Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Gay Marriage --Why NOT!

Gay marriage --why not? My son the philos. major says because we are made in the image of God as male and female, with the female designed to complete the male. Obviously, we are designed for heterosexual coupling. there IS something abnormal between the ears when we don't mature past our childhood preference for same sex friends to interest in the opposite sex.

Also, gay marriage and couples out of the closet will confuse children --give them an idea that they have to decide whether they want to be gay or not --ARE gay or not --and they will confuse their normal same sex adorations in childhood with homosexuality. Exploring their sexuality will mean sexual experimentation --with all the risks.

children shouldn't be exposed to the idea of homosexuality --which is why some are home-schooling and really monitoring their tv's.

Also, young people have a lot of self-consciousness, social pain about not being accepted by people of either the same sex, the opposite sex or both. They tend to think something is wrong with them, no matter what. If their peers are calling them fags and dykes they'll be even more unsure of their heterosexual normalcy.

And lonely and miserable people will look for any port in the storm; the gay community is always willing to take them in and convince them they are gay if they are confused on the topic--or tell them to experiment to figure it out.

BESIDES THAT, there are religious prohibitions to homosexual behavior that are VERY clear in both Testaments.

I figure that people are able to have their buttons pushed erotically by any stimulating touch if they are inclined to suspend their inhibitions, their consciences and their self-image and self-respect and seek orgasm any old way --People are also attracted to attractive people for friendship and can be seduced into activities by aggressive others --and the Bible suggests people have indulged with animals as well--and we know of other perversions such as necrophilia and pedophilia.
Any of these behaviors can become addictive when started at puberty --like porn addiction.

AND FOR SURE, MARRIED PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN OFF WITH PEOPLE TO WHOM THEY ARE NOT MARRIED

So temptation to have sex outside hetero marriage has always been with the human race since man's first sin --and we ought not be normalizing any of those temptations and calling them good. As with the Man- Boy Love Ass'n which has been welcomed to march in some gay pride parades.

"In the last days, people will call good evil, and evil, good."

5 comments:

Don said...

Hi, Barb

I responded to you on MySpace, but MySpace acted a bit funny when I hit "send", and I'm not sure if my response reached you. So, I'll partially duplicate my reply to you here.

"My son the philos. major says because we are made in the image of God as male and female, with the female designed to complete the male. Obviously, we are designed for heterosexual coupling."

I majored in philosophy as well. As such, I can't let faulty argumentation go unchallenged.

First, a valid argument consists of premises, which if presumed to be true, lead to a conclusion. True enough, heterosexual sex is undoubtably a legitimate use for male and female sex organs. But, it does not follow from this that male and female sex organs may ONLY be used for those purposes. Penises and vaginas serve both excratory and reproductive functions, as well as providing a source of sexual pleasure. Why can the human anus not also serve a double function, as a means of excretion and a source of sexual pleasure? Certainly, the reproductive aspect is absent, but surely sex is not a purely reproductive act.

Also, I'm confused by the assertion "we are made in the image of God as male and female". Does that mean God used Himself as a blueprint for human design? Is God a dualistic male/female entity? Are human sexual organs in some way related to an aspect of God's nature? Does God have a sexual aspect to His being? Can you clarify the above statement for my benefit?

"Also, gay marriage and couples out of the closet will confuse children"..."children shouldn't be exposed to the idea of homosexuality"

Divorces confuse children, too. Maybe we should ban those, too.

Also, how do you propose preventing children from being "exposed to the idea of homosexuality"? I can only imagine the repressive regime that would be required to achieve such a thing. Should gay people be allowed on television, radio, or the internet? How far would you like government to go to prevent children from being exposed to "the idea of homosexuality"? One place to start might be to delete all references to homosexuality from the Bible.

"Also, young people have a lot of self-consciousness, social pain about not being accepted by people of either the same sex, the opposite sex or both. They tend to think something is wrong with them, no matter what. If their peers are calling them fags and dykes they'll be even more unsure of their heterosexual normalcy."

Maybe the real problem is the "peers calling them fags and dykes". Seems to me that isn't substantively different verbal abuse attacking another person's race, religion, physical appearance, etc. If one student says to another, "hey n*****!!)", is the problem that the target of the comment is African-American? I think not.

"and the Bible suggests people have indulged with animals as well--and we know of other perversions such as necrophilia and pedophilia. "

I don't think that homosexuality deserves to be grouped with these other types of behavior, at least where homosexual acts occur between consenting adults. There are compelling secular arguments against bestiality, pedophelia, and necrophelia. For example, pedophilia should be prohibited, because children cannot give informed consent, and are susceptible to undue influence. Also, pedophilia violates a parent's right to control the activities in which their minor child engages. So, it is certainly not the case that a secular viewpoint means an "anything goes" mentality toward sexual behavior.

This should be a good discussion; I'm looking forward to more.

BTW, I'm composing a post on why the Bible is an inadequate guide to human sexuality. I'll let you know when I'm done.

Barb said...

May you always remain so cordial! Unusual on this topic.

I did not get your post on MySpace.

"Let us make man in our image.....male and female created He them."

I think of the female as "cloned" from Adam's rib --with a tweaking for the sexual difference. Maybe not entirely scientific but maybe not impossible; for now, just my imagination at work.

so yes, the bible does say we are made in the image of God --male and female. So HUMANS bear some resemblance to their Maker. Whether God is male and female, I don't know --He certainly has the attributes of both stereotypes --strong and protective; gentle and nurturing, etc. But is God sexual? He is HE. Jesus said there was no marriage in Heaven --we believe our sexual aspects are two-fold in purpose: God wanted us to 'be fruitful and multiply" " replenish the earth."
Also, "He saw that it was not good for man to be alone" --and so made for man, from man, woman. "And the two became one flesh." He certainly built in a pleasure factor to make sure we would get the job done.

As for excretory and sexual organs:

In fact, anal sex is injurious, harmful to the body, causing fissures and eventual incontinence by weakening of the sphincter muscle. It is also a ready route for disease because of the extremely thin lining of the rectum (one cell thick, I heard) --easily perforated by penetration.
It's got to be painful --and the most unclean of sexual acts.
Carries a strong ycccch factor for me and other normal people who are raised to think that solid excrement is phewey and not something we touch with bare hands --much less our sex organs. You've got to have a problem to want this kind of bodily contact.

Most people have enough trouble having regular elimination and dealing with hemorrhoids; the thought of anal penetration is bizarre and horrifying --at best--to normal folks.

The sad thing is that women are sometimes told that anal penetration by their husbands should be tolerated. I hit the roof when I saw in a gyn's restroom a sign telling women to be sure and require condoms for anal sex as AIDS could be spread that way. I said, at the very least, they should also tell the women that no one should have to undergo such indignity as anal sex in order to love her man. Same with oral sex --not to be tolerated unless the woman wants that. she should never be made to feel that it's a man's right --part of normal sexual love and thus, her duty.

I say our noses should tell us that normal sex is the designed method for intercourse --the kind of sex that procreates. Of course, the pleasure factor is reason enough for married people to do "it." As St. Paul put it, the marriage bed is undefiled. I'm not one who says all sex needs to be for the purpose of procreation only--nor that God would not want us to prevent pregnancy. I figure we have knowledge for timing our pregnancies, out of compassion for wives and kids.

I'm not suggesting any laws regarding what consenting adults do behind closed doors; I'm just saying there's something wrong between the ears (and in the heart) if you want these acts instead of the normal male-female intercourse.

My generation was protected from the idea of homosexuality. It would have confused ME --I ADORED my same sex friends and wanted exclusive "best friend status" with them in the elem. school years. I admired (and envied) many same sex friends as they matured attractively. It never occured to me, however, to think of being a guy to a girl --though I could understand why girls were attractive to guys --and I was ALWAYS attracted to boys and assumed I'd marry one some day -always had a crush. But I think knowledge of gay couples would have been confusing to me. We heard of homosexuality no sooner than jr. high and I'm thinking not until high school. It was just pretty unknown --and then they started to say Thursday was "Queers Day" and if you wore yellow on Thursday, you were queer.
Just one of those kid things. But we knew of no one who was homosexual. I learned later that my father thought one of his co-workers was probably gay --no one treated him badly.

I was well into my 30's before the secular campuses started promoting homosexuality. In fact, we got through the "free love" 60's without any big emphasis on homosex.

There was a lot less homosexuality when it was NOT on tv and not being promoted in schools and print media. That started when my kids (your age) were in high school. Now it's almost a fad --an experimental trend --among teens. And I'm absolutely sure it's not good for them.

It's a misguided effort to help kids deal with their own gayness --when they probably wouldn't even think they WERE gay if it weren't being thrust upon them as an inevitable condition. So they wonder, "Could I be gay?" because of some erotic experience in same sex company or whatever.

there was a couple in my church college that got expelled -- a couple of guys --for sexual activity in the dorm, I assume.
One had a girlfriend.

Seems to me, you don't inevitably HAVE to have a homosexual experience just because you, a guy, find yourself attracted to a guy. JUST AS A PERSON WHO HAS AN EROTIC TURN-ON TO A CHILD OR ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE OR THE FAMILY GOAT ---DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE SEX THAT WAY EITHER. How is homosexuality any different than adultery in being a temptation that a person KNOWS is wrong and should not be entered into?

It isn't any different --it's a temptation to flee. Just because not everyone has the temptation doesn't make the homosexual "special" --any more than the man who is tempted toward adultery. Both are tempted; both are to flee the tempting THOUGHT WHERE IT STARTS --in the head --and never get to the next level. They have a choice at the first thought --to wallow in it, entertain the thought, or not.

It's not genetic, so it's not inevitable. MOre often than not you can look into a child's environment (parental lack, molestation, peer ridicule, sexual identity confusion) or look to his talents, with egotism and rebellion --to see the roots of homosexuality.

About the name calling; an African american is his race and the name calling, while insulting, doesn't make him more black. But calling an effeminate boy a fag can make him wonder if he is indeed homosexual --when he is not intrinsically or inevitably gay.

You said, "...children ... are susceptible to undue influence. Also, pedophilia violates a parent's right to control the activities in which their minor child engages." RIGHT. And giving kids books about heather's 2 Mommies --in our public schools, is undue influence. It violates the parents right to control the influences on and values of their children. It's a liberal's opinion that it's ok for Heather to have 2 lesbisn MOms. And to have tv shows featuring homosexual characters --all this is new within the last 10-20 years or so. Ellen Degenerate was the first wasn't she?

That's not what I want my kids exposed to; it is contrary to my values. And it was NEVER an issue in my growing up years and shouldn't be an influence or issue in our faces today.

I look forward to your response.

Don said...

"In fact, anal sex is injurious, harmful to the body, causing fissures and eventual incontinence by weakening of the sphincter muscle. It is also a ready route for disease because of the extremely thin lining of the rectum (one cell thick, I heard) --easily perforated by penetration.
It's got to be painful --and the most unclean of sexual acts."


Surely, anal sex CAN be painful and injurious. But with adequate lubrication and a careful partner, anal sex is something some men AND women apparently enjoy. It's important to point out how often some people find immense enjoyment in activities others consider dirty or even dangerous. For instance, I've seen rodeo riding on television, and I think a person has to be crazy to want to do that. Yet, many people will chance a broken neck or a vicious trampling to participate in that activity. In much the same way, some people are willing to endure the negatives of anal sex to experience the pleasure it provides for them. I'll readily concede that anal sex is less sanitary than the vaginal variety, but that is not sufficient to render anal sex immoral.

I might also add that vaginal intercourse can be very uncomfortable for a woman, in absence of sufficient lubrication (natural or otherwise). Also, an uncaring partner can make intercourse unpleasant for a woman.

"Carries a strong ycccch factor for me and other normal people who are raised to think that solid excrement is phewey and not something we touch with bare hands --much less our sex organs. You've got to have a problem to want this kind of bodily contact."

Here, I think we're getting close to the point. I don't expect you to change your personal views regarding sexual mores. But, I would like you to consider the wide range of views on sexuality that exist throughout the world. EVERYBODY has a "yuck" factor. You, I, everyone. There are people with much more restrictive views than yourself, engaging in sex only for reproductive purposes, or avoiding sexual contact altogether. In some social contexts, women don't really have much say in where, when and how they have sex. Would you want to be forced to live under such a regime?

I'd like you to also consider an important distinction, which is essential to understanding a "liberal" (really, libertarian) social perspective. On one hand, there are activities of others that infringe on your (or my) rights. On the other hand, there are activities of others that merely offend your (or my) sensibilities. I submit to you that homosexual activity is of the second variety -- an offense to your sensibilities.

The cornerstone of a free society is a willingness to tolerate other's experiments in living. What we get in exchange is the opportunity to live our own lives as we see fit. Barb, I understand how strongly you hold your views regarding homosexuality, and I don't expect you to change your personal views. But don't forget that you have led a life in which you have been able to worship, raise a family, and have sexual relations as you saw fit with a mate of your choosing. As a point of history, this is a remarkably high level of freedom for a woman. Even today, unfortunately, not all women have such liberty. With that in mind, I ask you not to LIKE homosexuality, but to make an effort to tolerate the offense for the sake of the liberty you yourself have had the opportunity to enjoy.

By all means, you should continue to openly express you views regarding homosexuality, and you should never hesitate to attempt to pursuade others that homosexuality is an offense to God, if that is what you believe to be true. However, I think we would all do well to remember that tolerating behavior we find offensive is part of the cost of living in a free society.

"I'm not suggesting any laws regarding what consenting adults do behind closed doors"

I'm glad to hear you say so. You know, if you made this more clear in your postings, I think you'd be better received over at "Mudville". There's a big difference between having a set of values you hold and live by, and attempting to police the behavior of others. I think it is generally assumed that you fall into the latter category, as well as the former. If that is not how you want others to interpret your viewpoint, you may want to consider reframing your message.

"I was well into my 30's before the secular campuses started promoting homosexuality"

Isn't there a difference between "promoting" homosexuality and promoting tolerance of homosexuals? The fact is, homosexuals have been part of human society as far back as history allows us to see. They're here now, and will be in the future. They are in every level of society, in every profession. It's not some liberal conspiracy. Homosexuals existed thousands of years before the New Deal. There are powerful gays in the Republican party. And, have you ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? If not, you should (talk about a "gay agenda").

I'd like you to consider the possibility that schools may discuss homosexuality not to turn kids gay, or to confuse kids, but to EDUCATE kids. There's a big difference between teaching that homosexuality exists, and some people live homosexual lives, and trying to convert children into the gays of tomorrow.

I learned in social studies that Hindus won't eat cows, and people eat dog in Viet Nam. I learned those facts, but my eating habits didn't change. In much the same way, I seriously doubt that public schoolteachers can influence who their students fall in love with. Did you have such incredible powers as a schoolteacher? Cupid's on the phone...he wants his bow and arrows back.

"There was a lot less homosexuality when it was NOT on tv and not being promoted in schools and print media."

Got some numbers for me? Maybe there was a similar percentage of homosexuals, but they just weren't as visible.

Now it's almost a fad --an experimental trend --among teens. And I'm absolutely sure it's not good for them.

As a parent, I share your concern for protecting kids from bad influences and harmful behaviors. But I have to repeat my question from above: What type of social regime are you willing to impose to "protect" kids from "the idea of homosexuality"? How can we do that without serious restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and other core liberties? What would you like to be done?

Remember, you raised four kids. Did they turn out OK? Good Christian values and what-not? Think of all the negative influences you managed to steer them clear of. There were gays then, too, right? Violence on TV? Fast food?

I think the best thing we can do is try to prepare our kids to be good consumers of information, and understand that decisions carry consequences. That is a more realistic goal than trying to create some social veil to hide gays from public view.

BTW, I've got a question, to help me better understand your position:

Do you believe that ANY person is just...gay? Or do you view ALL homosexuality as some sort of self-delusion?

Barb said...

I'm in a rush today -so a quick answer --yes, I do think people who are fixated on same-sex attraction were NOT intrinsically or inevitably gay --but damaged--misled--untaught--unprotected--seduced, molested, unfathered, etc. and that they also misconstrued initial erotic feeling about their own bodies and an admiration and envy for people of the same sex --as entirely abnormal --rather than a temptation to NOT re-visit.

There are many aberrant behaviors which are sins --and all must be resisted. We don't celebrate (so far) pedophilia (except the Man Boy love assn' does) -- we don't celebrate ANY other behavior labeled as SIN by the Bible --except homosex.

All your defense of anal sex --doesn't cut it with me. There is no reason for it --and so God forbade it --it is counter to his design. That it could be pleasurable for the receiving end --I doubt. It is unseemly, stinky behavior. I don't think God intended pleasure by that route -or He would've designed the aperture to be more hardy.

YOu are designed to be a unit with a woman --one flesh with a woman --not a man.

His word clearly states that He LOATHES this method of coupling and forbids it.

Romans 1:18-32 --the best passage.

The problem with Log Cabin Republicans and others like them is that they DO want to be out of the closet. I'm not for going into the closet to persecute them unless they take my boys in there with them. Then I would be one mad Mama. And of course, they are indiscriminate in their attractions to heteros or gays --they used to get on talk shows and brag that they could make any man have homosexual craving for their activities. So because they have publically stated --and written such things --I prefer they stay in the closet and find others who already think like they do. But give the youth of America a chance to be normal and leave them out of their mental mess.

Don said...

"we don't celebrate ANY other behavior labeled as SIN by the Bible"-- except homosex

Really, Barb, we both know this isn't true. In this market-driven economy, ALL types of biblically sinful behavior are either encouraged or glorified. How many films, television programs or advertisements glorify heterosexual sex out of wedlock, drunkenness, drug use, coveting material goods, profligacy, laziness, and on and on. Often, this is done to advance the cause of corporate profit. So let’s not pretend that homosexuality is some special class of sin that gets some preferred treatment in the media. I don’t know what TV channels you watch, but I see heterosexual adultery peddled way more in the media.

“All your defense of anal sex --doesn't cut it with me. There is no reason for it…”

On YOUR view, there is no reason for it. Your speculations about the unpleasantness of anal sex are probably of little consequence to those who enjoy it. Do you care if some atheist thinks that there is no good reason for religion, and religion is harmful to society? Of course you don’t. All over the world, people hold beliefs and engage in activities that other people find pointless, dangerous, or repellent. Anal sex is one of those things, like how people eat dogs in Vietnam. No matter how odd it seems to us, that’s what they do. By the way, which is less appealing -- anal sex, or eating a beagle for Sunday dinner?

I feel the need to clarify what I've been attempting to do here. Again, I do not seek for you to abandon your views on homosexuality, or convince you to experiment with anal sex, or anything like that. What I am trying to do is point out that your objections to homosexual behavior fall into two categories. First, objections based on your religious views. Second, objections based on, as you call it, the “yuck” factor. While your religious views and your own personal inclinations are a sufficient basis for you to make decisions about how YOU ought to live, I am not convinced that those reasons are sufficient to restrain the conduct of others.

What ultimately concerns me is not your personal distaste for homosexual activity, but what policies you’re willing to advance to oppose it. I appreciate the answers you’ve given to some of my questions, but others you seem to be avoiding, so I’ll try again:

To your credit, you say that we should not have laws restricting the sexual behavior of consenting adults behind closed doors. I agree. But, what type of social regime are you willing to impose to "protect" kids from "the idea of homosexuality"? How can we do that without serious restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and other core liberties? What would you like to be done about homosexuality?

"But give the youth of America a chance to be normal and leave them out of their mental mess."

I agree. But you can't shake a stick around here without hitting a gay Republican. It's even worse in D.C., with gay Republicans going after our kids. Ken Mehlman, RNC chairman...gay!! Are you gonna keep these Log Cabineers on a short leash, or what?

But seriously, have a good rest of your weekend. I promised myself, no internet tomorrow. Too much schoolwork.

Hey, and you're leaving me hanging on the NSA wiretapping thread...