Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[mmmcannibalism]

Another stop in the right direction?

 

[hide=Obama Directive to Bar Bias Based on Sexual Orientation]By LAURA MECKLER

 

 

 

WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama, offering a small win to the gay-rights community, will sign a directive Wednesday giving some new benefits to the domestic partners of federal civil service employees.

 

 

 

Specifically, federal workers will be allowed to add their gay and lesbian partners to the long-term care insurance program, and supervisors will be required to let workers use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children, according to a fact sheet released Wednesday.

 

 

 

In addition, Foreign Service employees will win a number of new benefits for their partners, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

 

 

 

It is a small item on the agenda of gay-rights groups but a welcome move after the administration angered advocates with a legal brief defending the federal government's law against gay marriage and what groups consider its slow movement to roll back the don't-ask, don't-tell policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

 

 

 

Mr. Obama will sign the presidential memorandum in the Oval Office later Wednesday, the White House said.

 

 

 

The memorandum also will make clear that federal workers can't be discriminated in hiring, firing or promotion based on sexual orientation. It directs the Office of Personnel Management to issue guidance within 90 days to all department regarding compliance with civil service laws.

 

 

 

The move comes after internal reviews by John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

 

 

The action was signaled over the weekend by Mr. Berry, the highest-ranking openly gay official in the Obama administration, in an interview with the Advocate, a newspaper oriented toward gay and lesbian issues.

 

 

 

"We will get our federal house in order and ensure that no discrimination exists in the federal workplace against any of the LGBT community," said Mr. Berry, using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. "We want to make sure that we get the benefits for the LGBT community that are equal to all other benefits provided to other federal employees."

 

 

 

He said the president soon would be announcing something "very significant" on areas where he has authority to act unilaterally and would support legislation where required.

 

 

 

Administration officials said the president doesn't have the power to grant gay and lesbian partners of federal workers health care and many other benefits. That's because of prohibitions under the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that Mr. Obama had promised to try and repeal.

 

 

 

Gay-rights groups were angered by a recent court brief filed by the Obama administration defending that law. The administration replied that it still supports repeal but was obligated to defend an existing statute.

 

 

 

Write to Laura Meckler at [email protected][/hide]

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124526168275024051.html

 

 

 

A good move, there is no legitimate reason to withold legal benefits from same sex couples.

 

 

 

So true. I'm a Christian, but I'm not against Homosexuals at all. I believe that while it is a sin, it's no different from going to the bar at night when you say you're at work, or taking a cookie from the cookie jar. My mom however, is so Christian (She's running a huge tea party here in VA Beach, kinda embarrassing) she says that every time gays kiss it's another year they spend in hell. And when I brought up how it's messed up that Gays can't get time off to care for their spouses, she said that there should be no mercy for Satanists. *sigh* God she's annoying. However, the LGBT community is upset at Obama apparently, because he didn't hold on some promise he made to them? I don't know the logistics.

 

 

 

Its interesting to see that she knows so much about god she is saying things that arent even implied by the bible. While you can say the bible implies being gay is a sin, it certainly doesnt say when you kiss you get a year.

 

 

 

If she has ear piercings point out that she is a satanist, or point out that shellfish are just as evil as homosexuality(both listed in levidicus with the same wording, called abominations) so you could laugh when she eats a lobster and then explain how shes going to hell for a year.

[Saru Inc]

Actually, many things like shellfish aren't sins anymore, they were only in the old testament simply, because they were unhealthy to eat at the time and people could get sick. But as I stated earlier she is EXTREMELY forgetful and has adhd to the extreme. But yes, she believes tattoos are evil, and also, when i started listening to Marilyn Manson (Yes, I'm a Christian, and I listen to MM) a song came on and the words were "sorry your sunday smiles were rusty nails" and she said now my soul has a mark on it. (I love Target Audience. Great song) she's the kind of Christian everyone hates, Jesus wouldn't be cursing Marilyn Manson and gays, but ministering to them, maybe volunteering at an HIV center, or ministering to Mansonites. But nah. instead shes the kind of person who stopped being friends with a guy when she found out he was gay, she's a [puncture].

[PoorLepRecon]

My opinion on this delicate topic is that it is the individuals decision. No one should be forced to comply with a society that they don't agree with. People should live how they want.

[Howlin0001]

My opinion on this delicate topic is that it is the individuals decision. No one should be forced to comply with a society that they don't agree with. People should live how they want.

 

 

 

So if my 86 year old grandmother wanted to she should be let walk around say Dublin butt naked and everyone should let her? Or am I going too far with that? Or have I taken that out of context?

[Promise]

My opinion on this delicate topic is that it is the individuals decision. No one should be forced to comply with a society that they don't agree with. People should live how they want.

 

 

 

So if my 86 year old grandmother wanted to she should be let walk around say Dublin butt naked and everyone should let her? Or am I going too far with that? Or have I taken that out of context?

 

 

 

I think your comparison between someone's sexual orientation and an elderly woman with mental issues really says something about this topic..and you. I have gay friends, someone of the coolest girls I know, but what you just said is just seems like my impression of you is someone who holds signs saying god doesnt love you and crap like that...

[Zierro]

I think Howl brings up a good point. The only reason homosexuality and elderly people walking around naked are "wrong" is because society says so and they usually don't want to see it, even though nobody is getting harmed at all (unless you count being grossed out).

[Promise]

I think Howl brings up a good point. The only reason homosexuality and elderly people walking around naked are "wrong" is because society says so and they usually don't want to see it, even though nobody is getting harmed at all (unless you count being grossed out).

 

 

 

That's true. I guess people are fine with it as long as they don't show affection in public?

[i_love_burritos]

I think Howl brings up a good point. The only reason homosexuality and elderly people walking around naked are "wrong" is because society says so and they usually don't want to see it, even though nobody is getting harmed at all (unless you count being grossed out).

 

 

 

Yeah, what about all those raw naked pygmy women you see in National Geographic Magazine !

 

 

 

:lol:

[Guest]

In my country homosexuality is a general accepted personal preference. it should remain that way. I have nothign against gay people, they are just like us, and they are usually much nicer than other people. We do not have to seclude them from anything, I see it the same as a religion; A personal preference, which by any means you should not be bothered by, and you should not convince them to think otherwise either. if you make it clear to them you are not a hater, and you are not the same, they will respect that as well and will not bother you.

[i_love_burritos]

if you make it clear to them you are not a hater, and you are not the same, they will respect that as well and will not bother you.

 

 

 

Anyone see the fallacy here ?

 

 

 

If anyone wants my view on homosexuality and my perception of other peoples' views, I shall give them.

 

 

 

I'm not going to write a long-winded post if no-one is going to read it !

[Guest]

if you make it clear to them you are not a hater, and you are not the same, they will respect that as well and will not bother you.

 

 

 

Anyone see the fallacy here ?

 

 

 

If anyone wants my view on homosexuality and my perception of other peoples' views, I shall give them.

 

 

 

I'm not going to write a long-winded post if no-one is going to read it !

 

 

 

What fallacy?

 

 

 

1. I don't hate people that think different

 

2. I am not into man on man action myself

 

3. I respect their opinion and sexual preferences, even though it is not my own

 

4. They will respect your opinion as well

 

 

 

Religion & sexual preferences etc. It all comes down to a lack of (mostly) mutual respect

[i_love_burritos]

"You are not the same"

 

 

 

Implies difference, segregation, and marginalization. Like saying -

 

 

 

"Hello neighbor, let's have dinner together. Even though you're a different skin colour to me -- we'll make it appear normal"

 

 

 

Making it appear normal is saying it wasn't acceptable in the first place.

 

 

 

"They will respect that"

 

 

 

Yet another bad explanation; you see it's like a bank balance. You give put some in, you take some out. By acknowledging that they are homosexual and you are creating a "payment deferred" or "bounced check". Saying -- I've got money, but Im sure as hell not paying you. Look man, I know youre gay. I dont have a problem with that. But just dont come near me. Yo respekt my dawg Then you would go to big up yaself because you handled that situation oh so tactfully-

 

 

 

Will not bother you

 

 

 

Now you see, gay people are something to be feared. Just be as liberal minded as you can and stay at least 10 meters away. ;)

 

 

 

Also, read above.

 

 

 

Im not saying I disagree with you. In fact I would have given exactly the same answers as you. Im just trying to expose the underlying prejudice that all our words carry. We can never be fully appreciative or accepting of anything even in a moderate society with a tolerant mindset.

 

 

 

I won't get into all the various clichés and platitudes of buzzwords such as "fear, society, mindset, hostility, contempt -- blah blah blah" You've all heard them before.

 

 

 

So yeah. :|

[Guest]

"You are not the same"

 

 

 

Implies difference, segregation, and marginalization. Like saying -

 

 

 

"Hello neighbor, let's have dinner together. Even though you're a different skin colour to me -- we'll make it appear normal"

 

 

 

Making it appear normal is saying it wasn't acceptable in the first place.

 

 

 

"They will respect that"

 

 

 

Yet another bad explanation; you see it's like a bank balance. You give put some in, you take some out. By acknowledging that they are homosexual and you are creating a "payment deferred" or "bounced check". Saying -- I've got money, but Im sure as hell not paying you. Look man, I know youre gay. I dont have a problem with that. But just dont come near me. Yo respekt my dawg Then you would go to big up yaself because you handled that situation oh so tactfully-

 

 

 

Will not bother you

 

 

 

Now you see, gay people are something to be feared. Just be as liberal minded as you can and stay at least 10 meters away. ;)

 

 

 

Also, read above.

 

 

 

Im not saying I disagree with you. In fact I would have given exactly the same answers as you. Im just trying to expose the underlying prejudice that all our words carry. We can never be fully appreciative or accepting of anything even in a moderate society with a tolerant mindset.

 

 

 

I won't get into all the various clichés and platitudes of buzzwords such as "fear, society, mindset, hostility, contempt -- blah blah blah" You've all heard them before.

 

 

 

So yeah. :|

 

 

 

Who who overkill there ;) let me explain

 

 

 

I see them as living creatures, just as anything else on the planet

 

I see them as human beings, which they are

 

I even consider some of them my friends since I know them so I do treat them with the same respect as anyone else.

 

 

 

I am not saying it wasn't normal in the first place, though people have made it look that way. If you look in the animal kingdom (yeh sorry I am a veterinarian so I know more about animals than humans).

 

 

 

I am sorried I wasn't clear on that first point, I ment to say; we have not the same sexual preference (sorry, I was sleepy then, but should have been mroe carefull with my words).

 

 

 

however I do not fear any of them might fall in love with me, but I would like them to know that I only love girls on the forehand. They can come close to me as I would let any other man get to me. I even been to a gay party in my country - where I must say as a non-homosexual person you are also welcome - and yes I was with my girlfriend. But I don't like to make out with other man for that matters, and there comes the tricky part. I know in a drunk mood I can kiss a girl and I know drunk man that like man in their drunk mood could come onto me. But then I want them also to respect my borders. If you let them know it before doing stupid things, there is really no problem.

 

 

 

i know you are trying to prove a good point and you [bleep]slapped me right in the face with it :P and I know you just have to be carefull with words.

[Giordano]

What you got to realize Adrenal is that while everyone is different doesn't mean we want it separated. If you want them to be "normal" we're going to go down a road most people hate and call Political Correctness, like Affirmative Action.

 

 

 

What we all need to realize is that yes, we are ALL different. But that difference isn't something of negative value. We strive so hard to have everybody normal when all we need to do is just accept the fact that they are different and be honorable.

 

 

 

Different =/= Bad

[i_love_burritos]

"You are not the same"

 

 

 

Implies difference, segregation, and marginalization. Like saying -

 

 

 

"Hello neighbor, let's have dinner together. Even though you're a different skin colour to me -- we'll make it appear normal"

 

 

 

Making it appear normal is saying it wasn't acceptable in the first place.

 

 

 

"They will respect that"

 

 

 

Yet another bad explanation; you see it's like a bank balance. You give put some in, you take some out. By acknowledging that they are homosexual and you are creating a "payment deferred" or "bounced check". Saying -- I've got money, but Im sure as hell not paying you. Look man, I know youre gay. I dont have a problem with that. But just dont come near me. Yo respekt my dawg Then you would go to big up yaself because you handled that situation oh so tactfully-

 

 

 

Will not bother you

 

 

 

Now you see, gay people are something to be feared. Just be as liberal minded as you can and stay at least 10 meters away. ;)

 

 

 

Also, read above.

 

 

 

Im not saying I disagree with you. In fact I would have given exactly the same answers as you. Im just trying to expose the underlying prejudice that all our words carry. We can never be fully appreciative or accepting of anything even in a moderate society with a tolerant mindset.

 

 

 

I won't get into all the various clichés and platitudes of buzzwords such as "fear, society, mindset, hostility, contempt -- blah blah blah" You've all heard them before.

 

 

 

So yeah. :|

 

 

 

Who who overkill there ;) let me explain

 

 

 

I see them as living creatures, just as anything else on the planet

 

I see them as human beings, which they are

 

I even consider some of them my friends since I know them so I do treat them with the same respect as anyone else.

 

 

 

I am not saying it wasn't normal in the first place, though people have made it look that way. If you look in the animal kingdom (yeh sorry I am a veterinarian so I know more about animals than humans).

 

 

 

I am sorried I wasn't clear on that first point, I ment to say; we have not the same sexual preference (sorry, I was sleepy then, but should have been mroe carefull with my words).

 

 

 

however I do not fear any of them might fall in love with me, but I would like them to know that I only love girls on the forehand. They can come close to me as I would let any other man get to me. I even been to a gay party in my country - where I must say as a non-homosexual person you are also welcome - and yes I was with my girlfriend. But I don't like to make out with other man for that matters, and there comes the tricky part. I know in a drunk mood I can kiss a girl and I know drunk man that like man in their drunk mood could come onto me. But then I want them also to respect my borders. If you let them know it before doing stupid things, there is really no problem.

 

 

 

i know you are trying to prove a good point and you [bleep] me right in the face with it :P and I know you just have to be carefull with words.

 

 

 

Ok. Cool. I see know what you are trying to say.

 

 

 

Can I point out something else ?

 

 

 

[hide=]I see them as living creatures, just as anything else on the planet[/hide]

 

 

 

What you got to realize Adrenal is that while everyone is different doesn't mean we want it separated. If you want them to be "normal" we're going to go down a road most people hate and call Political Correctness, like Affirmative Action.

 

 

 

What we all need to realize is that yes, we are ALL different. But that difference isn't something of negative value. We strive so hard to have everybody normal when all we need to do is just accept the fact that they are different and be honorable.

 

Different =/= Bad

 

 

 

Yes. That's what I was saying.

 

Im not saying I disagree with you. In fact I would have given exactly the same answers as you. Im just trying to expose the underlying prejudice that all our words carry. We can never be fully appreciative or accepting of anything even in a moderate society with a tolerant mindset.

 

 

 

But, I can see where you are coming from.

[Fwut]

Allow myself to slither myself into this argument, if you will.

 

 

 

I decided to class myself as an atheist the day that the Pope said that "Stopping homosexuality is as important as stopping global warming".

 

 

 

First off:

 

Homosexuality is natural. If something can be found all over the animal kingdom, it's natural. No exceptions.

 

 

 

Secondly:

 

Homosexuality is not a choice. Why? Because that's like me waking up one day and saying "You know what? I think I'll screw dudes from now on. Because I want to be discriminated against. Because I want to be robbed of my rights. Because I want to be hated by homophobs."

 

 

 

There are even gays in Muslim countries. Do you know what happens to gays there? You'd be just thrilled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thirdly:

 

There is no "God" in this situation. If there was a "God", this "God" would remove the choice in our heads to be homosexual, if we had one. If "God" put us on this Earth to be free men and women, we should have control over our own lives. Not "God".

 

 

 

And lastly:

 

A lot of our great minds were homosexual. Leonardo, Tchaikovsky, Wilde, Barons Corvo and von Gloeden, Robin Maugham, Worsley, "an Englishman", Jean Genet, Cavafy, Montherlant, Roger Peyrefitte, Mary Renault, Michael Campbell, Michael Davies, Angus Stewart, Gore Vidal, John Rechy, William Burroughs, to name but a few. All ultimatly doomed. But they were excellent people.

[warri0r45]

And lastly:

 

A lot of our great minds were homosexual. Leonardo, Tchaikovsky, Wilde, Barons Corvo and von Gloeden, Robin Maugham, Worsley, "an Englishman", Jean Genet, Cavafy, Montherlant, Roger Peyrefitte, Mary Renault, Michael Campbell, Michael Davies, Angus Stewart, Gore Vidal, John Rechy, William Burroughs, to name but a few. All ultimatly doomed men. But they were excellent men.

 

 

 

Alan Turing as well. It's pretty tragic how such a brilliant mind was persecuted for having a different sexual orientation. Thankfully, times have changed.

[Fwut]

And lastly:

 

A lot of our great minds were homosexual. Leonardo, Tchaikovsky, Wilde, Barons Corvo and von Gloeden, Robin Maugham, Worsley, "an Englishman", Jean Genet, Cavafy, Montherlant, Roger Peyrefitte, Mary Renault, Michael Campbell, Michael Davies, Angus Stewart, Gore Vidal, John Rechy, William Burroughs, to name but a few. All ultimatly doomed men. But they were excellent men.

 

 

 

Alan Turing as well. It's pretty tragic how such a brilliant mind was persecuted for having a different sexual orientation. Thankfully, times have changed.

 

 

 

Oh, crap.

 

 

 

Good call. I knew I forgot someone.

 

 

 

Also, times haven't changed in some countries. Some are too scared of change. Hence my picture.

[warri0r45]

 

Also, times haven't changed in some countries. Some are too scared of change. Hence my picture.

 

 

 

Good point. At least things are turning around in the West, but there is still a lot of intolerance in the world.

[3rkid]

We'll look back at these times and "lol hard". We all will be saying "How can that have possibly happened?!" and other dissatisfied exclamatories (<-- Is that even a word?) to that effect.

 

 

 

In due time... In due time.

[i_love_burritos]

And lastly:

 

A lot of our great minds were homosexual. Leonardo, Tchaikovsky, Wilde, Barons Corvo and von Gloeden, Robin Maugham, Worsley, "an Englishman", Jean Genet, Cavafy, Montherlant, Roger Peyrefitte, Mary Renault, Michael Campbell, Michael Davies, Angus Stewart, Gore Vidal, John Rechy, William Burroughs, to name but a few. All ultimatly doomed men. But they were excellent men.

 

 

 

Alan Turing as well. It's pretty tragic how such a brilliant mind was persecuted for having a different sexual orientation. Thankfully, times have changed.

 

 

 

Oh, crap.

 

 

 

Good call. I knew I forgot someone.

 

 

 

Also, times haven't changed in some countries. Some are too scared of change. Hence my picture.

 

 

 

I don't really like this argument.

 

 

 

"Wow. Several famous and intelligent people were gay. Thass' cool. That makes it all the more "normal" and "acceptable"

 

 

 

I know you are just trying to explain etcetera but I really don't think it is appropriate in any kind of situation.

 

 

 

I would supply you with a bad analogy but I think you can fill in the blanks.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with homosexuality, I'm arguing the validity of this reasoning.

[Cynic]

Sorry for not reading 105 pages of well-constructed arguments, and butting in, but I'm just wondering: Has anyone made the comparison of segregation during the 1900's to gay discrimination today? It's a really good comparison. Being homosexual myself, I support homosexual marriage and all rights. I know it's not a choice. I went through realizing it. And accepting it. Trust me, I didn't wake up one morning during 6th grade and say, "Hmmm.... I feel like being different. I'll be homosexual for the rest of my life!!" And, from what I have read so far, anyone saying that it's a choice has not had a good argument yet...

 

 

 

Also, anyone citing the Bible: Give me a direct quote, and the location of this quote.

[mmmcannibalism]

Sorry for not reading 105 pages of well-constructed arguments, and butting in, but I'm just wondering: Has anyone made the comparison of segregation during the 1900's to gay discrimination today? It's a really good comparison. Being homosexual myself, I support homosexual marriage and all rights. I know it's not a choice. I went through realizing it. And accepting it. Trust me, I didn't wake up one morning during 6th grade and say, "Hmmm.... I feel like being different. I'll be homosexual for the rest of my life!!" And, from what I have read so far, anyone saying that it's a choice has not had a good argument yet...

 

 

 

Also, anyone citing the Bible: Give me a direct quote, and the location of this quote.

 

 

 

I imagine it has to have come up, the problem it always runs into is it immediately shifts into an argument over whether homosexuality is inherent or a choice(people say you cant stop being black).

 

 

 

Just for the fun of it ill dig up the bible quotes(Im for gay marriage, just for fun)

 

 

 

leviticus chap 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

 

 

 

Thats the main one, the bible text I found apparently doesnt have the term homosexual in it so I cant find more without some deep work.

[ThurinEthir]

 

Just for the fun of it ill dig up the bible quotes(Im for gay marriage, just for fun)

 

 

 

leviticus chap 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

 

 

 

Thats the main one, the bible text I found apparently doesnt have the term homosexual in it so I cant find more without some deep work.

 

I know you're playing the Devil's advocate, but just for fun, I'll defend my liberal-Christian view on homosexuality.

 

Context is crucial here. I'm no Bible scholar, but I believe Leviticus was intended for the Israelites, as they were entering the Promised Land. And I'm sure some of us have heard that Leviticus also condemns wearing clothes made of multiple materials. That obviously doesn't apply for modern society, so I see no reason why the verse you quoted should as well.

 

That's really the only verse I know of that directly condemns homosexuality. But depending on your interpretation of the Bible, you may believe that it does not apply to you.

 

(I decided to go look on the Wikipedia article for Leviticus - found this quote: "Christians do not consider themselves to be bound by the Levitical laws")

 

Oh, and of course, just because something is a sin doesn't mean it has to be a law. I know this topic is about "right or wrong", rather than "legal or illegal", but I just wanted to bring that up.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]I know you're playing the Devil's advocate, but just for fun, I'll defend my liberal-Christian view on homosexuality.

 

Context is crucial here. I'm no Bible scholar, but I believe Leviticus was intended for the Israelites, as they were entering the Promised Land. And I'm sure some of us have heard that Leviticus also condemns wearing clothes made of multiple materials. That obviously doesn't apply for modern society, so I see no reason why the verse you quoted should as well.

 

That's really the only verse I know of that directly condemns homosexuality. But depending on your interpretation of the Bible, you may believe that it does not apply to you.

 

(I decided to go look on the Wikipedia article for Leviticus - found this quote: "Christians do not consider themselves to be bound by the Levitical laws")

 

Oh, and of course, just because something is a sin doesn't mean it has to be a law. I know this topic is about "right or wrong", rather than "legal or illegal", but I just wanted to bring that up.[/hide]

 

 

 

Soddom and gamorrah(spelling) from genesis get brought up a lot, but Ive never seen a verse cited that actually condems it(I read some of that chapter for context).

 

 

 

Of course, leviticus also condemns eating birds with 4 legs?? and sea creatures that dont have scales or fins

 

 

 

Finally, that last part of your post made me want to make an adultery joke