Topic awaiting preservation: Yes to gay marriage. (Page 2 of 3)

quote:

---

That really made me stop and think.

---

In light of rather recent developements in America, such has caused me to stop and think, as well.

We are Americans. We know there is a price for Liberty, Life, and the pursuit of Happiness. For Freedom.

But locking away Liberty, Life, and the pursuit of Happiness, and Freedom, for the illusion of Safety, is plain wrong. Furthermore, it is against everything that we stand for, and against everything that those who gave the ultimate sacrifice fought for.

Rather sobering, isn't it?

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-05-2005 23:55)

Yeah, was kind of sobering.

I do keep track of some things. Like nut cases slowly wearing away civil liberties. And the thumb-screw tightening by the government. Some of the concerns over privacy since 9/11. Segregation of the masses by things other than race. Things that I've really been keeping an eye on are the fights between the religious fanatics and the scientific community.

The civil unrest around here is really climbing. But I never really made the connection between said civil unrest and the 2nd Amendment. Kick in the pants.

Next thing you know, guns will be denied to gay couples seeking marriage.

If it does reach a climax and there is a revolution of sorts, I hope it happens soon and with little blood shed.
~crosses fingers~

Natural means without outside affect. Those with power never give anything. Those with power take things away. The reason you might choose one power is because you fell that the power you are pledging to will take less away from you than the other power. The human struggle with power is to find the most powerful entity that will not take anything from you.

Privileges are those things that have not yet been taken from you by those with power. The definition is a special immunity. Which implies that others do not have the same right that you have. It also means that your right has not been taken away.

This might be helpful: http://www.semperliber.org/Rights.htm

quote:

---

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

---

This is not the government granting rights, this is the government saying that they exist, in and of themselves by something even greater than man, and among them are those 3, but not restricted to. The next line says that our government was created to secure this rights, to protect pre-existing rights. They are not granting anything at all.

You then have your bill of rights, which was designed to further limit the ability of the government to take rights away from the people.

The goverment is not in the job of granting rights. A government takes them away. And when you take these rights from only certain people, the ones you didn't take them away from now have a privilege.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Jestah: Ram, you can post flowery speeches of "natural rights" such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but the reality is until those in power gave us those rights, they never existed. Those who gave us these rights can just as easily take them away.

---

You are half right J. They can, and do, take away rights, but they no more give us those rights than Tiny Tim and his ukelele gave us good music. *cringe*

Rights do not exist because of government, but in spite of them. You can call the founding documents or me posting the definition of liberty "flowery speeches" all you want, and downplay the meaning of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to suit your views, whatever they may be, but they are the foundation of everything this nation was built upon, and if you accept that government, i.e. other men, give us our rights, I feel sorry for you, I really do. Believing such is nothing short self-induced slavery.

quote:

---

Jestah: The above is an excellent example of my point. US States and/or the people are being given their power by the US Government, those in power.

---

You missed the point entirely, and what you said is quite backwards. The people are the ultimate power, not the reverse. The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution are up to the states or the people. Key part of that is "by the Constitution." Read it, it is quite precise, and any lack of clarity can easily be remedied by studying the individual writings of the men responsible for it. They wrote it all down for us, and it is time we start learning and heeding their words.

Also, The Bill of Rights was created so that government could not infringe upon our individual rights, which are unalienable, and exist whether government does or not.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington

quote:

---

The citizens don't have the natural right to control the government,

---

We the People are the government, and therefore the right is ours entirely. We, as sovereign individuals, have all the rights, and federal government has none except what the Constitution gives it. Any laws which countermand this original Law, which are numerous, and of which this specific topic is one, are null and void. Any attempt to subvert this original law of the land is treason.

quote:

---

And if the government chooses to revoke those rights, what course of action does the population have?

---

I think warjournal and WS covered this. The second amendment is the de facto reset button, the last resort when all others fail. It was not created so much for defence from invading armies, but from tyranny within, which our forefathers, through the study of history, knew was a likely outcome. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Warjournal: I have also hoped that it would not come to bloodshed, but more and more I am thinking, unfortunately, that may be the ultimate outcome. The problem is, let's be honest, they would wipe out any insurrection quite easily. Think about Ruby Ridge, where they sent in over 400 troops, snipers, and armored vehicles for one family, shot a young boy in the back, and a nursing mother through the head. We are outgunned and no shotgun or pistol is going to make a difference. Waking up those under the spell is the only way, so I'll stick to my pen for as long as I am allowed, but when they try to take that freedom away, I will be forced to take up arms. We all have to die somehow, and to me, fighting for the dignity and freedom of my peoples, would be a very honorable way to go. Give me liberty or give me death.

As a sidenote, if such an event were to occur, we would all be classified as terrorists by section 802 of the Patriot Act. How convenient that was passed right before the tyranny drive hit hyperspeed. Makes you think.

quote:

---

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.
-Patrick Henry, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

---

Trust it not, Jestah; or like the man above sayeth, it will prove a snare to your feet.

Again, let me reiterate, individual and unalienable rights are not the same thing as collective privileges.

From the link WarMage posted (good link by the way, I was just reading the same thing) :

quote:

---

Privileges are not rights! They are bestowed by other humans, under their rules. What that means is that you grant them fealty, the fidelity sworn by a vassal to his feudal lord. You agree to play by their rules or even on their behalf. In essence, this is an "owner/owned" contract between people. Accepting privilege means you grant ownership of your behavior to another human being. Government grants privileges. Therefore, government can take them away.

The problem is that government is confusing rights with privileges. It doesn't see the distinction.

---

Please Jestah, I urge you to realize this distinction. Here is a link to the historical documents section of my website to get you started.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

gotta say that I agree with you completely Ramasax.

good points, and well made.


As a side note, I would only caution you not to regard *too* highly the idealistic prose of our founding fathers, and be sure to judge them on their actions rather than their words (you will find the idealism is very tainted indeed).
I enjoy your new site - nicely done.

You are right DL, I understand and recognize their flaws as I come upon them. I will admit that I have not yet gotten to studying the men behind the words in great detail, beyond the basics, but it is on my ever increasing list. Actions compared with words often expose hypocrisy, but they were human afterall, and we are all hypocritical in some sense, to more or less a degree of course.

As far as their writings go, even while oftentime conflicting with even eachother, I have found an abundance of knowledge in what they had to say, and in that sense I revere them for both their foresight and their idealism, again, accepting their flaws as something inherent in all.

Another reason I hold their writings in such high regard is because they played a large part in me breaking free of what I now consider rape of the mind. Plainly said, reading those old dusty papers really woke my ass up.

Also, as a sidenote, and as I'm sure you are aware, a large majority of what they wrote was nothing but reiteration upon past concepts, from Aristotle to Cicero to John Locke, those being a few mentioned specifically by Jefferson. While idealistic, as I said above, we all have to set our sights somewhere, so why not set them high.

I was a bit apprehensive of posting my site on here, because I did not want to appear pretentious. It's not as if I am some great writer, so I am glad you like the new site. Although I think you might have enjoyed counterleft.com and my pro-Bush rants better.

What a waste of $8.95 that was...

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

And I certainly don't wish to belittle these men either - there was greatness in many forms among them.

It is definitely far too easy, though, to forget the circumstances of the time, the pure selfishness of many of these immensely wealthy men, the vanity and hypocisy involved. People (no reference to you here) prefer to enshrine them all in saintly glows and deem them pure and good.
It's part of what leads people to the flawed thoughts about how good we *used* to be and how bad we are now...

I read a book a few months ago that may be of interest to you -
An Imperfect God. It is a biography of Washington, dealing specifically with his conflicted stance on slavery, and the way it affected his decisions and the effect it had on him. Great read, very enlightening.

quote:

---

It's part of what leads people to the flawed thoughts about how good we *used* to be and how bad we are now...

---

I wouldn't know anything about that.

I looked the book recommendation up on Amazon (the link you posted went to that shrinking lotus article on CNN) and read through some of the reviews, and it does sound intriguing. I'll be sure to check it out. Thanks.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

Considering all the crap you have to put up with, wouldn't it be easier to
"choose" to be straight?

---

I have to go through a lot of crap for being a Christian. I chose that path because of a major motivation. All choices in your life are from motivations: anger, fear, love, depression, lust, etc. Some motivations you have control over, others you do not.

Let me tell you something Belle, most "straight" people have urges and lusts for the same sex as well. Those who are labeled as "straight" are those who choose not to indulge in those desires.

Let me be very transparent with you. I am a recovering porn adict. I chose to indulge that lust in the past. Thanks to some divine intervention and the want to change, I do that less and less every day. Did I choose to become a porn adict? Yes. Sometimes people just want to push off their consequences on others. Most people decide to shove it onto God, when it is actually your own doing.

Plus, Satan is really good at masking a decision, and making it seem okay, but before you know it, it appears like it wasn't your personal decision. You always have a choice to say "yes" or "no."

Do I believe God made me a lustful, sex hungry porn adict? No. That goes against the commandments and teachings of Jesus. I believe that He allowed me to go through that ordeal to make me stronger. The more I learn how to fight this addiction, the more I can fight other addictions I have as well.

Are homosexuals evil? Absolutely not. I try my best to love everyone and that includes homosexuals. There is a difference between hating a person, and hating an act. I can still hate murder, but love my sister if she creates a murder. Same for homosexuality, it takes someone who truly knows the love of Christ to be able to truly love everyone.

Even then, love is a choice...

As for marriages, my issue is not with homosexuality. People do have a right to make their own choices and to follow their own path. My beef is with homosexuals trying to force the government and churches to call their union an marriage. It is my personal belief that a government can decide what it wants to call a marriage, and what it doesn't want to call a marriage. I like people and governments to have freedom, and imposing your own beliefs upon a government is just as bad as a government imposing their beliefs on you...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

I am sure there is some culture, on some planet, where what you just said makes some kind of sense.

Thankfully, it's not on this one...

=)

^ I couldn't have said it better...

quote:

---

My beef is with homosexuals trying to force the government and churches to call their union an marriage. It is my personal belief that a government can decide what it wants to call a marriage, and what it doesn't want to call a marriage.

---

That may be your belief, but it does not make it true.

Churches are one thing Gids, and I will protect any private entity such as that to make a decision based on their world-view. They do not have an obligation to comply.

Our government, on the other hand, is secular, non-religious, apart from religion, and can only make decisions based on it's laws, not on the prejudices or beliefs of the lawmakers, nor on the citizens who vote for them. This is a constitutional republic in which the rights of the individual should always, always come before all other considerations, with the exception of doing harm to others. (You may have an argument there, but since it is only speculative, a "what-if" it has no grounds) Put simply, people need to mind their own business. Focus on pulling the plank out of their own eyes before telling their neighbor to pull the splinter from his.

One group of peole with rights over another group of people is called oppression, and that is not what a free society is about.

In this sense, the gay and lesbian community has all the right in the world to try and force government's hand into compliance, because government is not following its own laws by depriving them of equal rights and protections of the law.

It is all so very simple if you look at the remarkably wise charter documents. Seems so many people are caught up in the morality of the debate rather than what the law, our supreme law of the land, actualy says. And it also seems there are far too many willing to force others, through government proxy, to their bidding. That is neither the function of government, nor the function of the voters in this Republic.

So to recap:

1) This government is a secular entity based on law.
2) One group of people having rights over another is called oppression.
3) Individual rights come before everything else, by law.
4) Gays and lesbians are fighting for equality, which is justified under law.
5) Those in government are not there to decide who gets to do what with their bodies (property), but to protect and defend the foundations they take an oath on.
6) Most importantly, forcing others, even through proxy, is wrong. A sin according to Christianity.

Lose all the stuff clouding your judgement, wipe the slate clean, and go back to basics on this issue. Relay the foundation of your thought. Learn what liberty, freedom, and rights mean and why it is so important that we are all treated equally. It will free you from those invisible chains. You may not realize you wear them, but I know they are there because I carried the same for much of my life. The correct action when you are against something is not to use force, and that is all government is if abused, but to find the source of the problem, which in this case is government itself, through its unconstitutional involvment in the institution of marriage.

quote:

---

I like people and governments to have freedom, and imposing your own beliefs upon a government is just as bad as a government imposing their beliefs on you...

---

People have freedom, governments only have restrictions, or, if you will, privelages which those with freedom grant it. Government has no beliefs, it only has law, which is the framework of society. Laws which force compliance of one belief over another are harmful to society, and over time wars have been known to ensue, and society unravels. You may think gay marriage will unravel society, but the alternative is a guarantee.

quote:

---

?Marriage is? something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state: it is a fundamental right of free men? legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.?
--1948, California Supreme Court

---

Think on it.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

"Marriage" is Christianity sanctioned paganism. The Church would not acknowledge it initially, but a few centuries ago, eventually gave up to the fact that not everyone can pursue purity and stay single. And so, in the old "if you can't beat them, join them" mood, marriage, as everyone in the western world knows it, was created.
What the word marriage means, is then "the recognition of two individuals as a couple".

So... what is wrong with all this?

Simply put, Christians or any other people with religious background should not have to endure the fact that they have the same earned status as someone who is doing something totally against their practices.

Therefore, even if it is quite fair and sound to recognize two gay men or women, as couples, or even thirty five people as a thirty five people unity, it is not sound to recognize them as married. Even if in legal terms the words are homophones.
In again other words, there exists a strong, neutral stand of opinion that states that even if in legal terms, two or more individuals should be able to have their union acknowledged, and inherit all the benefits and responsibilities over one another, they are not to be recognized nor as a biological functional couple, nor as normal.
Because they aren't. Therefore gay marriage, should (and probably will), forever remain as gay marriage, with a set of rules of its own, different from marriage.


Don't delude yourselves, members of the gay community: you are freaks; your pursue for neutrality will forever be daunted by the prejudice that even yourselves have to recognize in order to fight back.
But then again, you can always go and found a new country free from pre-conceptions, but, you better know that whatever name you call it, it will always be known as something else, for someone else.

~this is not a signature~

Gideon--I'm happy for you. That you are beating your porn addiction. I know that can be just as hard as beating any chemical addiction around.

I know that most people have fantasies about the same sex from time to time. This is why straight people think homosexuality is a choice. They think that because they didn't choose to act out their fantasy, that everyone else is able to make the same "choice". This is an un-truth. And it is false thinking.

Curiosity is not the same thing as desire and attraction.

If the bible said that heterosexuality was a sin instead of homosexuality, would you be able to change your desires from women to men? You could probably force yourself to sleep with men instead of women if your religion called for it, and you believed that you must. But would you be happy? Would you be able to change your actual desire? No. It would be very un-natural for you. You would not be happy at all. Sex is not just for reproduction--it is for expression of love. And if you loved women, you could not be satisfied with loving a man. And if women visually and mentally stimulate your desire, you would not be able to change that bodily response to men just because the bible told you it was the right way. Or for any other reason.

Really think about that Gideon. Really think about how difficult it would be if religion said that YOU had to change. It's like asking a leopard to change it's spots. And then realize that that is exactly what is trying to be forced onto homosexuals. The "sin" is not in the sexual act itself Gideon, or even in WHO you have sex with--as long as you are not breaking a commitment. The "sin" is in people's attitude toward sex.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Belladona,

I don't agee with your view in regard to sexaul attraction. I am heterosexual female, but if I wanted to, I can let myself be attracted to a female if I wanted to. Its all about choice. I can choose to have sex with a female if I let myself be desirous of one. So sexual attraction is a choice. I allow myself to be attracted or don't. A homosexual person is not born homosexual. That is a way of trying to understand the attraction that a person alows him or herself to be taken. If a man chooses to have sex with a man for the rest of his life its because he has choosen that lifestyle, the lifestyle didn' t choose him. If a persons has a desire to have sex with children under ten, is it because he is attracted to only 8 yr olds or he chooses to have sex with kiddies because he was born with those desires. If person has desires to have sex with animals, where they born that way attracted to German Shepherds or toy poddles or do they choose to have sex with four legged creatures. This is why I do not agree with your response to Gideon. Lets say in the story of creation, God created Adam and no Eve, but other Adams to co-exist with, what would be his purpose in the grand scheme of things. Could they be fruitful and multiply. Sex between two same sex genders is un-natural and does defy the the natural order. That is pretty basic, but how we chose to follow the natural law or not is the real issue. What your saying is a pedophile cannot change and stop having a desire to have sex with children and I say he can just like a homosexual can change and stop desiring persons of the same sex. We can agree sexual gratification comes from many sources, porn comes in many forms. Persons can choose to have sex with themself if they want to. Its about choice. If a male has sex with a male just one time to be curious, he may enjoy it better with a woman he had sex with before and feels better stimualted. Does that make it natural? NO. So he allows himself to open the attractions to males as opposed to not being attracted before. Then they fall in love and want to start a family. Whats wrong with this picture? Where do the babies come from? A clinic? Yes. Homosexuality has been going on for many centuries and is in every culture past and present, and to use this argument as a reason it should be looked upon as a nomal is deceiving. Bisexuality is the same too. You can choose either gender and decide to have sex with them if you allow yourself to be sexually attracted. Thats why I say its alway a choice which involves your free will to decide who you want to have sex with. Be it males, females, children, animals and yourself.

For persons who follow the moral law, as Gideon and myself does, we see the homosexual act as a violation of the heart of the law in its attack on family. I see the act itself as immoral unnatural but do not judge the person in their violation of the law. If they are regarded as sinning, I know its not my sin. We are all sinners. We do pray for the welfare of others because that is at the heart of the law, which is to love all.

(Edited by jade on 07-11-2005 21:58)

quote:

---

Jade: Persons can choose to have sex with themself if they want to.

---

Woohoo!

Anyways...While I do agree with some of your sentiments above with regard as to whether it is choice or genetic, (I tend to believe it primarily a choice myself, although not entirely black and white) it really is irrelevent and has no foundation in deciding the legality of gay marriage.

A question for you and Gids and anyone else opposed:

Would you have the government act as a proxy on your behalf to initiate deprivation of liberty against a certain group of people? A group of people who are doing as they choose with their own bodies (i.e. property), making a choice, ala free-will?

A yes or no answer will suffice, no need for spin, because this cuts right to the heart of the matter.

It really is that simple.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-11-2005 20:50)

I think I know where you are going with this Ram, but I don't think this question can be answered with a simple yes or no...
Not too many things are black and white in this world...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gideon:

quote:

---

I don't think this question can be answered with a simple yes or no...

---

Really ? Read my lips/post :

NO.

Bell, one simple answer, the Bible does tell me I have to change. Maybe not whether I choose men or women to marry, but several other things, especially sex. I know that pornography and masturbation is a sin, because the Bible outlines quite a few facts about sex, and what is or isn't sin. On those two subjects I am very safe in saying that if Jesus was standing before me right now and I asked Him if porn was wrong, He would say yes. I am also sure that He would say masturbation is wrong. Why? They are tied to the sexually immoral act of lust. I know I have to change, and I am trying my best to let go.

Bell, it is your choice whether you have sexual relations with men or women. And I know that whatever you choose, Jesus will still love you the same. He may not be happy, but He will still love you. One thing I worry about is when the Bible said that sexually immoral people, homosexuals and porn adicts alike, will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Do you know the passage I am talking about? I believe that salvation is eternal, and can never be taken away, but what does that verse say to you? What do you think God thinks of sexual immorality?

One other thing, I know for a fact that it is a choice because of a man named Sy Rodgers. He was a homosexual. He changed and is now a happily married man, with children, who has made it his passion to help those who are on the homosexual path know that there is a way to change. Google him up and it should show how he was able to change from being a homosexual to a heterosexual. I listened to him once and what he said encouraged me in my fight against lust.

quote:

---

Arthemis said:

Don't delude yourselves, members of the gay community: you are freaks

---

Ooh, ooh, me too! I'm a freak, pick me! I am a freak of the Jesus kind... Jesus Freak!!!

I think there is plenty of room in this country to house everyone Arthemis. Tall, short, fat, skinny, religious, not religious, smart, unintelligent, peaceful, war hungry, heterosexual, homosexual, murderers, rapists, civil rights activists, good hearted people, sour hearted people, different races and religions... I think that the diversity is good for us...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

I think I know where you are going with this Ram

---

You know exactly where I am going with it, although it is not my place to call you on it, and that is why you didn't answer.

It is a black and white question based on a black and white concept of force/non-force. There really are no gray areas when you boil the discussion down to this base level. Yes, you will condone government force and deprivation of individual liberties, or no you will not. Simple.

Remember Gids, I am with you in that I do not approve of the lifestyle or the desecration of marriage (although we heterosexuals have done plenty of that). What I learned though, aside from being intellectually honest with myself, is that people must be given the opportunity to make their own choices and government's purpose is to protect their right to make their own choices from people who would deprive them of such. I don't like it, but I feel compelled to fight for people to have the opportunity to make their own choices, for better or worse. That is freedom, individual liberty, and if you cannot muster the tolerance for living in such a society just consider the alternatives.

Again, and I know I am starting to sound like a broken record, but it bears repeating obviously, individual liberty is the foundation of this nation and freedom is not a "clause" or "excuse" as I think you mentioned before. Dabbling in the simplicity of what was laid out so long ago is what has gotten us to our current troubles, and more dabbling can only have more detrimental effects to our nation and society, because government is not our friend, never has been and never will be. Learn to fear government, as we all should, and everything else falls into place.

Listen to the voice inside your head that is screaming incessantly for you to listen, but which your heart and emotions on the issue are stifling... You don't have to like gay marriage, you don't have to like the sin, but you do have to let people live their own lives as they choose. It will all be sorted out later and it is not our place to sort it out now.

So again:

Force or non-force? Tyranny or freedom? Oppression or equality? More government intrusion or less government untrusion? Yes or no?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

There's a new Show on FX called 30 days (as in 30 days in someone elses shoes) The first episode was about a religious young man who lives for 30 days with a gay man in the Castro in SF. It's an interesting view (unfortunately I already cleared it off my PVR or I would have posted a link). No one converts or changes their minds but they do learn to see the other side.


But Gideon it does ask an interesting question. To play the devils advocate, if right now through some revelation you found out that the teachings were wrong and that according to God men are supposed to be gay could you switch?



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Gids: Read this article to understand where I am coming from when I say the state has no business in marriage. There is a distinction between the institution of marriage and the legal contract of marriage as defined by the state, and this article explains it much better than I could.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/vandun3.html

I think it will help bring you round to my POV.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

There's a new Show on FX called 30 days (as in 30 days in someone elses shoes)

---

I saw this episode. It was really an eye-opener.

quote:

---

masturbation is a sin

---

This is the kind of thinking that worries me. Masturbation is a sin?? I'd rather my 14 year old daughter masturbate to fulfill her PERFECTLY NATURAL desires than to run out and have sex with a boy or two. It's much better than the consequences of possibly becoming pregnant, catching a disease, or suffering the emotional devistation of early sex without love. And I'm pretty sure God would agree on that. Or would you say that God would rather me teach her that she needs to suppress that desire and never touch herself? That it is a sin? Why? So that she will associate her bodily desires with sin? And what happens when she falls in love and gets married? Those associations do not just automatically erase when you take vows. It would not be fair to her or to her husband to have an unhealthy attitude about sex. It will rob them of the bliss they can give each other. I don't know if men can fully understand that. The "sexual sin" complex affects women in a far greater way than it does men.

Jade: You cannot compare pedophiles and beastiality to homosexuality. Most true pedophiles have severe emotional problems. And I say "true pediphiles" because a lot of people are labled "child molester" when they are not. A 23 year old who had sex with a 15, 16, or 17 year old is not necessarily a child molester, although he will be labled as one and have to register as a sex offender. In a case like that, it really depends on the circumstances. But true pedophilia--sex with a person who is sexually immature physically-- can be compared to rape. It is NOT about sex OR attraction AT ALL. It is about power and control and domination. Beastiality is....well, it's just disgusting. But lets face it. There are some men in the world who will stick it in an apple pie just to get off. And I guess some women too. Beastiality is not about attraction or love--it is about lack of ANY self control at all. Or maybe desperation in some cases. And when you get down to it, homosexuality is not truly about sex, nor is heterosexuality. It is about who you are attracted to emotionally and physically. Many many homosexuals are promiscuous, lustful, and have some lack of control. But so do many many many straight people. A homosexual man IS born attracted to males. Now, he can become a pedophile, or have sex with a dog. But he is still attracted to males and cannot change that. He can be a playboy and sleep around, he can exploit teen age boys, or he can refrain from sex until he falls in love and commits to one person. But he is still, and always will be, attracted to males.

You said you are a heterosexual female. And that if you chose to, you could be attracted to females. But listen--you didn't CHOOSE to be attracted to males. You ARE attracted to males. You have probably ALWAYS been attracted to males. And yes, you may can look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty, you may could even be turned on by a woman and have sex with her if you let yourself. That is not the same thing as being homosexual, or even bisexual. That is just giving in to your desires of the moment. And if you did give in and do it, you would STILL be heterosexual. If you physically enjoyed sex with a female better than with male and so continued to have sex with females, you would STILL be heterosexual. Because your HEART and therefore your true desire and attraction, will always belong to the opposite sex.

Anyone can choose to live immorally --male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual. Anyone can choose how they conduct themselves and carry themselves. Anyone can practice self control or not. But you cannot choose who you truly love. I don't know any other way to explain it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Very well said Belladonna.

For those of you who share Gideon's or Jade's view, please read, re-read, and re-read this post.

Until *you* are in the position described, you *cannot* be a judge of whether the actions in question are a simple choice.

I still do not agree with your view of sexual attraction. I believe its always about choice. You also choose to love who you want. Love doesn't choose you. I fall in love with a person because I choose to. I have a friend who fell into lesbianism. While she was in it, it was the best thing. She thought she was born that way and never knew her real self. She had married before and had 1 child and then divorced. Later on after about 3 years of a series of relationships, she fell out of being a lesbian and renounced that period as a phase she went thru. Now, she regrets what she did and how many sexual encounters she had with women. Was she born this way or not?.
No. She told me she got drunk one night with her friend who was not a lesbian either and they started a brief affair. Her friend has since married and my friend is no longer a lesbian. Figure that.

For God fearing individuals, any form of sexual relationships outside of marriage, is against the moral teachings of faith. If your a bible Christian you follow your bible teachings. I see you say how God would think masturbation is a good thing. I don't believe you know how God thinks. If you did, you equate yourself with the intelligence of God or as if you share a camaraderie with him.

I don't understand why you encourage your child to masturbate. This is so very wrong. There is so much more to the human person than touching themselves to achieve sexual gratification. It is certainly not normal. Anything that feels good, you can get addicted to and say if it feels good its ok. I am not harming anyone. Would you encourage your daughter to look at porn to gratify herself also as opposed to going out with a boy. Why have a loving sexual relationship with another human person when you don't need them. You can take care of your sexual desires with yourself. Is it more healthier for your daughter to go out on a date and encourage abstanience or go or tell her to stay home a masturbate. People become addicted to porn because they can masturbate all day long. Something is terribly wrong with this. Your daughter can say no to sex if she chooses. You can give her the tools to become educated about sex and say no to disease and pregnancy.

Bit, I did find a revelation from God about 2.5 years ago that said sexual lust was wrong. This included porn and masturbation. I was on the previous notion that masturbation was okay. It's better than real sex with a woman because there is no strings attached, right? Wrong, it is possibly worse. I have gone full circle and I am now heading in the right direction.

Ram, I am now sad and depressed, thanks.
I read that and if he really is a lawyer, and knows what he is talking about, then he might have a case there. I will give it some thought.
Something I am always thinking about though, is the future. What worries me is that if homosexual marriage is legalized, then we could have the same situation with churches doing preferential marriages that we did with those drug store owners...

Bell, let me tell you why masturbation is a sin. Masturbation, and pornography, are related to lust. You must lust after a person in order to masturbate, and usually pornography is just a means to lust. Lust is the desire to have sex with the individual. You can look at someone and say, "wow, they are attractive." And that is not lust. If you look at someone and say, "wow, I could really go for some of that." That is lust. As soon as you start thinking about someone in a sexual manner, that is lust. Jesus says in Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman [or a man] lustfully has already committed adultry with her in hes heart. So essentially lust is the sex of the mind and heart. In Exodus 20:14 the 7th commandment, you shall not commit adultery. What is adultery? Having sex with someone other than your spouse. So lust is the adultery of the mind. Adultery is definitly a sin...

I got roped into masturbation and porn because it was easier than sex, and more readily available. Unfortunately, that period of my life totally and utterly annihilated my heart and mind. It messed me up on the inside. You hear horror stories about premarital sex and not lust. Why? Lust hurts deep. It tore me away socially. I could not really talk to a girl until about a year ago. It cheapens sex. Masturbation is actually a very terrible thing for marriage. Because masturbation is easier to get than real sex, so in a marriage it cheapens the sex between husband and wife. Then, that drives people apart.

You want to know some horror stories about masturbation? How about a wife who was about ready to have an affair because her husband chooses porn over her? She didn't have the affair, but is still wanting to get a divorce, because her husband's addiction is still so great. That is not some natural fulfillment of desires, that is an endangerment to a loving bond shared between husband and wife.

I'm sorry that I am going off like this, but masturbation and pornography hits me personally. I have been struggling with it for so long, that I know show the scars of it on my life. I won't ever be able to get back those dark years of my life that I spent in social isolation because of lust. Please, don't tell your daughter it is okay to masturbate. It really isn't.

For anyone who needs it, something that I wish I had know about earlier is the website xxxchurch.com. If you are struggling with mastrubation or pornography, there are many help aids on the web site, along with a forum if you need someone to talk to, or just someone to pray for you.

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

A homosexual man IS born attracted to males.

---

I want to ask you a question Bell, you say that homosexual men are born attracted to men. Are they attracted to a certain physical traight that only men have? Big muscles? I have seen women with big muscles. Deep throats? Yep. Hair? Believe it or not... Unless they are attracted to a man because of his genitilia, there is a woman out there with his physical fantasy fulfilled. Is it emotional or hobby related? I have a friend who acts less like a girl and more like a guy. She can burp better than I can some times. I have a sneaky suspicion that attraction to male characteristics isn't what leads men to homosexuality...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

And your personal shortcomings, and your 'sneaky suspicions' have about as much to do with the subject as mashed potatoes do...

A man who chooses pornography over his wife has one of two problems

a) he chose poorly when deciding who to marry

b) he has no level of self control or social awareness, and this problem will manifest itself in a variety of possible ways - the pornography has nothing to do with the actual problem.

Just because you were unable to talk to a girl or control your lust does not make masturbation bad. It showcases a personal shortcoming that you wish to defect by naming something else "wrong".

Deal with your own shortcomings. Don't blame them on outside forces.

Addiction is a matter of personality. A person who becomes 'addicted' to porn will become addicted to a great many things throughout his life, always avoiding the actual problem - the problem stemming form within - in favor of attacking and/or latching onto outside sources as both excuses and comforts.

The only way to fix an internal problem is internally.

quote:

---

shortcomings, and your 'sneaky suspicions' have about as much to do with the subject as mashed potatoes do... A man who chooses pornography over his wife has one of two problems a) he chose poorly when deciding who to marry b) he has no level of self control or social awareness, and this problem will manifest itself in a variety of possible ways - the pornography has nothing to do with the actual problem.

---

I don't think this is good advice for a person who is trying hard to deal with his personal issue of sexuality. Gideon, I do believe your suspicision regarding the problem of unnatural sexual behavior is right on target. I know of a particular person close to me who is haveing the same problem regarding porn/masterbation. The husband no longer lust after his wife, because he rather masterbate with porn magazines. They have a diminshed sex life and she wants him to go see a counselor. A friend of mine who is single and has a boyfriend comfided in to me that her alcoholic boyfriend would rather masterbate with porn than have sex with her, but she still loves him and cannot let go. They both just sleep together like brother and sister and she cries herself to sleep. The problem is more widespread that we think. Mag/Newstand with porn are always full of cars in the parking lots.. I do believe lust is at the center of this problem

quote:

---

Just because you were unable to talk to a girl or control your lust does not make masturbation bad. It showcases a personal shortcoming that you wish to defect by naming something else "wrong". Deal with your own shortcomings. Don't blame them on outside forces.

---

Most shy guys go thru the same feelings you did about girls Gideon. I do have sons too. This is normal. It is not a shortcomming. Its called SHYNESS. Because you escaped into dealing with your sexuality in a way that is not really healthy does not mean something is wrong with you. Once you get over the shyness, you will be cool. Think of ways to keep yourself occupied to not think of you desire to overcome temptation with spiritual couseling of other persons with the same affliction and you will see you will become stronger Christian.

quote:

---

Addiction is a matter of personality. A person who becomes 'addicted' to porn will become addicted to a great many things throughout his life, always avoiding the actual problem - the problem stemming form within - in favor of attacking and/or latching onto outside sources as both excuses and comforts. The only way to fix an internal problem is internally.

---

Well you can start by asking Gideon if he is addicted to anything else and see if its true. I am addicted to chocolate and the food channel, but that doesn't mean I have a problem.

DL--you are right on

Jade, Gideon

You two are really taking it far out of proportion. Not to mention, putting words in my mouth and totally misreading my entire post.

First of all. Lust in and of itself is not sin. It is a natural bodily response, and we have it for a reason. If lust were a sin, it would be a sin to lust after your spouse. Noone would ever get married anyway if there was no lust.

Gideon--take a good long think about those verses you threw out. That verse in Matthew is taken from Jesus clarifying the Ten Commandments. He is talking about adultery. Adultery is a sin because you are breaking your marriage vow to your spouse and to God. Now, a man can have an affair over the internet, and justify it to himself and to his wife that "It's not real, it's just words" and to him that is the truth. Men are able to separate emotions and sex in a way that women cannot and don't. He did not love the woman, he just fooled around with words. To the wife though, it hurts just as bad as if he really cheated. This is what Jesus is warning about in that verse. He is explaining to men specifically that just the very thought can hurt his wife as much as the deed itself. And the whole context is within a marriage. He is not saying that lust or masturbation is a sin in itself, he is saying "Man, control yourself. Love and respect your wife or else you are commiting adultery and breaking your vow, and do not love her as Christ loved the Church."

You can say that is my own interpretation if you want to. But it is what it says, and it is what it is about. Commitment and marriage. Not lust per se. Ask your pastor if you don't believe me.


Now, I am truly sorry that lives get messed up and relationships ruined because of sex. But every one of those examples that the two of you pointed out is lack of control, self indulgence, and selfish behavior. An alcoholic cannot control his drinking. He cannot drink in moderation either. He must abstain completely--at least for a long while, sometimes forever. But alcohol in and of itslef is not the sin. There is usually an underlying problem as to why an alcoholic is an alcoholic. And that underlying issue is what needs to be addressed. It is no different with sex. If you are non-religious, you go to a shrink to find out what the REAL problem is. If you are religious, then you pray to God to help you solve the problem yourself. But if you ask either a shrink or God to remove lust from your heart, your request is futile. You are human, and lust is natural. A Monk or a Nun will not tell you that they do not feel lust toward other humans. What you pray to God for is strength and control and wisdom to understand your desires and master them. You pray to God to guide you to find the true meaning of love and commitment. And then you search them out with wisdom.

As far as my daughter--I never said that I "encourage masturbation". I simply do not teach her it is a sin to masturbate. To do so would be the same as saying your desires are a sin. She DOES go out on dates, and they are properly supervised for a 14 year old. What I teach my daughter is that sex is a natural thing, and is beautiful between two people who are truly in love. I teach her that her virginity is a gift, and that she should be 100% sure before she gives it up, because once it's gone, it's gone. I teach her that true love is about commitment, not about an emotion and butterflies in your stomach that will come and go and fade in and out, suffer peaks and valleys even within a strong marriage. I teach her self-control and the joys of delayed gratification in ALL things, not just sex. I teach her how to deal with the pressure that a boy can put on a girl, or peer-pressure when "all my friends are doing it". I teach her that sex is not just a great physical pleasure, but a huge emotional responsibility. And if she were to ask me about masturbation, which she has not yet, then I will tell her that it is a tool. How can you please someone else sexually if you don't know how to please yourself? And sexual pleasure is a BIG part of the health of a marriage. And if I ever walked in on her and caught her in the act of self pleasure, I would teach her that she does not have to be ashamed of her feelings. I would teach her that it is a personal and private thing, and that just like anything else, you cannot let it rule you.

My kid has a good head on her shoulders. She knows right from wrong. She has a deep belief in God. And she has a very healthy and natural sexual attitude.

How can you teach a kid to control their desires if what you are telling them is to suppress them completely? Suppression is not control. How can you teach a child to have an open and beautiful sexual relationship in their marriage if you are shoving abstinance down their throat? You cannot. This is not the way to teach a healthy sexual attitude. You cannot send mixed signals. Sex cannot be bad in one scenario and good in another. It is still sex, no matter how you do it, how much you do it, who you do it with, or if you don't do it at all. Sex itself, and lust itself, is NOT the problem.

Jade--your friend you mentioned? She was NEVER a lesbian. If you dont' understand that, then I'm sorry. Read my post above that again.

And if you truly believe that you choose who you love, then you truly don't understand the meaning of love. Your heart leads, your mind chooses. Always.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I really hate to see really powerful and worthy words going by the wayside. Belladonna, you have put down some really powerful words and I want to let you know that you are not being ignored. It is often harder to show support of someone than it is to attack them, and I want you to know that I support what you have written.

For all of that refuse to even explore the ideas of others, why do you ever try and debate these things? What is the point of you being here? Are you only here to attack and to preach?

Jade and Gideon how can you say that you would know what Jesus would do and think, and then follow up by telling someone else that their interpretation is wrong? Do you not even feel the hypocrisy that washes over you when you do this. You claim to accept Jesus and his new gospel, but you recant back to the old testament and use it as a basis to attack and condemn others.

You continually say love, but everything else you write reads hatred. Your hypocrisy is sickening.

Dan @ Code Town

Thank you WarMage. I did not want to call out the hypocrisy myself, because I really don't think they even realize they do it. Or mean it. But it does hurt when people act that way, to say the very same thing is right when they do it and wrong when you do it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

I'm used to hearing about the 2nd Amendment being for hunting and regular self-defense. P&T brought up the point that US citizens might need guns for self-defense against the US government. Our fore-fathers put that in because they foresaw that there might be the need for civil war or revolution.

That really made me stop and think.

---

That's really my point WJ. Might make right - it always has and it always will. Those in a position of power will always be the ones giving out rights & privileges.

You missed it again.

People with power take privileges. They can give nothing.

Dan @ Code Town

Jade - I suppose I really *should* defer to your 'wisdom' on the issue, destpite decades of clinical evidence to the contrary.

But....I just can't.

Addiction is a matter of personality in most (if not all) cases. Period.
In all of those cases, one item is easily substituted for another

You can deny it all you want in favor of your religious belief, but that doesn't alter reality.

I don't care to argue the point further - it is a basic truth, the supporting facts and articles for which litter both the internet and any number of printed periodicals and books.

Nice post BD. Just filter all the religion out, and it would be brilliant.

quote:

---

My kid has a good head on her shoulders. She knows right from wrong. She has a deep belief in God. And she has a very healthy and natural sexual attitude.

---

Replace "She has a deep belief in God" with "She has a deep belief in herself", for example.

I won't even bother commenting on J&G.

Thanks WS. Unfortunately, I can't *totally* filter out my beliefs anymore than anyone else can. Although, I really do try to keep basic things generic. And facing reality is a very basic thing. Anyone who uses religion to lay blame of their problems on an outside source is no different from anyone else who uses any other kind of escapism to remove blame for themselves. And anyone who thinks God or any other source is going to just hand you an answer without you having to work and search for it within yourself, or without facing your problems rather than suppressing them, is no different from a spoiled child.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing the point too. Not to mention it's all way off topic.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

They glorified God not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:21 KJV)."
"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Romans 1: 26,27 KJV)."
Its easier to call us hypocritical than to believe we have any basis for how we believe. To go against the teaching of Christ is a very serious offense for us. We advocate abstiance. And believe sexual relationships are meant of committed persons in a married state. Though the laws of the country will pass laws giving rights to homosexuals to marry, it is not the place of the state to bind or unbind two persons in a sacramental way.


It is easier to go along with society today in their ideological wayward tendency to go self destruct or speak out because care. You see hypocrites. I see love. Gideon and I are only following scriptural teaching. To take scripture and interpret it in way to think it sanctions homosexuality and masturbation is just... well.... I am just at a loss for words.

If Christ were here today walking the planet, how would he counsel the gay partners in marriage relationship? Would he say keep your marriage holy and pure? Be fruitful and multiply by having children. Love each other and no one else for the rest of you life.

The bible makes references to the Christ as a bridegroom and the church as his bride (Male/female imaginary are used here). Not male/male imaginary. The union of Christ with the Church is a communion of committed persons forever. The bible uses marriage very often in scripture to express how God wants to relate to us as spouse.
Paul wrote that homosexuality is neither a sickness nor does it result from a moral choice, it is rather God's punishment given to those who fail to worship God properly. Read it carefully, Paul is saying that God will afflict people with homosexual desires if they fall into improper habits of worship. Why do people still look in the Bible not for truth but for the confirmation of their prejudices against believers?

This is the absolute last thing I have to say about this, but I cannot let this pass without being said.

Paul was not God. He was just a man who interpreted things his way. No different from you. No different from me.

(plus, you contradicted yourself. Now you say that no, homosexuality is not a sickness, and does not come from a choice. You say it is an affliction from God. So that means you are born with it, correct? Or that if you are a bad person or lose sight of God you will 'suffer' from homosexuality? This makes no sense at all.)

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-13-2005 16:48)

*templar passes by in his stupid and utterly moronic way*

Hmmm... this sounds like a place for that naked guy to be...

*continues to waddle around a circle for a few seconds, then runs away in the corner and shouts in an echo*

"BELIEVE IN THE FISH AS THEY BELIEVE IN YOU..."

Since ye of overwheening faith put all in your god, it seems to me she must also be responsible for creating gays.

Therefore they must be acceptable.

Therefore denying them their natural, god-given sexuality is to deny your god.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)