Girlie-men

[Oscar]

I'm not gay but.... (only mention because I think it matters -- in perspective -- that I'm not just sticking up for 'my own' as it were - b/c I gather that you don't think much of them and what they strive for - personally, as long as there are no children in their bedrooms when they have sex -  as is a Major problem in the Heterosexual World - then I don't care)

I'd like to take issue with Gay bashing - not b/c the bible isn't clear on what it says, but b/c I don't hear anyone on this board EVER questioning what the bible says, why's that?  Because George didn't?  What about the power structure that the bible lays out, we questioned the assembly, but the bible holds true for everyone?  is there no one out there who was once part of the assembly and no longer holds the bible itself as 'gospel'?  

We have problems in our society but I don't think how men do each other is one of our problems (unless of course men are buggering children which is a Big Problem in both Canada and the US by the way, largely under reported b/c it's done by dear old dad or mommy's boy friend.  Did anyone see that 60 minutes document. on Pornography?  I got a good two minutes of it and then shut  off the TV and went to be crying and lie awake most of the night crying.  You want to cry about somethin' honey, cry about that.
delila

Well said, Delila. I don't go on this board much but the gay bashing that shows up from time to time bothers me. The liberal-bashing as well.

I must confess that I do not know what "gay bashing" is.  

Does the term mean, "making statements critical of homosexuals"?  That is what the people who use the term seem to mean, (at least to me).

So, what is it about homosexual conduct that raises it to a level that is beyond criticism, making all critical statements morally reprehensible?

IMHO, the term "gay bashing" has been invented by those who wish to indulge in these practices to deflect criticism of their behavior.  It is a form of  ad hominem argument, where the person is attacked rather in order to discredit what they say.

It is usually a sort of last resort defense of a position for which no positive argument can be made.  Personally, I have never heard an argument made claiming that homosexual conduct is a positive good.

Thomas Maddux

[delila]

I'm not gay but.... (only mention because I think it matters -- in perspective -- that I'm not just sticking up for 'my own' as it were - b/c I gather that you don't think much of them and what they strive for - personally, as long as there are no children in their bedrooms when they have sex -  as is a Major problem in the Heterosexual World - then I don't care)

I'd like to take issue with Gay bashing - not b/c the bible isn't clear on what it says, but b/c I don't hear anyone on this board EVER questioning what the bible says, why's that?  Because George didn't?  What about the power structure that the bible lays out, we questioned the assembly, but the bible holds true for everyone?  is there no one out there who was once part of the assembly and no longer holds the bible itself as 'gospel'?  

We have problems in our society but I don't think how men do each other is one of our problems (unless of course men are buggering children which is a Big Problem in both Canada and the US by the way, largely under reported b/c it's done by dear old dad or mommy's boy friend.  Did anyone see that 60 minutes document. on Pornography?  I got a good two minutes of it and then shut  off the TV and went to be crying and lie awake most of the night crying.  You want to cry about somethin' honey, cry about that.
delila

Well said, Delila. I don't go on this board much but the gay bashing that shows up from time to time bothers me. The liberal-bashing as well.

I must confess that I do not know what "gay bashing" is.  

Does the term mean, "making statements critical of homosexuals"?  That is what the people who use the term seem to mean, (at least to me).

So, what is it about homosexual conduct that raises it to a level that is beyond criticism, making all critical statements morally reprehensible?

IMHO, the term "gay bashing" has been invented by those who wish to indulge in these practices to deflect criticism of their behavior.  It is a form of  ad hominem argument, where the person is attacked rather in order to discredit what they say.

It is usually a sort of last resort defense of a position for which no positive argument can be made.  Personally, I have never heard an argument made claiming that homosexual conduct is a positive good.

Thomas Maddux

perhaps we should speak of the specific sexual acts that homosexuals engage in that offend you so much.  Then perhaps we could compare those to the heterosexual acts themselves that offend me (including those I've already mentioned that involve children) and then we'd be speaking clearly, without bashing, without mincing words.
d

[shinchy]

[quote author=Tom Maddux link=board=6;threadid=732;start=0#msg19394
I must confess that I do not know what "gay bashing" is.  

Does the term mean, "making statements critical of homosexuals"?  That is what the people who use the term seem to mean, (at least to me).

So, what is it about homosexual conduct that raises it to a level that is beyond criticism, making all critical statements morally reprehensible?

IMHO, the term "gay bashing" has been invented by those who wish to indulge in these practices to deflect criticism of their behavior.  It is a form of  ad hominem argument, where the person is attacked rather in order to discredit what they say.

It is usually a sort of last resort defense of a position for which no positive argument can be made.  Personally, I have never heard an argument made claiming that homosexual conduct is a positive good.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
In the literal real world sense of the term, "gay bashing" refers to the act of physically attacking someone for being gay. But that's not how I meant here. I was talking about how some remarks about gays sounded hostile. I'm not talking about the person who says they don't agree with homosexuality but they still treat the person with respect.

I did not set out to make an ad hominen attack. I was not targetting one specific person nor was I talking about the board as a whole. I have never been rude to another poster nor have I baited any one in an argument. I certainly was not attacking you.

I don't think homosexuality is a good or a bad thing. It does not qualify them for sainthood nor does it make them the devil. If it's consensual, it does not hurt anyone.

[Oscar]

[perhaps we should speak of the specific sexual acts that homosexuals engage in that offend you so much.  Then perhaps we could compare those to the heterosexual acts themselves that offend me (including those I've already mentioned that involve children) and then we'd be speaking clearly, without bashing, without mincing words.
d

Delila,

Actually, I never said that homosexual conduct offends me.  Morality is not a question of subjective preferences, but rather of objective moral standards that God has revealed, at least to our consciences.

Homosexual conduct is offensive to some, not offensive to others.  But it is always evil.  The fact that some forms of perverted heterosexual behavior are offensive to you does not make homosexual conduct ok.

The real question is, "Is this good or evil?"  If you argue that this judgement is entirely personal and subjective, then all acts are ok.

You have condemned adults who "bugger" kids.  So why is that wrong?  Not consentual?  Who says it has to be consentual?  Once one adopts a merely subjective standard of morality, all moralities are equal.  Including that of the child "buggerers".

Delila, it seems to me that you have been trying to have your agnostic cake and eat it too.  Do you really believe George G never did anything wrong?   That is where your relativism leads to.

If we all make up our own morality...GG had his, and who's to say he was wrong?

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

I don't think homosexuality is a good or a bad thing. It does not qualify them for sainthood nor does it make them the devil. If it's consensual, it does not hurt anyone.

Shin,

I heartily disagree.  Homosexual conduct hurts the participants.  Without even mentioning the eternal consequences of rebellion against God, it is destructive to the personality.

I noticed thirty years ago that "gay" becomes the one overriding identity of the homosexual.  "I'm gay" becomes a statement of who the person is, who he sees himself as.  

In the healthy personality, sex is one aspect of life.  In homosexuals, it is "who I am".   That is dysfunctional.

As to the bondage that homosexuals experience, I would refer you to the link that Stephen Fortesque put up in the discussion on gay marriage.  The link contains study after study, done by many sociologists at many secular universities.  

The results of all these studies show that homosexuality is a hideous bondage.   Homosexual men have dozens, hundreds, even in some cases thousands of sex partners.  The so-called "committed relationships" are shown to be largely a myth.

Yes, there are some of these relationships that last, but statistically they are rare.   I know a couple of "gay" couples that have endured for many years.  Both couples are female though.

For the vast majority, the studies show, homosexuality is a dysfunctional bondage to self-destructive behavior.  Even if one is an athiest and acknowledges no values whatsoever, it cannot be denied that it is dysfunctional...we are not designed physically to behave like that.  

AIDS has spread throughout the homosexual community because of millions of individual acts of irresponsibility.  It is tragic to see millions die so horribly and so needlessly.  

So, I can hardly agree with, "If it is consentual, it doesn't hurt anyone.

Thomas Maddux

[M2]

Hi Delila,
I always appreciate your posts because, as someone who has becaome agnostic after a long process of trying to believe and yet be open to new ideas after leaving the Assembly, I certainly can relate to a lot of what you post. Plus, your posts have encouraged me to speak up more about how I may not subscribe to the views that may be prevalent on the board. David M, you deserve some credit in this regard.

And the topic of this thead is worth talking about. As someone who struggled often and quite silently with homosexuality in the Assembly, I found the supression to be quite damaging in addition to the ex-gay Christian groups I went to before joining. At least with the ex-gay groups, we all suffered together, but I often felt very alone with this issue in theAssembly. I've confided it to at least three people, including a leading brother. I never really talked much about it in the group to those three beyond those initial confidences.  I never acted out on the feelings at all during those four years I was "in fellowhsip." If I had acted out, the guilt would have been enormous. After leaving, it was half a year before I had to face that I was gay and I decided to accept it. It was not an easy process at all. I had a much easier time "coming out" as gay when I was seventeen, before getting into all the Born Again beliefs surrounding a taboo on homosexuality, but coming out again at 26 was harder. I found out about Evangelicals Concerned, a group (not a church) for gays and lesbians from evangelical backgrounds, a year later. The discussions were always interesting and there were some good people, but I had already become agnostic by the time I met them, so they were a supportive group of people where I felt I didn't have to "explain everything" because many of them have had similar experiences.

Words are very powerful things. Words can hurt as well, especially if they are violent towards a someone. Strangely enough, the violence can be done quite benignly - the speaker is non violent but the words are. This is why I really got upset some time ago with what seems like gay bashing on this board. I'm not asking for aplogies from anyone; I just had to say where I'm coming from.

Shin,

Since you have posted this on public forum, I hope you do mind me responding thus.
TomM was posting while I was composing my response, but I decided to post it anyway.

My opinion is that people get entangled into all kinds of harmful activities and then make statements like 'as long as it is not hurting anyone else' as a hopeless ending to their dilemna.  The drug addict or the alcoholic gets ensnared and then is unable to break out of his addiction.

The homosexual becomes one possibly because he needed some 'affection' at some point and there was no one to meet that need but another of the same sex.  Then one thing leads to another and neither can break free.  Sometimes the homosexual grows up having an aversion to those of the opposite sex (like I do for Escorts and Taurus' ) and choose a same sex relationship.  I do not know the circumstances in your life, but I do know that it is a struggle to break free when and if you are so inclined to do so.

Yes, the Bible does label homosexuality as sin, as it does adultery and murder and lying and...
I know of a Christian talk show host in Toronto who is well respected in the gay community because he does not bash them for their lifestyle, though they do talk about it and know his stand on the matter.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[shinchy]

Tom,
I'm not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Frankly, it's quite old. It's one thing to know where people stand because of what they believe the Bible says about it; it's another when people dehumanize gay people and feel their beliefs justify it.

My recent posts were about how some posts were hostile towards gays. I do believe it is damaging. I'm also sure I'm not the only ex-member from the Assembly who either is gay or struggling with it, so my reason for speaking up is (a) I have a voice and I'm going to use it and (b) so others may not feel alone.

[shinchy]

Marcia,
I understand your perspective. I may not agree with it but I know you have always treated me with the respect you would show to anyone, regardless of what kind of opinions I stated or anything else I presented on this BB. That impresses me.

[M2]

Tom,
I'm not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Frankly, it's quite old. It's one thing to know where people stand because of what they believe the Bible says about it; it's another when people dehumanize gay people and feel their beliefs justify it.

My recent posts were about how some posts were hostile towards gays. I do believe it is damaging. I'm also sure I'm not the only ex-member from the Assembly who either is gay or struggling with it, so my reason for speaking up is (a) I have a voice and I'm going to use it and (b) so others may not feel alone.

I know you addressed this to Tom, and I hope that Tom will reply even though I am adding my 2 cents.

If you are speaking up for the benefit of yourself and others, then I suggest that you go all the way.  I believe that Tom has some valid points that you can either 'refute' or change your own mind about.  Of course, if you are a dyed in the wool gay person who does that even want to entertain the thought that there could be something wrong with your 'preference' and therefore, just want to make your 'stand' on the matter clear, then there really is nothing more to discuss re. the homosexual lifestyle eh??

Believe it or not, I used to be a dyed in the wool assemblyite even after George Geftakys was excommunicated.  I debated and inquired and investigated annonymously on this BB for about 4 months before I changed my mind.  I was annonymous because I was 'protecting' the assembly here.  I was inquiring because I wanted to find out the truth of the matter.  As it turned out, I was the one who changed my mind.  The transition from assembly life to non-assembly life was very difficult, but necessary.  Now I am very happy for having made that choice.

Yes, you can expect that sometimes the discussion will get heated.  And you can expect that on a BB where most of the posters are Bible believing Christians that homosexuality will be presented in a -ve light.

But we love you and respect you as a human being whose soul is precious to God that He... you know the rest of the story.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[outdeep]

Tom,
I'm not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Frankly, it's quite old. It's one thing to know where people stand because of what they believe the Bible says about it; it's another when people dehumanize gay people and feel their beliefs justify it.

My recent posts were about how some posts were hostile towards gays. I do believe it is damaging. I'm also sure I'm not the only ex-member from the Assembly who either is gay or struggling with it, so my reason for speaking up is (a) I have a voice and I'm going to use it and (b) so others may not feel alone.

Shin,

Please don't glibly dismiss the exhortation as a mere intellectual exchange.   The greatest bondage introduced from the pits of hell to mankind kind is sexual sin whether it be homosexuality, adultry, or pornographic addiction.  I can understand when homosexuals feel they have no recourse other than to say "I was born that way" because that is exactly the same way folks in sexual addition groups feel.

An over-preoccupation with sex leads to personal destruction, breakup of families  as well as (as we are seeing in the new millinium in Africa) downfalls of nations.  Just like eating disorders are a product of deeper psycological and spiritual needs, so are these sexual disorders.  It would do you well to find out what is going on under the surface.

-Dave

[Oscar]

Tom,
I'm not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Frankly, it's quite old. It's one thing to know where people stand because of what they believe the Bible says about it; it's another when people dehumanize gay people and feel their beliefs justify it.

Shin,

I can understand that you do not wish to "debate" the rights and wrongs of homosexual behavior.  I have been a Christian for over 40 years and have never even heard anyone try to argue that it is a positive good.   So, as far as I know, there is no debate.

As to "dehumanizing" gay people.  This is just another ad hominem attempt to deflect criticism by attacking the critic.  Since when is someone "dehumanized" if someone disagrees with them?  If that were true then there would be no humans!

Dave and Arthur disagree about John Keary.  Which one is no longer human?  Nonsense.

I called homosexuality a horrible bondage.  Marcia has likened it to being an alcoholic or an assembly member.  I think it is much, much more serious then those bondages.

My church has a ministry to recovering homosexuals.  They have openly testified about the power of the addiction.  I think that it is much more serious than substance abuse, although there are many commonalities.  

I have heard people describe how giving way to these passions has taken over their lives.  Families broken, careers destroyed, on and on.   Yet the desires are so strong that the homosexual will frquently pay any of these prices for continued gratification.  A homosexual that I was trying to help back in the 70's said to me, "I can't believe that something that feels so good could be wrong."

I suspect that the power of this evil is related to the fact that a key element of the addiction is that the addict changes his entire self concept.  In drug abuse or alcoholism the addict doesn't see himself as a fundamentally different person.  Homosexuals seem to do this.

Marcia has discussed some of the possible causes of homosexuality.  It seems to be very complex, and I think it is an error to think, as many do, that all homosexuals are the same.  There may be many causes behind this problem.  

Homosexuals are people.  It is their humanity that causes me to take such an adamant stand against this evil.  This bondage devastates them.  What they were created to be is obliterated by this horrific dysfunction.  

I am not a Calvinist who can just say something like, "well, see what happens when you aren't among the elect".  I can't just consign these folks to hell and be done with it.

I believe that the world that God loved and sent his Son into contained many who were in this bondage.  I believe that Christ can cure the sickest soul, if the desire is there.

Thomas Maddux

[Arthur]

In the early 70's homosexuals pushed the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.

In the 70's and 80's, homosexuals were asking to just be accepted for who they are--"I'm gay, OK?"

The 90's saw the rise of the popular use of the terms "homophobe" and "gay bashing"--both tools to attack those who did not agree with their agenda.

Today homosexuals are pushing to change society to conform to their beliefs including the destruction of the sanctity of marriage.  

You give them an inch, they want a mile.

They preach tolerance, but practice censorship.  "Everyone is to be accepted..." they say, except for those who disagree with them.  

In their depravity, they think they have evolved beyond normal human beings--homo illumen or homo superior, they call themselves. And they seek to "enlighten" the rest of us poor idiots by aggresively pushing their agenda, particularly in the courts.  Judicial courts need no popular vote, only a planted and payed for judge to make the decision.

What they consider to be enlightenment and progressive culture, ascending above God, in actuality opens a pit of depravity in which these humans sink to depths of unspeakably wicked behavior.

Arthur

[shinchy]

As to "dehumanizing" gay people.  This is just another ad hominem attempt to deflect criticism by attacking the critic.  Since when is someone "dehumanized" if someone disagrees with them?  If that were true then there would be no humans!

My church has a ministry to recovering homosexuals.  They have openly testified about the power of the addiction.  I think that it is much more serious than substance abuse, although there are many commonalities.  

I have heard people describe how giving way to these passions has taken over their lives.  Families broken, careers destroyed, on and on.   Yet the desires are so strong that the homosexual will frquently pay any of these prices for continued gratification.  A homosexual that I was trying to help back in the 70's said to me, "I can't believe that something that feels so good could be wrong."

Homosexuals are people.  It is their humanity that causes me to take such an adamant stand against this evil.  This bondage devastates them.  What they were created to be is obliterated by this horrific dysfunction.

Yes, it's obvious we're human beings. It's obvious everyone is human. What I meant by "dehumanize" is when one reduce somone/a group of people to  an abstraction. Saying "Gays make me sick" involves some level of abstraction. Is there really a face connected with that statement. If someone said, "Japanese people make me sick," a lot more people would be quick to say that's not right. Yet Japanese people were targeted as an abstraction in WWII propaganda and Japanese-Americans lost their property and were placed in interment camps such as Manzanar. I'm sure many people had their arguments for these things. In the mid 90's, I heard on the local Christian radio station a caller defending the bombing of Hiroshima during a talk show during an anniversary of VJ Day.

I do find the drug user or alcholic anology offensive. I know it works for some people as a way to humanize gay person, so I'll humor you on this. I know substance abusers can expend significant resources to support their usage, which can put their families, jobs, and friends in harms way. I'm not really harming anyone and I'm not the type of person who will do anything at any price to have sex. My life is actually quite boring in comparison. I just don't have time for a lot of that stuff and my time is better focused on reading, writing, art, my graduate studies, and getting a job after graduation.

I know there are a lot of destructos in the gay community. I can't talk for them. I know a lot who aren't and those people are among my friends.

I've been there, done that with the ex-gay ministry. Sexual tension between people was often rampant but coyly danced around. They all talked about how they wanted sex so badly but yet they were in this position where it was not available. I became friends with one such person in the group, who took a shine to me, and a couple of years later, I lost my virginity to him (I was very young, during the times I was 18-21). I later learned from another friend that hooking up is not so unusual. I felt a lot of guilt over this, which led, not to "the bondage of homosexuality," but to another type of bongage - getting involved with the Assembly. I wanted to get my life right with God at the time and somehow, the idea of doing things for God made me feel forgiven. Tones of Saint Maybe by Anne Tyler*.

As I mentioned earlier, I kept my "struggle" to myself for the most part during my years "in fellowship." I never acted on them yet I felt like I needed it so badly. After accepting that I was gay afterwards, sex just stopped being such a big deal. If I don't get laid, I'm not going to die. Yet a lot of people in the ex-gay ministries felt that way.

*novel by Anne Tyler where a young man joins The Church of the Second Chance because he feels his meddling in his late brother's marriage led to him dying in a car accident. The Church of the Second Chance is weirdly legalistic and preaches a doctrine that forgiveness must be earned.

[shinchy]

Tom,
I'm not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Frankly, it's quite old. It's one thing to know where people stand because of what they believe the Bible says about it; it's another when people dehumanize gay people and feel their beliefs justify it.

My recent posts were about how some posts were hostile towards gays. I do believe it is damaging. I'm also sure I'm not the only ex-member from the Assembly who either is gay or struggling with it, so my reason for speaking up is (a) I have a voice and I'm going to use it and (b) so others may not feel alone.

Shin,

Please don't glibly dismiss the exhortation as a mere intellectual exchange.   The greatest bondage introduced from the pits of hell to mankind kind is sexual sin whether it be homosexuality, adultry, or pornographic addiction.  I can understand when homosexuals feel they have no recourse other than to say "I was born that way" because that is exactly the same way folks in sexual addition groups feel.

An over-preoccupation with sex leads to personal destruction, breakup of families  as well as (as we are seeing in the new millinium in Africa) downfalls of nations.  Just like eating disorders are a product of deeper psycological and spiritual needs, so are these sexual disorders.  It would do you well to find out what is going on under the surface.

-Dave

I think it's easier to be pre-occupied with something if it's been turned into the thou shalt not*.

I have done a lot of thinking of what goes on underneath my surface. I am a very introspective person. Getting into religious addiction, especially where one does the spiritual binge and purge (easily illustrated as the sin-repent cycle), was certainly the sign of some disorder. The Assembly was certainly religious addiction for a lot of people. People I knew in the ex-gay ministry were on spiritual binge and purge as well.

William Blake, "The Garden of Love"

I went to the Garden of Love
and saw what I have never seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
and Thou shalt not, writ over th door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore,

And I saw it was filled with graves,
and tombstones where flowers should be:
And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,
and binding with briars, my joys and desires.

[outdeep]

I think it's easier to be pre-occupied with something if it's been turned into the thou shalt not*.

If that were truly the source of the problem, Shin, then the Pro-murder, Pro-bear-false-witness, Pro-adultry and Pro-rob-your-neighbor movement would be right up there with the pro-gay movement.