Thoughts on gay rights?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Michellebell
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Michellebell » Mon Feb 29, 2016 7:55 am

MangoMan wrote:
Michellebell wrote:
murphy_p_t wrote: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/doc ... -dx-us.pdf

Looking at the compiled data on the attached link, it seems if society truly cares for those men with disordered attractions, society will discourage this behavior. Start by not subsidizing it.

Kinda like smoking is discouraged, for the obvious health reasons, as exemplified by the CDC link.

Being more concerned about 2nd hand smoke than the spread of things like HIV is misguided.
I agree.  If this behavior is harmful to themselves and also others (as some are bisexual as well), it doesn't make sense to celebrate the lifestyle but rather to recognize that it is self destructive.

I bet a lot of them are sex addicts.  People who are considered sex addicts are rightly viewed as having a serious problem.
Hmm. I believe you mentioned previously that you were not a virgin on your wedding day, as was probably the case with most if not all here. Should heterosexual sex be discouraged to slow the rate of transmission of syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, etc? Abstinence doesn't work, as has been proven in numerous studies. How about be smart and use a condom if you are not in a monogamous relationship with someone who has been tested for all STDs?
Pugchief, no I was not a virgin when I got married, and I believe people should have sex before marriage these days to make sure they are sexually compatible.  I agree safe sex should be taught certainly.  For my children I will advise them to only have sex with those they feel comfortable having children with (and I'll hope they choose to take the advice).

I read that condoms break more often with anal sex though so gay men still contract diseases more easily.  The same must apply to women these days who engage in it as well.  I don't have time right now to find a link though, I just remember seeing that. 
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:43 am

Michellebell wrote: Here is an article I read that I found fascinating, although it is very long.

It has a Christian theme and it talks about what it means to love homosexuals, as well as a possible interpretation of the gay rights movement:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/10/32898/

Mountaineer, I am finding I agree with you a lot, which to me is pretty interesting, as I had pretty-much rejected Christianity because of contradictions I found within the bible and also with science.  I don't have time to discuss it right now but I am starting to understand Christianity a bit better now I think.  So thank you for your posts.  I think that I will become a better person if I take more time to think about what Jesus said.  I'll have to post on the religion thread about it when I have time.
You are welcome.  I will be looking forward to reading your perspectives.

... M
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by murphy_p_t » Mon Feb 29, 2016 4:29 pm

section III is particularly relevant to this question

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... ns_en.html
Michellebell
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Michellebell » Mon Feb 29, 2016 7:53 pm

murphy_p_t wrote: section III is particularly relevant to this question

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... ns_en.html
I thought this was pretty good.  I think some of the no religious people here may disregard these views because most articles that are pro-traditional-family have a Christian theme.

If you take the concept of religion out entirely, I still think that most people would agree that children are healthiest in the nuclear family.  But I feel like the last twenty or so years we've had the whole gay culture pushed on us to the point we don't even recognize what's happening.  Yes, some heterosexual parents are bad parents.  Many divorce and it hurts the children immensely.  Some are abusive.  But healthy married parents really should be recognized as the gold standard of parents.

I really feel that gay parents could be the most loving and well meaning but their children would still be unjustly deprived of a mother or a father.  Shouldn't little boys and girls have a male role model and a female?  That seems like common sense to me, and there are tons of statistics out there showing the negative correlations between the well being of the children and the absence of fathers in the home.

I'm reminded of the book Conversations with God here, which I'm sure is controversial within Christian circles for being so open and forgiving, but one of the things that was discussed was the notion that one can determine how helpful vs harmful a behavior is by asking the question, "what if everyone did that?"  So this works in a lot of scenarios.  What if everyone recycled and reused instead of being wasteful?  That would be good.  What if everyone married and had 2.1 children?  That would be good and fine for sustaining life (assuming we had a population that we wanted to preserve- actually a limit of two kids would probably do some third world countries some good).  What if everyone became gay?  Umm, humanity would end pretty soon and the kids raised by opposite gender parents wouldn't have the right role models.

Now that concept may sound silly, but when you think about how the gay culture is so over represented in our media, it's  like our society is trying to undo the notion that the nuclear family has anything good to offer society.  We are supposed to value this anything-goes family, all in the name of being loving and accepting, but we are hurting children as a consequence .

I really don't blame gay people for being gay.  Really if they can't help themselves and truly feel happier in same-sex relationships, fine, although you all know I think at least a good portion of them are being self destructive.  What I take issue with the most is the push for the rest of society to offer them the same benefits that we have at the expense of the well being of children. 

Plus this gets into the whole nature vs nurture thing but I do believe kids can be influenced by the pop culture.  I know many would disagree with me but I think society has a huge impact on our personalities and in some ways homophobia may serve a purpose in helping adolescents develop their attractions.  I think it played a role in me being heterosexual, as I have always found women attractive as well.  But I was telling a lesbian in college that I don't want to be a lesbian because I want marriage and children.  She told me she wants and plans to have the same thing-with a woman.  I was pretty shocked because the notion had not even occurred to me before.  But children today are raised to think all styles of family are just as good as any other, so they shouldn't strive for anything.  They don't feel they have to choose between one or the other.

I'm sure some may disagree and say if a gay person really wants kids he/she should have that option.  I'd say maybe that person should find an opposite-sex person to marry and have kids with if it's so important.  You could say the same thing to people who are bored in their marriages and want to divorce.  Should they have that right?  Well we want to think of the adult's happiness but maybe as a society we should place a bigger priority on the child's well being and make parents feel more of a responsibility to work things out for the sake of their children. 

We have to make choices all the time.  We can't have everything.  Straight people who are party animals have to give up that part of themselves if they want to be good parents. If they don't want to give up a certain lifestyle, they shouldn't have kids. 
User avatar
jafs
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:23 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by jafs » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:07 am

The argument is completely unconvincing.

First, many, many straight parents are neglectful or abusive - the statistics on that are horrifying.  So, the notion that a straight family is the best rests on some sort of idealization of that which is often not the reality.  And, of course, many straight people have bad habits, like overuse of alcohol, gambling addiction, smoking, etc.

Then, the idea that we should judge whether or not to allow gay and lesbian people equal rights in society by asking "What if everybody were gay" is rather absurd.  Everybody isn't gay - about 4% of the US population is gay/lesbian, last time I looked.  And, clearly, since we need to reproduce for the species to continue, there's a strong natural force at work that would disallow too many gay people, in order to preserve the species.  And, arguments based on the need to reproduce would disallow infertile straight couples, straight couples that don't want to have children, and straight couples past childbearing age.  My wife and I don't have children, and we're in our 50's - should we be allowed to marry?

Having a "good" role model of both genders might be important, but gay or lesbian families can easily have close friends who can fill that role, and just having a man and a woman gives no guarantee that their modeling of gender behaviors will be good or desirable.

Who would make a better foster/adoptive couple?  A straight couple who can barely bake ends meet financially, smoke and drink too much, fight a lot, and are neglectful/abusive of the children, or a gay/lesbian couple who are financially ok, don't smoke, drink in moderation (an occasional glass of wine), rarely fight, and are loving parents?
Last edited by jafs on Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Mountaineer » Tue Mar 01, 2016 9:56 am

TennPaGa wrote:
Michellebell wrote: I'm reminded of the book Conversations with God here, which I'm sure is controversial within Christian circles for being so open and forgiving, but one of the things that was discussed was the notion that one can determine how helpful vs harmful a behavior is by asking the question, "what if everyone did that?"  So this works in a lot of scenarios.  What if everyone recycled and reused instead of being wasteful?  That would be good.  What if everyone married and had 2.1 children?  That would be good and fine for sustaining life (assuming we had a population that we wanted to preserve- actually a limit of two kids would probably do some third world countries some good).  What if everyone became gay?  Umm, humanity would end pretty soon and the kids raised by opposite gender parents wouldn't have the right role models.
IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
rhymenocerous
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by rhymenocerous » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:25 pm

As 30 Rock has taught us...

[img width=400]http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld87h ... 1_1280.jpg[/img]
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:50 pm

TennPaGa wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 
FWIW, I definitely agree with you. 

However, your refining *my* question is consistent with my broader point, which is that using a single criteria ("what if everyone did that") to assess the suitability of a broad range of options doesn't really help.
Of course the obvious next question is "What if everyone used a single criterion to assess the suitability of a broad range of options?".
Michellebell
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Michellebell » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:16 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
TennPaGa wrote:
Michellebell wrote: I'm reminded of the book Conversations with God here, which I'm sure is controversial within Christian circles for being so open and forgiving, but one of the things that was discussed was the notion that one can determine how helpful vs harmful a behavior is by asking the question, "what if everyone did that?"  So this works in a lot of scenarios.  What if everyone recycled and reused instead of being wasteful?  That would be good.  What if everyone married and had 2.1 children?  That would be good and fine for sustaining life (assuming we had a population that we wanted to preserve- actually a limit of two kids would probably do some third world countries some good).  What if everyone became gay?  Umm, humanity would end pretty soon and the kids raised by opposite gender parents wouldn't have the right role models.
IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M
By everyone, I mean the majority of adults.  I'm not talking about children, who don't behave sexually yet and can't have kids.  Anyway I know my point is moot as I'm not worried about everyone becoming gay, although it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common to me these days.  I know I'm amongst a minority here but I think a lot of them choose it for themselves and could go either way.  A lot of gay people have biological kids so obviously they're straight enough to have heterosexual sex.  I wonder if the gay percentages will increase because of the whole gay agenda.

Also I have to say I'm a bit surprised several people here believe that gay parents are just as good as straight parents.  Do you think divorced parents or cohabiting parents are as good too?  As long as they love their kids?  I think married heterosexual parents provide the most stable environment for kids, as long as you compare equally competent individuals.
User avatar
jafs
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:23 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by jafs » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:29 pm

If you're not worried about everybody becoming gay, then the whole argument that we have to deny them equal rights because the species needs to procreate evaporates.

I assume I'm one of those people that surprise you - my answer is that the sexual preference and/or marital state of a couple are not the deciding factors in whether or not they're good parents.  There are plenty of straight married couples who are lousy parents, and a number of other varieties of couples who are good parents.

And, stability isn't desirable if other parts of the situation are bad, for example, with an abusive household.  In that case, I would imagine that the kids would be better off if the parents divorced, and they weren't in the abusive situation anymore.

It's only by idealizing the straight nuclear family that one can make it look, well, ideal.  If we look at the reality, it's far from ideal.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Mountaineer » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:57 pm

Michellebell wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M
By everyone, I mean the majority of adults.  I'm not talking about children, who don't behave sexually yet and can't have kids.  Anyway I know my point is moot as I'm not worried about everyone becoming gay, although it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common to me these days.  I know I'm amongst a minority here but I think a lot of them choose it for themselves and could go either way.  A lot of gay people have biological kids so obviously they're straight enough to have heterosexual sex.  I wonder if the gay percentages will increase because of the whole gay agenda.

Also I have to say I'm a bit surprised several people here believe that gay parents are just as good as straight parents.  Do you think divorced parents or cohabiting parents are as good too?  As long as they love their kids?  I think married heterosexual parents provide the most stable environment for kids, as long as you compare equally competent individuals.
1. No, not based on common sense and my experience with my grandkids (I have a divorced daughter and a granddaughter that cohabited and had a child); I have seen the pain, anger, confusion, hurt, and self-doubts that result among all parties concerned.  I just pray they eventually come out of it alright and do not pass it along in their marriages or to their children.

2. Agree.

... M
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Post Reply