R: Actually, that’s exactly what I want my daughter to learn. We talk to her about the same-sex couples we know and explain that they love one another just like Mommy and Daddy do. If the schools reinforce that, so much the better.
And I wrote to him: Don’t be surprised if your daughter says she wants to marry her best girlfriend. you’ve given her license –and that leads to imagination –confusion–the idea that she can choose to be with either men or women. I wish I could talk with you in 20 years! or sooner.
I LOVED my girlfriends as a child –I liked (and envied) the pretty ones. I wanted to be pretty like they were. If I were popular with them, perhaps it meant I was LIKE them. I was jealous if my friend were also good friends with another girl –if she seemed to prefer her over me. And I observe this same phenomena in my CLC girls. If someone had read And Tango Makes Three to me in the 3rd grade, and suggested two girls could marry like mommy and daddy, I might’ve concluded that I was “different" and wanted to marry my best friend. But I never heard of homosexuality–and I always wanted to be Snow White to some Prince Charming some day. Thank God for fairy tales and that I knew I was the princess! I always had a crush on some guy or other.
So maybe a teacher would read me a book on bisexuality! Then I might say, "That’s what I am,” Because what the heck do kids know except what they are taught and what they experience!? They are by definition IMMATURE –this is NO time to suggest to them “You might be “different” –i.e. homosexual–or bisexual. Experiment and decide. It’s OK as long as you use protection. All ways of being sexual are equal.”
SPARE ME SUCH TEACHERS!!! and such parents raising my children’s friends! This is one reason why parents are home-schooling and choosing any schools but public. The more the responsible people hear about these abuses of parental trust in public ed, and the crazy liberal parents raising our children's classmates, the less likely they'll want to pass levies or entrust their kids to an institution that thinks its job is to erode faith and traditional morality in our kids.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
38 comments:
It works in reverse too, Barb.
I am a gay male, had no real name for my attractions while in elementary school and later years. Most of my closest friends were female during those years, so you'd imagine, based on your own experiences, I'd spent most of the time imagining that I would marry them one day. And guess what? That would have been affirmed by society (the prince charming and the princess) and all I knew.
Except it didn't change, even in that vacuum, I saw myself with a prince and couldn't fathom why. I would have loved even a little clarity during that time, something to dispel the confusion, especially when to tell any of my friends (because they obviously knew nothing about gays either) would have led to me being beat up and teased.
You've already chosen a side, though. To you, the two or three gay children in the school might as well never be told gay people exist if it saves one straight child wondering if they're attracted to their similar-sexed best friend, or it saves them a period of whimsical imagination of being two princesses (as if children couldn't possibly mature, where their imaginary friends and worlds accompany them to adulthood, and their parents always remain the strongest and most intelligent people in the world).
I think most of this stems from a strong fear of children being gay, in that fallacious way we think it's indoctrinated or taught from the environment (James Dobson has no evidence to support that thesis, by the way).
The blogger you are dialoguing with I imagine wouldn't have trouble with his daughter eventually being attracted to women (or even a phase of saying she wants to marry her best friend). You would, and that's the principal difference.
I'd really like to talk with a male homosexual in a friendly, candid conversation--off line or on--but probably off line or in person in order to get real candor.
I'd like to know if you have GID, e.g. You identified with the princess and her perspective. Why do you think girls were your closet friends? What were mom and dad like with each other and with you? HOW did you feel different as a child from other boys?
I doubt that blogger would really be happy about his daughter choosing to be with a woman.
Personally, I don't care if my daughter grows up to marry a woman or if my son grows up to marry a man.
Consenting adults can make mature decisions about their lives. All people who choose to marry are entitled to the same rights.
The Bible says all our sin deserves death and we are all under a death/mortality penalty for which we were not created. Homosexuality is listed with other sins and very explicitly described by St. Paul to the Christians in ancient Rome, 2000 years ago.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion....
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done....
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
that's where we are today, as witnessed by these letters -- we are knocking ourselves out to excuse and condone human sin which starts in the head with the will and the imagination --with how we think.
We are calling evil, good, instead of resisting it.
I don't respect the Bible as having any sort of authority in morality or law.
It's a very old collection of man-made stories and precepts that has no relevance today.
So, whatever the Bible says is nice for you, but it has no rightful place in today's public policies. Avoid whatever "sins" you feel you need to, but let other have their entitled rights.
Mudrake, here's the deal. Open your blog to me --or you are out of here. It's all about reciprocity. The content of your comments here doesn't make you look particularly smart for your OWN good, so I suggest you buzz off - unless you want to open your blog to dissenting opinion from me.
I really appreciate a discussion --a debate with divergent views. I don't really need you coming over with your school yard insults --if you don't have free speech at your blog. I will still have it here --but not for you.
Boy, that felt good!
Larry, I understand where you are coming from.
There are still lots of other issues for the public good regarding the redefinition of marriage as any 2 consenting adults making a commitment. The objections aren't all religion-based, you know.
However, I was just reading some Jewish prophecy this morning --in Zephaniah --and it sounds to me like our God of righteousness will eventually lose patience with the human race who continue to re-define good and evil as they wish -- who can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to morality --who are like "the fool [who] hath said in his heart, there is no God."
Zephaniah suggested time would eventually run out for planet earth because of man's rebellion --it speaks of Jerusalem and Gaza being destroyed for not heeding God.
AND because of their cruelty and violence on the earth --and other wicked ways.
How can God lose patience? #1, He is omnipotent, so he knew before hand how things would, will turn out - so whatever emotion God felt about human wickedness, he felt at the point of creation. #2 God is immutable, so God cannot change - changing opinions and emotions would imply a dynamic changing deity.. which would further imply a diety that reacts to events rather than creates the events, or creates the conditions of the pre-ordained "plan" / conditions to unfold - therefore a deity that is not immutable... Logic would dictate...
II Peter 3:9 "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
God is patient but is wrathful about our willful sin and unbelief --so if a nation is violent and morally debauched, there is an end to the patience. Jesus says so. Lots of warnings from His mouth. There is wrath and punishment. We can call all the natural disasters "just natural"--accidents of our smoothly running earth--but they may indeed be wake-up calls. He destroyed cities for both their cruelty and their sodomy.
What should be done with a serial rapist/murderer --as the one in Reno --the Ted Bundys of the world --the Jeffrey Dahmers --who fantasize about and commit unspeakable cruelties without mercy on their victims?
There is a time and place for wrathful punishment. And some of it may be to bring us to our knees --back to HOPE that HE exists and can help us.
"The objections aren't all religion-based, you know."
I wonder if you would give them because it's impossible to hold dialogue otherwise.
If I understand you correctly, you believe the Bible should hold some sway in crafting U.S. law and public policy. I believe the Bible should have no influence whatsoever.
We can stand at these two poles indefinitely, but if we want to resolve the matter we'll have to find common ground.
Now, I argued that from the idea that 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry without prejudice. You seemed to agree with this. So the scales seem tipped to my side of the argument.
I would also suggest that American law does not recognize biblical law as an overwhelming authority because if such recognition were given, then the courts would not only have to entertain the legal authority of other religious holy texts, but they would also have to adjudicate between different translations and interpretations of the Bible. So, again, the scales tip to my side of the argument because biblical verses cannot trump civil rights.
What, then, is the argument (or are the arguments) that go to your side?
It's amazing what an obsession I am to Mudrake on his holiday.It's rather flattering actually.
I guess he thinks I'm a force to be reckoned with --with my world-wide blog audience. HA !
Hi J, we have had beautiful weather until this am --and it's clearing up again.
My mom has been a character about her bedroom accommodations on the hot porch --she loves heat --but insisted it would be too cold on the porch and how come she always gets the porch! Our cottage doesn't accommodate all the grandmothers as well as they would like.
Great swimming.
I'm using son's computer --picking up someone else's connection here I guess.
we found a journal i kept on the girls in 1975 when they were babies. Very fun! My kids have such fun together --in their 30's -all still young at heart.
Larry Tanner --secular arguments for not making gay marriage legal:
It's accommodating mental delusion to say that it's just as "normal" or "positive" for same sex couples to be recognized same as hetero in the law.
There are other arrangements for accommodating a gay partner in the law --wills, etc. There is no real economic reason to add polygamous and gay partners to beneficiaries by law of the benefits of hetero marriage.
Why? Only heteros can give us children for the future by economic means (that is, if gays are ever able to bear children with each other, it will be at great waste of scientific resources and public monies because we can make children by natural means so much more readily according to our bio-design.)
We need children for national defense, sustaining social security, people to look out for their elderly relatives, for that unit known as family. Children fare best with both a functional dad and mom --there are things each sex brings to the conception and parenting of children that same sex couples can't provide.
I've read of studies where children of gay couples are more sexually active and experimental at earlier ages than those of a stable male/female parented home.They will have more license to "explore their sexuality" at their own considerable risk --health wise and emotionally. Poverty attends the promiscuous and their children --with gov't dependency.
You can take an objective look at history and even the present and see that people who are moral in the traditional sense have a leg up on the rest of the world. Why should gov't try to "normalize" homosexual relationsw --thinking they can slow down the STD rate in the lifestyle of gay men if they just encourage them to marry. Most homosexuals don't get into 'the lifestyle" without extreme promiscuity--an average of 40 partners in a lifetime and at least one occurence of sex with a stranger. Earlier figures self-reported by homosexuals were higher than that --more like 2 sexual encounters a week on average for those who can find the gay population of their community.
Children don't need the confusion of the gay life role modeled for them. I believe in their innocense it would not occur to them to be gay --except for influences from others. Boys and girls are taught about the various uses of bodily parts and it is only self-indulgence in the mind and in deed or molestation, etc. that would incline children to get into sexual promiscuity in ways that violate early teaching about cleanliness and modesty and the normalcy and romantic ideal of growing up to become mommies or daddies with a member of the opposite sex.
Culture led by media and education are promoting homosexuality to our youth and the broken hetero families are ill-equipped to prevent gender identity disorder and perverse ideas of intimacy. Nothing gays can do is "normal" or non-perverse for same sex people to do together.
Denis Eble of Toledo, OH --you can quit posting here now --since you are unwilling to open your blog to people with my views.
Denis Eble is a former disgruntled teacher where I was on the school board for 8 years --when we laid the groundwork for our school system to be one of the top systems in the state.
People on the board groaned whenever he got a Blade letter published --"That nut!" he was called by one administrator.
Still want to keep publishing here, Mudrake? because I can scan in your yearbook picture.
A fine letter on this topic --to our local paper --which letter and author seem to be of obsessive interest to Denis Eble who prints it here often.
Moral people will flee temptation
Gen. Peter Pace spoke for millions worldwide when he said homosexual acts are immoral like adultery. Why? Because both are temptations that ought to be resisted at the first thought. Moral people flee temptation. (No, Oprah and Montel, homosexuality is not genetic or inevitable.)
I read that 16 universities offer co-ed dorm rooms and anyone may sign up for them, not just dating couples, but strangers. Some rooms practically had revolving doors with people frequently changing roommates for current girl/boyfriends. This is as crazy as the co-ed bathroom phenomenon.
We who object to co-ed rooms in colleges also object to out-of-closet gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders (the GLBTs) in barracks and military bathrooms. It is simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.
Just as a moral and responsible father wouldn't want his daughter to share a dorm room with a man who would naturally and likely be tempted to jump into bed with her, he also wouldn't want his son to have to share quarters with anyone (male or female) who is tempted to jump into bed with him.
So why not let the GLBTs all room together in the military? Because they are sexually attracted and tempted by each other, of course. It's unnatural to expect to throw attracted young people together in intimate quarters without an eventual breach in moral conduct.
With that breach comes tremendous risk for emotional trauma, pregnancy, disease, jealousy, fights, break-ups, infidelity to spouses and sweethearts back home - all the traditional harms of immorality not conducive to troop morale and cohesiveness.
General Pace should stick by his guns, and the liberal media should get real and withdraw theirs.
Barb,
Send off a quick email to me and let me know how you are. It's my name @comporium.net.
I think you know how the name is arranged with the last name.
Furthermore, raising children is a lot of time and expense --and heteros deserve any perks available for those who conceive, bear, raise and educate their children and adopt others into male-female headed homes. ALl the social measurements show that the intact parents, one female and one male,
of children give those children advantage over most others --exceptions exist of course.
According to reports, Rosie O Donnel's son at 5 or so said he wanted a dad --and she told him that was just too bad, he had two moms and no dad --and that's the way it is. And now he's been put through a divorce of his two moms. It will be interesting and probably sad to see what his wealthy but abnormal weird upbringing does to him.
Money isn't everything. We're told that gay couples should adopt if they can afford to give poor children "a better life." depends on the definition of "better" I'd say.
The infamous "pregnant man" (really a biological woman transgendering to be a male, who recently had a baby while legally married as a transgender to a woman), was raised by her dad and brothers after her mother died --and this former beauty contestant never felt affirmed in her femininity --surrounded by men. She knew their mannerisms and their interests --and shared them --having no mother during critical years of development. That's what's happening to our boys in single parent homes raised by women--or in homes where the men are uninvolved with a son --workaholics perhaps --sexual gender confusion.
Don't accommodate it with parades and laws --discourage it and help them identify with their bodies as normal males and females when they are young. Religious teaching does help --though granted, some kids become gay in religious households --but I think they are less apt to go that way when both fathers and mothers see the danger and take precautions to cultivate contentment with one's gender assignment.
Denis Eble --what is your problem? I'm not TRYING to post at your blog --yet, you are fascinated with me, it seems.
Are you hoping some gay readers here will find their way to you? Is there something you haven't told your wife? What IS wrong?
Barb -- I thank you for your opinions. No surprise: I disagree with you strongly on many fronts, too many to cover in a little comment.
I can't speak for the studies you have heard of and so forth, but it sounds to me like you have been getting information from sources that share your discomfort with homosexuality.
To me, however, the crux of the matter with same-sex matter is this: it's a case where the law clearly should be applied equally and yet is not because "traditional values" have yet to be expanded to include it.
However, I think it's undeniable that the legal and moral direction of our global society is tending toward the recognition of same-sex marriage. I personally think this is a good thing, and I am genuinely surprised that people would oppose it.
I certainly get many of my opinions from my own observations and thinking. I am able to find research that supports my view --but I don't need it.
We were reading in science today --to my home-schooled grandsons --about the polarity of electrons in electricity --how opposites attract. That's the natural attraction.
I feel pretty certain that there are 2 kinds of homosexuals --those with gender identity disorder who attract to their same sex because they think like their opposite sex parent for reasons in the home --and then there are those who have simply gotten into same-sex activity and find it's easier than maturing to deal with the opposite sex. Perhaps they never felt successful with the opposite sex --which isn't true of all gays of course. I think there are many roads that lead to Rome --or Sodom. Self-centered hedonism is one.
In any case, there is no reason in law or constitution to REDEFINE marriage to mean any number and combination of creatures who want to have orgasms together. Religion is only ONE facet standing in their way. History, tradition, biology and common sense back the traditional definition. Homosexuality short-circuits our potential.
Most of the states have voted to keep the definition the same --but a minority of liberals on the court may prevail -and I do believe it will bring disaster to the US.
"We were reading in science today --to my home-schooled grandsons --about the polarity of electrons in electricity --how opposites attract. That's the natural attraction."
But people and other life forms are different than electrons. If you're a fan of nature, then you'll know that homosexual relationships are quite prevalent throughout the natural world. Nature also exhibits several different kinds of reproductive models.
"I feel pretty certain that there are 2 kinds of homosexuals --those with gender identity disorder who attract to their same sex because they think like their opposite sex parent for reasons in the home --and then there are those who have simply gotten into same-sex activity and find it's easier than maturing to deal with the opposite sex."
Although you are entitled to form any opinion you like on the matter, I do not see that yours is an informed opinion. You are not citing any current psychological or sociological research. Yours seems to be an opinion you developed because the the idea of homosexual sex seems yucky to you. If I am correct about this, then I think yours would qualify as a bigoted opinion.
"In any case, there is no reason in law or constitution to REDEFINE marriage to mean any number and combination of creatures who want to have orgasms together."
Why not? The word "marriage" was defined at some point in the history of the English language. Words get coined, defined, and re-defined all the time--that's how language works!
You seem to want a special case made for this one word, "marriage," to mean only what you would like it to mean. I'm sorry, but life does not work that way.
"Most of the states have voted to keep the definition the same --but a minority of liberals on the court may prevail -and I do believe it will bring disaster to the US."
I don't think that voters should be able to vote to refuse civil rights of others. You make this a liberal-conservative issue when it's a civil rights issue. It's a matter that belongs squarely in the realm of law and ethics.
Forgive me for "school-marming" you, but I would really suggest that you look past political parties and affiliations and investigate the legal opinions of the judges. Besides, can't we all do without hyper-partisanship? I'm tired of that, aren't you?
I sure do recall who wrote it, Denis. A fine thinker, that one!
Now, why do you come to my blog, I wonder? You say I have no readers. So what's your point? If you really want to communicate with me, why don't you open YOUR blog to MY comments?
I have practiced the Golden Rule letting you comment here --but since the comments have not been constructive or serious in attempt to engage me on any topic, I regard you as a troll to be deleted.
If you're a fan of nature, then you'll know that homosexual relationships are quite prevalent throughout the natural world. Nature also exhibits several different kinds of reproductive models.
Not THAT prevalent --and what DO they do together, these animals, I wonder? I can see them getting themselves into the wrong orifice --i knew a really dumb dog once.
As I've noted before --some will "hump" your leg. So the naturalness of perversion doesn't make it any less perverse.
Yes, there are different models of procreation in nature --but those models are natural to the creatures involved because they ARE the method of procreation--according to God's design. If 2 males naturally procreated, we wouldn't find it perverse. It's perverse because it is NOT the way for humans to have sex and procreate. It's a poor substitute method for the simple end goal of orgasm. That doesn't qualify it as "marriage" or as a sex act on a par with reproductive bio-sex. (And I don't mean the end result has to be pregnancy or the desire to be pregnant in order to have sex. Eve was designed and made as a complement for Adam and the intimacy and "knowing" between a male and female, the one flesh union of husband and wife, is right and proper --other "knowings" are not.)
Anal sodomy is simply not healthy and it's very common to homosexual males and the cause for much disease --since the back door is for waste elimination only --not sex.
I can find you any number of PhD's and psychologists and MD's and philosophers and authors who can explain in fancier terminology why homosexuals should not consider their pairings on a par with heterosexual marriage.
But I'm too busy. Go to NARTH. It's impressive there.
Dennis Eble, aka Mudrake and Liberal Democrat, of course I wrote the "very fine letter" to the Blade --glad to own it. If you want your real identity erased from my blog, stop posting other people's.
A lot of bloggers use their whole name --and I'm not afraid of doing that either --except that there are very hateful, volatile people on the left --who express sentiments like your own --and I think they (you) could be dangerous.
You let it be known early on that you knew me and where i lived and worshiped --what kind of nut uses those kinds of not-so-subtle intimidation tactics?
Fortunately, I ALSO know where YOU live and go through fake rituals of faith and worship as an atheist. And a lot of my friends and relatives do, too, --just in case anything weird should ever happen to me that could be traced to my views on the internet.
Go away --unless you open your blog to dissenting opinions-- namely mine.
You are the biggest blog hypocrite ever, trolling at other blogs while closing your own.
Let it be known here, to any who read, that olive branches have been offered to Mudrake, Denis, often. He refuses to "agree to disagree" in a civil, mutually respectful manner. I can do that. He refuses to do that.
I'm re-posting this without the link to Mudrake's blog. He likes to get readers from my blog, I suspect.
Blogger mud_rake said...
Wow!! 27 comments and all but 8 are from Barb. Rather obsessive, but then, untreated OCD leads to spinning one's wheels endlessly as well as the compulsion to constantly attend to the need to 'put out the fires' that burn in the psyche.
There are, in fact, much literature on this as well as various treatments for religious OCD.
It must be a terrible affliction- one that causes the patient to loose touch with the real world. It must be like living in a bad dream from which one cannot escape.
There are several interesting articles on the web about religious OCD. Here is an article that points out the difference between regular OCD and religious OCD. it begins:
What is the difference between general OCD and a religious OCD? I would define the differentiating factor thus: A sufferer of general OCD is usually aware of the inappropriateness and strangeness of their actions, as well as their unreasonable nature but continues to engage in such actions because of the overwhelming mental anxiety brought about by the mental obsessions.
A sufferer of religious OCD is generally not aware of the inappropriateness and strangeness of their actions, nor their unreasonable nature, instead believing such actions are at the core of their right relationship with God.
http://www.ocddave.com/?q=node/5
Here's another one:
The Need for Treatment
Many religious patients may endure the mental torment of OCD in silence or inaction, thinking that God has given them the disease for a reason. Unless treated, however, religious OCD can bring one’s spiritual life to a halt, and even make them wonder about leaving the faith. (It must be stressed that OCD’s cause is medical, not spiritual.)
How does one want to spend their years with God? Will they do so in constant fear of judgment, as scrupulosity patients often do, or will they seek God’s help, and that of whom He blesses, and reduce the impact of obsessive-compulsive disorder in their lives?
http://obsessive-compulsive-disorder.suite101.com/article.cfm/religious_ocd_why_its_different
As Barb lives with a doctor, one would think that she has been given the proper prescriptions to alleviate her illness. Perhaps she refuses treatment because she doesn't "believe" that there is anything wrong with her.
Of course an OCD sufferer doesn't think anything is wrong with them and they 'believe' that the way attend to life is 'normal.' It takes someone outside, specifically outside of the family setting, to point out the 'inappropriateness and strangeness of their actions.'
Oh well, what can a person do in a situation like this. Were I a fundamentalist [c]hristian I would pray over her, perhaps even gathering a prayer team together to pray for her.
As I am not into that nonsense, I offer psychological suggestions and medical advice.
[watch for the denial of any OCD]
June 4, 2010 6:19 AM
oowhee!! Thank you thank you thank you!
You've given me opportunity, in the name of truth and justice, to COUNT and find at least 26 comments to this blog in my email --which were deleted here at the blog --usually the same 4 letters spammed over and over here -- by one Denis Eble, aka mudrake.
EVEN MORE COMMENTS THAN I MADE HERE! In fact, counting the above letter he posted today, which I reprinted under my name, Mudrake has made 27 comments out of 56 here --26 were deleted. I made 19. I make shorter posts that way --more likely to be read. Also I have post script thoughts.
and who was the first one to count?? At least I write fresh material and don't spam with letters written by others.
I'm leaving your last post up, Denis, as proof for my vast readership to see that I'm not the one with the problem --but I'm reposting in my name --because I don't want to publish any links to your blog anymore.
I see you are having trouble sleeping? lots of 6 AM blogging at your end. Sleep apnea maybe?
You are spending way too much time on me. Let's go for coffee, you, your wife, and me -- and see if we can resolve this obsession.
Hello Barb,
I would also like to go out for coffee with Denis. In fact, I called him at his house a while back but wasn't able to reach him. I tried a few times, if I recall.
Maybe I'll try again. Surely he must be at home sometime? I think it would be nice to get together.
I also talked to one of his former students a few days ago. He didn't have any strong memories one way or the other about Mr. Eble.
YOU would be embarrassed by such critical letters --I am not. I'm ODD, remember? You said so.
And so it is, that Christians are a "peculiar people." We expect to be reviled by unbelievers, as Jesus was --and you never fail to fulfill expectation.
Blogger mud_rake said...
Recall that 'fine letter' to the editor that was posted here? The one signed by____________
Well, several days later, there were three other letters to the editor which, sadly for ____ accused her of being homophobic.
I wonder how her family and friends felt as three people that didn't even know her called her 'homophobic'?
A man named Nicholas Felt began his letter:
Homophobia in America appalling
____'s March 22 letter regarding Gen. Peter Pace's comment on gays in the military is myopic and without substantiated, verifiable truth in regard to her casual dismissal of genetics being a basis for homosexuality.
Another letter printed along with Mr. Felt's was from Barbara Rochelle who wrote,
I would like to thank letter writer Barb for helping me define my morality. Does she live under a rock? Each person decides his or her own morality. It cannot be customized. It is a choice. Numerous medical researchers and magazines tell us that most homosexuality is genetic; it is not a choice but a physical reality.
The third letter appearing in the Toledo Blade that same day was written by Linda S. Garrison. She writes,
Homosexuals don't choose orientation
Some people like Gen. Peter Pace and Barb, a March 22 letter writer, would like to dismiss homosexual behavior as merely a moral weakness and liken it to adultery, lying, or stealing. What their intolerance is, however, is blatant bigotry and ignorance.
It was also interesting that NO OTHER letter supporting position was written. No one said that Barb's homophobia was OK or spot-on. No one.
What an embarrassment to her, family and friends.
At least she has this venue to spew her homnophobia, although her impact on this fairly non-read blog is minimal.
I note that neither "David" nor Larry Tanner support her homophobia, either. Neither does Steve, Jeanette nor Matthew- all who have commented here.
Nobody supports Barb's homophobia. She is as one crying in the wilderness. What a sad and lonely life she must endure.
June 4, 2010 1:22 PM
Mudrake:It was also interesting that NO OTHER letter supporting position was written. No one said that [Barb's] homophobia was OK or spot-on. No one.
As usual, you're wrong. There was one suppportive letter on that occasion which you conveniently forget. An excellent defense --but not of homophobia. That's a misnomer. But unlike you, I don't obsessively remember the name and keep accessible copy. I have one somewhere. I met him, in fact, at our WPOS concert --and he is a patient of my husband's --who gets several supportive comments from his patients when I get a letter published.
Does it occur to you as it does to me that some Blade letter editors aren't called the gay blades for nothing? not necessarily publishing all the letters they get --especially those against homosexuality? I guess they didn't even publish YOUR letter on that occasion.
While Matthew and Jeanette didn't comment on this thread, they don't support the redefinition of marriage or such gay propaganda as Tango in our kindergartens, I'm sure.
We don't have to have a phobia about homosexuals --nor have hatred --nor bash them hatefully --to disapprove of their propagandizing our youth --to disagree with re-defining marriage as you do. To recognize that gay pride parades are vulgar and that role modeling homosexuality in a positive way is not what we want done for our kids. I deny phobia, hatred, and bashing --of homosexuals. But I do fear any kind of promiscuous sex addiction for youth who are sexually volatile, unfathered, insecure in their sexuality. I fear the high rate of STD's in the homosexual community and would not want my loved ones to go there.
Granted, homosexuals call it all 3 (phobia, hatred, bashing) when people think they are mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and entering a high-risk lifestyle in their sexuality or attractions.
But they are wrong. The Christian Church today has compassion and wants to be helpful --to any who want to be normal, healthy and whole in their sexuality.
If we prefer our sin to the grace of God through faith in Christ, the Bible says there is the same consequence for all sin. "The wages of sin is death --but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Good effort, Matthew! I'm surprised he isn't eager to meet you --as he wanted to blog with you guys on a special blog discussing faith. I suspect you'd find the personality in person is quite different than the writer. I certainly hope so anyway!!!
June 5, 2010 9:36 AM
I read that homophobic letter and think it is disgusting that people like this think they know what is best for other people.
Just disgusting!!!
I suppose that's you, Mudrake. You seem to know what is right for this country --unlimited licentiousness. I disagree.
It's so flattering that Mudrake has about 30 posts here --some of which I've copied over under my name --because it isn't the Blade correspondence I object to printed here --it's his link --and his spamming of the same comments over and over again --and not authored by him.
Isn't it about time to take your wife to church,Denis?
It's hard to keep up with him --but here is his 30th post --which I only print as evidence of who has the problem.
Blogger mud_rake said...
I got a new book on the brain this afternoon from a friend. There is an entire chapter on OCD.
[Barb} [author of "that fine letter to the editor"] ought to read it so that she can be helped through her illness.
Surely, though, [she] will not as she probably thinks everyone else is nuts except her.
Could all of you who know [barb] help her through her OCD/homophobia by suggesting that she sees a mental health worker, psychologist or psychiatrist? It's apparently that elephant-in-the-room thing, you know, no one wants to confront her but they know that she is really sick.
She's stuck, as the psychologists say, and cannot seem to move on with life. When the patient is stuck, they have know idea how to help themselves get un-stuck and so they continue their same old patterns that go no where.
All of you who read this blog need to help [Barb] get un-stuck. Call her, drop her an email, or write something here on this blog. This illlness has been going on way-too long.
June 6, 2010 2:01 PM
Gosh, Barb, you copied my actual post, deleted it and then EDITED it and re-posted it.
Do you actually think that those who happen to come here 'believe' that you do not have a serious OCD problem? Very serious.
One of the least-credible things that a blog owner can do is to EDIT the writing of a person who posts a comment to their blog.
What little credibility you may have had left is now totally gone.
Pathetic.
Post a Comment