual, or were they just compelled by societal pressures to conceal their true feelings?
I'm not sure what you mean by "normalizing" homosexuality, or why you fear it. If "normalizing" means allowing them to exist in our midst without shame or persecution, how are you harmed by that?
Really? Plenty? How do you know this? Did they really grow up heterosexual, or were they just compelled by societal pressures to conceal their true feelings? -Nerzog
Really, plenty. If you read my post you'll see that I even agree with your second assertion. Maybe that's just how it is in my corner of the country. I know women who say they've experimented, more than once, but don't call themselves homosexual. I know men who have been locked up who have had homosexual sex in prison, but do not consider themselves gay or continue homosexual relationships since they've served their time.
No matter what your beliefs, homosexualism is becoming a "norm". If we're honest with ourselves we will admit it has not been a "norm" for thousands of years in many cultures and civilizations throughout the world. Where do you think the term "coming out of the closet" came from? Science is helping it become a norm, to which I have no issue. Just understand, it is not something most people are going to easily accept or be comfortable with. Just a personal opinion.
That is true, but I'm not sure what that proves. People have believed in witchcraft and magic for thousands of years, as well. Superstition and prejudice dies hard.
I'm sure there are some people who may "experiment" with sex, just as some people will experiment with drugs. Maybe it is different for women, but the handful of lesbians that I know all say that they've been that way as long as they can remember. One was even married to a man for a few years, but never felt natural in that relationship.
The prison example is not scientifically relative, because it is not a normal environment. Animals, like humans, will behave differently when confined. Hamsters in a cage will sometimes eat their young.... definitely not conducive to perpetuation of the species.
I agree that it won't be easy for homosexuals to gain wide acceptance in our society, but there is no logical or scientific reason to deny them that acceptance.
I'm finding this whole conversation about norms to be a bit disconcerting. You know, slavery was the norm for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. We all know that "owning" another human being and working them to death is morally wrong. We had a great president back in the 1860's who changed all of that. While we still have a ways to go with regards to race relations in this country, the overwhelming majority of people believe that slavery is wrong. It took another hundred years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed (and IMHO, it was way overdue). While there wasn't slavery, there still wasn't nationwide acceptance of African-Americans - and inter-racial marriages with African-Americans. Some parts of our country still look down upon that.
I'm not insinuating that there is a connection between slavery and anti-homosexual sentiment, but there are parallels between both struggles for equality.
Using the "norm" argument is inherently illogical when it's used for a debate, as 'norms' are not and should not be the basis for laws in this country.
As another example, abortion is not the 'norm' in this country, as most people find it's equivalent to murder - and thereby socially unacceptable. However, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in 1973 to allow women to have the choice to carry a child to term or not.
There is a difference between laws and 'norms'...I'd rather have the laws...you can keep your 'norms'. It may not be the 'norm' for gays to be married, but it's a question of equality. It's astonishing to me that a country built upon the rule of law, a country which believes in the most important document in the world (the Constitution), and a country whose beliefs are liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would deny equality (such as same-sex marriage) to an entire class of people. It goes against our 'norms', but it's shameful. Thank G-D I live in California.
As another example, abortion is not the 'norm' in this country, as most people find it's equivalent to murder - and thereby socially unacceptable. However, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in 1973 to allow women to have the choice to carry a child to term or not.-commonsense
You are right. Abortion isn't a norm because so many people disagree with it, which is what makes it hotly debated. Slavery was a norm, because so many people, in power, agreed with it, until enough people in power decided it was wrong. I see the value of norms in this discussion, because you're talking about getting a population to accept something that is foreign. The idea of two men or two women being married is new. I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, I'm just saying expecting some to accept it so readily is not realistic. Especially when looking at the subject from a historical backdrop. Which again brings us to norms. Eating bacon and eggs is a norm for many Americans. Going to the movies is a norm for many American kids. Historically, homosexuals getting married hasn't a norm. Expecting people to accept it as such is just naive to me. And just to be clear, I 'm not saying homosexuals are not normal. I'm saying in terms of population, historically, it hasn't been a mainstream lifestyle. Am I wrong?
I see your point and agree to a certain extent. I understand that so many people don't accept homosexuality and especially same-sex marriage. Obviously as a gay man, I don't agree with the homophobia that pervades our society. However, when you look at it objectively, we as gay folks just want to be able to live our lives with the same dignity as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals don't allow us that. And just so you know, we DO have an agenda. Our agenda is to be able to live in peace, harmony and with dignity with others in our society, regardless of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, or any other differences we may have. We don't want to convert your kids (it's impossible, anyway). We don't want to destroy your families. In fact, we want to have families, which strengthens society, thereby strengthing YOUR families as well. We want the same rights as you have, and we want to be left alone to live our lives, pay our taxes and maintain our beautiful yards and gardens. ;)
People, in general, are slow to change their attitudes toward new ideas of which they disapprove. That's human nature. However, as an example, I'm 100% against abortion. But, as a liberal, I believe in personal choice, and I will ALWAYS, without fail, support a woman's right to choose. It took me a long time to come to that position. Further, I detest Fred Phelps with every fiber of my being, but I'll always support, without fail, his right to protest (as dispicable as he and his ilk are). It took me quite a while to accept that as well (believe me, I've been toe-to-toe with the bastard, in his face). You can disagree with people, but let them live their lives as they see fit.
I wonder what it was like when slavery was abolished - and suddenly slaves were free to live their lives as they saw fit? It took over 100 years for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to come about - and during that time, many African-Americans were beaten, tortured and sometimes killed because of baseless hatred. So do us gay folks have to wait 100 years for the ability to be treated just like straight folks? Do we have to endure the beating, torture and death (a la Matthew Shepard and to many others to be named) before people get it through their heads that people are people, we all bleed red blood and we all contribute to society in our own ways?
And one more point: does it seem right to you that there are so many heterosexual folks out there who scream and yell about the sanctity of marriage and how allowing same-sex marriage will destroy their holy institution, while signing the papers to divorce their fourth wife/husband? Holy, sacred institution, indeed.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
"I know women who say they've experimented, more than once, but don't call themselves homosexual. I know men who have been locked up who have had homosexual sex in prison, but do not consider themselves gay or continue homosexual relationships since they've served their time."
August, there are several reasons for this. Ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It basically says that there are many degrees of sexuality, and most (I think 95%) fall somewhere in the middle. There are actually very few who are strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. As far as the prison scenario, since, IMO, sexual urges are strictly biological and inherent in our nature, humans will find some way to release those urges, especially if no other alternative is available.
And as far as you saying that homosexuality hasn't been the norm for thousands of years, that's not necessarily the case. For one, we have many references in history to massive homosexual movements, most prominently of which were periods in the Roman days when basically anything went.
That being said, homosexuality has always been present to some degree in human populations, as far as we know. In fact, a case could be made that the percentage of true homosexuals within any population probably follows a consistent pattern throughout history and across different cultures. The real variable is the attitude of the society at large toward the homosexuals in their midst.
In extreme societies where homosexuals are killed, the perception may be that there are none, since they are too afraid to reveal themselves. That doesn't mean that they aren't present.
I'm not sure what you mean by "normalizing" homosexuality, or why you fear it. If "normalizing" means allowing them to exist in our midst without shame or persecution, how are you harmed by that?- Nerzog
You mentioned fear. I don't fear homosexual relationships. You mentioned allowing them to exist without shame or persecution. I don't do those things to people who live different lifestyles than my own. I work in the mental health field and find that every once in a while we have a kid come in who has two mommies or two daddies. Most people would immediately point out "See they're ruining that poor kids life." I can honestly say for everyone couple like that I see there are ten more heterosexual couples who admit their children to the psych unit for various issues. So I don't do the bias thing. When I say norm, I mean homosexualism has not been a norm for thousands of years in most cultures and societies, which is a fact.
What really matters in this debate is the larger society's attitude, and that we can change, though it may take a few generations. I have seen no compelling, logical reason why we should maintain the historical "norm" of persecution and discrimination against homosexuals. Do you have one?
" However, I don't see homosexuals persecuted. Illegal immigrants are persecuted more than homosexuals."
Though I can't comment on who is persecuted more, you should Google Matthew Shepard and read up on the brutal killing and how the assailants used a "gay panic defense," meaning they temporarily went insane because of his sexual advances.
He's not the only one. There are many, many cases of homosexuals being severely beaten or killed just for being gay. I remember a few years ago on a college campus near here a guy who happened to be homosexual was just walking down the street after going to the movies and was accosted by five or six people who beat him while yelling "fag" and "queer."
So you may not see the persecution of homosexuals, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
August: I just love it when straights use that word "uncomfortable" when they talk about the gay issue. You want to talk about uncomfortable???? How about growing up surrounded by peers who are pushing you into something that you really have no interest in?
At every family gathering... Uncle Joe: "Hey Jimmy, you gotta girlfriend yet?" - At every wedding... Aunt Mary: "You should be next, JImmy - so when are you getting married?"
If you are "uncomfortable" with, for example, a public display of affection by 2 homosexuals - think of how many times I have felt uncomfortable seeing and being reminded of "my defect" every time I see a display of affection from a heterosexual couple! Which of the 2 do you think I've seen more of? Do you want to rethink your remarks and ask yourself who is the one exposed to more "uncomfortable" situations in life?
Audust: After preparing and posting my last response - I found 2 more responses to Nerzog which indicate to me that you are not as "homophobic" as I might have thought. So perhaps your "uncomfortable" feelings could more be explained with different analogies. Maybe the " uncomfortable" you feel is strictly due to an unfamiliarity - for example I felt uncomfortable interacting with total strangers the first few times I chatted or posted comments on a Forum or Blog on the Internet. I felt uncomfortable the first few times I drove my new 32mpg Toyota Corolla vs. my SUV. So yes, in this case I guess there are a lot of things in life that seem "uncomfortable" - but if you give them an honest shot - and accept them as progress for the betterment of all involved - then perhaps you would not feel so uncomfortable about the idea after all?
The fact that you insist on viewing it as a choice leads me to wonder just what your training as a counselor is. I'm not being dismissive, but my understanding is that the psychiatric community does not share that view. Are you a psychiatrist?
As for the playful lesbians you know, it sounds more like a male porno fantasy than reality, but I'll take you at your word. However, I don't know any heterosexual males who would entertain the idea of "playfully" having sex with another man. In fact, most are repulsed by the idea.
As for the playful lesbians you know, it sounds more like a male porno fantasy than reality, but I'll take you at your word. However, I don't know any heterosexual males who would entertain the idea of "playfully" having sex with another man. In fact, most are repulsed by the idea.-Nerzog
Two things. A. I have no reason to lie to someone I'll probably never see. I'm not Hot Nuke or Finarfin. I know more than one lesbian who brags about the straight women they've "turned out". B. I totally agree with the last part of your post. Which is why I only mentioned it in the case of prison. But I didn't say anything about playfully being gay.
"As for the playful lesbians you know, it sounds more like a male porno fantasy than reality, but I'll take you at your word. However, I don't know any heterosexual males who would entertain the idea of "playfully" having sex with another man. In fact, most are repulsed by the idea."
Actually, my girlfriend has experimented in that area before I met her. It was mostly just making out, nothing overtly sexual, but it still happens.
Nerzog, I'll tell you honestly. These kids come in with psyc issues. They aren't admitted because they are gay or lesbian. That being said many of the girls who come in saying they are lesbians end up liking one of their male peers if they are there long enough. Many of them tell me they are lesbian and then end up telling me they have a boyfriend. This doesn't happen with the males nearly as much, but I'm tellling you the truth. The adolescents, most times young adult females, that I see will go back and forth on their feelings for male or female. Maybe it has something to do with their psyc history or maybe it is a choice for them. But I have seen it become a choice for enough women to believe there's a difference in choosing between male and female homosexuals.
August,
Your honesty throughout this thread is appreciated, I commend you for that.
However, on the "choice" question, I think perhaps you are confusing a conscious choice with adolescent confusion, development, peer pressure and trying to "fit in". Many young men and women fight certain proclivities and urges if you will to conform, or they experiment with their attractions for a variety of reasons, or they are denying their true sexuality.....whatever, it is a very fluid time for many, so many societal arrows and influences are pointed at them, they thrive to be "normal", or like everyone else. So I don't know that you can say they are choosing one over the other at this stage of their life.
I too believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, we can modify our behavior to do just about anything and some label that a choice, when in actuality it is mostly derived from outside influences, not our internal "choices" where when we follow them responsibly and morally we are happy and at peace, in my opinion.
However, on the "choice" question, I think perhaps you are confusing a conscious choice with adolescent confusion, development, peer pressure and trying to "fit in". - Tommy
First off, I appreciate you noticing my sincerity. I'm not trying to be a prick and I don't think I'm a homophobe, I just feel how I feel.
As for the highlighted quote, that's just my point. I've seen it in adolescents and I've seen it in adults. In regards to women, I've seen more than women just kissing at a party. I've seen straight adult women have sex with another woman and maybe a man and when it was all said and done everyone in the room considered themselves to be heterosexual. Now if that happens more than once, is that not a choice? We could say they are bisexual, but isn't that still choosing?
I agree it's a debatable point, but for me, personally, I don't really care one way or the other. I have my opinion which I stated, but for me it's all about treating people with dignity and respect. Whether people are born that way, or somehow choose it is really irrelevant to me, people should be judged on their character and their behavior, not their sexuality. So it's kind of a moot point. I know that people use the choice vs. born that way debate to posture their defense accordingly, for me I stay out of it because in the end it doesn't matter.
Treat everyone with respect.
August: With all your experience with all these "real world" scenarios, I would think that your attitudes would turn more to questioning the fact that perhaps all of us are bi-sexual at the very root? It seems that many of your "real-world" experiences indicate just that. Most Christians don't spend enough time pondering the book of Genesis and the era immediately after Adam and Eve. There was no homosexuality or incest going on there. <sarcasm off>
Try looking at this whole gay vs. straight thing as simply another change in the evolutional process. Incest and homosexuality became taboo only because societies evolved around a central theme of procreation. Religions and nation building leaders placed these restrictions on human behavior for a reason. That key reason (procreation) is no longer relevant, and so it only makes sense that sexual expression in human societies now evolves back to a more "normal" and "natural" state?
Just some food for thought...
Do you want to rethink your remarks and ask yourself who is the one exposed to more "uncomfortable" situations in life?-Clev
This is the foundation of my stance. I don't view your attraction to the same sex as a defect, I view it as your personal choice. That being said, there would be no Clev, if not for the joining of a heterosexual relationship. This is the natural order of things. The race of man would have died off if homosexualism was the "natural order". And again, science has changed that greatly, but you cannot expect generations upon generations of people who have accepted this as correct to feel "comfortable" accepting the opposite.
Some argue, "Well African-Americans were once thought to be brutish, unintelligent and good for nothing more than picking cotton. . . that was a norm for people in those times." True, but the union of a man and a woman supercedes that arguement because it was established since the dawn of our time. Mankind has always had reasons to divide themselves, be it religion, race or politics. What has always been a common thread in most societies is the union of a man and a woman. To question why I would be uncomfortable with accepting something outside of a norm that predates most religion is beyond me.
BTW - I don't like seeing gross public display of affection be it hetero or homosexual affection. Get a room!
"True, but the union of a man and a woman supercedes that arguement because it was established since the dawn of our time."
This is an interesting argument, but an easily refutable one if you understand evolution. The "dawn of our time" included asexual reproduction of spores that eventually over millions of years formed our modern ancestors. There is also significant scientific studies that says within the next million years (if the human race lasts that long) the male chromosome may disappear completely. A fairly detailed analysis of this is here.
In truth, there has been a segment of the population that has been homosexual since as long as we've been able to catalog these things. Just because it's not the "norm" doesn't mean it's not normal. You can go back through the generations and find homosexuals in every one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Thoreau and Whitman who "loved each other more than brothers"? it was two of them fancy-pants late 19th-early 20th century writers ;)
Dbeden answer me this: How would I be writing to you now if Adam and Eve or the first monkeys (which ever belief you succumb to) had not paired up male/female? If overwhemingly the men went with men and the females went with females the species would have died off. It is the natural order for sperm to fertilize the egg and hence make life. Yes there has been pockets in history where homosexualism is shown to thrive, Rome being one of the most obvious examples, but they are just that, pockets. I'm not arguing this from a biblical or scientific standpoint, I'm arguing it from what seems natural to most people.
I do believe everyone should have a right to live their life free of persecution or undeserved ridicule, I jus know it will take time for acceptance.
"If overwhemingly the men went with men and the females went with females the species would have died off."
And this brings us back to the Kinsey scale. Most men and most women are predominantly heterosexual. That's a fact. That is the natural order of things, but that doesn't mean there isn't an exception to the rule. I've heard it estimated that there's somewhere in the range of 9% of the population is predominantly homosexual. I've also heard (and if I can find the evidence, I'll post it) that that 9% has been more or less consistent since as far back as can be documented.
The only real contention I have with your posts is that you believe homosexuality, more or less, is a choice. I'm not gay, but I can tell you ipso facto that it is not a choice. No one chooses to be ostracized by their friends and community, and no one chooses to be persecuted for who they are. Being gay is something someone discovers about themselves over a long period of time.
In short, to take it to the illogical conclusion that if gay were the "norm," meaning a majority of the population, then the species would die out is disingenuous to the debate and doesn't reflect reality.
I don't know if this is where August is coming from or not.
No one chooses to be ostracized by their friends and community, and no one chooses to be persecuted for who they are. Being gay is something someone discovers about themselves over a long period of time. In short, to take it to the illogical conclusion that if gay were the "norm," meaning a majority of the population, then the species would die out is disingenuous to the debate and doesn't reflect reality.-Dbeden
I have argued many times no one would choose to be ostracized or persecuted. So in that instance I do agree with what your saying. This has nothing to do with the God, though I do believe and I admittedly say I'm still on the fence as to choice or innate just because of the personal examples I've listed. But to say I'm not reflecting reality is a stretch. There's nothing disingenuous about the fact if homosexualism was natural to most men we would've peaked as a civilization thousands of years ago. Why is that disingenuous?
I haven't seen anyone argue that it is natural to most men, have you?
"There's nothing disingenuous about the fact if homosexualism was natural to most men we would've peaked as a civilization thousands of years ago. Why is that disingenuous?"
It's disingenuous because it is a hypothetical that has no chance of happening. Yes, IF homosexuality was inherent in most men (and if you read that article about the death of the Y-Chromosome, you'd see that that's a distant possibility, to a point) then we would have died out as a civilization. It just doesn't reflect reality. I'm arguing that homosexuality is natural in the sense that there's always been a certain portion of the population that have been homosexual. It's not the normal sexual orientation in society, which is what you're reflecting with said hypothetical. If the normal sexual orientation were reversed, yes, we as a species would die out.
Sorry, I hope I'm not coming across as combative. Some of my posts, upon reflection, seem to suggest that, but it's really hard to come across the correct way on a written forum. I appreciate the discussion and only seek to educate.
AUGUST: Sorry, buy there is something terribly wrong with your ape analogy. Maybe you don't watch enough National Geographic - but there is plenty of evidence that shows most ape species, observed in both the wild and captivity, show homosexual interaction and even same-sex bonds. Even a figure as high as 10% homosexual males would do nothing more than just slow the process of procreation. Maybe it is just "God's way"?
Yet, in the wild -just like in modern society - a certain percentage of the "lesbian" females will be inseminated against their wills, or at a time when their sexual urges allowed them to accept someting that they otherwise would have no intererst in. Yes, nature and evolution is wonderful - so why are you against nature?
I think you may be conflating the words "normal" (widely accepted or customary) and "natural" (of nature). You think that homosexuality is a choice, but there is no scientific evidence to support that. There is also no scientific proof that it is an inborn trait....yet.... but logic would indicate that it is.
As you indicate, the existence of homosexuals probably predates Religion. As far as we know, they've always existed, and even exist in some animal populations. Why is it so hard to believe that a certain percentage of homosexuality within a given population is a natural phenomenon? Whether you call it a defect or biological divergence or mutation is beside the point.
AUGUST-HEAT: I appreciate you arguments - and everyone who has shown an opposing view. but no one will ever be able to change your tune until you stop using - or believing in - that "choose/choice" attitude. Think about it - who in their right mind would "chose" to be gay?
People who "come out" are brave souls. Accept that, with a knowledge that - despite the 1-2% figures that you given - and asking yourself how many there are who haven't "come out" - there is no way to really determine the percentage of the population who are not strictly heterosexual. But I'm willing to bet that if that "mind-reader" machine I talked about earlier ever makes it to market, we'd all be astonished at the number of people who are not! (I hope you wandered across my bisexual question/argument earlier in this thread.)
In a nutshell, my answer would be yes to both questions.
However, when it comes to Polygamy, I know the first thing that comes to everyone's mind is the recent raid on the "cult" in the southwest. I'm sure that is why you asked the question. I am opposed to male domination and subordination of women - but I really see nothing wrong with polygomy - it is the norm in many societies. I say to any guy (or woman) - Hey, if you can afford it and that is your thing - it's none of my business.
The same is true with the age thing. It's all a matter of consent. From one state to the next in this country, stepping over that age line can mean the difference between a "blessed marriage" and "statutory rape". In my opinion, if anything , age restrictions should be relaxed, as both physically and emotionally - kids are maturing a lot faster today than 200 years ago.
There - you have my honest answer - I'm waiting for the stones and arrows.:)
See. We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe these laws are in place because they are morally right. You pretty much believe there shouldn't be any regulations in regards to consenting adults. Now I'm not gonna go O'Reilly on you and start asking about marrying animals, but I will say my personal belief is there are ideals every society should aspire to. Raising a child in a society where men are allowed to have multiple wives and girls are allowed to be given in marriage at 15 years old is no society I want to raise my child in. I'm indifferent to sympathetic to the homosexual struggle in this country, because I truly don't think anyone would choose to be persecuted. That said I favor a society that holds that the union of a man and a woman is morally right.
No stones and arrows. I'm in no position to judge anyone.
Men having sex with minors is totally irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality, yet is a common red herring tossed out by people opposed to homosexual rights. Society restricts many things on the basis of age, and we protect minors from many things, including sexual advances from adults.
In a homosexual relationship, there is no victim as long as both are consenting adults.
I should clarify my position on the age issue - For anyone under 18 (or maybe even 21?) there should be a law that restricted the age difference to, oh 5-7 years - as oppesed to the strict over18/under18 laws that most states have. When I posted my answer to August, I wasn't thinking about the old trolls enticing young teens (gay or straight) - I was thinking of the poor 18 year old boy who is stigmitized for the rest of his life - and perhaps even imprisoned - as the result of a consentual sexual act with someone a year of so younger than him.
I'm all for "protecting the children" - but at the same time we should let them mature and experiment with their sexuallity naturally without making criminals of them. I'm not a father of a 14 year old girl - and never have been - so I'm sure this is why I am more comfortable wiith this opinion than a lot of men my age would be. But we're only kidding ourselves if we aren't concerned about sexuallity in teens or bury our heads in the sand and pretend they are not sexually active.
Think of how many laws on the books are just plain stupid? - not to even mention the "mandatory sentencing" drug laws. What I hate most is people who come back with a simple "It's illegal" or "it's the law" argument when there is a questionable case brought to the public's attention . Yes I know it's illegal or against the law - but is it right???? But arguing with these kind of people is like arguing with Nancy Grace!
"...a face-to-face covenantal relationship of love producing new life..."
Thanks, self, for reminding me why my heterosexual marriage has become so boring. Yes, my relations with my wife are about nothing but that white hot "covenantal" "production of life"! Marriage is about nothing else than the production of life. Ask any couple who cannot have children yet still love each other, like me an my wife, if this is true. We may have to buy a child (she calls it "adoption") or do in vitro; does this make us "un-natural"?
To here these loons tell it, marriage cannot just be about companionship, respect, making one another laugh, helping one another out with the daily chores involved in keeping a house together, supporting one another's dreams. These a-holes will convince you that you could do all of this with your dog. Marriage is about PRODUCING LIFE!
These guys are all self-hating losers who do nothing but dream about gay sex all day and hate because they can't come out and admit it. Just look at how detailed AND EXHAUSTIVE and rhetorical their attacks are- they must have an agenda. With these guys it's all about fear- fear of having to come to terms with their gayness and having to plan that fabulous gay wedding.
"Doctor History." "Doctor" of course is a verb here.
SELF: Well, it's a delight, Brian. And we have a light here coming in November with an opportunity to overturn the Supremes.
That says it all - another anti-abortion religious wack-o wrapped up in a cloak of "respectability" by calling himself "Dr. History".
Pathetic.
People will choose all kinds of behavior based on their sexual needs, both destructive and productive. The Kinseyian theory on sexuality holds that the broad spectrum of mammalian sexual expression has extremes of hetersexuality and homosexuality with a median falling upon a mix of sexual behavior with both genders. Male bonding may drift from hand clasping to shoulder hugging to full on kisses to express comradery, brotherhood or love. Are these sexual expressions? Maybe not.
No man who was raised in present day Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought wants to go on record admitting to any male attraction, attention or expression. We just weren't brought up that way - thus the shame and isolation experienced by people who just aren't attracted enough to the opposite gender to want to actually be intimate with one of them. But plenty of people with some such attraction choose to ignore it and stay true to their socialization. Others choose to explore these feelings in various arrangements and relationships, either in private or with a greater degree of self-confidence. This also a choice. Where we start from (in my opinion - from birth) is not a choice, but what we do with it is a choice. Many people get this confused in their hopes that what is normal will fit within their own construct. But there is no "normal", just what is "typical" and what is not.
either in private or with a greater degree of self-confidence...
I guess that depends on how many ignorant gay-bashers are in the general vicinity.
Great post Cannonball! It makes me realize how right I was in the "choice" I made. I chose not to play a phony game of marriage and family - to deceive my wife and children just for the sake of appearing "normal". What was (or would have been) the more "moral" thing to do?
I agree with you. This is the same reason I came out and decided to choose a partner of the same sex (other than the obvious attraction to a very handsome man). ;)
I didn't want to get married to a woman, live the lie, secretly pawning for someone of the same-sex, only to end up like Sen. Larry Craig. I didn't want to put a wife and kids through the pain of an eventual divorce. I chose to be honest about who I am.
My familial background is based on fundamentalist Christianity. We all know how they feel about homosexuality. So, yes, in a sense, I "chose" to live the homosexual "lifestyle" (man, I hate that term) - as I'd rather live as myself than live a lie.
Which is more moral? Be true to oneself and come out before marrying and producing children, or lie about your sexuality for your entire life, hoping no one ever finds out?
Of course, I believe that I chose the more moral path. At least I cannot be branded as a liar.
And to add to my post above, I'd much rather be branded a f*g than a liar.
When people first meet me, they have no clue of my orientation. I believe that comes from me "hiding" my true self because of the social environment of Kansas (where I was born and raised) in the 70's and 80's. You know, Kansas - where men are men and sheep run scared! <j/k!>
I've learned over the years, living here in San Francisco, that people are people. Take them at face value. Their orientation doesn't matter.