Gyroscopic Investing

I was thinking of this when responding on some of the threads on relationships but thought this topic belongs in a new thread.

I ultimately feel that gay people deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.  I remember reading statistics like how homosexuals are much more likely to commit suicide, which I think is very sad.  Therefore I understand that as a culture we should try to be more accepting of it.

I believe that a lot of homosexuals are born that way, and in that case it would be tragic if they developed self-loathing and a great fear of judgment from others.  I have two half sisters and one of them says she's bisexual, but I think she's gay. I can tell my stepmother and father are hoping she will decide to at least try dating men but I don't think she has any interest.  She's a freshman in college and has acted homosexual since middle school.  She's only dated girls, cut her hair short since age thirteen, and also looks androgynous.  People often mistakenly assume she's my other sister's brother. 

I want her to feel accepted and unashamed of who she is.  If she wants to marry a woman, I want her to have that right and feel as much joy as any other woman would feel marrying a man.

However I have mixed feelings.  It seems like a growing trend where women are choosing to be with women.  I don't notice the same trend with gay men - they seem either fully straight or fully gay.  I wonder what some of the effects on society will be from this trend.  I can think of quite a few women who have dated or married men and then announced that they were gay and pursued serious relationships with women.  Some of them changed their mind again and married men.  Maybe biologically women are more attracted to both genders, but with a growing acceptance of homosexuality, more women are choosing women, whereas in the past they felt more pressured to only stick to men. 

I know that when I was a teenager I was worried I might be a lesbian because I have always found women attractive.  I even had some girl "crushes," but I realized that my crushes on girls weren't nearly as obsessive as my crushes on boys.  I eventually realized that my attraction toward women wasn't sexual at all, but rather an aesthetic appreciation.  I wonder if other women experience that but eventually allow that to develop into a deeper appreciation, date women, and allow their subsequent emotional connection cement a more lasting bond.  I am just confused as to how so many women I know can just switch back and forth. 

I know one teacher I work with who was married to a man and had a son.  Then she divorced him, married a woman, and has another son with this woman through a sperm donor.  She seems very happy and is very loving toward the baby boy but I wonder what his experience will be, being raised by two women and no father. 

I know another gay male teacher who tried very hard to adopt but finally gave up after being rejected for years.  I could tell he was pretty heartbroken over it all.

So anyway, what are your thoughts on all this?  How do you feel about gay marriage?  Gays raising children?  The fact that, at least to me, lesbianism seems almost trendy?  Maybe I'm incorrect about how common lesbianism is, as many young people today overestimate the percentage of people who are actually gay. 

I can't make up my mind over the issue of gay people raising children.  I think that the nuclear family is the very best for children.  Part of me figures that, since gay people can't procreate, they shouldn't have children as that is indeed unnatural.  However, that view is very unaccepting of the gay people themselves.  If my sister married a woman who really wants children, I think it would be a shame if they were denied that right...but at the same time I don't know how good that would be for the children.

As far as marriage, what it the justification for discrimination (taxes, visitation, etc) if not religious beliefs?
Based on something like the ability to procreate instead of love? If it is it guised in "the best interest of the state," then at least be consistent. No marriage if older than, say, 50. Or if you are infertile in any way.
As far as adopting, should be also be rational and consistent. I feel the same about nuclear families, but should we outlaw divorce, which is more common? And probably more destructive, since it often involves anger and confusion for a child (I'm divorced, and I think it hurt my children).

BearBones wrote: As far as marriage, what it the justification for discrimination (taxes, visitation, etc) if not religious beliefs?
Based on something like the ability to procreate instead of love? If it is it guised in "the best interest of the state," then at least be consistent. No marriage if older than, say, 50. Or if you are infertile in any way.
As far as adopting, should be also be rational and consistent. I feel the same about nuclear families, but should we outlaw divorce, which is more common? And probably more destructive, since it often involves anger and confusion for a child (I'm divorced, and I think it hurt my children).

Yeah it would be pretty ridiculous to only permit marriage amongst fertile people.  So discriminating based on homosexuality's inability to procreate wouldn't stand at all.  My impression is indeed that the only problem people have with gay rights in general are based on religious views.

As far as outlawing divorce, that would be like undoing the no-fault divorce policies.  You're right, divorce has a FAR bigger impact on society....but should couples be forced to stay together if they can't prove the fault of the spouse?

BearBones wrote: As far as marriage, what it the justification for discrimination (taxes, visitation, etc) if not religious beliefs?
Based on something like the ability to procreate instead of love? If it is it guised in "the best interest of the state," then at least be consistent. No marriage if older than, say, 50. Or if you are infertile in any way.
As far as adopting, should be also be rational and consistent. I feel the same about nuclear families, but should we outlaw divorce, which is more common? And probably more destructive, since it often involves anger and confusion for a child (I'm divorced, and I think it hurt my children).

I am a Lutheran.  So, I will give my answers in terms of the doctrine ot Two Kingdoms, Two Realms, and God rules both Kingdoms.

Kingdom of the Left (a.k.a. Civil Kingdom)
The purpose of this Kingdom is to promote order, reduce chaos, so man is free to worship God and love neighbor.
I think all people should be treated kindly, lovingly, and with respect - regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, economic status, or religion.
I think the nuclear family with a father and a mother who remain together for life in a loving relationship is the best place to raise children.
I think societies based on the nuclear family have the greatest potential for being long lasting and thus are the most stable environment.
In this Kingdom, all sins are not equal - i.e. murder is worse than shoplifting.

Kingdom of the Right (a.k.a. Kingdom of God)
A purpose of this Kingdom is to show us how to have eternal life, unseparated from God.
Homosexuality is a sin.  It does not matter if born that way (a manifestation of original sin) or if chosen (actual sin).
All sins should be acknowledged for what they are - call a thing what it is.
In God's eyes, all sins are not condoned and are equal as they separate us from God.
All sins should be repented of, then know that God forgives us for Jesus' sake.  Repentance means turning away from sin.
In this Kingdom, all who believe in the promises of God are forgiven and saved eternally.

... Mountaineer
 

Michellebell wrote: Yeah it would be pretty ridiculous to only permit marriage amongst fertile people.  So discriminating based on homosexuality's inability to procreate wouldn't stand at all.  My impression is indeed that the only problem people have with gay rights in general are based on religious views.

I'm not religious and therefore don't think homosexuality is a sin but I'm not a supporter of "gay rights" when what it actually means is taking away other people's freedom. Like in the case of the poor Oregon couple who had their lives destroyed because they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I don't think this kind of thing is going to lead to more tolerance for gay people but just the opposite.

Fred wrote: I'm not religious and therefore don't think homosexuality is a sin but I'm not a supporter of "gay rights" when what it actually means is taking away other people's freedom. Like in the case of the poor Oregon couple who had their lives destroyed because they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I don't think this kind of thing is going to lead to more tolerance for gay people but just the opposite.

While I agree, isn't this a bit of an oxymoron? "We should be firmly intolerant of such intolerance!" In general, closed minds don't open doors...

Mountaineer wrote: I am a Lutheran.  So, I will give my answers in terms of the doctrine ot Two Kingdoms, Two Realms, and God rules both Kingdoms.

I think that most would respect that. I do. Except for what constitutes "sin" (unless you mean in its etymologic sense, "missing the mark" as opposed to evil or wrong).

But to make your belief policy is to create a theocracy. This country was founded on religious freedom and a separation of church and state. Are you saying you would change that?

Gay/lesbian/bisexual, etc. folks should have the same legal rights as straight people, in my view.

There's no compelling argument to deny that, and we're a country based on the notion that "all are created equal".

I think that the gay/lesbian/etc. population is something like 4%, so I'm not afraid at all if that might expand a little bit, and see no threat to our continuing to populate (over-populate) the planet.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children, and ensuring that they are safe/well cared for, but that interest doesn't break down along sexual orientation lines for me at all - there are many abusive straight parents, for example.

If I remember the Oregon bakery issue, the bakery violated an Oregon anti-discrimination law and were rightly found to be in the wrong.  They managed to quickly raise a lot of money, more than enough to pay the fine, and are still in business - I don't see how their lives have been ruined.

Currently, different cities/states have different laws about sexual orientation, and people can participate in the political process, and/or locate in a place that they find preferable, until the federal government steps up on the issue.

People are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they hold about homosexuality.

BearBones wrote:

Fred wrote: I'm not religious and therefore don't think homosexuality is a sin but I'm not a supporter of "gay rights" when what it actually means is taking away other people's freedom. Like in the case of the poor Oregon couple who had their lives destroyed because they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I don't think this kind of thing is going to lead to more tolerance for gay people but just the opposite.

While I agree, isn't this a bit of an oxymoron? "We should be firmly intolerant of such intolerance!" In general, closed minds don't open doors...

For the record, I think the bakers should just go ahead and bake the damn cakes and be done with it, but I don't like the way they are forced to do it if they don't want to.

I also see another paradox in the word "homophobia" that really grates on me. Forget religion, wouldn't it simply be natural to expect that an aversion to homosexuality was built into our DNA due to evolutionary biology? If true, then the word "homophobia" is simply turning the tables on heterosexuals and labeling what comes natural to them as a disease, the very same thing homosexuals say that heterosexuals do to them.

I'm sure someone has already done this, but I think the whole cake issue could have been exploited and monetized by offering explicitly gay cakes.  Perhaps cakes with batter and icing handled only by gay bakers.

Homophobia isn't an aversion to being homosexual, which might be natural.

It's a dislike of or prejudice against people who are homosexual.

gays should have rights.... they are called human rights just the same as the ones everyone else enjoys, hyphenated rights don't (or shouldn't) exist, it sets up an utterly unnecessary divisive separation between groups...