Misuse of the word Phobic

[wanderingone]

You are mistaken. Legalizing gay marriage gives LEGITIMACY to homosexual relations in a way they do not now have, and WOULD influence peoples choices.

You are homophobic GerTzedek, you fear a sudden increase in the number of gay people brought on by gay marriage.. ..

 

[wanderingone]

Of course the greatest commandment "love one another as I have loved you" has nothing to do with justifying people in their own sin. It is much more loving to try to get someone OUT of a sinful lifestyle than to encourage it. If you think encouraging the homosexual lifestyle is "love" you are gonna be sorrily mistaken. Justifying people in their sin hurts them in the long run.

You don't have to approve or disapprove of anyone... you just have to leave them alone. Your approval is not necessary and preaching about how wrong you believe someone to be does nothing for them. Your beliefs have no business anywhere but in the decisions you make for yourself. You can be as sure as you want to be that being gay is sinful... what people who believe such things should not be doing is attempt to create or maintain secular laws that force other people to live according to religious beliefs they do not embrace.

The need for the world to abide by your set of values is quite often a loud expression of one's fear filled existence.

 

[wanderingone]

A single mother, or two mothers, or two fathers, or an institution, no matter how loving, are simply not the equal of a loving mother and father comitted to each other. Children need both, and the government needs to continue supporting this.

It's quite interesting how people want a nanny state when it supports their personal notions of what is good.

Your thread started out about your wanting people to use words only in the way you accept and has traveled all the way to you wanting the whole world to function according to they way you accept as legitimate.

 

[PetersKeys]

There is most definitely nothing sinful whatsoever about being LGBT or in an LGBt relationship.

You have no authority to claim what is sinful and what isn't. Only the Church as a whole does. The Church as a whole says homosexuality is a sin. One persons opinion does not overide the authority of the church.

This would not occur were it not for the woman hatred directed at them by members of the anti-abortion movement. They have done nothing sinful and nothing of which they need to be ashamed, but are told otherwise by evil forces which seek to control them.

I disgaree. They are ashamed because they know they have just killed an innocent human being who did not deserve to be killed. it is easy to blame others. But if what you say is really true women wouldn't be feeling the guilt the way they do. It is much deeper than you think

Your are misinformed; to be pro-choice is in no way at all to be pro-abortion; it is an entirely neutral position.

Right, because even though its bad to kill Jews the Nazis still should have the CHOICE to if they want to. because..you know.. its the choice that matters. Its a neutral position

This is certainly wishful thinking on your part because there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.

Again you have no authority to claim what is right and wrong. And if you think you have authority to declare what is right and wrong, I can honestly then say, you have no love for God.

Yes, because the woman haters are active everywhere

you sound paranoid. I think maybe you should take a really deep look at the actions you justify because you start blaming others. You cannot love God while defending sin.

 

[IzzyPop]

You have no authority to claim what is sinful and what isn't. Only the Church as a whole does. The Church as a whole says homosexuality is a sin. One persons opinion does not overide the authority of the church.

That is true. But one person can be enough to change it. Go read what some of your Popes had to say about owning another human being. They were wrong about that. Maybe they are wrong about this as well.

I disgaree. They are ashamed because they know they have just killed an innocent human being who did not deserve to be killed. it is easy to blame others. But if what you say is really true women wouldn't be feeling the guilt the way they do. It is much deeper than you think

Of course, for your argument to be true, there would have to be an increase in the incidents of psychological distress in women that had an abortion as compared to those that did not. There is no increase. Nice try, though.

Right, because even though its bad to kill Jews the Nazis still should have the CHOICE to if they want to. because..you know.. its the choice that matters. Its a neutral position

Nice Godwin.

Again you have no authority to claim what is right and wrong. And if you think you have authority to declare what is right and wrong, I can honestly then say, you have no love for God.

Your God, maybe. But I, too, would find your hateful God hard to love.

you sound paranoid. I think maybe you should take a really deep look at the actions you justify because you start blaming others. You cannot love God while defending sin.

See above.

 

[katautumn]

You have no authority to claim what is sinful and what isn't. Only the Church as a whole does. The Church as a whole says homosexuality is a sin. One persons opinion does not overide the authority of the church.

I think I can speak for everyone who is outside of the Christian faith and say that you have no authority over my life. The church only has authority over those within the church. The church has no authority in society, as a whole.

 

[katautumn]

By legalizing gay marriage, the door is open to those who would otherwise have chosen a heterosexual marrage to choose a homosexual partnership, thus undermining what is best for children and therefore for socieity.

How do you figure legalizing same-sex marriages would lead people away from heterosexual marriage? You're either gay, straight or bi-sexual. I can assure you, if same-sex marriages were legalized my husband wouldn't rush to divorce me so that he could marry a man. And it isn't undermining what is best for children. There are many instances where single parenting is tremendously more beneficial to the child than staying with the biological parent (in cases of physical/verbal/sexual/substance abuse, for example).

A single mother, or two mothers, or two fathers, or an institution, no matter how loving, are simply not the equal of a loving mother and father comitted to each other.

So when I was a single mother I was somehow inferior to, say, the couple down the street who have been married for ten years and are [together] raising a few kids? Nice.

Children need both, and the government needs to continue supporting this.

By that logic we should make it mandatory for every woman to marry the man who got her pregnant - regardless of circumstances and we should also criminalize divorce.

Legalizing gay marriage gives LEGITIMACY to homosexual relations in a way they do not now have, and WOULD influence peoples choices.

How does that influence people's choices? Do you honestly believe that straight men and women will rush out to enter into a same-sex marriage just because it has been "legitimized" by society?

Actually I don't. I think a great many divorces are silly, and people need to stop being so selfish, and work things out for the best interests of their children. There ARE cases where things ARE disastrous and cannot be worked out. In such cases, divorce is the lesser of two evils. That was in fact my situation. But if you think I'm going to sit here and claim that raising my children alone was better than them being raised in a loving home with a father and a mother, think again. It's not. It's simply better than raising them in a home that has become dangerous. It is not a good thing. It is a very, very BAD thing. It is just LESS bad.

How can it possibly be a very bad thing to not expose your children to abuse?

In many ways, you are correct. Divorce ON DEMAND for nothing more than "irreconcilable differences" (she has found a richer guy, he has found a younger honey) has been destructive to the family.

Those cases are probably more rare than you think. In most cases a couple just cannot tolerate one another anymore and sticking it out leads to more tension than it's worth. I fail to see how this is an environment that would be conducive to raising well-rounded children.

The destigmitization of having children out of wedlock hurt the family even worse.

How has it hurt the family? Have you ever read stories of girls back in the 1950's whose parents sent them to places like Florence Crittenton homes where their babies were taken from their against their consent so as not to make their parents "look bad"? Do you know how many young women from that era have been permanently and irrevocably traumatized due to the stigma that used to surround unwed motherhood? These were young women who wanted to raise their children, but were told that a married man and woman were more qualified for the job.

The legalization of gay marriage will go yet one step further in the destruction of the family, placing the needs of adults first above the needs of children. It has been a classic case of slippery slope.

People made the same arguments against interracial marriages - "it's selfish", "no one is thinking about the kids produced by mixed-marriages and the challenges they will face", "it's unnatural to want to marry outside of your race", etc.

And what if the same-sex union does not yield any children either through artificial insemination or adoption? Then would it be acceptable since children are not involved?

 

[Joykins]

I think there are those who think some homosexual behaviors are sinful without being homophobic. The difference would lie in how they present their conclusions.

Twenty years ago I would have said that the Bible said that homosexual behavior was a sin but it seemed unfair to me as there are allowed heterosexual behaviors within certain frameworks, why couldn't homosexual individuals use the same frameworks.

Ten years ago I would have said that that the Bible said that homosexual behavior was wrong but I flat-out disagreed with it and God because of the unfairness above.

Now I perceive those passages in the Bible to express something far more nuanced and continue to believe God has called us to compassion and any expression of condemnation without compassion is pure hypocrisy. And I think there was something in there about a beam in my own eye that needs a little work...

 

[wanderingone]

How has it hurt the family? Have you ever read stories of girls back in the 1950's whose parents sent them to places like Florence Crittenton homes where their babies were taken from their against their consent so as not to make their parents "look bad"? Do you know how many young women from that era have been permanently and irrevocably traumatized due to the stigma that used to surround unwed motherhood? These were young women who wanted to raise their children, but were told that a married man and woman were more qualified for the job.

Yes but you see all the naughty behavior was kept behind closed doors, shuffle the pregnant girls off to hide for a few months, couples who couldn't have children kept quiet about it until they could suddenly appear with a new infant ... who itself might never find out it was adopted -because after all no matter how pretty and natural the family made itself look if they acknowledged the adoption then they'd have to admit their little blessing was the result of something they couldn't admit was happening all over the place: sex outside of marriage.. :o

Those good old days where girls were just told to keep their legs shut and pretend on their wedding night that they liked "it" must have been just precious - life was just so much better when we all kept up appearances....
---------------
I know as soon as same sex marriage is legal in NY I'm going to dump my husband and find me a woman to marry! Funny thing about that logic is despite the constant pressure on gay men and women to make the "choice" to be straight they just can't do it.... if all that pressure doesn't work to straighten out the queers how in the heck does anyone think that straights will suddenly turn gay?

We have an alternative prom in my city every year... for the GLBT community and its supporters...it's funny... the girls and boys who go in to the dance straight.... come out STILL STRAIGHT!!!!!

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I just want to add, the word "Homophobe" is usually used as a put down, by those who are either homosexual or for homosexuality, against those who are not.

It's condescending and mean spirited name calling and that's all. And it really shouldn't be given any more importance than any other put down applied to anyone that disagrees with the bigot using it.

 

[PetersKeys]

I think I can speak for everyone who is outside of the Christian faith and say that you have no authority over my life. The church only has authority over those within the church. The church has no authority in society, as a whole.

The person I was replying to was a professing christian. I don't know how thats truely possible with the things she seems to justify. But her replys seem to declare that she herself has authority to claim what is right and wrong. As a christian she has no authority because moral matters are declared by the church as a whole, not some pro-abortion feminist sect that most christians have nothing to do with and that the church has condemned long ago. by the power of anathema.

 

[wanderingone]

I just want to add, the word "Homophobe" is usually used as a put down, by those who are either homosexual or for homosexuality, against those who are not.

It's condescending and mean spirited name calling and that's all. And it really shouldn't be given any more importance than any other put down applied to anyone that disagrees with the bigot using it.

It can be... but it's also simply a description, I have fears, and when they are pointed out it's really not an insult.. it's just the way things are.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It is the job of the government to set up policies that benefit society at large.

True in general as long as rights of minorities are respected.

The institiution that has shown itself as being the best social and economic arrangment for the raising of children is the marriage between men and women.

This is an opinion and nothing more. The assertion is not supported by anything but bias.

By legalizing gay marriage, the door is open to those who would otherwise have chosen a heterosexual marrage to choose a homosexual partnership, thus undermining what is best for children and therefore for socieity.

Again a matter entirely of opinion.

We all know heterosexuals (stick with them to keep it simple) who are planning on getting married heterosexually to someone we as individuals do not believe is right for them. This may be our sisters, brothers, parents, children, extended family, friends, coworkers, Pam and Roy on The Office, etc.

We can tell them "I don't think Chris is right for you" if there's extreme issues or if we are busybodies, but they have full rights to reject our advice if they wish. Sure, if it's parents doing this kind of intervening they can exert economic and emotional pressure. In the movie But I'm A Cheerleader at a family therapy meeting in a program to reprogram homosexuals into heterosexuals, the lesbian teenager Graham was told by her wealthy father that unless she "get rid of all this gay stuff" he would not buy her a car or pay for her college. He was within his rights to do that, just as she was within her rights to reject it as she did.

But public policies favoring one form of family over another are unconstitutional and reprehensible.

A single mother, or two mothers, or two fathers, or an institution, no matter how loving, are simply not the equal of a loving mother and father comitted to each other. Children need both, and the government needs to continue supporting this.

This maudlin construction does not cover up the ugly lie of heterosexism. Government is wisely backing off and rejecting such unfortunate advice, and the people are saying Amen.

Because children are involved, this is hardly a private matter.

Nothing is more frightening to an LGBT parent than the possibility of losing child custody or visitation because of the unfortunate prejudices such as this one expressed right here.

No ethical judge, attorney, or social worker will support such an atrocity. One who did and was investigated by the State Bar of Alabama for it, was the infamous disgraced ex-judge Roy Moore, who was disbarred, though not for this, but for his other unethical conduct.

 

[mpok1519]

You are mistaken. Legalizing gay marriage gives LEGITIMACY to homosexual relations in a way they do not now have, and WOULD influence peoples choices.

So, you think that if homosexual marriage becomes legal, more people will want to do become homosexual just because they'd be allowed to get married?

The thing is, homosexuals feel their relationships are legitimate; and the entire world can scream and yell about how they aren't legitimate relationships, they'll always feel they are legitimate.

You say the govt's job is to do whats best for the entire whole of society (when our govt uses a much more Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective on morality rather than the totalitarian approach) but when rather its our job, the people, not the govt's job, to do whats best for society.

Now, whether or not legal homosexual marriage will destroy society at the seams is what many people think will happen, when we all know life will go on, and everyone will be fine. The only people who'll have problems from gay marriage is the people idealogically opposed to it for most religious reasons, and since we separate church and state, we cannot make laws based upon religious assumption/doctrine.

 

[Texas Lynn]

You are mistaken. Legalizing gay marriage gives LEGITIMACY to homosexual relations in a way they do not now have, and WOULD influence peoples choices.

It might actually lead to people finding love the first time rather than going through a series of mistakes.

In such cases, divorce is the lesser of two evils. That was in fact my situation. But if you think I'm going to sit here and claim that raising my children alone was better than them being raised in a loving home with a father and a mother, think again. It's not.

The right wing loves to wax poetic about how the heterosexual marriage with a working father, submissive mother, and obedient children is the ideal, and everything else is second rate but don't believe the hype. There are good and bad relationships of all types. One is not better merely because it is politically correct. A heterosexual marriage with spouse abuse is worse than a loving LGBT home every single time.

It's simply better than raising them in a home that has become dangerous. It is not a good thing. It is a very, very BAD thing. It is just LESS bad.

This is the disconnect between fundamentalists and the rest of us, among others: beating ourselves up over vagaries like divorce does not occur to those of us not mired in legalistic religion.

In many ways, you are correct. Divorce ON DEMAND for nothing more than "irreconcilable differences" (she has found a richer guy, he has found a younger honey) has been destructive to the family. The destigmitization of having children out of wedlock hurt the family even worse. The legalization of gay marriage will go yet one step further in the destruction of the family, placing the needs of adults first above the needs of children. It has been a classic case of slippery slope.

Again, the government's job is to set policies that are for the general good of society. We are paying for this already in terms of of childhood poverty, health care, free school lunch programs, welfare programs, behavior problems ranging from classroom disorder to the largest incarcerated population in the world. No system is perfect, but some systems are clearly better than others, and we are replacing a system that has been shown to work well with one which, in its short time, has only delivered pain and suffering for our children.

In a word, we need to GROW UP and put our own needs aside for the good of the community.

Where divorce was illegal, there was always abandonment. Serfs left their wives and children routinely in the Middle Ages. There has never been an ideal of the family which was not imaginary. the slippery slope fallacy is always invalid and always timorous. Poverty, divorce, and same gender partnership headed families are nothing new.

By your reasoning John Adams was sinful in taking his son John Quincy Adams to Paris and The Hague with his during the elder Adams' service as a diplomat, without the boy's mother who ran the family farm back in Braintree, Massachusetts. And yet the younger Adams became a great diplomat himself, and while a relative failure as President like his father, a tireless fighter against slavery as an elder statesman. Had he turned out to be a gunfighter or a pimp instead perhaps people would have blamed his single parent upbringing....

 

[Texas Lynn]

Post-abortion syndrome IS pretty well documented. Before you rail against it like people are just making it up, do some research.

The "syndrome" is not recognized by professional organizations, most notably, not being included in The DSM-IV-TR [Disagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Fourth Revision, Text Revision] AKA "The Bible of Mental Health" because consensus is it is a spurrious politically created disorder by the extreme right wing. Even if it were real the stress on the woman who has had an abortion comes wholly from right wingers who condemn her.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Actually it never comes up in my real life. It's only places like here in the forum, where I'm inundated by threads pushing the gay agenda and insinuating that I'm neurotic that I end up responding.

I wouldn't diagnose over the internet so I don't know about "neurotic" but the most correct response to someone who insinuates there's something to that old saw about "the gay agenda" is "don't believe the hype".

 

[BigBadWlf]

I just want to add, the word "Homophobe" is usually used as a put down, by those who are either homosexual or for homosexuality, against those who are not.

It's condescending and mean spirited name calling and that's all. And it really shouldn't be given any more importance than any other put down applied to anyone that disagrees with the bigot using it.

Interesting that you should defend those engaged in bigotry by calling the people who correctly label them as such as “bigots”

 

[Texas Lynn]

You have no authority to claim what is sinful and what isn't. Only the Church as a whole does. The Church as a whole says homosexuality is a sin. One persons opinion does not overide the authority of the church.

This would appear to mean from you The Roman Catholic Church. I am not Roman Catholic and do not accept any authority by that church's hierarchy.

I disgaree. They are ashamed because they know they have just killed an innocent human being who did not deserve to be killed. it is easy to blame others. But if what you say is really true women wouldn't be feeling the guilt the way they do. It is much deeper than you think

It is induced by anti-abortion forces; other than that it is matter of blaming the victim.

Again you have no authority to claim what is right and wrong. And if you think you have authority to declare what is right and wrong, I can honestly then say, you have no love for God.

There is no intermediate authority between God and the individual.

You cannot love God while defending sin.

Then by your reasoning you do not love God.