The Truth, the Whole Truth And. . .

[Plane]

I think it is pretty clear that the sex drive is a biological instinct. In Freudian terms, it is part of the "Id", the center for instinctive behavior. In society, it is not permitted for a person to simply grab and rape anyone he is attracted to. The Ego is the force that controls the instinct. Since sex is a drive, like hunger and a need for warmth and shelter from the elements, the Superego reconciles the desire of the Id with the restraint of the Ego. You must court the object of your affections in a socially acceptable way.
If one is homosexual, one is attracted to members of his/her own sex. If one is heterosexual, one is attracted to members of the opposite sex.

In societies where homosexuality is frowned upon, there is normally a subculture which arises to provide for courtship rituals that are acceptable to the homosexuals and invisible to the heteros, so as to avoid being jailed, stoned or in some way punished.

I don't think that Plane is correct in his belief that it is as simple for a homosexual to indoctrinate himself into heterosexual desires as it is to teach oneself to enjoy eating turnips or spinach. Sex is a different drive than hunger, and operates differently in the mind.Of course, eating turnips or refusing to eat them is not something society bans or encourages as much as sexual preference.

Did I say it was simple?

Did I say that quitting smokeing was easy?

I only suppose it to be complex and difficult because my experience is not first hand , you have first hand experience?

I have quit some bad habits , but I havent had to quit smokeing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I quit smoking in 1986, right after my father's second heart attack.

It wasn't easy, but the idea of being dead was a great motivator.

I do not think that homosexuality can be equated with a taste for turnips or an addiction to cigarettes.

The best way to think about it would be to consider what it would take to convince yourself to like men, as opposed to women.

What would I need to do to get turned on by thinking of Ricky Martin, George Clooney or some other guy?

[fatman]

I don't think that you guys are asking and debating the right question.  I don't think whether or not homosexuality can or can't be trained is particularly important (I don't think it is, but that's my take).

I think that the big question is whether or not homosexuality should be trained out.  And I would say that in an open, tolerant society, the answer would be no.  But gay marriage opponents are perfectly happy to penalize and punish homosexuals for not adhering to their sense of morality, though homosexual acts are not illegal.  They see letting homosexuals marry as rewarding homosexuality.  That's not true, it's simply allowing them the same rights as anyone else.  It's not like someone is going to cut me a check for $1000 for being gay.  It goes back to the enablement argument that I tried to address in my post.  And JS is right, there were religious groups that hid behind the Bible to justify segregation.  Today, there are many Christian churches that accept and welcome homosexuals into their fold.  There is a disagreement as to whether or not homosexuality is fundamentally immoral, that argument is tearing the Episcopal Church apart.  My theology accepts homosexuality, some others don't.

But I think that it is the place of the Church to decide the morality of a person who engages in a legal activity.  It is not the place of the government to make that determination, nor should religious people force the government to make that determination.

[Plane]

I don't think that you guys are asking and debating the right question.  I don't think whether or not homosexuality can or can't be trained is particularly important (I don't think it is, but that's my take).

I think that the big question is whether or not homosexuality should be trained out.  And I would say that in an open, tolerant society, the answer would be no.  But gay marriage opponents are perfectly happy to penalize and punish homosexuals for not adhering to their sense of morality, though homosexual acts are not illegal...."

But someone who beleives it is the result of indoctrination and is trying to raise a child without this indoctrination might be dismayed to find his chillds school working against him. Why indeed was this class of small children taken to a wedding in San Fransisco ?

[sirs]

I don't think that you guys are asking and debating the right question.  I don't think whether or not homosexuality can or can't be trained is particularly important (I don't think it is, but that's my take).

I think that the big question is whether or not homosexuality should be trained out.  And I would say that in an open, tolerant society, the answer would be no.  But gay marriage opponents are perfectly happy to penalize and punish homosexuals for not adhering to their sense of morality, though homosexual acts are not illegal.  They see letting homosexuals marry as rewarding homosexuality.  That's not true,

Yes it is.  Civil Unions can obtain the same rights as a marriage between a man & a woman, Fat.  This is a fair compromise, which to many Christians, would be wrong to do...it'd be like compromising their faith.  You have to remember.....to most Christians, homosexuality is a sin.  No different than adultery.  The fact that it has attained mass PC support, doesn't, in any way, lessen the sin that it is deemed by God to be.  Nothing phobic about, nothing about hate, simply that it's a sin & immoral.  As Christians we are taught to love our neighbor, as well as the sinner.  Not supporting your choice in lifestyle isn't hateful.  For some idiots, they do cross the line.  The bastards that killed Matthew Shepard should have been hung from the toenails, and skinned for good measure.  But the issue you have with a vast majority of the rest of the country is the foundation of morality that the bible has instilled in so many.  You can't PC that out of the way, and like I tried to tell Js, you can't bully it out either, by calling such followers of their faith, names such as bigots.  Last I checked there is no scientific or anthropological conclusion that Homosexuality is anything other than a choice.  A person can't chose their race or their gender, so folks who hate because of those reasons really are phobic

And yes, there's all kinds of rationalizing arguments as to why would anyone chose such a lifestyle.  My answer is, I have no answer.  Why do people choose to commit adultery?  Why do people choose to want to have sex wearing rubber suits and all tied up?  I don't know......but its their choice.  so yes, granting "marriage" which has been a cornerstone in the bringing together that of a man and a woman, is an overt effort at normalizing what a vast majority of folks believe to be immoral.  So the compromise is Civil Unions, with full rights, equal to that of marriage.  I wasn't supportive of it originally, but Bt has helped "show me the light"

[_JS]

Sure Sirs, and people thought that separate but equal was a "fair compromise" and they also used Christianity and tradition to defend it. Using Christ to single out a group of other people and deny them the same rights as others is not anything new. It is also not right.

Don't forget that Christ saved the adulteress from the finality of the law. He healed on the Sabbath. His first miracle was what?

Turning water into wine at a wedding party in Cana, at the request of his mother. What Christ repeatedly disliked were the Pharisees who loved legalism. They looked upon the prostitutes and the tax collectors as contemptible people who were beneath them.

Are you and Plane doing the same thing? Are you better and more holy than Fatman and other homosexuals? Are you better than an adulterer or the individual who has "sex wearing rubber suits and all tied up?"

By the way, adulterers and fetishists may get married. There is no law that prevents this. Again you single out homosexuals.

[sirs]

Yes, Christ saved the adulterous, and no where do you see me (or Plane fot that matter) advocating anything differently.  That fits nicely with hate the sin but love the sinner.

And one last time, I'm not judging yours or Fat's walk with your God.  That's between you and your God, so I'd appreciate you stopping trying to judge my walk, with the obvious implication of how much holier and evolved you're trying to present yourself as

[_JS]

Yes, Christ saved the adulterous, and no where do you see me (or Plane fot that matter) advocating anything differently.  That fits nicely with hate the sin but love the sinner.

And one last time, I'm not judging yours or Fat's walk with your God.  That's between you and your God, so I'd appreciate you stopping trying to judge my walk, with the obvious implication of how much hoier and evolved you're trying to present yourself as

See, that is where you are absolutely wrong Sirs. I know that I'm a sinner. I don't consider myself any better than anyone else. I know that there are is nothing I can do as a human being, no good deeds I can do that earn God's love or Christ's sacrifice.

You keep saying "stop judging my walk." That, of course, is not what I'm doing at all. There is nowhere written that a Christian need be an unthinking drone who follows others who interpret Christian scriptures. God gave us all intellectual capacity to some degree or another. Therefore, you can stop with the whole "stop judging me" every time I challenge your notions of what it really means to be a Christian. You've got a mind - use it. If more Christians had done this in the South, the rampant racism would not have been so easily excused (and even encouraged) in churches across those states.

Christianity is not static Sirs. It has changed quite a lot over the last two millennia as has Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other major religions. That isn't a judgment, just a fact.

Now, care to actually answer the question I asked without the defensive reaction?

[sirs]

Yes, Christ saved the adulterous, and no where do you see me (or Plane fot that matter) advocating anything differently.  That fits nicely with hate the sin but love the sinner.  And one last time, I'm not judging yours or Fat's walk with your God.  That's between you and your God, so I'd appreciate you stopping trying to judge my walk, with the obvious implication of how much hoier and evolved you're trying to present yourself as

See, that is where you are absolutely wrong Sirs. I know that I'm a sinner. I don't consider myself any better than anyone else. I know that there are is nothing I can do as a human being, no good deeds I can do that earn God's love or Christ's sacrifice. You keep saying "stop judging my walk."  That, of course, is not what I'm doing at all.

I wish you could look at precisely what you're typing and implying, since it's 180degrees opposite, and precisely what you're doing.  I'm here typing my walk, my faith, and at no time condemning anyone else's walk or proclaiming how they need to see it my way.  That that is between themselves and God.  And there you are claiming how my view is wrong, how my view is bigoted, how my walk is literally broken with Christ, yet I'm the one supposedly with the problem of judging others.  Somehow hating the sin but loving the sinner just can't exist in your world.  Which is fine.  Like I said, that's what you're going to have to deal with

Now, care to actually answer the question I asked without the defensive reaction?

Asked and anwered already.  If you don't like the answer or that it doesn't fit your pre-conceived prism of what is is, I can't help

[_JS]

I'm here typing my walk, my faith, and at no time condemning anyone else's walk

Of course you are. Look at the words you've used:

You've called homosexuals "immoral"
You've compared them to people who enjoy "sex wearing rubber suits and all tied up"
You claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would undermine the "foundation of morality that the bible has instilled in so many."


And your only defense for using the "separate but equal" argument against homosexuals is this: "stop trying to judge my walk." While you are free to condemn others, you hide behind the story of Sodom for your bigotry. Nice.

I'll give you a point on Plane who compared homosexuals to the Nazi youth...at least you did not stoop to that level.

Asked and anwered already.

Certainly asked, but not answered. Are you incapable of a straight answer? Do you believe you are better than Fatman because you aren't gay?

[sirs]

I'm here typing my walk, my faith, and at no time condemning anyone else's walk

Of course you are. Look at the words you've used: You've called homosexuals "immoral"

Close...I've called the ACT of homosexuality, immoral.  And how the hell is that condemning their walk with God??  Lying is also immoral, yet when we catch someone in it, we have no problem making that proclaimation as well.  Love the sinner hate the sin, a very simple concept. 

You see Js, you have the problem of recognizing when another person is simply acting out in a way they've been brought up, in this case a moral Christian upbringing and then judging them as not following their faith properly, because JS (the fella that has a better, more holier interpretation of Christianity apparently) has deemed it so ---> that's called JUDGING another person's walk.  And what I'm "comparing" are acts that are not considered wholesome or "standard", by most in the art of sexuality.  Why they CHOOSE to perform in such ways is their choice alone.  THAt's what the comparison was about, and not some twisted version of trying to compare the acts themselves like apples to apples.  They're not, and was never the reason such a comparison was brought up in the 1st place.  then again, you probably knew that

Certainly asked, but not answered. Are you incapable of a straight answer? Do you believe you are better than Fatman because you aren't gay?

Doesn't even warrant a response, so don't try going there again.  He knows me FAR better than you do

[_JS]

Love the sinner hate the sin, a very simple concept.

A post-modern Protestant construct used to defend the indefensible and almost always used to attack homosexuals. It is nowhere found in the Bible to "love the sinner, hate the sin." Read 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, this is Paul's description of Christian love. Tell me anywhere in there where the notion of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is found?

I notice a great deal of self-proclaimed "Bible-believing" Christians use this coy phrase, but it is not scriptural at all. Find me a scripture verse that says "Christ hates..."

You're correct that the concept is simple. That's why it is popular. Yet, simple doesn't mean right. It certainly doesn't mean Christian.

Sirs, you can call it "judging" if you like...it is semantics with you anyway (most arguments are). You can call me a litany of names if you like, but you're damn straight that I'll stand up against Christ being used for "separate but equal" ever again.

Doesn't even warrant a response, so don't try going there again.  He knows me FAR better than you do

Irrelevant. You can still answer the question. Are you a better person because you aren't gay?

[sirs]

Love the sinner hate the sin, a very simple concept.

A post-modern Protestant construct used to defend the indefensible and almost always used to attack homosexuals.

Except when its not

Doesn't even warrant a response, so don't try going there again.  He knows me FAR better than you do

Irrelevant. You can still answer the question. Are you a better person because you aren't gay?

As I said, doesn't even warrant a response based on how ridiculous a question it is

[_JS]

Have you found "hate this sin, love the sinner" in the scriptures Sirs?

You speak of the Bible as a foundation of morality - where is this ethical law found in the Bible?

[Plane]

I'll give you a point on Plane who compared homosexuals to the Nazi youth...at least you did not stoop to that level.

That isn't a fact about the NATZI Youth?