There has been a long-running conflict between the city government in Philadelphia and the Boy Scouts of America's Cradle of Liberty Council: the former can't keep giving a special, low rent to the latter so long as the latter continues to discriminate against gays and atheists. The Boy Scouts tried to draft a nondiscrimination policy, but the national BSA leadership stopped them. So, now, the city government approved of raising the yearly rent from the special rate of $1 to a market-value of $200,000.
City officials have said they could not legally rent taxpayer-owned property for a dollar a year to a private organization that discriminates. The land belongs to the City of Philadelphia but has been leased since 1928 for that token sum to the scouts, who built the landmark Beaux Arts building.
Unlike the scouts, public officials are also bound by a line of Supreme Court opinions barring taxpayer support of any group that discriminates.
In Philadelphia, officials wrestled for months for a way to let the scouts remain at their longtime headquarters. At one point in 2005, the city and scouts seemed poised to agree on a policy statement adopted by New York scouts. That statement, while not renouncing the bars against atheist or gay members, affirmed that "prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable."
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer
Discrimination must lead to repercussions not just in private relations, but also especially in an organization’s relationship with the government. In a liberal democracy, government bodies cannot be involved with any sort of discrimination against certain classes of citizens which the government itself is prohibited from engaging in. This is why government bodies must break off ties with racist and sexist organizations, for example.
For some strange reason, though, supporters of the Boy Scouts of America have trouble understanding that the BSA's victory in securing the right to discriminate against gays and atheists must come with consequences to their association with others — including the government. Now, the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia are finding out that there is a cost that comes with discrimination: if you refuse to treat all boys as equals, then you may not have the ability to do everything else you want either.
"It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat," said Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for Cradle of Liberty Council, referring to the rent's impact on the scouts' chances of staying on the site.
Jubelirer said $200,000 a year in rent "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp."
It is indeed unfortunate if the Cradle of Liberty Council cannot serve as many boys as they would like, or if their programs have to be cut back, but they are already choosing to refuse association with boy and adults on the basis of homosexuality or not believing in gods. They have a right to make that choice, but that choice comes with consequences and the rest of us shouldn't feel too sorry for them.
Faced with a choice between unjust (but legal) discrimination and helping even more young boys, and group that opts for discrimination is clearly indicating that they value bigotry over community service, discrimination over justice, and privilege over liberal equality. That is their right, but it's not an attitude which the rest of us should support or feel much sympathy for. Our governments have an obligation to deny such groups any privileges or special deals because that would send a signal of support for unjust discrimination.
It’s nice to see a bunch of bigots getting what they deserve!
“Jubelirer said $200,000 a year in rent ‘would have to come from programs. That’s 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp.’”
Well, heck at least the money won’t be spentsending 800 needy atheist or gay kids to their summer camp. I guess it’s worth it to them to deprive needy religious or straight kids of a camping trip to be sure no gay or atheist kids benefit.
Cowalker, you have described the choices faced by BSA and the one they made along with the consequences of that choice. I wonder what the families of those needy kids will say when they learn they won’t be able to partake in BSA activities because of the anti-gay and anti-atheist policies of the BSA? Am I too much of a “giddy optimist” [to borrow a phrase Austin made recently] to think the BSA will son reverse its bigoted policies if pressure from within becomes too much to bear?
From the Op/Ed page (C6) of this past Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer (10/23/07):
“One Reader’s View”
“Boy Scouts serve the city well”
“I read that Philadelphia is going to require a change in the rental charge for the Boy Scouts headquarters on Logan Square from $1 (since 1928) to about $200,000 annually because of the group’s ‘refusal to bend its rules to permit gay scouts’ (Inquirer, Oct 18).”
“This punitive adjustment comes as a result of the Boy Scouts’ unwillingness to change their court-approved right to determine how to run their organization. It appears the Scouts want to exercise some control rather than comply with another current issue that the city finds appealing.”
“The irony of pushing an organization that provides a stable, positive environment for young men out of the city while at the same time Philadelphia has the distinction of leading the nation in murder and mayhem is not lost on most citizens.”
“If asked, I expect Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson would choose to have more Boy Scouts, not fewer, in the city.”
(I’m withholding his name & town)
(I’m also withholding any direct comment on the letter… my response would take too long!)
I live perhaps 4 blocks from the building, and residential development in our wonderful neighborhood has recently skyrocketed, especially within a few blocks on the building, with several $1.8 million homes being finished (and sold), dozens of $975,000 homes beings sold, etc. It’s also 2-3 blocks from the river. $200,000 per year isn’t unreasonable. Or, simply sell the building and meet in a church! They could easily make a million dollars and according to them, that’s 150 new Cub Scout packs or 4000 needy kids going to their summer camp!
Vejur
Having been molested as a youth at Scout Camp by a older teen scout leader. And knowing that a entire group of young scouts had to do a “silent swim” naked in order to pass a requirement for a merit badge. I am glad that the Scouts will not knowingly let gays in.
The fact that you imply all gays are like your older teen scout leader shows your bigotry.
Obviously you are bigoted. You twisted my comment to say all gays are like the older scout leaders and I did not say that nor did I imply that.
The truth is that gays are attracted to and sexually exited by people of the same sex.
Please explain:
Why doesn’t society allow Middle school boys in middle school girl’s locker rooms?
Why doesn’t society allow them to change clothes together or to shower together?
Why aren’t female coaches allowed in the shower rooms of boys athletes?
If you will answer those questions and not ignore them. And if you will do so truthfully you will see why it is not wise to have gay boys camping out and sleeping with straight boys. — it is the same reasons why boy and girl scouts don’t sleep in the same tents. And why middle-school boys and girls don’t have slumber parties together!
Actually, thoose are all questions I’ve often wondered myself. It never made much sense to me. But it’s probably too late to change now, because it has trained most of us to be embarrased if theese things happen.
You know the answer to the question, you just won’t answer the questions.
Perhaps you don’t have young children. If and when you do, you’ll understand the wisdom society has.
When former NBA player John Amaechi came out of the closet, he said something along the line ‘don’t you think that I could handle it’ referring to possibility of sexual misconduct in a locker room. However, he then went on to allude to being attracted to guys in the locker room. Which I’m sure his former teammates did not like to hear. I wonder why although he wouldn’t want to play in the NBA anymore that he would be intrigued with the idea of playing on an all gay team.
The reality is that on the whole homosexual guys are much more promiscuous than straight guys. (Not a bigoted statement. The statistics are easy to research.) Why then put a young boy who has homosexual tendencies into a situation which may be more than he can handle or which will most likely sexually excite him?
Social policy needs to be guided by wisdom.
btw Why do male physicians have someone in the examination room with them (usually a female nurse) when they examine a female patient. Not because all male physicians have or will molest his patients. It is called wisdom.
Phil what is your educational level? High school? College degree? Do you believe in the invisible magical man in the sky? Just curious. Where did you get your wisdom?
All of your questions are irrelevant unless you want blow off or reject what I said because you suspect that I am an uneducated theist who is clueless about human nature and sociology. I have gained whatever wisdom I have through observation, study, from others – through experience I have learned that my reasoning is not king and that I can benefit from the knowledge and wisdom of those with whom I disagree and even from those whom I count as fools. I await your response.
>Having been molested as a youth at Scout Camp by a older teen scout leader. And knowing that a entire group of young scouts had to do a “silent swim” naked in order to pass a requirement for a merit badge. I am glad that the Scouts will not knowingly let gays in.
I read the exchange above regarding this post, and I have to say that in a weird twist, I took the comment above to mean something totally different–and I was obviously wrong in my interpretation.
I _thought_ Phil was being sarcastic, and saying that the “anti-gay” screening is (sarcastically) working like a charm, as it sure kept him from being molested.
Again–this is not a commentary on the comment. Just a note since I was so far off base in what was meant. I found it ironic.
It reminded me of a comic I read about a year ago talking about how the War on Drugs was so successful at erradicating drugs in America, and how nice it is to now have a drug-free country.
Here’s a comment, though: Nobody advocates pedophiles. Most pedophiles are heterosexual–but I recall having male coaches on my softball team and during recess when I was in school. It should not be assumed that adults who are attracted to other adults will extend that attraction to children (since that is, in fact, not normally the case)–the sexual leanings of male/female are not relevant so long as the adult doesn’t have pedophile tendencies. People are sexually attracted to children or they are not; and the male/female sexual preference of the adult is not relevant if the tendency toward pedophilia isn’t present.
BTW, my female friend was a camp counselor at a camp with co-ed students and counselors. That’s not uncommon.
Outside of family members molesting young women I knew, the only instances I ever knew of where an adult tried to get sexual with a child were adult male teachers going for young girls I knew in co-ed schools.
I would _never_, however, make the argument that all heterosexual males would behave in a similar fashion–even though statistically the great majority of reported child molestors are adult, heterosexual males.
“You know the answer to the question, you just won’t answer the questions.”
Now you’re claiming to know my brain better then I do. I really don’t know because I don’t think it’s the answer you’re implying. If it were, why would gays be expected to use the same public bathrooms as straight members of their gender? It would make more sense if each gay were given a different bathroom otherwise filled with members of the opposite gender. Of course, I’m not sure what would then be done with bisexuals.
“The reality is that on the whole homosexual guys are much more promiscuous than straight guys. (Not a bigoted statement. The statistics are easy to research.)”
If the statistics are that easy to research, then it shouldn’t be hard for you to tell me where to find them. Even if it is true, it may be largely because their sexuality has been outlawed and despised for so long.
“And why middle-school boys and girls don’t have slumber parties together!”
I shared a couch with a girl in elementary school and nothing happened.
Furthermore, it wouldn’t be that hard to require that gay Boy Scouts sleep in different tents from straight ones.
And by that I mean giving each gay scout a tent to himself.
Study 1: Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity “ New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978
Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among
homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. p. 308
The same study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationship. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. pp.308-309.
Note: this study was of homosexuals in San Francisco before the Aides crisis which has curtailed some activity for a while, but with all the hew Aides drug the rampant indiscriminate sex is starting back up again.
Study 2: In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): p.354
Study 3: A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners. “Sex Survey Results,” Genre (October 1996), quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January 1998
Study 4: 29 % of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. … Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): p. 772
It is not uncommon to have co-ed camps, but it is uncommon to have co-ed cabins.
phil- The first two studies you provide may be okay, but the last two you are reaching. A magazine survey is not what one would base an opinion on and the last one, unless I am mistaken, was done by Paul Cameron who has a lot of criticism (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron#Criticism).
At any rate, I would like to comment on this:
While you are correct that the statement is not bigoted and largely fact, have you considered that the conclusions you draw based on this might be bigoted?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000576
From the Encyclopedia of Psychology:
“…more often than not, pedophiles have no gender preference in prepubescent children. However, by a margin greater than two to one, most victims are girls. Moreover, the pedophile is usually a relative, friend, or neighbor of the child’s family.”
I don’t know about the flaws in Cameron’s research or if the findings are indeed prejudiced. Perhaps they are and that would be unfortunate and would not serve the public very well. I’m not sure why Lambda and Genre would either inflate or minimize their findings, unless they too have an agenda. What that would be I don’t know unless in the homosexual community having 100 sexual partners is a noble thing or a worthy goal to achieve.
What conclusions am I drawing that might be bigoted?
>…I don’t know unless in the homosexual community having 100 sexual partners is a noble thing or a worthy goal to achieve.
I think it’s considered a worthy goal by many in the heterosexual community. I just think it’s more difficult for heterosexuals to achieve, since we’re encouraged to marry. With marriage out of the equation, unlimited sex partners becomes more realistic.
I once dated a guy who bragged about sleeping with more than 200 women. Many of his friends were envious. Incidentally, I’ve known more than a few hetero women who are more than able to provide belt notches as well.
I recall the word “harem” having a sort of hetero leaning? And I also recognize cultures where multiple “wives” are a sign of prosperity and something to show off…?
Why is that a goal worth achieving?
Not that right and wrong and what is base and noble are determined by the social majority, but I doubt many would view indiscriminate hook-ups as a social and moral good.
I also doubt that many parents would tell their daughters see how many different guys you can bed before marry. Or say honey, marry the guy who has the most notches on his belt that way you can be sure that you are special because he chose you out of all the other girls he has used for his own pleasure.
At least in the “harem” cultures the “wives” are “cared” for rather than used for the night and passed on to the next guy(s).
>Not that right and wrong and what is base and noble are determined by the social majority, but I doubt many would view indiscriminate hook-ups as a social and moral good.
I don’t know if they call it “moral”–but there are plenty of people who would label it “good” if only from a purely pleasure principle.
>I also doubt that many parents would tell their daughters see how many different guys you can bed before marry. Or say honey, marry the guy who has the most notches on his belt that way you can be sure that you are special because he chose you out of all the other girls he has used for his own pleasure.
But I said: If marriage was out of the equation. You’re putting it back in. Your objection is that the person probably won’t make a good life-time marriage mate. I don’t disagree.
I’m saying that if we didn’t have the shackles of marriage to contend with in hetero relationships, we would have a lot more sex partners per person. And many men and women go for this goal. It’s highly pleasureable–so there’s no mystery why someone would do it or want to do it.
And, in cultures where multiple partners are allowed–people go for it whenever they can afford it. And it is considered enviable to have multiple wives or harem women. So, when monogamy isn’t forced on people–we see they not only _will_ go for multiple partners–but they’ll consider it a good thing and a sign of prosperity and good living.
>At least in the “harem” cultures the “wives” are “cared” for rather than used for the night and passed on to the next guy(s).
Who says that women are “used”? That’s a bit sexist. I’ll let you in on a secret: Women can enjoy sex. And sometimes they go with a man with experience because such a man offers a high quality sexual experience that less experienced men will likely fail to provide. Women are not generally fantasizing about walking him down an aisle.
I’ve met a great number of men and women, for example who openly express they would never want to date or marry a virgin–because they wouldn’t want the obligation to have to train the person sexually. I guess it’s like getting a new puppy versus getting a dog that’s already house broken. I prefer the dog that knows what to do and where to do it, myself.
>At least in the “harem” cultures the “wives” are “cared” for…
I want to also add that keeping a person as property isn’t my idea of “caring” for someone. Harem women are slaves. And in many of these cultures the “wives” are given away with a lot of money to make them more enticing. Women are exchanged like so much chattel.
I won’t say that nobody in such a culture has a love match or respects their mate. But I will say that women’s rights in such cultures are severely restricted–and I see that as a sign of disrespect and lack of human equality. I wouldn’t say these women are in an enviable situation. And I would say that the “use” factor rivals, if not exceeds, any modern, Western one-night stand.
Wouldn’t it make sense to find out such things before using it as support for your position? That you use a study without looking into such things, and seemingly for no reason other than it says what you want it to, makes it look like confirmation bias on your part.
Whether they inflated or minimized their findings is not what I was getting at as far as their credibility is concerned. What I was getting at was that we don’t know what questions were asked to get those results. Were they clear in their meanings? Did they have elements that could confuse the responders and casue them to provide incorrect information? How many responders were there and would they be a decent representation of the community in question? Given that it was a magazine survey, can you really say it applies across the board? Would you say the results of a survey conducted in Cosmo magazine is an accurate depiction of all women?
What that would be I don’t know unless in the homosexual community having 100 sexual partners is a noble thing or a worthy goal to achieve.
Having 100+ partners would probably be considered a worthy goal by many in the heterosexual male community so that would seem to say more about men in general than just homosexual men.
That the Boy Scouts are right in not allowing homosexuals males, of any age it would seem, into the organization due to the supposedly higher rates of promiscuity of homosexual males. That you use studies that are possibly dated (one was almost thrity years old), of questionable credibility or extremely biased towards a certain outcome as support makes it all the more likely that you have come to bigoted conclusions in this regard.
Jeremy it is fine if you want to disregard the studies. Post a link to gives evidence to the contrary.
The reasons why I think gays should not be allowed in boys scouts are:
1) the sexual arousal would be the same as if boys were sleeping in the same tents and changing clothes together and showering together. Not a good idea.
2) The same would be true of older teen
gay scouts around younger scouts. They too would be in a similar and would also be in authority positions. Male leaders are not allowed in girl scouts. Female leaders are not allowed in boy scouts.
In my mind it is a sexual attraction issue.
No, that is not what I said, a very promiscuous person can make a very good spouse, but I would think that most people would prefer not to have images from previous relationship enter into the marriage bed. Such images in my mind can defraud the spouse and or haunt the person with the mental images which they wished would go away.
Are shackles good or bad in your mind? Freedom to indulge one’s passions through “friends with benefits” or a casual contact may lead to an addiction which is a lot worse than being shackled to a person whom you love. That is where many gays are, and by the way where Michael Douglas said he was.
Sexist, no. I know it works both ways, but generally more men use women than visa verse. Although women are generally easier and more aggressive than there were in the past……..I once asked a prostitute about it and she said it is a mutual using, but her desire was to get married and if she did she would like for him to take her away from such a life of using others for personal gain.
I think marrying well is the best for the individuals and for society. Best emotionally. Best physically. Best for any children that come from the marriage. No children born out of wedlock. Less welfare. 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. STDs are rampant. Aids around the world is leaving millions as orphans. Society is paying a great price for sexual freedom.
Without trying to get into a philosophical or metaphysical discussion, everyday we use such terms as mercy, kindness, goodness, gracious etc… These qualities evidence themselves in acts of mercy, kindness, goodness etc….
We call a man good or kind because he does good works or acts of kindness. We say woman is wise because of the things she says or how she lives her life. We say a storm is powerful when it wrecks havoc. The power is invisible, but its effects are clearly seen.
The same thing is true of God. God’s invisible qualities are revealed through His what He does just like ours are. His wisdom and power and creativity are clearly seen by all, but there are those who say I see no evidence of His existence. We would say, the evidence is there, but they do not understand it or refuse to acknowledge it. Sadly there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I’ve already provided a link, that should have additional links, to show that the Cameron “study” is most likely unreliable. As for the rest, I’ve offered reasons why they also should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the supposed promiscuity of gay men is largely irrelevant to your standing that they not be allowed in the Boy Scouts, either as Scouts or as leaders. I’ll explian why that is so below.
Right, because we know how randy 7 year olds can be. Until kids hit puberty, sex is generally the last thing on their minds, even if they are homosexual. Even after puberty, not every teenaged boy is a walking life support system for a penis. Just because a kid is gay does not mean he’ll be looking to hook up everywhere he goes.
No female leaders in Boy Scouts? Ever hear of a Den Mother? Here’s a link to the BSA website: http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=ba . Check out the entry for 1976 of their history timeline. As for men in the Girl Scouts, check out their website, http://www.girlscouts.org/ , and see what it says about that.
Again, an older heterosexual male in a position of authority over young girls would not be a sure route to sexual abuse, nor would an older heterosexual female over young boys. This being the case, why should we expect something different when it is concerning gay men? Even if gay men are promicuous at a higher rates than heterosexual men, that would only mean that they are interested in having a lot of sex with other men , not necessarily young or teenaged boys; straight or otherwise.
I’m not so sure of that. You mentioned earlier that you had a horrible experience at the hands of Scout leader when you were younger. I understand and appreciate that, but your experience is just that: your experience. Every homosexual male is not like that guy and chances are at least fair that the one that did this to you was not even gay. It is also very possible that you knew or came across several gay men in your youth who had opportunites to inflict such horrors, but did not, without you ever knowing. I can also understand and appreciate that you would hope and take actions so that no one else would ever go through what you did. That’s admirable. However, I think you might be thinking about this the wrong way and convicting a whole lot of innocent people in your mind in the process.
Phil,
“…I would think that most people would prefer not to have images from previous relationship enter into the marriage bed…”
Wow. I’ve never had a woman bring a photo of a prior lover to my bed. You must run in an “unusual” crowd, Phil.
“Are shackles good or bad in your mind?”
Phil, you party animal you. And here I thought, based on your earlier comments, that you must be terribly sexually repressed. I guess my answer would be: Shackles? Depends on the woman and what she has in mind. Communication with your partner, Phil, that’s what’s important.
“Such images…can…haunt the person with the mental images which they wished would go away.”
You don’t really have a lot of experience with relationships, do you Phil?
“…a casual contact may lead to an addiction…”
Yeah, sure. And taking an aspirin can lead to heroin addiction. Been watching “Reefer madness” again Phil?
“…generally more men use women than visa verse (sic).”
Sexist, yes.
“I think marrying well is the best for the individuals…”
What percentage of people who marry can be said to “marry well?” It is commitment to, concern for and communication with your partner that are important. Without these, a marriage is a sham, with these, a marriage is superfluous.
“We say a storm is powerful when it wrecks (sic) havoc. The power is invisible, but its effects are clearly seen.”
Storms can be seen, Phil. You can see dark clouds, you can see lightning, you can see rain and you can see floods as the rain gathers on the ground. You can’t see air. You can’t see thunder. But you can detect them with instruments. You can detect their physical presence and see their physical effects. You don’t have to imagine their metaphysical effects. None of these things are true about any gods. You do understand, don’t you, that when you use the word “see” in this context, it is actually a metaphore for “believe despite the lack of evidence?”
Some may like to debate/argue with my reasoning as to why I believe it is unwise for people who are sexually attracted to males to be scout leaders, and that is fine. If I sees a potential danger and want to avoid it some may be called a bigot; others will call me wise.
John – If you’ve been with a woman whose body is better than your wife’s or if your wife’s technique is not quite as good and you find your mind going to the former lover then you defraud your wife. And if you love her then yes the images will haunt you.
Perhaps I run in a different crowd than you, but that is true of some I know and the regrets are many. None are recommending it to their children and some of those who were sexual addicts still have emotional and physical things they are dealing with.
I have other friends who have few emotional wounds, no disease, no comparative lovers, and no regrets.
I count them as the fortunate few.
Phil,
The real shame here is on Christians who teach that sex is dirty and anyone who has sex deserves to be punished for it.
Hi Phil:
The right word is Venereal Disease (VD). But the topic of homos & lesbians does become dull & rerun the same points. You’re called a bigot or intolerant, among other names if you see something wrong with homo&lesbian sexual activities.
The honest fact is that what H&L groups want is blind faith when it comes to homosexuality & the word tolerance is really blind faith. If you see something wrong with men having sex with men or women having sex with women, then you should speak out against it.
Sexual orientation is a moot point. Even if attractions don’t change, it’s best to change them to either celibacy or straight activities only. Personally, I have no problem if they made it a crime to engage in any sexual activities besides normal sex.
But it’s not just religious people. You can be an atheist & be against homo&lesbian sexual activities. What is it about these sexual behaviors that get’s blind faith?
Your sphere of Christians must be different than mine because I have never come across a Christian or non-Christian who has that view. Must be reading or listening to some bigots who are making some false generalizations about Christians.
Feel free, if you think you can construct an y reasonable arguments. If you can’t, then the likely conclusion is that your position is irrational and bigoted.
Why?
Why?
Yes, you can. Such a person would also probably prove themselves to be irrational and bigoted.
Austin,
Your answers calling opponents of H&L activities bigoted & your repeated ? of why are typical reruns given by apologists of homo&lesbian activities.
Now if 1 sees nothing wrong with homo & lesbian activities, they’ll hate what people who are against H&L activities say. But what if they discovered the 100% cures for homosexuality, GID, sodomy & oral sex? The fact is that the world will be a better place without homosexuality & without GID.
It’s sad that there’s so much blind faith surrounding homosexuality. Homos & lesbians are not comparable to Blacks. Blacks are a group based on ethnicity & have been punished because of their ethnic groups. Ethnicity is not comparable to sexual activity. Contrary to popular belief, H&L have not been discriminated against because of sexual orientation, they’ve been punished because of their sexual activities. If H&L didn’t want to be punished, they could have avoided H&L activities.
I’m not religious, but in justness to the Judeo-Christians, Muslims & others who are against H&L activities, they were against these sexual activities long before discussions arose over the causes of homosexuality. Being against H&L activities is synonymous to being against smoking.
Phil,
“Must be reading or listening to some bigots who are making some false generalizations about Christians.”
Well, I read the bible and listened to those who preached from it. If they were bigots making false generalizations, they were doing so in their official capacity as Christian writers and preachers.
Oh, I’m so sorry that I’m acting like a “typical … apologist” by actually expecting you to explain and justify your position, but I really must insist. If you are going to claim that your position isn’t bigoted, it’s up to you to explain how and why.
If that’s a fact, you can prove it.
It’s not as sad as anti-gay bigots who make claims they refuse to support.
Feel free to support this claim.
If that were true, then gays wouldn’t have problems if they didn’t engage in sex. Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
OK, prove it.
As opposed to some bigots who are making some false generalizations about gays?
John, would you give us the passages from the Bible that you were reading that say “sex is dirty and anyone who has sex deserves to be punished for it.”
Austin, are you in agreement that those are false generalizations about Christians?
W/O rerunning what has been said about a topic that has been overkilled, here are thoughts, as we’ve gone beyond the scope.
If homosexuality is going to be honestly discussed, then it’s only just that the views of those who are against homo&lesbian activities be given. What’s meant is that school & work aren’t the places to discuss topics like homosexuality, abortion, etc.
But if H&L are going to use school & work to promote the view that homosexuality is OK, then it’s only fair that people who see something wrong with these sexual behaviors discuss the fact that these sexual activities are harmful, even if H&L dislike it.
To force workers & pupils to hear the view that H&L activities are OK w/o allowing opposing views is harassment. H&l groups will say it’s teaching tolerance & if you see nothing wrong with H&L activities, then such message is preaching to the choir. But the word tolerance, really must be called blind faith as opposing views aren’t given. It’s no different than requiring pro-lifers to hear the view that abortion is OK (I’m pro-choice on abortion)w/o offering opposing views.
Work & school are about getting the job done & education & discussions about topics like homosexuality are unrelated. But as noted, if homos & lesbians are going to discuss that homosexuality is OK in the workplace & schools, then it’s only fair that people who see something wrong with H&L activities give their views of why it’s wrong. Let’s be honest & not use what’s currently politically safe when discussing homosexuality, because homosexuality isn’t being honestly discussed in the schools.
H&L consistently point out anecdotal cases of violence against H&L, but there have been cases where people have been assaulted or even killed for speaking against H&L activities. In Chicago, there was a case where an elderly woman was killed by a homosexual after she advised him to have sex with women instead of men.
Austin asked “If that were true, then gays wouldn’t have problems if they didn’t engage in sex. Can you demonstrate that this is the case?”
This is a dishonest ? & Austin knows it. In nations where H&L activities are a crime, H&L are jailed for engaging in H&L activities, not having the orientation. This will offend some, but there could be a rapist orientation or gene.
We don’t send rapists to jail because they have the rapist orientation or gene (if there indeed is a rapist gene). We send rapists to jail if they commit the BEHAVIOR of raping women.
The same is true with homosexuality. If H&L don’t want to be jailed in nations where it’s a crime to engage in H&L activities, then don’t engage in those activities. If people of H&L orientation are celibates or only engage in straight sex in nations where H&L activities are illegal, then they don’t get jailed. It’s that simple-they’re punished for behaviors-not the orientation to engage in a behavior.
You have expressed your views. What you haven’t done is support your claims; this makes your views unsupported and unworthy of serious consideration.
Would you say the same if we replaced “H&L activities” with “interracial relationships”? If not, why not? How about “Jewish activities”?
I didn’t ask for examples of where people are jailed for homosexual activities, but of where celibate gays are left alone. Before accusing me of dishonesty, you should do the honest thing by providing such examples.
Since you are deliberately comparing homosexuality with rape, please demonstrate that homosexuality harms like rape does.
Absolutely not. John was very clear in what he wrote: “The real shame here is on Christians who teach that sex is dirty and anyone who has sex deserves to be punished for it.”
Please read and re-read the bold portion, because you surely didn’t the first time you looked at the comment. John is unambiguously talking about a sub-set of Christians, those who teach something in particular. It’s like saying “the shame is on Americans who don’t conserve energy” or “the shame is on whites who harbor racist beliefs.” Are those generalizations about Americans or whites? Obviously not, and if anyone said so I’d question either their ability to understand basic English or their ability to reason.
Phil,
“John, would you give us the passages from the Bible that you were reading that say ’sex is dirty and anyone who has sex deserves to be punished for it.’”
I didn’t say there was one. But you can check out:
Leviticus 15
Leviticus 12
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 20
Leviticus 21
Proverbs 30
Romans 1
Romans 13
I Corinthians 6
I Corinthians 10
Matthew 5
Acts 15
etc, etc, etc.
John, After reading those chapters I’m surprised you came to the conclusion you did. What those passage are speaking against are
– incest
– beastiality
– adultery
– orgies
– sex outside of marriage
– homosexual sex
– sex when a woman was having her period and shortly after childbirth
Doesn’t sound like God is saying sex is dirty, just that some sex is wrong. The last part had much to do with cleanliness.
If you want to get a good understanding of the Bible’s teaching on the goodness and joy of sex ..look at Proverbs 5:18-19 and the entire book of the Song of Solomon.
Any Christian or preacher who teaches sex is dirty doesn’t know his Bible and doesn’t understand God’s view of marital sex, and indeed shame on them. The thing is, I’ve never run across a Christian who has taught that or believes that.
Austin, it seems to me that Christians were being singled out. Why not say shame on everyone who teaches sex is dirty? Why chose a subset of the whole by singling out Christians who may say that?
A particular sub-group of Christians was.
Because Christian teachings, traditions, and scripture are the only ones relevant in this context. Buddhist and Hindu ideas about sex are irrelevant.
Phil,
Did you not read the part about, “…they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.”
Yes, it’s pretty clear your pretend god believes sex outside of marriage is wrong. “His word” repeats it about what, 15 or 20 times? Doesn’t he have anything better to do with his time than worry about people’s sexuality? Can’t you find a hobby for him? Maybe you could pretend he collects stamps?
“If you want to get a good understanding of the Bible’s teaching on the goodness and joy of sex…”
Wow, you were able to cherry pick parts of your Bible which show your god in a positive light? Who would have thought that possible?
“Any Christian or preacher who teaches sex is dirty doesn’t know his Bible…”
And just what makes your interpretation correct and their interpretation wrong? Couldn’t an omnipotent god write a book that has no room for interpretation?
Austin,
Kinky sexual behaviors is not comparable to inter-ethnic relationships, but since you asked, if people who are ethnically prejudiced want to speak against interracial sex, then it’s their right to do so.
If H&L want to say that H&L activities are OK, they can do so outside work & school hours, but if they’re going to talk about it during work & school hours, then it’s only fair that opposing views be given. Honest discussions don’t require censorship & if H&L are interested in honest discussion, they’ll listen to views of those who see something wrong with H&L activities.
HOmos & lesbians have higher incidence of certain diseases-sodomy & oral sex has been linked to an incr. risk (though small) of certain cancers & those sexual behaviors don’t result in procreation. H&L also often have higher incidence of suicides, depression, etc., but this is beyond the scope.
As to celibates, if some1 of the homo or lesbian orientation never engages in H&L activities, they won’t face the punishment. Iran & Saudi Arabia are egs. In those nations, the word orientation isn’t used in the vocabulary. They define it based on behavior.
If you read the statutes of Nazi Germany & Austria against homosexuality, they jailed people Paragraph 175 (it was there before the Nazis came to power) for engaging in H&L activities. The laws against homo&lesbian activities is synonymous to laws against zoophilia.
And the same is true when it comes to interracial or interfaith relationships?
And would you also say that blacks who are interested in “honest discussion,” they will listen to those who see something wrong with desegregation?
Well, this is basically a restatement of the claim which I have been asking you to provide evidence for. Can you show examples where gays have not been punished because they are celibate?
Yes, I know. I’m curious why you would approve of emulating that.
I wasn’t aware that sexual attraction to animals was illegal anywhere. All this time you’ve been insisting that you are only interested in banning behavior, not orientation and attraction; now, however, you indicate quite strongly that it’s the state of being “sexually attracted to” which you would see proscribed by law.
I’m pretty sure that I’ve asked you numerous times to explain and justify this, but so far I don’t seem to have noticed any answers along those lines. Are you working up to it, or what?
Austin,
Your rehash comparing Blacks to homos & lesbians is dull. Blacks are a group based on ethnicity. Homos & lesbians can stop being H&L behaviorally, by changing their behavior to either straight activities or celibacy.
I already gave the egs. of nations incl. Nazi Germany & Austria where H&L were jailed for engaging in H&L activities. Paragraph 175 also had laws against bestiality-people who have sex with animals & according to Paragraph 175, bestiality is synonymous to homosexuality.
Transexuals are worse than the H&L. Also most Blacks disagree with the comparison of H&L to Black people. Most Blacks find it insulting to be compared to those who engage in kinky sex.
It’s H&L groups who raised the topic that H&L activities are OK & if they want to honestly discuss it @ work, then they’ll listen to those who consider those behaviors as bad, even if they dislike it.
H&L are comparable to smokers & swingers, not Blacks. If a swinger wants to talk about the virtues of swinging, then it’s only fair that the other side is given.
Yes, it does get boring hearing the view that people who engage in kinky sex be compared to Blacks. Incidentally, black people do debate those who are against desegregation & affirmative action, so your point is moot.
I’m talking about orientation, not behavior, so the comparison is legitimate. If it bothers you, using the religious comparison I raised.
Yes, but that isn’t relevant to any questions I asked. To repeat one of the many questions you have refused to answer: “Can you show examples where gays have not been punished because they are celibate?”
I have to be honest with you: if you persist in ignoring and refusing to answer such questions, your comments will have to be treated as trolling and no longer permitted here. I’ll only humor your comments for just so long — specifically, for so long as you actually engage in conversation by answering questions and constructing arguments. If you just repeat the same content-free things over and over, there’s no point — you’re wasting your time and everyone else’s
I didn’t realize you were here to be entertained.
Please cite an example of a black person today who listens to those who see something wrong with desegregation.
missionaryway,
“HOmos & lesbians have higher incidence of certain diseases…”
So it’s a public health issue? All forms of sex carry risk of disease transmission, why not pass laws against all forms of sex? Children can be produced in vitro and in vitro fertilization is disease free. You could prevent the spread of a huge number of diseases if you just made all forms of sex illegal (the behavior of course, not the orientation). Or could there be better ways of dealing with the public health problem of sexually transmitted diseases?
“Homos & lesbians can stop being H&L behaviorally…”
Why should they? If it isn’t a public health issue, why do you care what happens between consenting adults?
John,
I thought we might be able to have an informed conversation, but obviously not. We can’t because you don’t understand the laws of the nation of Israel. You don’t know that they were divided into several categories each with its own specific purpose.
Would you tell us have many categories and name them and tell us all the function of each?
Since God is the Creator of humankind, He does have a vested interest in what we do. Maybe He repeats Himself because what He says is important and He wants to make sure that His people don’t miss it. Obviously there are some who get it, but choose to ignore it.
The Bible teaches that He not only designed sex for pleasure, but also as a picture, can you tell us all the picture? Can you explain why sex outside of marriage messes up the picture?
I didn’t cherry pick verses, I gave you an entire book on the joy of marital sex. Obviously it fit your prejudice so you want to disregard it.
What do you know about interpreting the Bible? You think the Bible teaches that sex is dirty but you didn’t even give me one passage which said that it is. When you included a passage which mentioned “unclean” you did so because you are completely ignorant as to what “unclean” means in the book of Leviticus. That calls into question you ability to judge someone else’s understanding of what the Bible actually teaches. Stick to an area that you understand, what the Bible teaches obviously isn’t one of them.
Are there biblical passage which make different interpretation possible? Sure, but there are plenty that people twist for their own agendas. And there are others which are completely clear and you ignore those to your eternal peril.
Austin
“Because Christian teachings, traditions, and scripture are the only ones relevant in this context. Buddhist and Hindu ideas about sex are irrelevant.”
John is the one who made the statement “and” he is the one who brought Christians and Christianity into the discussion. His statement did not fit the context of the discussion.
His entire statement was “The real shame here is on Christians who teach that sex is dirty and anyone who has sex deserves to be punished for it.” Then he later said that he read it in the Bible. NOT.
He said also said that he had heard preachers say that as well. I question that because they would then be saying their parents should be punished for having sex and the same would be true of the preacher — so I seriously doubt it.
He gave not proof or even an hint of evidence which may point to the validity of his outlandish statement.
The context is the Boy Scouts and American culture, thus my pervious comment. So, feel free to actually address my comment instead of trying to transfer your disagreement with John to me. I’m not John – you can talk to me about what I have written.
Austin, I have addressed my comments to John concerning his ignorance of the Bible and what it teaches and subsequent inability to determine if someone rightly interpreted Scriptures.
The reality is he believes that most Christians believe that sex is dirty and those that have sex should be punished. I know that because most Christians believe the Bible and he believes the Bible teaches what he thinks it teaches and it does not.
If someone makes what you think is an outlandish statement against atheists or something you hold to you are very quick to disagree or to ask for evidence and site sources and perhaps rightly so, but when it comes to outlandish statements against Christians and Christianity, such as John’s you don’t ask for verification. Why?
The reality is that the accuracy of this interpretation of yours ranks up there with your belief that John generalized about all Christians. In other words, it’s false and the most generous assumption is that you just don’t understand English very well. Since you seem to be able to use it reasonably well, though, a stronger argument might be made for deliberate misrepresentation.
Maybe because John hasn’t been saying what you’ve been accusing him of saying. He hasn’t said anything about all Christians or most Christians. You just make that up out of whole cloth. Why? Perhaps you can’t make a case against his actual arguments so you have to make up a new argument to attribute to him which is easier for you to attack.
That doesn’t appear to be working for you, though, so now you’re trying to criticize me not just for things I haven’t said, but that no one has said. It might qualify as clever if it weren’t so transparent. I recommend going back to trying to defend your homophobic bigotry — you may not have been having much luck with that, but you were at least doing a bit better. You were certainly better at it than missionaryway (and I notice that you don’t disagree with anything they have claimed).
Personally, I think that so long as the Scouts are filled with Christian bigots, then gays and atheists may be better off not being let in. Blacks don’t try to join the KKK, after all, so all that needs to be done is ensure that no government agencies continue giving the BSA special privileges.
Phil,
Sorry I’ve been away. Did you miss me?
“…you don’t understand the laws of the nation of Israel.”
That’s a heck of a conclusion for you to leap to based on my one Bible quotation. It’s also irrelevant. Perhaps you should argue Bible interpretation with the American Bible Society (http://www.bibles.com/brcpages/PurityCleanandUnclean). They say, “Ordinary human experiences like sexual relations (Exod 19:4-15; 1 Sam 21:4), birth (Lev 12), and death (Num 6:6) were believed to involve impure powers or forces. So, for example, anyone who made contact with a dead body was impure and had to be made clean.”
“Since God is the Creator of humankind…”
No he wasn’t. He’s only make believe.
“Maybe He repeats Himself because what He says is important…”
Maybe the guys who wrote the books of the Bible had unhealthy obsessions with other people’s sexuality.
“Can you explain why sex outside of marriage messes up the picture?”
Who cares?
“What do you know about interpreting the Bible?”
I know there are a large number of Christian sects, each with its own interpretations of Bible passages. As you yourself said, “Are there biblical passage (sic) which make different interpretation possible? Sure…”
“You think the Bible teaches that sex is dirty…”
I didn’t say that.
“Then he later said that he read it in the Bible.”
No I didn’t. In fact, what I did say was, “I never said there was one.”
“That calls into question you (sic) ability to judge someone else’s understanding…”
No it doesn’t.
“Stick to an area that you understand…”
That’s what I have done.
“…what the Bible teaches obviously isn’t one of them.”
I never said it was.
“And there are [Biblical passages] which are completely clear and you ignore those to your eternal peril.”
There is no eternal peril.
“The reality is he believes that most Christians believe…”
Two more conclusions you have leaped to.
“He said also said that he had heard preachers say that as well…”
That’s not what I said.
“John is the one who…brought Christians and Christianity into the discussion…”
The topic was (originally) the Boy Scouts of Philadelphia and their discrimination against gays and atheists. The discrimination is, so I am told, related to the Boy Scouts’ Christian affiliation. The “Scout Law” says, “A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties.” and the Scout Oath says, “On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God…”
“…when it comes to outlandish statements against Christians and Christianity, such as John’s…”
Not outlandish. True. Care to offer proof it is not, or even any evidence?
“I thought we might be able to have an
informed conversation…”
It can’t be much of a conversation if you keep leaping to conclusions and, even worst, misrepresenting what I say.
John, Thanks for clearing things up. You don’t believe the Bible teaches that sex is dirty and that those that have it should be punished.
That also means that since the majority of Christians believe the Bible to be true then you also affirm that most Christians must not think that sex is dirty or that those that have sex should be punished.
1. The phrase “believe the Bible to be true” is too ambiguous to be meaningful or to base any conclusions on. Different Christians believe radically different things about the Bible.
2. The premise “the Bible does not teach X” does not entail the conclusion “Christians do not believe X.” There are lots of things not in the Bible which Christians believe. For example, the term “Trinity” is not specifically stated anywhere, but it’s a standard Christian doctrine. The Bible says nothing about how to prepare steak, but Christians have lots of beliefs about that.
Let me clarify
1. The Bible is truth.
The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in the original autographs and are the only infallible rule for what Christians believe and how they are to live. Although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not speak on all subjects and although they do not speak exhaustively on any, where they do speak they speak authoritatively.
Agreed different Christians (or professing Christians)can be found to believe almost anything about the Bible.
However, if a person portends to be a spokesperson for Christianity and what they say is not consistent with what the Bible teaches then they are not a good source for information on Christianity.
2. True.
What the Bible teaches about sex is that it is a good gift from God for humankind’s pleasure and for the propagation of the human race. It also teaches that it is to be enjoyed only within the marriage relationship.
The book of Song of Solomon extols the pleasure aspect of marital sexual relations.
Therefore if a person says they are a Christian and they believe that the Bible is truth, then they will believe that sex marital sex is not only pleasurable but also morally good.
Phil,
“Thanks for clearing things up.”
You’re welcome.
“You don’t believe the Bible teaches that sex is dirty and that those that have it should be punished.”
Do I really need to say, “I didn’t say that?” Can we just stipulate from this point forward that whenever you say I believe something it isn’t anything that I actually said?
“…you also affirm that most Christians…”
(See my above comments.)
“… the majority of Christians believe the Bible…”
Which version of the Bible are you talking about?
“Let me clarify”
If only you could…
“The Bible is truth.”
Which form of truth are you talking about? Literal truth?
“The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in the original autographs…”
I have never seen an “autographed” copy of the Bible. If you have one or know someone who does, I know a number of people who would like to see it. I have been told the oldest existing copies of Bibles were made hundreds or even thousands of years after the stories were first written. My understanding is modern English translations of Bibles are bastardizations of the ancient texts, but I don’t read ancient languages and so cannot verify those claims.
“…the majority of Christians believe…the Scriptures are…the only infallible rule for what Christians believe and how they are to live…”
No, some believe in personal revelation. There may be other exceptions, I cannot know what all Christians believe.
“Agreed, different Christians (or professing Christians)can be found to believe almost anything about the Bible.”
Hence, rendering moot any discussion of whether or not they believe the Bible to be true.
“What the Bible teaches about sex is that it is a good gift from God for humankind’s pleasure…”
I’m running out of time right now, but I will say more about sexual repression and asceticism in modern Christianity when I get the chance.
I reaffirm what I said earlier, “If a person portends to be a spokesperson for Christianity and what they say is not consistent with what the Bible teaches then they are not a good source for information on Christianity.”
The Scriptures teach there is a God., that our sin separates us from God, but He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us so that we could be to reconciled to God. Those who believe have eternal life, those who do not are condemned already.
There are of course some who deny the existence of God and the validity of the Scriptures; God knows that and this is what He said about that and them “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
Before getting to Austin’s points, 1st to John, the right word is VENEREAL DISEASE(VD), not the other word. Please write in understandable language.
To address Austin’s ? w/o repeating myself. As far as have celibate homos & lesbians ever been punished because of orientation ? The answer is no & here are egs. In Libya & Saudi Arabia, celibate gays are left alone. It’s when they engage in H&L activities is when they’re sent to jail. I’ve talked to Muslims before who’ve said that it’s not about orientation, it’s about behavior. They’ve told me a synonym in that we don’t jail people because they have the attraction or orientation to engage in any behavior be it homosexuality or murder, but rather it’s when they engage in the behavior.
Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family has himself said that orientation is a side issue. He has said that if H&L never engage in H&L activities, they won’t be punished.
The term sexual orientation was popularized by Kinsey. Since this is about religous organizations not allowing homosexual leaders, the ? is why are homosexuals not allowed to become leaders? The religious organizations have themselves said it’s because of sexual behavior not orientation.
John Biven of the Family Taxpayers Network (who is not religous) has himself said that if H&L don’t want to be punished, stop engaging in H&L behaviors & that the issue is behavior not orientation & that it’s about ending H&L activities regardless of orientation change.
I hope the egs. I have cited-Libya, Saudi Arabia, Dr. Dobson, John Biven, et. al. who say that if a gay is celibate, he won’t be punished answer your ? Anything more I say will be repeating.
OK, that’s a clear and unambiguous claim. Can you provide evidence for it?
I disagree. I think that what they have told you is something which many Christians also believe: that homosexuality is defined by behavior, not feelings, and therefore someone who doesn’t engage in homosexual activity is not really gay in the first place. That’s what “it’s not about orientation, it’s about behavior” typically means.
So, the Boy Scouts will allow celibate gays to be leaders and members?
No, they haven’t answered my question because you haven’t cited any direct evidence. You make claims about what others say and do, but no direct quotations and direct evidence. I’m not simply going to take your word for it, especially given how many unsupported claims you have made thus far.
Austin:
TO answer your? of where have Blacks debated white supremacists who think that segregation is OK, well that was shown in the past on Geraldo Rivera. Most people don’t seriously follow what segregationists say, so Black leaders have defeated those who believe in segregation.
The more recent debates have been over affirmative action & FOX News Network has had debates between pro & anti-affirmative action.
To clarify 1 of your points. I have not said that I would lobby states to pass laws against H&L activities, etc. What I’ve said is that if the govt. wants to make it a crime to engage in any sexual activity besides straight missionary sex (man’s penis entering woman’s vagina), then I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
I do believe that if repair therapists find the 100 % cures for homosexuality, then the issue of laws is a moot point.
Incidentally, last year you discussed recovered homos & lesbians & the issue of repair therapy. You wrote that it’s unproven. Dr. Robert Spitzer in a 2001 study concluded that some H&L could change not only their behaviors but also orientation, though it happened after a long journey. Yes, the # is small, but change is possible in some cases.
I’m not a repair therapist nor am I an expert on it. The success rate of r.t. is a sideissue, because homosexual groups & apologists for sex change maimings are against repair therapy to cure homosexuality & GID, no matter what the efficacy is. Homosexual groups don’t want recovered homos & lesbians to speak @ schools because they don’t want pupils to know that in @least some cases, repair therapy is successful & politics rather than science often dominates topics like homosexuality. The experts still understand so little about it & it’s easy to become arrogant.
That doesn’t answer my question because I didn’t ask if it had ever happened. Please go back, re-read the question, and answer that one instead.
I didn’t say you did, so this doesn’t answer any questions either.
Calling it “repair” therapy implies that something is broken.
missionaryway,
“1st to John, the right word is VENEREAL DISEASE(VD)…”
Actually, “venereal disease” is two words.
“…not the other word. Please write in understandable language.”
By “the other word,” are you referring to the three words I used, “sexually transmitted disease?” If so, it appears you were able to understand what I said. I, on the other hand, am left wondering what the heck it is you are trying to say.
Yes, Venereal Disease (VD) is 2 words, but it’s the easier to understand word.
Austin, I don’t know how else to answer the ?s you’ve raised besides the 1s I’ve given. Yes, repair therapy (r.t.) does mean that there’s something broken which needs to be repaired.
Repair therapy (r.t.) used to be the norm by mainstream psychology to treat h&L along with GID. G.C. Davison 1st said in 1974 (homosexuality was removed from DSM in 1973) that psychologists should not offer reparative therapy to treat homosexuality, even if patients want it because he said it reinforces – views of homosexuality. In 1989, G.C. Davison’s view was still regarded as extreme by mainstream psychologists, but ever since the the 1991-92 Simon LeVay brain studies report, mainstream psychologists have abandoned r.t. & since the late 1990s, groups like the APA, AMA, etc. have condemned r.t. & G.C. Davsion’s view has now become the norm.
Dr. Robert Spitzer has said that while H&L should not be forced into repair therapy (this doesn’t happen anyhow), he has said that to not offer repair therapy (r.t.) to treat homosexuality is hubris on the part of experts who think they know the answers. Even Simon LeVay in 2001 said that though he dimly views repair therapy to treat homosexuality, if H&L want repair therapy to change their behaviors & orientation to straight or celibate, he will support them. The AMA are arrogant turds.
As noted, politics has often trumped science when it comes to homosexuality. As also noted, the discussions that H&L groups raise regarding success of repair therapy is a sideissue, as are the discussions surrounding the causes of it. H&L groups will decry repair therapy to treat homosexuality & GID not matter what the success is. Yes, the repair therapists are also not neutral, but mainstream psychology & medicine have lost neutrality when it comes to homosexuality & are adhering to what’s politically safe.
OK, it’s the repair therapists job to find the 100% cure for homosexuality, but what if repair therapists do discover the 100% cures for homosexuality, GID, sodomy & oral sex? Discoveries & findings can change discussions. If 100% cures are found, it will raise topics many may not have thought of before.
You don’t know how to support claims with direct quotes and evidence?
OK, what’s broken?
Happy Halloween Austin:
You know my answer of what’s broken, & I won’t repeat it. You have not addressed the issues of what if repair therapists did discover the 100% cures for homo & lesbian activities, Gender Dysphoria (GID), sodomy & oral sex?
I know 1 thing-the world will be a better place if the only sexual activity is man’s penis entering woman’s vagina. The world will also be a better place w/o sex change maimings-a sad abomination in science. What if a Black person believed that he or she was born White instead of Black? It’s also an abomination to whiten a Black person’s skin. A boy can not become a girl & a girl can not become a boy. A Black person also can not become white.
No, I don’t know the answer. To say that you won’t “repeat” it implies that you’ve already said, but where?
This assumes that there is something to “repair,” but since I don’t share that assumption — and you won’t support it — the question is invalid.
If you “know” it, then you should be able to prove it.
I expect you can prove that, too.
Missionaryway,
“It’s also an abomination to whiten a Black person’s skin.”
What about trying to darken a white person’s skin? Is suntanning also an abomination in the eyes of your God?
John,
Personally I hate hot weather & I am against suntanning too. Suntanning causes skin problems & raises the risks of skin cancers. They could close down all the tanning salons. Tanning salons are bad for the skin.
missionaryway,
I’m not talking about the dangers of skin cancer, I’m talking about the abomination of changing skin color. What about spray on tans? No chance of cancer there, but isn’t it an abomination in the eyes of your God? Shouldn’t those people be beaten to death with rocks, just like the “boys who try to change themselves into girls?” What about women (or men for that matter) that wear makeup to change the color of their skin, or lips? Shouldn’t they all be stoned?
“I know 1 thing-the world will be a better place if the only sexual activity is man’s penis entering woman’s vagina.”
Did you mean to say better or boring?
Well, the Missionary has one point, the world would be better if everyone was exactly like ‘him’. It would be simpler, there would be little or nothing to fight about. Homophobia wouldn’t exist if there were no homosexuals. If everyone liked the same food, there would be no arguments about what to have for dinner.
This is the mindset of a fundamentalist. Define the world in black and white terms, either/or. Then eliminate the side you dislike. Suddenly, everything will be fine and dandy!
Alas, the world is not only NOT black and white, it is shades of grey and myriad colors. Things are not simple. People are not all the same. Life is tough… wear a helmet. That works on many levels.
Missionary… do you have any idea how much your rhetoric sounds just like the Taliban’s? Did you miss the new testament’s stuff about loving your neighbor, even if he is a queerosexual?
And did you know that One is a 3 letter word? It is only 2 strokes more than ‘1′. L33t$p3@k or txt msg tpng is not cool after age 25.
Also, you are marking “one” as a possessive because you don’t know that most words pluralize by adding an S. There are no words in the English language pluralized by ’s. The idea of pluralizing the word ‘one’ is ridiculous. If it is more than ONE (1), then it is NOT ONE. If you mean to say five, then say five. “Ones” is an impossible concept. If you are too lazy to type the antecedent, use a pronoun that actually works: these, those etc. You know pronouns… from 3rd grade English class?
The thing that always amazes me is the way xian/religious bigots is their insistence that gay and lesbian folks can simply “switch” to being straight.
I wonder if they think this way because they themselves are homosexuals in denial that “choose” to act straight? If they can do it why can’t everyone? It seems to me that it is the only way they can profess to “know” that people can choose to not be gay/lesbian if they “want”.
It IS the same as bing born black, they can no more change to begin straight than a black can change to another color of their choice.
Gay is not the same as pedophile, most child molesters are straight, not gay.
Your comments are predictably wrong on some points. 1st of all, I’m not a Christian. I’m not even religious, so your points are moot.
If 1 truly cares about ending animal cruelty, then abolishing they must abolish sex change maimings, because they were 1st done on animals. Tennis player Martina Navaratilova has protested the experiments to try to make gay sheep straight. OK, I agree that animal behavior is a silly guide to people. Cannibalism is found among some animals such as rodents & crocodiles who eat their young. Yet Martina Navratilova hasn’t protested sex change maimings-1st done on animals. If Martina Navratilova cares about animals as she claims to, then she’ll favor abolishing sex change maimings.
While I don’t believe in suntanning, having skin damaged by the sun happens in nature. However, it’s an abomination for a Dr. to turn a Black person white or a White person black. I’m also against Drs. trying to make Whites look Orientals (operating the eyelids) or trying to make Orientals look White. I’m also against Drs. trying to make Japanese people look Chinese & vice versa.
I’ve made my points & if you post again, please don’t make wrong conclusions, because I’m not a religious fundamentalist & I am proof that you don’t have to be religous to see something wrong with abominations such as sex change maimings.
Idiom, you reran what has been said many times before, when as noted, it’s not about sexual orientation. It’s about ending H&L activities even if orientation or feelings don’t change. Yes, it’s advising people to live their sex lives, but so what?
Also Idiom, you shouldn’t assume that every1 who posts against H&L activities is a Christian. Perhaps homo&lesbians don’t choose their feelings & there may be a biological reason (be it genes or hormones) as to the reasons why they engage in H&L activities, but that as noted earlier is a sideissue. Please think of something new other than doing rehashes on sideissues which have been overkilled. Now you can call it pretend, asking a person of H&L activities to engage in either straight sexual activity or celibacy, but yes, that’s what’s in their best interest.
But, like religious people with those views, you are unable and unwilling to even try to provide a rational, reasonable argument on behalf of your position. You just use the same rhetoric (”abomination”) and repeat it over and over as if repetition were itself an argument.
Well, it’s not — it’s just a sign that a person has no argument, but is too stubborn to admit that and reconsider.
“I’m not even religious”
I want some of what you’re smoking then.
At least theists have the excuse of having been indoctrinated into believing all the bigoted BS, you do it by choice, that is beyond demented and shameful.
I was a scout denmother, and I know there are gay men in the organization, and in my experience they are some of the greatest men to have around.
When my daughter goes out dancing with her friends they go to gay bars, they are totally safe there, no freaks like you or straight men who bother them or try to force themselves upon her and her friends.
You, and people like you, are the last people I would want around children. You are poisonous and diseased, which is not what normal parents want around their children.
But you wouldn’t know anything about normal now would you?
Idiom, I don’t smoke-what do you smoke? I used to have a neutral view of homo&lesbian activities, but changed my views after I learned more about things which only get minor coverage in the press-usu. 1sided in favor of H&L.
With H&L, only occassionally do we read about the fact that H&L have higher death rates from certain disease, higher incidence of domestic violence & even higher drug use & suicide rates. H&L groups say it’s because of society’s intolerance, but even in nations tolerant of H&L activities such as Holland, the rates are not that different, so societal prejudice is not that great a factor.
H&L activities are harmful in & of themselves. H&L have higher incidence of deaths from certain cancers. While sodomy & oral sex have been linked to higher cases of VD (if 1 is promiscous), H&L activities have even been linked to a small incr. in the deaths from certain cancers. Lesbians have higher incidence of bacterial vaginosis. You are a bad person if you teach your daughter that certain sexual behaviors are OK, because they’re harmful. That is sad. Also Idiom, if you see nothing wrong with sex change maimings & if you would approve of your daughter having 1, then it’s even sadder.
Idiom, all this you rehashed earlier about whether it’s inborn or repair therapy to treat homosexuality are sideissues which I mentioned earlier. It would be fair to say that you’re against repair therapy to treat homosexuality regardless of efficacy. This is blind faith which is typical of people such as yourself. You support free will when it comes to engaging in H&L activities between consenting adults, yet you oppose free will when it comes to helping those who don’t want to engage in H&L activities anymore to quit.
I f homosexual AIDS victims had been celibate, they wouldn’t have died of AIDS. It’s a waste of time to sanitize homosexual activities. The right thing to do is to advise them to change to either straight activities or celibacy, just as we advise fat people to lose weight or smokers to quit smoking. Now people will do as they see fit, but what H&L have no right to do is give 1 sided views that their sexual behaviors are OK, w/o opposing views. Tammy Bruce is a lesbian who is opposed to GLSEN is against the indoctrination done by H&L groups. She is fairer than most H&L, though she is a lesbian. She has said that H&L should be free to live their sex lives as they see fit with consenting adults, but that it’s wrong to push 1 sided views & honest discussions involve giving both sides & have no deceit. Even lesbian TV commentator Tammy Bruce of FOX News has decried sex change maimings which she believes is a waste of science.
Austin, with regard to the harms of sex change maimings, it doesn’t take an expert to understand that injecting the body with hormones raises the risk of certain cancers. Transexuals as noted are worse than the H&L. Transexuals have higher suicide rates, higher rates of depression, sometimes caused by regrets over the maimings. The hormone shots raise the risks of strokes, heart attacks & even certain cancers. It’s evil for a Dr. to give steroids to an athlete. Yet some Drs. are giving harmful hormones to those who suffer from GID. As noted, they must cure GID, not maim the patient. It’s sad that the press usu. doesn’t discuss the medical harms of abominations called sex change maimings.
On another note regarding rubbish written by Idiom-her bashing of men who have sex with women. Her implied comment of men who have sex with women are raping them is utter rubbish & typical crap of those who are like attorney Gloria Allred.
OK, most people (usu. men but sometimes women) accused of rape & sex abuse are guilty. There have been cases where men have been subjected to false rape accusations by women. Like attorney Gloria Allred, Idiom seems to not care if a man accused of rape is guilty or innocent-if he is accused then he must be guilty.
Idiom, sometimes the real rape victims are those accused of it & not the accusers. Yes Idiom, innocent people are sometimes accused of sex abuse. Idiom doesn’t care, because she has implied that she doesn’t care about justice.
You are encouraged to provide citations from reliable, replicated, scientific studies demonstrating this. Don’t just claim it; provide the proof. Otherwise, your assertions will simply have to be treated as lies.
missionaryway,
“I am proof that you don’t have to be religous to see something wrong with abominations…The right thing to do is to advise them to change to either straight activities or celibacy, just as we advise fat people to lose weight or smokers to quit smoking.”
This is fascinating. So you also consider smoking and obesity to be abomoinations? How are you defining abomination, if it is not defined for you by a god? What does it take, in your mind, for an activity to qualify as an abomination? How about littering, or chewing gum in class?
It’s rare to see such total lack of logic in one person who claims to not be religious.
I can’t even begin to respond to so much lunacy,imaginary facts and twisting of words, seems missionaryway is getting off on this, which is a sickening thought in and of itself.
Repressed homosexuality is a dangerous thing, often expressed in active campaigning against homosexuality as missionaryway does here, it’s time for his mental masturbation to stop imo.
Hi:
Austin, I don’t have any other answers to your ?s other than what I’ve already said. Idiom’s tactics are predictable. She can’t refute or engage in dialogue with what I write, but instead resorts to ad homenims, claiming I’m a “repressed homo”.
If Idiom thinks I’m a homo, then maybe Idiom should let me spend 5 minutes with her daughter & let me make love to her! But seriously, Idiom can’t offer any facts to refute me. I suppose that people who campaign against smoking are repressed smokers-but as noted, it’s about behavior not orientation.
I have written about many topics on the Internet, whether it’s the 2 World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam War & history of the Chinese in America. I’ve traveled to many places in the U.S., Europe & I’ve been to Japan, India & Thailand. I speak 3 languages which incl. Spanish.
I have written that I’m against the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki & I’ve written that if the U.S. wanted to show Japan the atom bomb’s strength that this could have been done by dropping it on a military base on armaments factories in Japan where fewer civilians would have been killed & wounded-such as 1,500 killed or wounded as a result of collateral damage, rather than 150,000 killed & wounded in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I’m against all deliberate killings of innocents whether it’s Pearl Harbor, Rape of Nanking, Bataan Massacre, etc. It’s 1 thing to do a bombing raid on a military base or armaments factories where some civilians are killed as a result of collateral damage, but it’s wrong to deliberately target civilians.
I’ve also written about the environment & that I support nuclear powerplants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions & nuclear powerplants are safe. I also have written that I would rather every1 be vegetarians, but given that most people eat meat, @least require the animal is humanely killed. I’ve also written about euthanasia, etc.
The topic where I get the angriest replies on is the blind faith which surrounds homosexuality & worse transexuality. What is it about kinky sex that people like Idiom blindly defend? Is Idiom a lesbian?
What I have said is that I side with those who see something wrong with homosexuality & if they want to pass laws against H&L activities, I won’t stop them. If repair therapists want to find the cures for homosexuality & Gender Dysphoria, then it’s for the better. As noted, even Simon LaVey has said that if repair therapists want to find cures for this, he’ll support their right, though he believes it’s misguided.
If Idiom wants to seriously discuss what I’ve addressed,then she must get off her drugs & stop resorting to ad homenims. I took the time to address Austin’s points as well as I could, w/o resorting to ad homenims. I expect the same from others.
Well, you didn’t actually answer the questions so you don’t have answers — and more importantly, you don’t have any support for your claims. This means you’re in no position to complain about others not engaging in dialogue and not offering “facts” to “refute” you. First, consider supporting your claims with facts then worry about what others say in response.
Maybe because this is the topic where you most fully express your bigotry and have no facts or logic to support your accusations?
If you want to discuss this matter seriously, please learn how to provide verifiable facts and logical arguments on behalf of your claims. You should also learn that if “ad hominems” bother you, then you shouldn’t use them yourself by accusing others of drug use.
“If Idiom thinks I’m a homo, then maybe Idiom should let me spend 5 minutes with her daughter & let me make love to her!”
I rest my case, this is beneath contempt, to go so low as to attack and threaten my child is revolting and further proves the lack of any redeeming social value in missionaryway.
Consider yourself lucky, being able to hide behind the internet, in person my reaction to this would be different.
An interesting mess of opinions here… how come no one addressed the ussies of atheists being excluded… is it “the same thing” as gays being excluded?… different?… what dangers do atheists bring to the BSA?… would it be ok if they slept in separate tents?… or is it just gay atheists we need to be afraid of?… are pedophiles strictly forbidden?… can women be scout leaders?…
… I’d prefer the BSA be allowed to practice whatever bigotry they wish… just not in a privileged way…
I know Phil is probably long gone, but I promised him I would comment further on the Bible and sexuality when I had a chance, so here it is.
As I said, I don’t speak ancient languages so I cannot say how I would translate the books of the Bible from their original languages. All I can do is repeat what I hear from others.
An article in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality ) claims the King James Version of the Bible contains a number of mistranslations which are most likely intentional mistranslations since they reflect the sexual biases of the times in which the translations were made. As examples, the article notes the hebrew word to’ebah which is translated as “abomination” should have been translated as “foreign religious cult practice,” the word “qadesh” is translated as “sodomite” but actually means “holy one,” and the Greek phrase, “para physin” is translated as “unnatural” but actually should be, “unconventional.”
The King James Version mistranslations combined to take prohibitions against specific acts in specific situations and change them into general condemnation of all sexuality outside of what was acceptable in England at the time in which the translations were made.
Another criticism of the current interpretations of Biblical sexuality can be found at: http://eaglewoman.rscsites.org/essays/karnan.htm
There, Rev. Bob Karnan railed against homophobia in a sermon in which he said, “The sudden discovery of sexual repression and guilt came to the Church following the forth century and in the sixth century the final versions of the New Testament were canonized. You will not be surprised to know, I suspect, that further “translations” (or versions) of both the Old and New Testaments have inserted into those older documents the theological, social, sexual, and sexist views of the times in which they were added. Like a rolling ball of snow the Bible now is an accumulation of three thousand years of moral, theological, and sexual attitudes layered upon one another in often wild profusion.”
The Christian tradition also includes the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (http://www.emmerich1.com/SEXUALIMMORALITY.htm#The%20following) who advised, “…lust conflicts with reason, and is a sin.” and “Kisses and touches that are lustful are also mortal sins.”
The Bible may have celebrated sexuality at one time and the song of Solomon may indeed be a surviving relic of that celebration, but if the Bible once celebrated sexuality, it was long ago bastardized into a book full of sexual biases and repression.
This fight is not about discrimination against gays and atheists, or anyone/anything else. This conflict is about one person controlling the actions of the many. This is called power.
We quibble sideways about the symptoms of power, but no one seems to recognize the cause. WAKE UP PEOPLE! See what’s really going on here…!
I’ve searched the name ‘missionaryway’ a number of times now and have come across a post, now dating back more than two years, on an unrelated forum, recommending that same-gender sexual activity (and all sex beside the missionary position) should be criminalised in the U.S. It was obviously from the same person as ‘missionaryway’, since it was written in the same shorthand style (leetspeak, perhaps?). There was a subtle difference in that while the posts from just over a year ago left under the name ‘missionaryway’ here and elsewhere merely tacitly approve of banning all forms of sex except coitus, the post on this forum actively advocates such a ban. However, given that this post dates from June 2006, up to 17 months before the ‘missionaryway’ posts, it’s not unreasonable to suggest it was the same guy but that he had very slightly changed his views.
It appears that this guy’s real name is Anirba Bhuttacharya. That was the name that the forum post was signed off with. I think he must have abbreviated it to A.B., removed the full stops and typed it in lowercase letters, since one of the guises that he chose for himself when he was trying to pull a fast one by masquerading as multiple posters was ‘ab’. (’Noweirdness’ and ‘nocelbs’ were other nicknames. While I’m on that subject – and Austin can correct me if I’m wrong – I’m sure as damn it that these are all the same person, and that, therefore, this poster was trying to give the illusion of being multiple people.). Typing ‘ab’ in lowercase letters could fool people more easily, since it could – and probably would by default – be interpreted as a female name.
It seems self-evidently obvious that Anirba Bhuttacharya is also the same person as ‘anirb’, who left a comment back in April 2006. Therefore, obviously, I believe that ‘anirb’ and ‘missionaryway’are the same person, given that ‘missionaryway’ and Anirba Bhuttacharya very likely are.