The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda

[dbohm]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to Clownboat]

My wife and I can have no more kids. Should I remain married to her in your opinion? If so, why?

shnarkle: I think it would be better that you stay together. Depending on what your beliefs are might have something to do with why. Marriage is about bringing families together. Building and strengthening families contributes to a stronger family, which builds a stronger society as well. Just because one can no longer have children shouldn't be a grounds for divorce as children need parents to raise them.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 149 by Danmark]

The thread really should be called "The vitriol of the Anti Gay Agenda."
I drafted a new topic to the effect once, and tanked it, because there's enough talk about this already.

I'm ashamed to admit there was a time when I had some of these same anti gay thoughts and emotions. I'm a child of the 50's after all. But one day I realized these feelings were hurting no one but ME and I sought to be liberated from them. What a relief! I can only wish that others who struggle with this burden of animosity [or whatever you want to call it] would realize they do not have to carry this load.

One of the very best things our LGBT friends can do is to simply be accessible, be friendly, make friends. That is what helped me; getting to know people as friends first, and only later realizing they had a different orientation than I did.

I believe it is also the duty of 'straight' folk to speak out on this issue.

shnarkle: I agree. I think it is also important for people to know that just because someone may point out that a behavior doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it doesn't mean that they are anti-gay.

[KCKID]

The thread really should be called "The vitriol of the Anti Gay Agenda."
I drafted a new topic to the effect once, and tanked it, because there's enough talk about this already.

I'm ashamed to admit there was a time when I had some of these same anti gay thoughts and emotions. I'm a child of the 50's after all. But one day I realized these feelings were hurting no one but ME and I sought to be liberated from them. What a relief! I can only wish that others who struggle with this burden of animosity [or whatever you want to call it] would realize they do not have to carry this load.

One of the very best things our LGBT friends can do is to simply be accessible, be friendly, make friends. That is what helped me; getting to know people as friends first, and only later realizing they had a different orientation than I did.

I believe it is also the duty of 'straight' folk to speak out on this issue.

I agree. I think it is also important for people to know that just because someone may point out that a behavior doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it doesn't mean that they are anti-gay.

Of course it does. What else would it mean? What is the 'behavior' of gay people that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to a straight person? Is it the 'non-productive' intimacy of gays that irks a straight person? If so, why? Straight people participate in 'non-productive' intimacy all the time, so ...what's the difference? No such 'explanation' by straight people as to why they are against gay intimacy makes any sense to me. Intimacy is intimacy and very much a personal thing. And, it need not result in procreation to be effective. How many more babies does the world need anyway?

[KCKID]

It probably should be pointed out that homosexuals exhibit a vast array of "lifestyles", just as heterosexuals do. Personally I don't care whether someone is labeled a homophobe or not and it's not generally a term that I would tend to use myself. What matters is whether or not one can justify what appears to be their advocation of the mistreatment of a certain stigmatized group of people based upon nothing more than their culturally or religiously conditioned perception of morality.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 149 by Danmark]

The thread really should be called "The vitriol of the Anti Gay Agenda."
I drafted a new topic to the effect once, and tanked it, because there's enough talk about this already.

I'm ashamed to admit there was a time when I had some of these same anti gay thoughts and emotions. I'm a child of the 50's after all. But one day I realized these feelings were hurting no one but ME and I sought to be liberated from them. What a relief! I can only wish that others who struggle with this burden of animosity [or whatever you want to call it] would realize they do not have to carry this load.

One of the very best things our LGBT friends can do is to simply be accessible, be friendly, make friends. That is what helped me; getting to know people as friends first, and only later realizing they had a different orientation than I did.

I believe it is also the duty of 'straight' folk to speak out on this issue.

shnarkle: I agree. I think it is also important for people to know that just because someone may point out that a behavior doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it doesn't mean that they are anti-gay.

Like jumping out of a perfectly good aeroplane at 10,000ft doesn't make a lot of sense. That doesn't make me anti skydiving.
But some people are anti gay marriage because it will destroy marriage. I wonder if those people who's marriage will be destroyed by same sex marriage should have ever gotten married in the first place?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to KCKID]

kckid posted:

Of course it does. What else would it mean?

shnarkle: It means one can respectfully disagree. It means exactly what it says. Just because a person does something that doesn't make a lot of sense doesn't mean that they're behavior warrants hatred or abuse, and some can easily make the observation without any animosity or hatred whatsoever.
-------------------------------
kckid posted:

What is the 'behavior' of gay people that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to a straight person?

shnakrle:It isn't in reference to gay or straight people necessarily. It's the behavior istself that is in question regardless of one's sexual orientation. One doesn't have to be straight to see that something doesn't make sense. The behavior that doesn't make sense is sodomy within the context of marriage, and especially within the context of the purpose of Christian marriage.
-----------------------------
kcid posted:

Is it the 'non-productive' intimacy of gays that irks a straight person?

shnarkle: Perhaps, I don't know what irks people. For me personally, it isn't a gay vs. straight issue in the first place. I'm not saying that there aren't people who see it that way, it just isn't that way for me. For me it boils down to purpose, and when people feel the need to redefine the meaning of words to get their way, there's something wrong. Shifting the context of marriage to mean something completely different doesn't give homosexuals equality or the same rights as heterosexuals, it just makes marriage meaningless. The historical purpose of marriage was never to allow people to show how much they love each other. One could and still can do that without getting married. Plenty of straight people are going that route all the time. It was to form familial alliances which strengthened families and society as a whole. Governments felt that they had a vested interest in fostering this so they regulate it with licenses, etc. While I see the reasoning behind this, I don't necessarily agree with it or that is has had all that much of a benefit to society as a whole other than creating another revenue stream and source of control for the government. If there was no government intervention in the first place there would be nothing to prevent homosexuals from having their own "marriages". Actually, even with government intervention, there's really nothing to prevent homosexuals from having their own "marriages".

Again what I mean by purpose is that marriage points to growing families through reproduction. The word comes from a Latin word that means "to impregnate". This is the essential purpose of marriage. Homosexuals aren't looking for the right to reproduce in the first place so there is no reason to change the meaning of marriage to suit their own personal purposes whatever they are. It makes about as much sense as making a whole system of laws to suit the particular need of anyone who wants to redefine words. What about the transgendered, or the male lesbian? Do we need laws to allow the man that's trapped in a woman's body to marry a woman? Since we're going to redefine words what's to stop us from redefining homosexual to include heterosexual people as well? There's even a term for it today. It's called situational homosexuality, i.e. people who engage in homosexual behavior, but aren't homosexuals.

[shnarkle]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 181#627181] I think it is also important for people to know that just because someone may point out that a behavior doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it doesn't mean that they are anti-gay.

Like jumping out of a perfectly good aeroplane at 10,000ft doesn't make a lot of sense. That doesn't make me anti skydiving.
But some people are anti gay marriage because it will destroy marriage. I wonder if those people who's marriage will be destroyed by same sex marriage should have ever gotten married in the first place?

shnarkle: Good point! I think what you're saying speaks to the fact that the phenomenon of gay marriage isn't happening because heterosexual marriages are healthy, but perhaps as a result of the fact that over half of all heterosexual marriages are a disaster. One might even look at it as a necessary consequence.

[Danmark]

shnarkle: Good point! I think what you're saying speaks to the fact that the phenomenon of gay marriage isn't happening because heterosexual marriages are healthy, but perhaps as a result of the fact that over half of all heterosexual marriages are a disaster. One might even look at it as a necessary consequence.

I fail to see how heterosexual marriage, or the current status of it whether good or bad, has anything to do with same sex marriage. I assume that same sex marriages occur for the same reasons opposite sex marriages occur.

[KCKID]

While perhaps more a Current Affair item I present the below news article on this present 'gay themed' thread since it is relative to the subject. It's things such as this, i.e. absurdities from those that should know better, that might lead to vitriol from pro-gay supporters. How do some of the Christians on the forum feel about news articles such as this one?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/20860008 ... or-floods/

[Danmark]

While perhaps more a Current Affair item I present the below news article on this present 'gay themed' thread since it is relative to the subject. It's things such as this, i.e. absurdities from those that should know better, that might lead to vitriol from pro-gay supporters. How do some of the Christians on the forum feel about news articles such as this one?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/20860008 ... or-floods/

Amusing, but unfortunately typical of too many television evangelists. BTW, the OP never demonstrated 'The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda.' The vitriol of the anti gay 'agenda' has been demonstrated conclusively. This article as another example of it.