Gay Rights Fanaticism

reply to post by Hefficide

It may be a romanticized ideal. It may be a modern, religious ideal. But it is not a natural ideal at all.

I will say this: you have a point in perhaps it would have been better for me not to have discussed metaphysics, as it was more tangential than the point of the thread. I could have got my point across without it.

However, it is not so much a 'romanticized' ideal, and it is not so much a modern or religious ideal. It is an eternal reality which man 4000 years ago noticed, and idealized in their sacred art and literature, and till this day, man can still see, even if the lights and glamor of the success of science, technology, theory of evolution etc, create an impression of a world which can exist fine without any notion of God, or sacred metaphysical truths.

But mans heart pounds for religious meaning. That heart, that awe for the world, precedes all estimation of the world. The fallacy of modern philosophy is thinking that only 'one approach' can be true; that because science has helped us conquer the world of matter, the same method necessarily should be applied to philosophy. But that is not true; its a fallacy. Science is useful in measuring quantity, in deducing relationships between cause and effect; but religion, God, the metaphysics I refer to - these are issues of quality, of the spirit, of meaning. To subject this part of ourselves to the inhumanity and impersonality of the 'scientific' method, is to diminish man; it's to, to use the phrase of Viktor Frankl, to 'sub-humanize' man.

It's even not in keeping with Judaism, as the Pentateuch - or Old Testament, is rife with non-traditional mating, including concubines, incest, polygamy, etc.

You should make a differentiation between Judaism and ancient Jewish religion. Rabbinic Judaism is thoroughly monogamistic, and has been since it's creation. The older biblical era Judaism may have accepted the social norms of polygamy, but there is probably a decent reason to believe that that had a practical justification; wars were common, men often died, and this created a surplus of women. To remedy this situation, polygamy was introduced.

In any case, we see a special example of monogamy in the Hebrew Scriptures in Isaac and Rebekah, who perhaps represent the idealized husband-wife relationship.

Also, incest is a metaphorical tool, and obviously it wasn't something sanctioned by Hebrew religion; nor were concubines (at least not for the general population, since we only have evidence of Kings practicing this)

if both parties are strong enough to shake away their natural urges.

But that is the natural culmination of love: we see love, in it's ideal form as a man and woman coming together and sharing their essential being with each other. Anything less than this connection falls short of a truly meaningful life, and certainly bastardizes the intention of the idea in monogamy.

So yes, the natural urges must be curtailed, and concentrated in one other person, and not every person. That's a part of maturation as a person. We can't have everyone. A healthy development begins with sexual experimentation, and ends with finding that essential 'one' who you can't live without. This other is MORE than just a sex-object. In fact, to people really in love, sex is almost an afterthought. Yet at the same time, when these people have sex, it is richer and more intense because of the deeper layers of self and personality which run beneath the physical act of sex.

Applying this as a means of arguing against gay marriage simply doesn't make sense to me I guess.

Well, outside purely utilitarian reasons, this is the ONLY justifiable reason. All religious people who think this way implicitly rely on a metaphysics which sees the male-female union of marriage as a reflection of eternal principles. The song of songs is a type of this: Israel is the 'beloved' and God is the man. God seeks Israel while Israel evades her courtier. Eventually, they unite in universal embrace.

This idea is ancient and quite natural, I think.

I guess it only goes to show the suppositions our modern era works from; it's atheistic, it doesn't honestly care whether God exists; It even regards the idea of a metaphysics predicated on divine intentionality as bizarre.

As I said, I respect a gay mans right, only because I place peace as a greater priority than stubbornly believing I can force my view upon another person. Unfortunately, or, perhaps purposefully, life doesn't work that way. We are forced to compromise some of our beliefs in order to establish peace with those we disagree with.

reply to post by dontreally
I have a obscured view of Gay. I think being Gay is some sort of sexual pleasure ! but what does Gay marriage mean !! you mean there are people on this planet that they never want to have sex with opposite sex !!! and what about having children. people want to be gay so let them be, you mean till now there have not been Gays on this planet. but why there is so insistence to recognize gay sex a marriage. you mean we should walk on our hands just because our ancestors would walk on their feet, just to break a tradition !

reply to post by maes2


Is your marriage only about sexual pleasure?
Marriage isn't about sex and sex alone. Marriage is about sharing your life with someone you love. The gay man's natural attraction is toward other men. The gay woman's natural attraction is toward other women. The heterosexual person's natural attraction is toward the opposite gender. That doesn't make one wrong and the other right.

What if you were a blonde haired, blue eyed person and there was an arbitrary rule that you could only marry a blonde hair, blue eyed person. You couldn't marry anyone with brown eyes because the predominant religious group in your nation says it's an abomination.

It's the exact same thing. Just as some people are born with brown eyes, some are born with blue eyes and some with green eyes and those things can't be changed, some people are born homosexual and that cant be changed.

You could wear colored contacts, but under the contacts, your eyes are still blue. The gay people could enter a heterosexual relationship and pretend to not be gay, but under it all, they're still gay. It's not a choice, it's not a lifestyle, it's their natural state.

I can't imagine anyone in the world waking up and CHOOSING to be gay. Why would they choose that?? They don't. They have a natural sexual attraction toward a particular gender. It doesn't mean they are attracted to everyone of that gender. I'm not attracted to every woman I meet and I would guess you're not attracted to every woman/man you meet (depending on your gender). Does that mean you aren't "normal"?

Gay marriage is allowing people of the same gender to dedicate their lives to one another, to be monogamous, to have a relationship and all the rights and privelges that go along with that relationship.

My marriage and my relationship is not affected by what two men or two women do with one another. My marriage and my relationship will not be destroyed if two strangers somewhere also have a relationship. It has zero effect on me. There is absolutely, positively nothing that those two people can do with one another that would affect me in any way whatsoever. I have no issue at all with them getting married and spending their lives together.

I DO have an issue with the folks that run off to Vegas and get married then have it anulled a week or so later. I DO have an issue with the high divorce rate. I DO have an issue with people trying to deny others the same priveleges that they hold so dear based on prejudice.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by maes2

It's the exact same thing. Just as some people are born with brown eyes, some are born with blue eyes and some with green eyes and those things can't be changed, some people are born homosexual and that cant be changed.

well this sounds odd to me. I think it needs some academic studies. or maybe I should try hard to find some Gays and talk to them.

Gay marriage is allowing people of the same gender to dedicate their lives to one another, to be monogamous, to have a relationship and all the rights and privelges that go along with that relationship.

well, I thought people always got marry to have children and what they call it family. as I think you are living in US so what are those privelges that a marriage law can bring for gays, I thought gays were free in US.

I DO have an issue with the folks that run off to Vegas and get married then have it anulled a week or so later. I DO have an issue with the high divorce rate. I DO have an issue with people trying to deny others the same priveleges that they hold so dear based on prejudice.

so there is another issue if we can not have children then we go through extinction especially for a country like USA that is consisted from many nations with many ideologies that most of immigrants will not practice GAy. I mean the population crisis may arise!

There are MANY scientific studies that show that people are born gay. They haven't isolated a single gene for it, but have shown that it is a born-trait.

So marriage is only to have children?? What about barren parents? Do they automatically get a court ordered divorce???

How about couples that marry after they pass the age of conception? Are those legal??

So, if people have sex but aren't married, that means the woman can't get pregnant right?
...it doesn't quite work that way

You have some serious misconceptions going on here that you either need to address or retract as they make me seriously question either your ability or integrity.

There are 1,049 legal benefits given by a "marriage license". These are the 1,049 ways in which gays are being denied their rights as US citizens.

Here's the list, of course it's about 75 pages long, so it's going to take a while for you to read.

Link

All I can really do is encourage others to boycott marriage as I have - if the club is too exclusive for some of my homosexual friends to join then I too will abstain from this club. I've never been sold on the "benefits" of marriage either - I'd have to convert some assets to gold or some other physical valuable commodities I could hide away, so that I don't lose all my stuff in the inevitable divorce. In my own observations, there are fewer happy married couples than miserable couples. Also, I'd never want someone to feel like they are stuck with me.

Seems to me that gays do not want equal rights, they want special rights. Its not enough thtat they are allowed to do something, they want everyone to accept it and embrace it.

Originally posted by Jameliel
Seems to me that gays do not want equal rights, they want special rights. Its not enough thtat they are allowed to do something, they want everyone to accept it and embrace it.

I'm so sick of this crap.

What "Special Rights" would those be exactly?

Originally posted by Jameliel
Seems to me that gays do not want equal rights, they want special rights. Its not enough thtat they are allowed to do something, they want everyone to accept it and embrace it.

If they want the right to marry, they can fight for it themselves. Gay marriage is the last thing on my worry list.. Its at the very bottom with Nibiru.

reply to post by dontreally


Sorry, first post here, had to chime in on this one. Been creeping the forums for a bit now and figured this would be a good place to start. I believe I can completely refute your personal opinion that you continue to assert, and with something as simple as my life.

It's funny really, how all of this quote explains much of my life up to this point:

A healthy development begins with sexual experimentation, and ends with finding that essential 'one' who you can't live without. This other is MORE than just a sex-object. In fact, to people really in love, sex is almost an afterthought. Yet at the same time, when these people have sex, it is richer and more intense because of the deeper layers of self and personality which run beneath the physical act of sex.

I really never even "experimented" a whole lot, I've always been more of a relationship person.

I've been married 22 years now, my husband is 52 and I am 49.

We adopted 12 years ago; a little girl named Asha whose eyes sparkle like the freaking moon. She's a very talented writer -- she get's that from her father . I can't even fathom how she was left by her birth mother and father to die in a practice of arsony that was initiated after a domestic dispute. She is 14 now and still has burn marks over her face, legs, and back. She still says to this day that, even though the incident took place at the age of two, she can still remember the feeling of her flesh being ripped from the fabric on the firefighter's jacket after he carried her out of the apartment.

She was having a difficult time getting adopted. Most couples are looking for something "perfect". Joke's on them, they couldn't see just how perfect she was and still is.

She gets teased a lot for it. It astounds me still, in the age we are in. People still call her a "freak", "ugly" etc.. All pretty persistently throughout her entire life.....



....Until we took her to Gay Pride in Toronto for the first time. Everyone stopped to tell her how beautiful she was and how the sky is the limit for girls of her character.

I was concerned, though, when we took her. Gay Pride Toronto is famous for the full nudes. I was rather bothered when we went there with her because it seemed a little disrespectful...

So, instead of ranting on an online conspiracy forum, I did the unthinkable; I went up and asked him why he felt the need to express his homosexuality in such a lewd public manner.

I felt pretty silly after that. I could tell I inflicted some shame when I shouldn't have. He looked at the ground and his face scrunched a little as if offended and caught off guard. He replied, and I'll never forget the words he said, "Sir, I am straight. I come here because I've needed this freedom for so long, and this is the only place where people don't look at me like I'm a freak for expressing what I believe about my own body."



In conclusion:

I've donated over $300,000 to HIV research and about $50,000 to other various STI research. What have you donated, since you seem so concerned? Can your donations be measured in anti-homosexual internet threads or actual dollar amounts?

I was talking to my sister about a possible divorce with her husband. She has 3 children with him, one from an earlier marriage. They got in an argument and she slapped him. He pushed her back and she hit a wall and screamed bloody misogyny all over the family. everyone was on her side because the social norm is somehow "NEWVER EVER HIT A WOMAN!!" (thanks, Dr. Phil). I spoke with her and told her she was being ridiculous and that she has been pushing him emotionally for years and striking him was his first excuse to push back; she used to insult him regularly at family get-togethers and belittle his manhood like it was a profession. I gave perspective from my own life to back the point up, I said, "So who, in my marriage, is allowed to hit who first, and who isn't allowed to hit back?". I outlined the double standard for her and she understood what I was saying about pushing him emotionally. It's been 3 years now and I've never seen that family so damn happy before. Take this, and my experience with my own immediate family and child.... and if you want to, go ahead and explain how homosexuality is "ruining family constructs" etc., I'd be happy to hear the vast amounts of education in store for me, there. I couldn't have possibly heard all of it 14273 times in my life and have 16983 examples of the contrary.

....Or you could continue insulting and devaluing what I've spent 22 years of my life building.... and acting as if "freedom of speech" should make you immune to criticism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all "pitchforks and torches" for people writing the word "gay" on their teammates face, I think that anti-the-anti attitude is rather embarrassing to the gay community.

reply to post by LightOrange

I can't even fathom how she was left by her birth mother and father to die in a practice of arsony that was initiated after a domestic dispute. She is 14 now and still has burn marks over her face, legs, and back. She still says to this day that, even though the incident took place at the age of two, she can still remember the feeling of her flesh being ripped from the fabric on the firefighter's jacket after he carried her out of the apartment.

That's a very nice story.

I want to make clear something: my cousin, a very good friend of mine, actually looks to me for moral support. This can be difficult for me because I both love him and respect him as a person, but I have religious beliefs that are deeply grounded in a basic metaphysics. My schooling is in philosophy and the philosophy of religion, so I don't take this area lightly. Nonetheless, it hurts me to see him struggle with confusion in his life, for feeling he is 'unworthy' of being complimented for his essential goodness as a person. Regardless of my attitude towards his life choice, I cannot morally permit myself to castigate him; I have a responsibility to encourage him - even if that means ignoring the issue of his being gay, practicing gay sex, having a boyfriend. So let me clarify: my criticism is of the action, not the personality of the individual in question. What bothers me more is the sheer politicization of it, and this copiously demonstrated in my cousins goodness as a person, and his inability to recognize and feel some self esteem about himself as a person. He puts too much emphasis on his sexuality because this society puts too much emphasis on sexuality (for conditioning purposes, to boot). It reduces the individual to your sexual predilection, localizing the 'what' you are, to the groin region.

She gets teased a lot for it. It astounds me still, in the age we are in. People still call her a "freak", "ugly" etc.. All pretty persistently throughout her entire life....

That's pretty sick. On a bright note, my sister is an ECE and the new curriculum puts more emphasis on things that were neglected by earlier ECE curriculum's. So I can see a better future in which kid's will be inclined more towards compassion and sympathy than what currently animates their behavior towards people who are different.

So, instead of ranting on an online conspiracy forum, I did the unthinkable; I went up and asked him why he felt the need to express his homosexuality in such a lewd public manner.

I hope that wasn't a dig at me.

But yeah. Homosexuality has a historical basis in 'transcendent' attitudes. Which is why there is a necessary contradiction between your attitude - which I commend by the way - and he bulk of the gay community. Look at the early LGBT community, at Allan Ginsburghs poetry etc; it's deeply connected to eastern ideas of 'transcendence'; the cult of Dionysus in which homosexuality was practiced saw homosexuality as the most essential expression of 'breaking the laws' of nature, of flouting it's finitude. It is seen in terms of 'breaking free' - like the Queen song "I want to Break free" (Queen's music is very much about a gnostic transcendence of all finite states, all societal 'limitations'). So naturally, you would be opposed on ideological grounds by people who want to walk about nude at gay pride. It is extremely lewd, extremely careless, extremely dangerous, indeed, to the up and coming generations. But they see things differently. You can say they are radical dogmatists who think a healthy society can be maintained even amidst an environment of depravity.

Hence my James Madison quote in my signature. It is a chimerical idea to think you can make a better society by pretending human limitations don't exist.

. What have you donated, since you seem so concerned? Can your donations be measured in anti-homosexual internet threads or actual dollar amounts?

Are you freaking serious? You began on a good and righteous note, but blew it all here. Just because I don't have money, that means I can't contribute anything of value? Is that you're argument?? If it is, I can see your foundering in terms of a moral argument.

If I had money, I too would donate it to charitable causes that served my interests.

everyone was on her side because the social norm is somehow "NEWVER EVER HIT A WOMAN!!" (thanks, Dr. Phil).

You SHOULDN'T ever hit a woman. Are you serious? As bad as woman can be, men have double their strength. At no point should a man succumb to his anger and violently attack his wife.

I've been hit by my mother in the past. And my mother is a very strong and aggressive woman; the most I've ever done in response was restrain her, but I've never 'pushed' or hit her, God forbid.

I spoke with her and told her she was being ridiculous and that she has been pushing him emotionally for years and striking him was his first excuse to push back; she used to insult him regularly at family get-togethers and belittle his manhood like it was a profession.

You're essentially describing my mom and dads relationship. Although the build up can be 'taxing', my dad has NEVER touched my mother. His response was far more practical. A change in attitude and a simple threat: I am a man. If you EVER push me again, I will divorce you". Scared my mother; my mother recognized how she was wrong, how good a husband she had, and has never touched him since. Been married for 31 years.

Take this, and my experience with my own immediate family and child.... and if you want to, go ahead and explain how homosexuality is "ruining family constructs" etc.

You're an individual case. You can't assume that your example sets the standard.

As you yourself documented (thanks for that, btw) gay culture is about 'transcending boundaries". Its gay pride parades are about flouting societal norms in a religious way. You don't think such norms don't 'creep' into the family structure?? Again, you know nothing about general psychology if you think so. You cannot habituate yourself to a certain form of behavior, and inculcate a particular attitude, without such license entering your family structure. But beyond that, my criticism is on a far larger scale, at the sociological level. A level you probably wouldn't appreciate. This trend towards 'transcendence' has only one possible culmination: the transcendence of ALL societal strictures, such as 'marriage', which free love, an aspect of the socialist libertarian ideology, see's as a necessary concomitant. The normalization of gay marriage is merely a stop on the way to that point. All properly educated conservatives know this; it's in THEIR literature! It's not some conspiracy I'm making up, it's a part of the doctrine of the socialist left.

What you do for your daughter is a great thing. But it won't be something that will be repeated generations from now. Thanks to the social elites, if things do not change, or at least held in check, important spiritual values of Judeo-Christianity will be forever lost. And this is the agenda. We even find this agenda 'symbolized' in the lefts collective stance towards Israel.

....Or you could continue insulting and devaluing what I've spent 22 years of my life building

Umm, using the media to project just one view - is not 'freedom' of speech. It's actually the complete collapse of freedom of speech, freedom of thought. To tell athletes in sports leagues that they can't say 'I oppose gay marriage', which is a violation of the first amendment, is a violation.

In short, the gay rights movement has turned into a gay rights fanaticism. And as said, it's designed to radically shape public opinion.

reply to post by LightOrange




I say your daughter is lucky to have a father... two fathers, who love her SO much and have so much pride in her! Your love for her shows in what you have written and she will be an amazing young woman, able to accomplish anything she sets her mind to!

Good parents are becoming more and more difficult to come by and she has good parents who love her beyond measure.

Do you support gay rights? Do you not? Listen to this guy and tell me he doesn't speak the truth.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


See, that sort of rhetoric I term "unintelligible", because the truth of the bible is not 'self evident', in the least bit.

What IS self evident is the idea of a divinely inscribed metaphysics which sees the union of man and woman as ideal, because nature intimates it as an ideal. And man possesses the unique capacity to reflect upon this ideal and respond to it by conforming.

I might also add that underlying this metaphysics is the idea of relationship, which in turn adds the dynamic of complementarity between the two parts, subject and object, or as Martin Buber called it, the 'I-Thou' dialectic.

Two is a basic constituent of reality. Male and Female make up these two 'parts'. So it would be in conformity to natural law to abide by the natural principle of complementarity inherent in the idea of duality.

And no, you cannot retort 'but he or she is the opposite sex on the inside'. No, because the human is not in the same category as animals. Animals can be excused from not conforming to natural law when instances emerge of homosexuality; they are clear aberrations of the general law to procreation.

Humans conversely, live on a plane of reality called meaning. This puts us in a position of activity - as opposed to passivity - in relation to our aberrant sexual feelings. It's every gay, or lesbian persons responsibility to reorient their sexual feelings, because one, nature, or nature creator has provided a meaningful ideal, and two, it is fully possible, as the brain is plastic.

Emotions, or, in biological terms, 'chemicals', are only a factor, and they aren't the only ones either. Genes which predispose one to 'homosexuality' like genes which predispose one to depression, does not condemn you to a life of constant depression. Further, just as someone can have no congenital history of depression, and so develops it independently over life through experiences, likewise, someone can be born perfectly 'straight' or with the proclivity towards heterosexuality, but over time, usually in the early years, develop an obsession with their sexual orientation, usually instilled in them by some emotional abuse at home, and so create the possibility for the development of homosexual tendencies. .

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

See, that sort of rhetoric I term "unintelligible", because the truth of the bible is not 'self evident', in the least bit.

What IS self evident is the idea of a divinely inscribed metaphysics which sees the union of man and woman as ideal, because nature intimates it as an ideal. And man possesses the unique capacity to reflect upon this ideal and respond to it by conforming.

Nicely written....for a blind sheep. Have you once in your life formed an opinion on your own? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? did you reference the "good book" before making your final decision? Funny that you presume right and wrong; all the while not realizing that it is not your job to judge. You are what I refer to as a hypocritical fanatic. Enjoy your small world and smaller mind. I know it keeps life simple for you....simple life, simple mind.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Excuse my french, but what the [snipped] are you talking about???

I take it that video you posted was sarcasm??

And as for assuming I 'base' my philosophy on the bible?? Umm. No, it's actually quite the opposite, as I tried nicely to explain to you.

The metaphysics precedes the bible. The bible in other words is allegory containing the 'crux' of the metaphysics I described. But one does not need the Bible to hold such views, which is why up till now I haven't even mentioned the Bible.

reply to post by DarknStormy


100% agreed.

reply to post by dontreally

...because human beings possess the unique capacity to perceive instances of natural law, they are morally obligated by that knowledge to act accordingly...

Beautiful. Too bad you don't understand what you just said

On the one hand you have people who think the one group (or groups) is unnatural and immoral. On the other you have people who think all people were created equal and should live and let live

Now, what were you saying about recognizing what's natural and right and acting accordingly?

From earlier on in your OP:

Suffice to say, the level of concern this society devotes to whether gays can get wedded is bizarre, and almost monomaniacal.

Would you say the same thing about the amount of time and energy devoted to freeing the slaves? Women's rights? Child Labor? On and on we could go...

Freedom And Equality For All - coming soon to a country near you...

Go America! :-)

Is there place for those who oppose a gays right to marriage, without being vilified and treated as the most immoral creature to ever walk the earth? Can someone not still 'like gays' as individuals, but disapprove of their lifestyle choice, without being all around condemned as unworthy?

Feeling a little sorry for yourself?

It's not easy being green