Thoughts on gay rights?

[jafs]

i haven't posted my full position in this thread, and who knows where it is buried in the earlier threads on the topic.. so in brief

1- the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... civil unions (contracts ) for all (including men with women), and the same and equal rights to have a contract for all..

2- marriage is the union of a man and woman in a religious ceremony before god.. if a gay couple can find a religion that thinks they can be joined before god ... it is none of my or anybody else's business.. they can be married before god in the eyes of the religion and any who care to recognize it..

3-marrage is also a cultural institution, the meaning of what is or isn't a marriage is not up to government (see #1) it is defined by the people who use the word and share the common understanding of what it entails, if enough gays behave according to the common definition for a long enough time (probably not that long) then the term will come to be commonly understood to include gay couples who share the common understanding of marriage values..

#1 and #2 are fine with me, but that's not what we currently have.

If you want to push for that version of things, go ahead.

it make sense to me to do so.... parse out the different aspects of marriage.. government recognized contracts, and the constitutional equality they should be given, the religious nature of the ceremony and tradition. and the cultural institution, and definition of what marriage means.
it simplifies understanding the situation and what people are actually arguing for and against, and it avoids "mix and match" arguments like gays cant be married because its a sin.. that actually = gays cant be married before god according to me and my church, which isn't in any way a sound argument against a equal rights to a legal contract and so on.....

As I said, it's fine with me.

But, right now, we don't have that system.  We have marriage, which is both a civil and religious term/institution.  And, as long as the civil part of that involves legal rights/privileges, those should be available to gay/lesbian etc. folks as well as straight ones.

There's also a wide variety in marriages, even heterosexual ones, already.  Some couples don't sleep in the same room and haven't gotten along for decades, while others sleep together, have sex on a regular basis, and are emotionally/spiritually close, for example.

If Gabe gets married, his marriage will almost certainly include a number of threesomes with other women.

[Michellebell]

According to this cite, gay men have had insanely high levels of promiscuity.  https://carm.org

Now I know the statistics are very old but still, the fact that they ever reached those levels is pretty astounding.  28% had over 1,000 partners, and 78% had over 100 partners.  Also only 4.5% were able to stay faithful in relationships, vs. 75% straight men and 85% straight women. 

Again those stats are old but even after all the AIDS awareness I still believe they are the most promiscuous group.  If a significant portion of them can only stay together by allowing open relationships and outside partners, that doesn't sound very stable to me at all.

Look at AIDS statistics from more current data- https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-g ... aids-cases

I know part of the reason they have so much HIV is because of the fact that the disease is transmitted more easily amongst them, but if they weren't so promiscuous in the first place it wouldn't be such a problem.

[Mountaineer]

I don't understand your comments.

Granting equal rights to homosexuals is in line with our founding principles as I understand them, not a falling away from those principles.

Corruption and the possibility of corruption exist everywhere we find human beings, I'd say, both in secular and religious settings.

With all due respect, deeply and thoroughly ponder, with as open a mind, and as much of a study of history (un-rewritten) that you can do.  You will have to trust me on this, but I above all do not want that to be taken as a condescending comment.

... M

[jafs]

According to this cite, gay men have had insanely high levels of promiscuity.  https://carm.org

Now I know the statistics are very old but still, the fact that they ever reached those levels is pretty astounding.  28% had over 1,000 partners, and 78% had over 100 partners.  Also only 4.5% were able to stay faithful in relationships, vs. 75% straight men and 85% straight women. 

Again those stats are old but even after all the AIDS awareness I still believe they are the most promiscuous group.  If a significant portion of them can only stay together by allowing open relationships and outside partners, that doesn't sound very stable to me at all.

Look at AIDS statistics from more current data- https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-g ... aids-cases

I know part of the reason they have so much HIV is because of the fact that the disease is transmitted more easily amongst them, but if they weren't so promiscuous in the first place it wouldn't be such a problem.

Do you have any sources that aren't from an anti-gay Christian group?

I posted what Wikipedia says on the subject, which should be a more neutral source.

Promiscuity is a different issue from stability in committed relationships, as well.  Plenty of straight people have sex with a lot of people before they get married.

[Michellebell]

Also I know I posted this link earlier but I want to point out that the children whose parents had sex-sex relationships in this study found the relationships very short-lived. 
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

Only 23% of the lesbian mothers stayed with the same woman over three years, and only 1.1% of the gay fathers stayed with the same man over three years.

There were a lot of other interesting facts in the study, such as the fact that children of lesbian mothers were many times more likely to be sexually abused.

Now this contradicts a lot of links I just found though that says that gay marriages split up at about the same rate as straight marriages, so I don't know which one is right.

Common sense tells me that men and women compliment one another the best, both sexually and emotionally.  I really wonder if some of the gay people out there are really happy.  Here's an article written by an ex-lesbian about her experience: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ugher.html

[jafs]

Those studies were based on children of divorced parents, so they're deeply flawed.

What they really show is that divorce can have a negative effect on children.

The very first link I found when googling lesbian parents and sexual abuse found a ZERO percentage child abuse rate among lesbian households.  It was part of the longest running study on lesbian families, spanning 24 years.

Research on child sexual abuse concludes approximately 15-25% of women and 5-15% of men have been sexually abused as children.  Lesbian households appear to be safer than the "normal" heterosexual ones.  And if you add in other forms of abuse, the contrast is even more striking (the study above included all forms of abuse, not just sexual abuse).

There are many unhappy people in the world, and in this country, and that's a shame.  I'm sure that there are unhappy gay men and lesbians, just as there are unhappy straight people.

[Michellebell]

Those studies were based on children of divorced parents, so they're deeply flawed.

What they really show is that divorce can have a negative effect on children.

The very first link I found when googling lesbian parents and sexual abuse found a ZERO percentage child abuse rate among lesbian households.  It was part of the longest running study on lesbian families, spanning 24 years.

Research on child sexual abuse concludes approximately 15-25% of women and 5-15% of men have been sexually abused as children.  Lesbian households appear to be safer than the "normal" heterosexual ones.  And if you add in other forms of abuse, the contrast is even more striking (the study above included all forms of abuse, not just sexual abuse).

There are many unhappy people in the world, and in this country, and that's a shame.  I'm sure that there are unhappy gay men and lesbians, just as there are unhappy straight people.

I'm pretty sure the study compared the children to straight divorced parents as well.  But I'll have to check again to be sure.

I also know there is research on lesbians raising kids out there today that are concluding that lesbians are like the new "super-parents," that their children are the most successful in every way, which really is hard to believe for me, and the research has been criticized as being from unrepresentative samples and from biased researchers.

Then again I guess I can't go by research anyway.  You can always find studies that say the exact opposite things.  My own discussions and observations?  Gay males are promiscuous and lesbian relationships are full of drama (and often seem to have been formed out of a feeling of giving up on men).

Now my sister is an exception to this, but I think it may be because this is all she's ever known.  I actually wonder if she's a little on the autistic side.  She is insanely smart but never was able to maintain friendships. Her girlfriend in high school was literally the first friend she ever had, and it became romantic, and ever since then the gay scene is all she's known. 

I could be very incorrect here of course.

But common sense tells me children raised by two mothers and no fathers can't possibly be statistically just as healthy if not more so than those raised with a good male and female role model and a stable marriage.

And you're right, I probably can't find articles with statistics that say these things that don't have a Christian theme.

[jafs]

The studies compared children of divorce to children with parents who were still together.

Some of the divorced kids had one parent, and some had same sex partners, and I believe still others had opposite sex partners.  What it showed is that same sex parents of kids from divorce did about as well as kids from divorce did with other parental situations, ie. divorce can have negative effects on kids.

If we give up on studies, then we're just left with personal experience and speculation.  And, there are plenty of unhealthy opposite sex marriages, so that's a funny comparison, comparing the ideal of heterosexual marriage to the realities of homosexual marriage.

My common sense conclusion is that happy and healthy parents in a good relationship are good for kids, and that straight or gay parents could fit that frame or not.

[Michellebell]

The studies compared children of divorce to children with parents who were still together.

Some of the divorced kids had one parent, and some had same sex partners, and I believe still others had opposite sex partners.  What it showed is that same sex parents of kids from divorce did about as well as kids from divorce did with other parental situations, ie. divorce can have negative effects on kids.

If we give up on studies, then we're just left with personal experience and speculation.  And, there are plenty of unhealthy opposite sex marriages, so that's a funny comparison, comparing the ideal of heterosexual marriage to the realities of homosexual marriage.

My common sense conclusion is that happy and healthy parents in a good relationship are good for kids, and that straight or gay parents could fit that frame or not.

Okay I was just checking some articles some more and it seems that children of gay parents do about as well as those raised by one biological and one step-parent, or two adopted parents.  As long as at least one parent isn't the biological parent, the children are not as healthy as those raised by two biological parents.  It doesn't seem to make a difference whether the parents are gay or straight...

Except that gay parents can't possibly be both biological parents to their kids, and children raised by two biological parents are really in the healthiest circumstances. 

So people think that gay parents are just as ideal as straight parents, that the fact that they can't procreate together shouldn't factor into their decision to have children in a gay or straight relationship.  I have met several women who told me that they want to have kids and a family, and they acted like they can do it with a woman just as easily as with a man. 

Now as far as adoption goes, I guess those kids will be adopted anyway so it wouldn't make a difference.  In that case maybe I do need to rethink my opinion on gays adopting (sorry but it still weirds me out - I don't like thinking about gay men in open relationships raising kids together).  But a woman wanting children may be misguided by the notion that her kids would be just as healthy with another woman versus the child's biological father.

[jafs]

Sources?

And, you seem to want it both ways - first, you dismiss studies, and then refer to them.

The only studies I've seen that support your conclusion are from kids of divorced parents, as I said.

[Michellebell]

Sources?

And, you seem to want it both ways - first, you dismiss studies, and then refer to them.

The only studies I've seen that support your conclusion are from kids of divorced parents, as I said.

I didn't cite any new ones because they didn't say anything I didn't already cite.  I was agreeing with you actually - nonbiological gay parents do about as well as non-biological straight parents is what the studies are saying.  But we don't need studies to confirm that two gay parents can't procreate.

Because of this, it's very hard to fairly compare gay and straight parents in a study.  Gay parents are automatically in different circumstances than most straight parents.  If you're young and bisexual and trying to plan your life and want to raise children, your best option for having healthy children is marrying someone of the opposite sex and having children and staying married. 

If you think that you can marry someone of the same sex and your children will be just as healthy (according to the stats), you'd be mistaken, but the media seems to be doing a lot to promote this new alternative- style family.  Plus people are pointing to studies saying that gay parents do just as well as straight parents...but all these studies that account for all of these other factors like divorce to make a more fair comparison have no choice but to compare gay parents to suboptimal straight parents.

[MediumTex]

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.

I think that would be considered "orthodox gay".

[MediumTex]

If I had a chance to talk to Ben Carson about gay rights, here is what I would say:

Dr. Carson, I know you aren't in favor of gay rights, but look here sir, I have seen that painting of you and Jesus in your house, and you wanna know what I thought when I first saw it?  I first thought "Gay!"...right before thinking "That ain't right!".  I want you to think about that.

[img width=500]http://verysmartbrothas.com/images/2015 ... -jesus.jpg[/img]

[Michellebell]

I have a different view than you do of the Bible, and of Jesus.

And, yes, if we're discussing gay rights in our society, and what rights they should have, then the important document is the Constitution, since that's what our system is based on.

Given that many sexual practices have existed in many different societies, I don't see how one can conclude it's "abnormal", at least statistically speaking.

You have the right to be against all of the things you mention, and I wouldn't take that away from you.

Here is something to ponder, just for fun.

Case 1 - The Christian religion was founded after Christ came, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.  Slowly, over several hundred years, corruption crept in to His message of:  “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  First, all the heresies that were in conflct with orthodox Christianity finally were dismissed after the various early Ecumenical Councils got back to basics.  Big split in 1054 AD between eastern and western Christianity.  Further big split in the mid-1500s with the Reformation, again getting back to basics.  It appears that every 500 years or so enough corruption creeps in that some critical mass takes notice and "reforms" the corruption and gets back to the basics of the central essential message of Christianity is about Christ and Him crucified.

Case 2 - Mankind has some inate need to have rulers.  First a plethora of societies with the King or Chief model, usually a theocracy of some sort.  Whatever the King said was absolute law.  It seems this was the primary model most everywhere we know about - Egypt, Europe, Asia, North and South America.  Then came the Emperor model, even to the point of some Emperors declared themselves to be god.  Fine and dandy for a while.  Then, in the case of the Roman Empire, the barbarian hordes come to take over.  Skip forward to 1215 AD and the Magna Carta.  The people beging to have a few "rights".  Skip forward again to 1787 AD when the Constitution was signed and then 1791 AD when the Bill of Rights was implemented.  This was when men married women and families were honored.  Think about the situations in other countries with Kings, Dear Leaders, Presidents, and dictators.  Skip forward to today.  How's that working out for us?  What do you see on the news every morning?  Peace?  Harmony?  Everyone getting along?  Constitution being followed? 

To ponder:  See any parallels between corruption in the church and corruption in our methods of government?  Do  you think any "reformations" or "revolutions" are on the horizon as our church and civil government spiral ever downward from the ideals on which they were founded?

OK, back to wedding cakes, the Kardashians, reality TV, gay preachers, incest, president wanna-be liars, centralization of government force, glamorization of perverts, and sheep-human hookups on the horizon.  Pondering over. 

... Mountaineer

Okay Mountaineer, I had some trouble understanding this, but I don't have a solid Christian understanding and I have never paid much attention to history...

But what I think you're saying is that society has alwAys flourished when strong morals were followed.  People were able to live by a code that in many ways overrode their base animalistic instincts.  When survival became less of an issue, people had more time to focus on social dynamics.  In those times, people became more tolerant but in actuality they were just letting go of morals and following their animalistic instincts again.  When societies started to fall apart again, morality was imposed again and society improved.  Therefore we've been cycling back and forth throughout history.

Is that what you're saying?  I'm trying to make sense of it from a nonbiblical perspective here.

[dualstow]

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.

On a serious note, I have gay friends who all go to a gay dentist, because they feel more comfortable there (I found that out when I heard George Takei talking about going to one).

[Mountaineer]

I have a different view than you do of the Bible, and of Jesus.

And, yes, if we're discussing gay rights in our society, and what rights they should have, then the important document is the Constitution, since that's what our system is based on.

Given that many sexual practices have existed in many different societies, I don't see how one can conclude it's "abnormal", at least statistically speaking.

You have the right to be against all of the things you mention, and I wouldn't take that away from you.

Here is something to ponder, just for fun.

Case 1 - The Christian religion was founded after Christ came, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.  Slowly, over several hundred years, corruption crept in to His message of:  “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  First, all the heresies that were in conflct with orthodox Christianity finally were dismissed after the various early Ecumenical Councils got back to basics.  Big split in 1054 AD between eastern and western Christianity.  Further big split in the mid-1500s with the Reformation, again getting back to basics.  It appears that every 500 years or so enough corruption creeps in that some critical mass takes notice and "reforms" the corruption and gets back to the basics of the central essential message of Christianity is about Christ and Him crucified.

Case 2 - Mankind has some inate need to have rulers.  First a plethora of societies with the King or Chief model, usually a theocracy of some sort.  Whatever the King said was absolute law.  It seems this was the primary model most everywhere we know about - Egypt, Europe, Asia, North and South America.  Then came the Emperor model, even to the point of some Emperors declared themselves to be god.  Fine and dandy for a while.  Then, in the case of the Roman Empire, the barbarian hordes come to take over.  Skip forward to 1215 AD and the Magna Carta.  The people beging to have a few "rights".  Skip forward again to 1787 AD when the Constitution was signed and then 1791 AD when the Bill of Rights was implemented.  This was when men married women and families were honored.  Think about the situations in other countries with Kings, Dear Leaders, Presidents, and dictators.  Skip forward to today.  How's that working out for us?  What do you see on the news every morning?  Peace?  Harmony?  Everyone getting along?  Constitution being followed? 

To ponder:  See any parallels between corruption in the church and corruption in our methods of government?  Do  you think any "reformations" or "revolutions" are on the horizon as our church and civil government spiral ever downward from the ideals on which they were founded?

OK, back to wedding cakes, the Kardashians, reality TV, gay preachers, incest, president wanna-be liars, centralization of government force, glamorization of perverts, and sheep-human hookups on the horizon.  Pondering over. 

... Mountaineer

Okay Mountaineer, I had some trouble understanding this, but I don't have a solid Christian understanding and I have never paid much attention to history...

But what I think you're saying is that society has alwAys flourished when strong morals were followed.  People were able to live by a code that in many ways overrode their base animalistic instincts.  When survival became less of an issue, people had more time to focus on social dynamics.  In those times, people became more tolerant but in actuality they were just letting go of morals and following their animalistic instincts again.  When societies started to fall apart again, morality was imposed again and society improved.  Therefore we've been cycling back and forth throughout history.

Is that what you're saying?  I'm trying to make sense of it from a nonbiblical perspective here.

Not too shabby! 

Perhaps something else to ponder:  Corruption seems to be running ever deeper in the past several decades.  God has a way of correcting corruption, both in His church and His world.  Creatures need to be careful what they wish for if it is counter to the Creator God's will (e.g. perverted lifestyles) as there will be a correction at some point - unless of course, one believes "this time it will be different than every known past case". 

... M

[I Shrugged]

Like most of us, I have met or known gay people that seemed perfectly fine in all the ways that matter to mainstream people.  However,  as already mentioned, there is a very nihilistic aspect of the lifestyle of many (most?) gay men.  I don't know how it is on the lesbian side. Probably not as bad.  It's easy to talk about victimless crimes and consenting adults.  But no society that I'm aware of has survived nihilism. 

It's one thing for the gay community to want to be accepted or tolerated, and to have certain legal matters handled.  It's another for them to throw the nihilistic behavior in our faces and want us to accept that.  And even if they hide it from us, it's there, and it's a big problem.  There may not be observably direct victims of it.  But that doesn't make it harmless to the rest of us in the longer run.  If nothing else, accepting it means pretty much anything goes in society.  I think some here would argue that that's fine.  I am pretty sure it isn't.

[Michellebell]

What about the health consequences of anal sex?  I am bothered by how as far as I know, anal sex is becoming more common among heterosexuals as well. I remember hearing that kids are doing it now to prevent pregnancy.  It is not healthy for our bodies and can spread diseases easily.  Here's an article that talks about the health consequences of homosexual behavior (and yes some of the stats in here are the same as others previously posted, and this article doesn't cite it's sources at all but I found the medical part interesting).  I think kids should be taught about the health risks of engaging in this kind of activity.  http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/07/04 ... behaviors/

And here's a shorter article just about the physical health risks: 
https://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06/an ... trend-3-2/


I do feel sorry for those guys who only feel comfortable going to a gay dentist.  That must be very sad for them to face judgment like that.  I don't know how to be tolerant of it though because the concept is not something I can relate to, and I see it as legitimately unhealthy behavior as well. 

Here's an article written by a daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS in Canada.  She was saying how they are not allowed to voice their opinions about homosexuality anymore because it is politically incorrect.  It's a viewpoint I had never considered before.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

[dualstow]

What about the health consequences of anal sex?  I am bothered by how as far as I know, anal sex is becoming more common among heterosexuals as well. I remember hearing that kids are doing it now to prevent pregnancy. 

Isn't that an age-old Catholic schoolgirl thing? I've heard about it since I was a kid in the 70s, but I never knew if it was an urban legend.
(Edit: I mean young Catholic girl, old story).

[Xan]

On a serious note, I have gay friends who all go to a gay dentist, because they feel more comfortable there (I found that out when I heard George Takei talking about going to one).

I do feel sorry for those guys who only feel comfortable going to a gay dentist.  That must be very sad for them to face judgment like that.  I don't know how to be tolerant of it though because the concept is not something I can relate to, and I see it as legitimately unhealthy behavior as well.

I'm missing something.  What is it about going to the dentist that requires him to be gay?

[dualstow]

I'm missing something.  What is it about going to the dentist that requires him to be gay?

I didn't ask, but I can guess. I think that part of is because dentistry involves fluids like blood and saliva, and because prejudices still abound even though we heteros can spread AIDS to each other without their help, they feel more comfortable with gay dentist. I'm sure they don't require one, but if one guy gets a recommendation from another...

The other part is that they tend to have gay doctors in general. Not always, but often. Don't ask me why that is. You can use your imagination.

[Xan]

Here's an article written by a daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS in Canada.  She was saying how they are not allowed to voice their opinions about homosexuality anymore because it is politically incorrect.  It's a viewpoint I had never considered before.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

That is super scary.

[Mountaineer]

Here's an article written by a daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS in Canada.  She was saying how they are not allowed to voice their opinions about homosexuality anymore because it is politically incorrect.  It's a viewpoint I had never considered before.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

That is super scary.

But not unexpected, Xan.  It is written ......... Is 65:5-7.  We are good to go, Rev 22:20b.  SDG. 

... M

[Michellebell]

What about the health consequences of anal sex?  I am bothered by how as far as I know, anal sex is becoming more common among heterosexuals as well. I remember hearing that kids are doing it now to prevent pregnancy. 

Isn't that an age-old Catholic schoolgirl thing? I've heard about it since I was a kid in the 70s, but I never knew if it was an urban legend.
(Edit: I mean young Catholic girl, old story).

Here's an article about how it's on the rise amongst young people today and how they need to be better educated:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003

To me this is crazy- it's an article from Vogue about it.  I can't believe this was in Vogue:
http://www.vogue.com/7971679/is-anal-se ... sciortino/

[dualstow]

Interesting. I heard a comedian (comedienne?) joking about it recently, but I didn't realize it was a real trend.

From the Vogue article you linked:

My thinking was: If the door’s open, why insist on crawling through the window?

Right!