I Don't Understand the Problem

I watched a movie on Prob 8 in CA.

Apaprently the Mormon church spent a lot of money under the table to get this passed.

The homosexual couples are brokenhearted, but why?

So what if they are married? Theirs are not normal marriages.

They can still love with a civil union. If their rights are equal, why have to marry? What am I missing here?

.

I hear you, LC. It seems they are being a bit unreasonable. A Bbile based church cannot condone them. They want it all their way. Impossible!

I have relatives who are gay. They never made an issue of it.

I am against marriage of gays. I define marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't want to be cast with alternative life styles.

.

LC,

They want pity and sympathy--poor me. I don't blame them for their situation, but they are not normal. For us to say they are niormal changes nothing.
If only it were that easy.

I am convinced some are born that way. A child born without two feet is not normal and giving him a piece pf paper stating he was normal would do him no good.

Why do straight people need to be married? Why not just banish marriage altogether?

Al Stevens wrote:

Why do straight people need to be married? Why not just banish marriage altogether?

It is an institution ordained of God--between a man and a woman. Why abolish it--to satisfy the gays?

Why do we have to change the world for a small group of abnormal people?

'How many gay people are there in the United States?
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law,
a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that
there are 8.8 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons in the U.S
based on the 2005/2006 American Community Survey, an extension of the
U.S. Census (Gary J. Gates, 2006, "Same-Sex Couples and the Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community
Survey")'

It's hard to rationalise that such a large group is abnormal. Rather, think of it as nature's way of trying to keep population growth within acceptable boundaries.

Shelagh,

If they are keeping the population at bay, they don't need to be married.

.

alice wrote:

Shelagh,

If they are keeping the population at bay, they don't need to be married.

No, they don't. They should be able to make a legal commitment to one another that protects their inheritance rights without the need for a religious wedding.

LC wrote:

And if that's their "purpose," no one told them, because lots of them have kids, anyhow. Which brings up the issue -should a married gay couple be as eligible to adopt kids as a hetero one? I'm on the fence with that.

They don't actually procreate. Adopting children that would otherwise grow up in children's homes gives children a better family environment. Children just want to be loved and are not judgmental.

I am not --who needs or wants two mothers or two fathers?

The poor kids have no say. Kids deserve the very best start in life.

Shelagh,

They are roughly 3% of the population--not my idea of normal.


Kid's are the most judgemental of other kids as anyone you would meet.

This is one of those topics that I find very controversial and without a "win" for anyone. Personally, I do not think I am capable of determining what is normal for anyone in this very complex world. I lived in a small microcosm called Key West, Florida for three years. It was an eye opening experience beyond measure.

One thing I did learn was that the general acceptance of "live and let live" that was part of the elan of Key West was refreshing. My situations at work were so different than elsewhere. They were work related. The office was a business place. The different lifestyles were private matters though generally known, but not flaunted. No need for secrecy or "hush hush" gossip existed. Differences were immense; thus, they didn't matter.

Wonderful youth programs had leaders from alternative lifestyles (and I mean a variety of alternative lifestyles) that were excellent role models for the troubled teens; they were honest, of high moral character and valued positive interactions among all people. A person's sexual orientation had no negative or positive impact on political office or the work environment.

My church is openly welcoming to all people who search for spiritual meaning in their lives. The life of Jesus Christ is the guiding force; but members are allowed to question and seek their own interpretations of His place in their lives. It is the same church I attended in Key West.

I was glad to leave after three years; it was such a small island for so many challenges to my own lifestyle and beliefs that it sometimes felt oppressive. I was actively dating, and it wasn't always clear about gender and other belief differences. You learned to love people there for themselves and all their interesting characteristics. The line between friendships and relationships could be fuzzy and frought with danger signs for different lifestyles and values.

I have seen the seemy side of heterosexual lifestyles that are much more aberrant to my thinking than the typical gay couple. My belief is that intimate relations are a private matter, heterosexual or gay. Most of the people I know seem to share that feeling and don't flaunt their differences. I guess it's the harassment and bias that forces a group of people with that experience to claim their place loudly as a backlash. When they are accepted as in Key West and a few other easy places, there's no need to flaunt differences except by those who would want the stage, gay or straight.

Once you experience Fantasy Fest weeks in Key West, the world has no secrets anymore. I am no longer shocked by alternative lifestyles, graphic displays of sexual content and jokes from the pits of base thought patterns; I just prefer to live a different sort of life where those things don't fit. Each to their own.

Quote :

They don't actually procreate. Adopting children that would otherwise grow up in children's homes gives children a better family environment. Children just want to be loved and are not judgmental.

Lots DO procreate (NTTAWT), and as for adoption, there are long waiting lists for infants. Or are you implying gays should only be able to adopt the older, possibly damaged, ones?

alice wrote:

I am not --who needs or wants two mothers or two fathers?

The poor kids have no say. Kids deserve the very best start in life.

The evidence suggests that children brought up by gay couples are not disadvantaged:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/06/08/children-of-lesbian-couples-have-fewer-behaviour-problems/

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=12407

DK,

You are so right. Discretion is needed here. No one I know speaks of their sex lives. We don't brush our teeth in public--why must everyone know about our sex preferences?

Shelagh,

Children reared in troublesome environments do not feel safe acting out.
They are too insecure.
Only in adulthood will the damage be recognized.

I've just watched the film of John Lennon's early life. The impression given is that he was very damaged by his dysfunctional upbringing.

He probably was.

One of the best behaved kids we had in Children's Church turned into an absolute monster.

Some of the" problem" chidlren turned out fine.

It is hard for me to figure out why some kids turn out and some don't.

By the way, I feel sorry for gay people. As I said I had two cousins--one now and a nephew who are gay. I don't want anyone to be mean to them.

I also don't want them to have children.

Just me!

Children are quite robust. They adapt. Just like chickens that think they are dogs when reared in close proximity (one of which used to run around picking up sticks and chasing balls!). We are animals and we adapt to our environment. It only seems abnormal after contact with what is deemed normal.

I dunno, Shelagh, we could carry that reasoning out to say that any situation, no matter how awful, is ok because people adapt. Why help 3rd world countries? They should be used to things by now.

I have known people whom I called close friends, and who later came out of the closet. I realized that they were the same people before and after, and still had the qualities I had admired so much before I knew their orientation. That taught me a lot.

My first superior after I started teaching was a lesbian - it was one of those don't ask; don't tell situations. When her partner died, the partner's family contested the will, and won on the grounds that my superior had robbed their beloved family member of a normal life. My superior, who had been in this relationship for over twenty years, lost almost everything.

Had they been married, that could not have happened. Civil agreements do not always stand up in court.

Why is it so important to us? Whom are they hurting?

More and more research indicates this is a biological condition. Even if it were a choice, how does it hurt us if they make it?

I don't see the problem.

Just me.

Ann