Late Response to Ari and others

7 thoughts on “Late Response to Ari and others”

1. Because of the 14th amendment to the constitution:

   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

   You have an equal right to say whatever you want, as do they, but when it comes to guaranteeing equal protection, there isn’t a middle ground. Whether it personally offends your religious beliefs or not, the law as it is completely violates the 14th amendment.

   Since the idea of marriage, as it currently stands in the law, is a legal and economic contract between two people. This is not about how your church defines marriage–the government doesn’t have a say in that. It’s about how the government defines marriage.

   Since we have laws in place that govern how marriage is looked upon by the state, then the 14th amendment is in place to make sure everyone is treated equally–straight or gay, black or white, poor or rich.

   I honestly don’t think that you’re homophobic Haners. You’re obviously not as vitriolic as Renfroe, and I appreciate your compassion for gay kids who are kicked out of their homes by their parents.

   I think that you have passionate religious beliefs, and those beliefs shape your morals and values. While you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe, you do not have the right to decide, based on those beliefs, anything for other people.

   That is what freedom in this country, for me anyway, is all about.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I will take it a litter further, though, as far as it being a personal issue.

      Haners, you’re using a very literal definition of the word “homophobia” here, a “fear of homosexuals” which you don’t actually feel. For me, the word means simply “someone who doesn’t regard gays as equals.” Which, in your own words, you don’t: “Why is it that I must accept a lifestyle that I don’t agree with…”

      Not accepting the “lifestyle” (more about that loaded word later) means “not regarding them as equals.” If you doubt that, just think of how Mormons have been treated by those who didn’t respect their religion or lifestyle over the years and see if you think they were being treated as equals.

      Now, the “lifestyle” lecture. 🙂  “Lifestyle” is a poor word, maybe even worse than “homophobia” as I applied it to you, to describe the phenomenon of living openly as a gay individual. (And it’s even worse for those who are living double lives like a certain disgraced Senator from Idaho and pastor from Colo. Springs.) At heart is this: is being gay a choice or is it something that an individual has as much choice as they do their eye color?

      It’s pretty obvious, when one really thinks about this, that sexual orientation isn’t a choice. I won’t go over all the arguments for or against, as they can be easily googled; what makes it overwhelmingly persuasive to me is that I never made a choice to be straight. I never found men attractive, just women. This is a mirror reflection of the experiences of gays and lesbians who speak or write about this; that they, from a prepubescent age, found themselves drawn to the same sex, not the opposite. It becomes poignant as they grow up and encounter the naked hostility of our culture (and often their own families, sometimes with tragic results). You can reflect on your own adolescence and probably recall several incidents yourself, whether you called something “gay” or someone a “fag.” (I did it all the time til I was 15 or so, and first encountered the notion that gay wasn’t a choice.)

      Now, why would someone, in the face of all this, choose all this baggage? Identifying as gay can literally mean putting your life at risk, as well as losing your family, not being able to serve in the military (something that should be a crime given their needs), and until very recent times, not being able to live or work where you want. Today a gay couple is still not likely to show any signs of affection in public except in the most gay-friendly arenas. Heck, most bisexuals (the only ones capable of making the choice) do end up living the straight lifestyle in the face of all that.

      (I know someone who identifies as 75% gay but has only had relationships with women in the past 10 years, since he got out of the military [discharged, in part, for engaging in homosexual activity], because of his dad.)

      I can reflect on my own experiences growing up. I remember vividly how I reacted to a picture of a girl in a bikini when I was six – let’s just say I liked it a lot and kept looking at it any chance I had. A little older, I remember having nearly the opposite reaction to a men’s underwear ad that was in a copy of Sports Illustrated. Both incidents occurred years before I even heard of homosexuality. Doesn’t seem like I had any choice there. Why would anyone else?

      I suppose delving into all this is irrelevant to the larger issue of equality that RSB addressed. But since the issue was about homophobia, I think it’s relevant to the question you pose, Haners. I hope you find this engaging.

      Log in to Reply

      1. I think this is another word that gets bandied about and misused. When it comes to rights, I don’t believe that it’s about tolerance at all, but about acceptance. Accepting that there are people out there who aren’t like you, and that they deserve the same rights and privileges as you for the same reasons you enjoy them – as your birthright.

         “Tolerance” means “to put up with,” which is what I think those who don’t wish to eradicate gays but otherwise don’t have any love for them are already doing. (It also more correctly describes how many groups of people feel about many other groups of people, unfortunately. I know many liberals who are merely tolerant of conservatism, but not accepting of it.)

         At the end of the day, it’s about respect – mutual respect. I think gays will need to accept what many churches have to say about them, just as those churches will have to accept that gays deserve the chance to make the same choices straights do. This condition of mutual respect, however, can only come about when everyone is enjoying equal rights.

         Log in to Reply

      2. .
         
         Me, and I think Haners, we answer the question by relying on the teachings of our creeds, relying on religious truths.

         You believe that you draw your answer from science.  Well, “objective” science depends on good statistical analysis.  The “proof” in those Googled results start with the conclusions and work backward, and the statistics don’t fit.  

         It’s pretty obvious, when one really thinks about this, that sexual orientation isn’t a choice.

         In your words, you have really thought about this, and I haven’t.  Hmmm.  
         
         That sounds more like a religious belief (call it whatever you like) than science.  
         
         So both of us fell back on religious beliefs.

         Me, I see the disadvantages of being homosexual, and don’t understand why anyone would consciously make that choice.  Well, almost anyone.

         But there are other correlations that, while not determinative, suggest the genetic explanation is lacking.  
         
         Why do more prepubescent boys who are sexually molested by men grow up to identify as homosexual, compared to boys who weren’t assaulted ?  
         
         Did those pedophiles select boys who were predisposed to homosexuality, because they have an uncanny ability to see which prepubescent boys would end up gay ?  
         
         I tend to think that’s a crime of opportunity, and they abuse whoever they can abduct and frighten.  If there was a genetic correlation, they would pick those with it and without in proportion to their ratio in the general population.  
         
         .

         Log in to Reply

         1. If you read my remarks, you’ll see I never mentioned science or genetics. That’s because the work there is far from complete. Environment might be the determining factor; hell, astrology might be, too. No one knows.

            I reached my conclusions – that it’s something one is born with – based on years of reading and self-reflection on the matter. Go to the GLBT studies shelf at your bookstore and you’ll find loads of memoirs from gay folks recounting their experiences growing up. Theey all speak about being drawn to their own sex from a very early age, just as in my own experience I was drawn to the opposite sex (at least grown-up women, anyway). And all this without the “benefit” of being molested.

            Which, BTW, I’d like to know these studies that support the claims you make in the latter half of your post. If true, I’d imagine that it actually supports another theory – that we’re not really inherently hetero or homosexual, that we can be both but that societal programming quashes the homosexual tendencies in those who are straight. (Support for this theory can be observed in the fact that, since society accepts lesbianism a bit more – probably because it’s arousing to most straight guys – more young women experiment with lesbianism.)

            As far as how much you really have thought about this, I’m making an educated guess simply because I’ve given this a LOT of thought and don’t see evidence that other people are considering this outside the conventions of either science or religion. I believe you can come to the truth without stictly adhering to either path. (In the case of religion it’s doubly important to set that aside, as the temptation to simply go with dogma is generally overwhelming to the faithful.)

            Log in to Reply

   2. .
      
      As a member of the community, any community, I have the right and obligation to inform the consensus about standards of decency, morals, etc.  You think that should be left to elected officials ?

      No, friend.  That’s up to me.  And you.  And even Aristotle.
      
      .

      Log in to Reply

      1. I leave it up to the constitution. It’s worked great so far.

         Log in to Reply