Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[wayfarer]

I have read through this long string of posts, alleged myths promulgated by members of "gay advocacy", whatever that is.

I once thought as some of you do, that being gay is a choice, living as a caring gay person in the fullest sense is sinful, and that gays can be "fixed" or some choose to live an authentic life as a straight person. i used to think this way.

Then my daughter came out, after years of us being on "suicide watch" with her. since coming out, she has and is a fully functional, caring and loving person, completely stable, and completely out of the church I love. such things tear the heart apart more than you can imagine.

I am not here to advocate anything, except the higher law expressed by the savior in the sermon on the mount: blessed are the merciful, and the higher laws of unconditional love.

I would ask those who think that all the positions of those seek gay marriage as "myths": how close to you is your nearest gay relative? have expressed to a gay person you love and care for these sentiments?

[ERayR]

I think you're fighting a losing battle. The Archie Bunker types are getting to be fewer and fewer in my estimation. And I liked Archie but he, like me, at the time in the 70's, didn't quite understand the homosexuals back then. We just automatically thought they were queer, oh, maybe that's how they got the name? We treated them almost like they weren't part of the human race. I think we were mostly just ignorant. But now we get to see that it's different, they are coming out of the closet and we get to see them up front and personal. It's time to smell the coffee. They were born that way, shall I say it again, they were born that way. Most want to do the right thing and get married and have families, some even hide their sexuality and get married to the opposite sex and some of those marriages work but most don't (down below I posted some of their stories). Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality behavior being an abomination in God's eyes? Or did man say it?

http://www.religiond..._“abomination”/

http://www.soulforce...-homosexuality/

[media=]

Archie bunker was a stereotype straw man that was never accurate, created to ridicule those who did not subscribe to the liberal agenda. If you thought Archie Bunker was accurate no wonder you are having a hard time. By now you know that this is not about being homosexual, despite all the red herring rhetoric. It is about behaviors.

Yes he does. This one through the apostle Paul: Romans 1:27. Old testament: Leviticus 20:13. Just two of many

[ERayR]

I have read through this long string of posts, alleged myths promulgated by members of "gay advocacy", whatever that is.

I once thought as some of you do, that being gay is a choice, living as a caring gay person in the fullest sense is sinful, and that gays can be "fixed" or some choose to live an authentic life as a straight person. i used to think this way.

Then my daughter came out, after years of us being on "suicide watch" with her. since coming out, she has and is a fully functional, caring and loving person, completely stable, and completely out of the church I love. such things tear the heart apart more than you can imagine.

I am not here to advocate anything, except the higher law expressed by the savior in the sermon on the mount: blessed are the merciful, and the higher laws of unconditional love.

I would ask those who think that all the positions of those seek gay marriage as "myths": how close to you is your nearest gay relative? have expressed to a gay person you love and care for these sentiments?

I don't recall anybody posting that being homosexual was a choice. What they said was that acting on those tendencies is a choice.

[CV75]

I am not here to advocate anything, except the higher law expressed by the savior in the sermon on the mount: blessed are the merciful, and the higher laws of unconditional love.

I would say that those who have posted here on both sides of the debate would say their views are not inconsistent with the higher law, and I believe they are each living up to the best they imagine it to be. I think all would agree that it is also more than a just sentiment.

[wayfarer]

I don't recall anybody posting that being homosexual was a choice. What they said was that acting on those tendencies is a choice.

I would still challenge anyone to speak from the point of view of a close relative of a gay person. a life of celebacy is no life at all for someone who is a caring, compassionate, commited individual.

[Calm]

a life of celebacy is no life at all for someone who is a caring, compassionate, commited individual.

So what would you suggest for all the unmarried heterosexuals in the Church that are currently living celibate lives?

I had a wonderful great aunt who sacrificed her personal career and likely relationship to come home and care for her parents and others during the Great Depression. She never got married. She functioned as the Dean of Students at one of the larger SLC high schools and when she died was celebrated as a wonderful, caring, compassionate and committed individual....as well as having lived a chaste life through her choice of celibacy.

[ERayR]

I would still challenge anyone to speak from the point of view of a close relative of a gay person. a life of celebacy is no life at all for someone who is a caring, compassionate, commited individual.

I am. I do have a close relative in that category. A life of celibacy is no life at all for someone who is a caring, compassionate, committed individual whose spouse is afflicted with debilitating illnesses either. That does not mean it would be right for one to take a mistress, or two. Concubines if you will. It would certainly alleviate enforced celibacy.

[Libs]

You are misunderstanding, again, and missing the point, again. Neither stability or instability are causally a function of abuse--at least not directly. Instead, they are a function of other things--like the level of commitment, adherence to various stabilizing principles, etc.

While not all abusive relationships are stable, there are, contrary to your sweeping claim, some that are--not the least of which is codependency. It is also quite common for children and spouses to remain in abusive relationships (thus making them stable) for the wrong reasons, and those negative reasons can, in some cases, be stronger than positive reasons.

The point being, it isn't the stability, per se, of the relationship that is "optimal" (since the stability of bad relationships isn't good), but it is the type of relationship--at least that is how the legislatures and the courts have looked at it.

What will it take for you to finally understand this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand it perfectly well, Wade. You can dance around it all you want, but abusive relationships are not stable, even if the two people continue the relationship. And, it's all beside the point, anyway. A stable relationship is a committed relationship...and those kinds of relationships most often happen within a marriage.

That's only one benefit. The other benefits are legal benefits that ss relationships (outside of marriage) do not have.

[Libs]

This has got to be your least intelligent response yet. A mere 4 -5% of the population does not a "norm" make. And if homosexuality (by this I mean desires and behaviors) were already accepted as "normal", the gay advocates and their Hollywood friends wouldn't be working so feverishly to gain normalcy. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a person would have to be incredibly gullible to accept that it is normal for two keys or two locks to inter-tangle with each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I knew someone was going to say that.

I didn't mean normal, in the sense that most of society is gay or even that most of society accepts it (although, I do think that is the case, currently). I meant, it is normal for gays to be "ss attracted". They are born that way...it is their normal way of being. I doubt many people, today, would argue against that.

[ERayR]

I knew someone was going to say that.

I didn't mean normal, in the sense that most of society is gay or even that most of society accepts it (although, I do think that is the case, currently). I meant, it is normal for gays to be "ss attracted". They are born that way...it is their normal way of being. I doubt many people, today, would argue against that.

SO what I was born heterosexual and have a strong attraction to attractive females. That does not we change the chastity rules to accommodate my affliction.

[Libs]

SO what I was born heterosexual and have a strong attraction to attractive females. That does not we change the chastity rules to accommodate my affliction.

I didn't say it did. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

[california boy]

Please I posted #1 Here it is again 1. an act or instance of discriminating. The definition of discriminating is as follows:

dis·crim·i·nat·ing (d-skrm-ntng)

adj.

1.

a. Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.

b. Showing careful judgment or fine taste: a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate.

2. Separating into distinct parts or components; analytical.

3. Serving to distinguish; distinctive: a discriminating characteristic.

4. Marked by or showing bias; discriminatory.

PLEASE NOTE: The #1 meaning. It comes nowhere close to your implications

Funny Ray, When I go back to your post # 329 and click on the link you provided, this is the definition I get.

dis·crim·i·nate

   [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj.dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA verb, dis·crim·i·nat·ed,dis·crim·i·nat·ing, adjective

verb (used without object)

1.

to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class,or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; showpartiality: The new law discriminates againstforeigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

2.

to note or observe a difference; distinguishaccurately: to discriminate between things.

And further down the page

World English Dictionary discriminate — vb (when intr, foll by between or among ) 1. ( intr; usually foll by in favour of or against ) tosingle out a particular person, group, etc, forspecial favour or, esp, disfavour,often because of a characteristic such as race, colour, sex, intelligence, etc 2. to recognize or understand the difference(between); distinguish: to discriminate right andwrong ; to discriminate between right and wrong 3. ( intr ) to constitute or mark a difference 4. ( intr ) to be discerning in matters of taste

Maybe you can explain why your "exact cut and paste" doesn't match your link any more. Here is what you posted on #329

Well my definition was from the dictionary word for word. A direct copy and paste. I didn't post the first definition because it was covered in the other two and was irrelevant. But so that you know that I wasn't hiding anything here it isword for word - copy and paste. 1. an act or instance of discriminating.

I am not going to accuse you of anything, but why is there this major discrepancy that illustrates exactly what I have been talking about but yet is missing in your "cut and paste".

[california boy]

I have read through this long string of posts, alleged myths promulgated by members of "gay advocacy", whatever that is.

I once thought as some of you do, that being gay is a choice, living as a caring gay person in the fullest sense is sinful, and that gays can be "fixed" or some choose to live an authentic life as a straight person. i used to think this way.

Then my daughter came out, after years of us being on "suicide watch" with her. since coming out, she has and is a fully functional, caring and loving person, completely stable, and completely out of the church I love. such things tear the heart apart more than you can imagine.

I am not here to advocate anything, except the higher law expressed by the savior in the sermon on the mount: blessed are the merciful, and the higher laws of unconditional love.

I would ask those who think that all the positions of those seek gay marriage as "myths": how close to you is your nearest gay relative? have expressed to a gay person you love and care for these sentiments?

When I was growing up in Northern California, many viewed Mormons as being odd, strange, cult-like, unchristian and a whole chain of other adjectives none of which were particularly complimentary. Those prejudices were born out of ignorance of what a Mormon believes and the kind of life they actually live. The church counseled members to get to know their neighbors. Invite them to dinner, bake bread for them, go to the movies with them, and let them see the lives members actually live. Our family did all of those things. So did the many members of our ward and stake. Slowly the blinders of prejudice dropped off. The community liked what they actually saw in our family rather than what they had been lead to believe. As the church grew and became more visible in the community, less taunting occurred, more acceptance of who we really were became a reality. The single most effective tool the church has to break the prejudice that existed and continue to exist is the actual members themselves. When people find out that their doctor is Mormon or their postman is Mormon or their neighbor is Mormon, then the vilification of who these strange Mormons are began to disappear.

Mormons became even more public in the community. I helped a fellow ward member run for the school board. I was appointed to the arts commission for my community. Others took roles in helping to shape our community. It was no longer a kiss of death to run for office just because you were Mormon. When people would speak ill of Mormons, more and more people would speak up and call them on that. They knew Mormons and they weren't the vile heathens prejudice was painting them to be. Less and less people made it their mission in life to destroy the Mormon Church and stop it at every turn through the use of deception and misinformation. Sure some still make it their life's work to destroy the church, but with time those people are a dying breed. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and practices of the Mormon Church, but in Northern California, Mormons are no longer vilified. Northern California is a better place because of that. It got better for Mormons.

The difference between marginalizing me as a gay person feels exactly like the marginalization I experienced as a Mormon growing up. When California was in the throws of passing the Briggs initiative that would discriminate against gays in teaching in public schools, Harvey Milk had one campaign strategy. He called on the gay community to come out, get to know your neighbors, be visible in the community. People took him up on that challenge and for the first time, there was an effort by the gay community to become visible. From that small start, this has become the rallying call. It is the single most effective way to break down the same kind of prejudices against the gay population. So many of the myths and misinformation that just a short while ago was touted as truths have gone away. It does get better.

[wayfarer]

The difference between marginalizing me as a gay person feels exactly like the marginalization I experienced as a Mormon growing up. When California was in the throws of passing the Briggs initiative that would discriminate against gays in teaching in public schools, Harvey Milk had one campaign strategy. He called on the gay community to come out, get to know your neighbors, be visible in the community. People took him up on that challenge and for the first time, there was an effort by the gay community to become visible. From that small start, this has become the rallying call. It is the single most effective way to break down the same kind of prejudices against the gay population. So many of the myths and misinformation that just a short while ago was touted as truths have gone away. It does get better.

Thank you for your post. Isn't it wonderful if we could set aside the stereotypes, come to the middle, and learn from each other? Coming to understand one another does not sacrifice one's ideals, but rather, creates understanding.

[CV75]

I would still challenge anyone to speak from the point of view of a close relative of a gay person. a life of celebacy is no life at all for someone who is a caring, compassionate, commited individual.

This is too judgemental, as it means the only empathy, sympathy and charity that count are those that come from a very narrow pespective, exactly what these sentiments are not. God's empathy, sympathy and charity apply to everone in every condition. They can be appled from any otehr angle and still be just as effective in blessing the chidlren of God.

We don't have to experience every sorrow there is to know to be able to help bring people to Christ, who has experienced every sorrow there is to know and has the wherewithal to heal and strengthen us. All we need to know is what He has done for us and the principles apply to anyone else.

"a life of celebacy is no life at all for someone who ... [fill in the blank]) is also very judgemental. Sometimes this and other less than ideal circumsatnces suround many of the most caring, compassionate, commited individuals. And even the least caring, compassionate, commited individuals can find redemption through Christ.

[CV75]

Harvey Milk had one campaign strategy. He called on the gay community to come out, get to know your neighbors, be visible in the community. People took him up on that challenge and for the first time, there was an effort by the gay community to become visible. From that small start, this has become the rallying call. It is the single most effective way to break down the same kind of prejudices against the gay population.

You can fool some of the people some of time...

Civil rights should be extended to all, but this does not mean that personal behavior (regardless of its nature) that is regarded as repulsive should be publicly touted as something acceptable—that is not a matter of civil rights, it is just a lack of sensitivity to the many things the community does have in common, and sometimes just a lack of common sense and decency.

When a group identifies itself first and foremost in terms of the sexual behavior of its members, it undermines the individuals’ progress in many areas nd there will be backlash, which unfortunately includes civil rights issues because people will not take them seriously, or they will not view them as having any broader interest in the community than promoting their sexuality. That is why good fences (including good interpersonal boundaries) make good neighbors.

When that sexual behavior is also regarded as taboo, repulsive or distasteful, the negative effects are greater and individuals’ commonality with the community is further undermined.

Being a good neighbor, not for the sake of contributing to the community but as a work-around to protecting civil rights lost through a lack of respect for community norms is disingenuous—it wouldn’t be a problem if people were respectful toward their community by not being aggressive about something they know is objectionable, which is part of being a good neighbor in the first place.

[wayfarer]

We don't have to experience every sorrow there is to know to be able to help bring people to Christ, who has experienced every sorrow there is to know and has the wherewithal to heal and strengthen us. All we need to know is what He has done for us and the principles apply to anyone else.

Experience helps us have compassion. I was of the same mind as you all until I had a daughter come out as gay. It changes one's perspective dramatically.

Civil rights should be extended to all, but this does not mean that personal behavior (regardless of its nature) that is regarded as repulsive should be publicly touted as something acceptable—that is not a matter of civil rights, it is just a lack of sensitivity to the many things the community does have in common, and sometimes just a lack of common sense and decency.

I find your argument interesting. I personally find the idea that a woman should cover herself from head to foot leaving only her eyes exposed to be repulsive behavior. However, I would defend the right of a woman to wear a burka if that is her religious choice. And yes, a burka is all about sexuality.

In India where I have lived, men frequently walk down the street holding hands and embracing each other -- having everything to do with friendship and nothing with sexuality. Yet, if a couple of men were holding hands in Church in the USA, I'm pretty sure a bishop might have a conversation with them as to this being unacceptable.

Do we know with certainty whether god truly hates committed homosexual love, including the expression thereof? Or, when we read the vague references in the new testament, did those who wrote those verses were writing using a mindset from the Torah law? Some of you may say that we have the proclamation on the family, and of course, proposition 8. But the Law of Chastity is specific to sexual intercourse/sexual relations outside the confines of marriage and says nothing about homosexuality. That is the eternal principle.

Now, we go a step further -- let's look at the permanency of 'doctrine'. When I was a missionary, I had to teach people that were of partial black descent that they could never hold the priesthood, go to the temple, or enjoy the full blessings of the gospel. I dutifully taught what was in Mormon Doctrine, and in Dyer's speaches, because that's all we had, and that's what the church was teaching at the time. I rejoiced with everyone that day in June 1978 when the revelation was announced -- I was working in the Church Office Building at the time. What I taught, What I thought was "official doctrine" on blacks and the priesthood was indeed wrong, and now we had further light and knowledge.

To deny someone from doing what is their natural right, because we find it distasteful is exactly the same as discriminating against blacks because of their color. We, who have the light of the gospel, need to stand for something better. I know many will say that we need to stand for 'righteousness', which means sexual purity to most. And yes, the Law of Chastity is binding. So also is the law of loving one's neighbor, of kindness. We also hold the articles of faith as scripture, and if a committed UU or Episcopal same sex couple want to marry, then their religion, their faith, allows them to do so.

Our 11th article of Faith states, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

If these words are to have any meaning, then a religious same sex couple of the UU or Episcopal faiths celebrate their relationship before god by having a marriage blessed by their minister. They worship god through their marriage, conducted in the confines of a hall of worship. By denying same sex marriage to UU and Episcopalians, we are not allowing all men to worship how, where, or what they may, and we are insisting that our government establish and favor one religion over another.

We may feel that such behavior is not of god. But that's our faith and position. We should even also recognize that the Law of Chastity does not belong to the Telestial kingdom, but rather the Terrestial in preparation for Celestial, eternal lives. We don't have to accept gay marriage into our church. Leaving the commandments the way they are, a gay couple, married and having sex, would not comply with Celestial law as we understand it now, but they certainly would comply with telestial law.

I have no intention to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong -- you're entitled to your belief that your opinion of distasteful behavior should not be forced upon you. I agree with that. And likewise, I would hope that we can also agree that forcing our celestial laws on those not prepared or willing to be in the celestial kingdom is not in harmony with God's will.

[Tacenda]

Experience helps us have compassion. I was of the same mind as you all until I had a daughter come out as gay. It changes one's perspective dramatically.

I find your argument interesting. I personally find the idea that a woman should cover herself from head to foot leaving only her eyes exposed to be repulsive behavior. However, I would defend the right of a woman to wear a burka if that is her religious choice. And yes, a burka is all about sexuality.

In India where I have lived, men frequently walk down the street holding hands and embracing each other -- having everything to do with friendship and nothing with sexuality. Yet, if a couple of men were holding hands in Church in the USA, I'm pretty sure a bishop might have a conversation with them as to this being unacceptable.

Do we know with certainty whether god truly hates committed homosexual love, including the expression thereof? Or, when we read the vague references in the new testament, did those who wrote those verses were writing using a mindset from the Torah law? Some of you may say that we have the proclamation on the family, and of course, proposition 8. But the Law of Chastity is specific to sexual intercourse/sexual relations outside the confines of marriage and says nothing about homosexuality. That is the eternal principle.

Now, we go a step further -- let's look at the permanency of 'doctrine'. When I was a missionary, I had to teach people that were of partial black descent that they could never hold the priesthood, go to the temple, or enjoy the full blessings of the gospel. I dutifully taught what was in Mormon Doctrine, and in Dyer's speaches, because that's all we had, and that's what the church was teaching at the time. I rejoiced with everyone that day in June 1978 when the revelation was announced -- I was working in the Church Office Building at the time. What I taught, What I thought was "official doctrine" on blacks and the priesthood was indeed wrong, and now we had further light and knowledge.

To deny someone from doing what is their natural right, because we find it distasteful is exactly the same as discriminating against blacks because of their color. We, who have the light of the gospel, need to stand for something better. I know many will say that we need to stand for 'righteousness', which means sexual purity to most. And yes, the Law of Chastity is binding. So also is the law of loving one's neighbor, of kindness. We also hold the articles of faith as scripture, and if a committed UU or Episcopal same sex couple want to marry, then their religion, their faith, allows them to do so.

Our 11th article of Faith states, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

If these words are to have any meaning, then a religious same sex couple of the UU or Episcopal faiths celebrate their relationship before god by having a marriage blessed by their minister. They worship god through their marriage, conducted in the confines of a hall of worship. By denying same sex marriage to UU and Episcopalians, we are not allowing all men to worship how, where, or what they may, and we are insisting that our government establish and favor one religion over another.

We may feel that such behavior is not of god. But that's our faith and position. We should even also recognize that the Law of Chastity does not belong to the Telestial kingdom, but rather the Terrestial in preparation for Celestial, eternal lives. We don't have to accept gay marriage into our church. Leaving the commandments the way they are, a gay couple, married and having sex, would not comply with Celestial law as we understand it now, but they certainly would comply with telestial law.

I have no intention to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong -- you're entitled to your belief that your opinion of distasteful behavior should not be forced upon you. I agree with that. And likewise, I would hope that we can also agree that forcing our celestial laws on those not prepared or willing to be in the celestial kingdom is not in harmony with God's will.

These are champion thoughts Wayfarer. I think you are going to help some see the light, and some not. I like how you tied in the black issue, where if you're born black than you weren't allowed the priesthood through no fault of your own. Some on here have thought it ludicrous to compare the two, but I think it has a place here.

I like how you brought up the scenario of a SSM in a UU or Episcopalian church and how it should be found acceptable according to our churches articles of faith "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

[wenglund]

I have read through this long string of posts, alleged myths promulgated by members of "gay advocacy", whatever that is.

I once thought as some of you do, that being gay is a choice, living as a caring gay person in the fullest sense is sinful, and that gays can be "fixed" or some choose to live an authentic life as a straight person. i used to think this way.

Then my daughter came out, after years of us being on "suicide watch" with her. since coming out, she has and is a fully functional, caring and loving person, completely stable, and completely out of the church I love. such things tear the heart apart more than you can imagine.

I am not here to advocate anything, except the higher law expressed by the savior in the sermon on the mount: blessed are the merciful, and the higher laws of unconditional love.

I would ask those who think that all the positions of those seek gay marriage as "myths": how close to you is your nearest gay relative? have expressed to a gay person you love and care for these sentiments?

I would encourage you to read Joshua's article that I linked to in the OP. He has same-sex attraction (SSA), and does an excellent job of clarifying the issues. The issues here aren't regarding SSA, but homosexual desires and behaviors. We aren't against being merciful and loving. In fact, those are some of the motivating forces behind exposing the harmful myths. What we are against is the use of myths and other forms of disinformation to promote destructive behaviors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I would still challenge anyone to speak from the point of view of a close relative of a gay person. a life of celebacy is no life at all for someone who is a caring, compassionate, commited individual.

Actually, I happen to be a caring, compassionate, and committed individual who has long been living a celibate life. I can personally attest to the reality that sexual relations aren't the only avenues for joyous and very satisfying care, compassion, and commitment.

Besides, celibacy is not a necessity even with SSA (as Joshua confirms). Just because a person has SSA doesn't mean they can't have caring, compassionate, committed, and loving relations (sexual or otherwise) with a person of the opposite sex.

They can also still be a caring, compassionate, committed, and loving parent as a part of the "optimal" familial structure.

In short, you don't need to buy into all the heart-wrenching excuses and rationalizations for destructive behaviors. You do yourself and them a disservice when doing so. I can't speak to this from personal experience as someone with a close relation who has SSA, but I can speal to it as someone who has multiple close relations and friends with substance abuse and mental health issues. I am not a stranger to suicide watches.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I understand it perfectly well, Wade. You can dance around it all you want, but abusive relationships are not stable, even if the two people continue the relationship. And, it's all beside the point, anyway. A stable relationship is a committed relationship...and those kinds of relationships most often happen within a marriage.

That's only one benefit. The other benefits are legal benefits that ss relationships (outside of marriage) do not have.

Spin it however you wish in order to satisfy your profound need for confirmation bias, but with the legislatures and courts. when they spoke of "optimal" relationships, they were clearly and unmistakably referring to heterosexual marriages and not stable relationships per se. And, it was this "optimal" heterosexual relationship that they deemed in the state's interest to encourage--with the hope, in part, of making those relationships more stable. The case has yet to be made that it is in the states interest to encourage SSMs (for the purpose of stability or otherwise). Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Actually, I happen to be a caring, compassionate, and committed individual who has long been living a celibate life. I can personally attest to the reality that sexual relations aren't the only avenues for joyous and very satisfying care, compassion, and commitment.

Besides, celibacy is not a necessity even with SSA (as Joshua confirms). Just because a person has SSA doesn't mean they can't have caring, compassionate, committed, and loving relations (sexual or otherwise) with a person of the opposite sex.

They can also still be a caring, compassionate, committed, and loving parent as a part of the "optimal" familial structure.

In short, you don't need to buy into all the heart-wrenching excuses and rationalizations for destructive behaviors. You do yourself and them a disservice when doing so. I can't speak to this from personal experience as someone with a close relation who has SSA, but I can speal to it as someone who has multiple close relations and friends with substance abuse and mental health issues. I am not a stranger to suicide watches.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

THAT'S WHY SSA WANT SSM!!!! They don't want destructive experience but wholesome "one partner ones" that they commit to for the rest of their lives. How can one deny this from a human being, unless one thinks they are non human!!!

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

I knew someone was going to say that.

I didn't mean normal, in the sense that most of society is gay or even that most of society accepts it (although, I do think that is the case, currently). I meant, it is normal for gays to be "ss attracted". They are born that way...it is their normal way of being. I doubt many people, today, would argue against that.

There is no need to argue for or against it since it is irrelevant to the public policy issues in question--which have to do with behaviors/relationships. (See busted myth #19)

Besides, the "norm" that I was speaking to, and which I believe gay advocates are attempting to achieve, is "acceptance" for their behavior/relationships So, here as well, your meaning of "normal" is irrelevant and confusing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

THAT'S WHY SSA WANT SSM!!!! They don't want destructive experience but wholesome one partner ones. That they commit to for the rest of their lives. How can you denie this from a human being, unless one thinks they are non human!!!!!!!!!

SS BEHAVIORS/RELATIONSHIPS ARE WHAT ARE DESTRUCTIVE!!!! Perversely wrapping those destructive behaviors/relationships in the cloak of "marriage" will make them no less destructive, but will merely serve to inanely put the government seal of approval on destructive behaviors/relationships. It would be analogous to putting cigarette smoking on the Department of Health's nutritional list.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

SS BEHAVIORS ARE WHAT IS DESTRUCTIVE!!!! Perversely wrapping those destructive behaviors in the cloak of "marriage" will make them no less destructive, but will merely serve to inanely put the government seal of approval on destructive behaviors. It would be analogous to putting cigarette smoking on the Department of Health's nutritional list.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So it all comes down to sex? I don't think that is a big part of these relationships. I think you need to widen your circles and get to see the other side and not just the substance abusers or the mental patients!

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda