Haggard thread #2

Eh, I don't see this particular case as much of anything, much less an injustice. While they have lost against sexual rights for homosexuals, and are in a pitched battle over homosexual marriage rights, they are currently engaged in a winning campaign against sexual expression as well as hedonism.They have gotten laws passed, or stretched enforcement policies, to harass, arrest, and otherwise destroy the lives of people engaged in open sexual expression. Rights in the US are incredibly curtailed at this point. Large companies remain relatively unaffected and so most people may not have noticed a change, but from inside the industry everything has changed.They have also begun pursuing ways hedonists might get together for alternative sexual pursuits. For example raiding porn theaters and couples clubs. Ironically in this case homosexual venues have been LESS targeted than hetero ones.Sex is the target and always will be. There is simply more noise regarding homosexual issues.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

Why don't you go on believing your beliefs and I'll go about believing in mine? This is the intolerant face of 'tolerance' Berb. So if you want me to remove the speck of sawdust out of my eye, take the plank out off yours first so that you can see clearly.

---

Can you identify who "you people" incorporate? Who exactly is "you people," and what exactly makes me one of these people? As well, how am not leaving anyone alone simply by voicing my personal opinion? Is that some more of that tolerance in action? Gasby, the more realize about the homosexual movement, you'll come to realize that marriage isn't the central issue. I want to conduct a little test. Feel free to follow up for corroboration.I went to Ask.com search engine and typed the word, "gay." These are the first 3 entries.1. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (as you can see from the articles, the focus is almost entirely sexually driven).2. http://www.thegaymalebody.com/ (as you can see from the articles and the photos, the site is almost entirely sexually driven).3. Lover Mart - Adult Toys And Lingerie - Lover Mart (as you can see from the articles, the site is entirely sexually driven).Now lets go to Google and type in "gay." What are the first three entries?1. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (Gay.com again)2. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (hmmmmm? Completely sexually driven).3. Gay - Wikipedia (Wiki article)Now lets go to Dogpile.com1. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (Oh dear, not again!)2. Gay - Wikipedia (Wiki article again)3. 89ZQ Game Online Olahraga (here's one about the Gay games and people who have no self-identity without using the word 'Gay.'As you can see, homosexuality is all about sexuality which we should expect and almost about nothing else, completely different from their heterosexual counterparts. Many homosexuals identity is literally wrapped in considering themselves to be gay, and this self-identity seems to supersede anything else. I find that odd, especially if its supposed to be 'normal.' I also don't understand gay pride parades, because if you were born a certina way, then none of that was of your own volition. Why, then, would that instill a sense of pride? I don't get it. Actually, I do get it. I just don't think too many others do.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

How is that different than a married man thinking of himself first and foremost as a husband? Defining himself by his participation in a heterosexual relationship?Or defining himself first and foremost as a father?I think you said you had kids. When you meet new people, how long does it take before you're telling them about your kids? Probably not that long, right? I'm sure you have pictures of them at your workplace.In other words, you're as wrapped up in being a hetersexual and showing people the proof you've had sex with a woman as anybody else is. You're straight, and more importantly, you're so wrapped up in heteronormativity, that you don't see how you promote your heterosexuality just as much as you think gay people are doing. It's pride in surviving oppression, in surviving adversity.Do you really find that so hard to understand?

nemesis_juggernaut writes me:

quote:

---

I don't believe homosexuality is natural. I believe it is an aberration, and I make no apology for that belief.

---

I would never ask you to apologize for it. It's your belief and you should live by it. Here's a thought: how 'bout let's allow me and all other law-abiding gays and lesbians to live our lives in peace, with all the same rights, priviliges and responsibilities that are available to you and any other law-abiding straight person?That way you truly get to hold to and abide by your beliefs, and I get to do the same with mine. Fair enough?

quote:

---

Its also unfair to stigmatize homosexuality as being worse than any other type of sin.

---

Just as it's unfair to stigmatize christianity as being worse than any other type of mental incapacity. Yeah, I hear ya!

quote:

---

I want to you to have all the happiness in the world. I just believe that trying to find love down this avenue is misguided and ultimately speaks more loudly of a love that most homosexuals long for. I want all the happiness for you. I just don't believe that you will find it on your current path.

---

Ah, so I'm perfectly free to pursue love and happiness so long as it's on your terms? By what christian principle do you feel justified in dictating to me the acceptable forms of happiness which I am allowed to pursue?Since you seem to be at such great pains to present yourself as fair-minded (and I can see why that would be such an important thing to do since you're passing judgement on people you've never heard of and making important decisions about what will constitute happiness for them) are you thus willing to live your life according to the whims and dictates of some arbitrary, judgemental moron who might feel that he or she knows what's best for you and what forms of happiness you will be allowed to pursue? I mean, since you're being so fair and all.If not, why not?

quote:

---

Homosexuality is just one facet of sexual immorality.

---

Passing judgement on the lives of perfect strangers and forcing them to live according to your dictates isn't sufficiently intoxicating for you? You just can't resist the urge to hurl baseless insults as well?My, what lovely people you christians are!

quote:

---

Children? No. Are you a child? What did you mean by that statement?

---

I'm afraid you might've closed your mind too long ago to understand this, but I'll give it a try. It's pretty widely known that homosexual kids are about four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. But since, in the wonderful world of your small mind, homosexual kids don't exist, this obviously won't concern you. Why, you don't even need to feign fair-mindedness when it comes to gay kids. After all, there's no need to worry about treating gnomes and elves in fairness - and gay kids go in that same catagory, huh? Why should you worry your strained little mind about something so absurd as gay, suicidal children? And even if you're wrong and they do exist, they were sinful anyway, and chances are they'd never find true happiness since that would only be possible on the unrealistic, ignorant terms you insist on imposing upon them.I don't see any need in carrying this charade of a debate any further. According to your beliefs, I'm hopelessly lost somewhere and doomed to a dreary life of sin. According to my assessments, you're a narrow-minded, ignorant dolt on a power trip. You can scarcely string two sentences together without including an insult. I'd just as soon have nothing to do with you because you disgust me.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Okay I see that I misread the extent of what you were discussing.

---

Well thank goodness for that! I knew this was one possibility but I was very unsure about where our discussion was headed. I'm glad to see we're back on the same page.

quote:

---

I take it as a lesson derived from this particular instance about homosexuality as it causes more problems.

---

It might have been, if gasby intended to strictly limit the context of the statement to the Haggard case. But the broader sentiment he expressed - whether inadvertant or intended - is quite alive and well, and as I said before I'll be glad to provide examples for you. Anyone else reading this can take the keywords from gasby's sentence, google them and find plenty of examples for themselves in very short order.I pretty much concur with the rest of your post, but I'd like to comment on a couple of your points:

quote:

---

Adultery itself being a sin is a given...

---

I see where you're going and can find little to quibble with, except for the fact that you're attempting to use logic to understand illogical and capricious notions of sin. I've been there and done that. Please allow me save you some trouble: STOP!Your welcome. Like mama used to say, you'll put your eye out doing that. Or at least run the risk of developing scary myopic visions of moral and upright lifestyles. Heady stuff, that!

quote:

---

Why not chase them (problems of heterosexual adultery and divorce) first, rather than worrying about the effects of homosexuality at all?

---

Great question; the one at the very heart of the matter.Edited by berberry, : Final sentence seemed to convey an unintended mood, so I changed it.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Sorry, that's probably one of the most biggoted posts I've ever seen. My mistake for bringing up the issue.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

You regret like Jack Horner(paleontologist) "regrets" introducing a 'new' Theory about T-Rex; or you regret like Pete Rose "regrets" betting on sports>>Some bigger fuel for curiosity then?

---

Yes, It will happen to U

Whoops I think I should have been more clear in my statement. I did mean to say that the lesson was about homosexuality in general, just derived from the lessons of this particular case (that's what I meant by "particular instance"). I am in full agreement that it is meant as a criticism of homosexuality as a whole as of course that is what they are looking for.The more important part was what followed in that it is SOP for any sin that "causes" adultery. Heheheh... Well remember to me ALL moral systems are illogical and capricious. They have to be because they are always founded on some arbitrary illogical belief. My only concern is understanding how internally consistent they are. On this point I think they are usually (but not always) consistent.Maybe its a difference in experience. Not sure if southern evangelicals (and other Xians) are different than northern ones. But I was raised around it and spent many formative years within evangelical central. They seemed to be consistent in the attitude and so had some logical structure for their conclusions, once you assume some initial ideas are true.Of course we all know about assumption, making an etc etc... This is of course where are positions completely join up. Morally and legally the obsession with homosexuality seems out of proportion to its possible "threat". Okay they don't like it and it is one of the latest fronts they are fighting (have been pushed back to defend), but really I'm not quite sure why ostracism wouldn't be more the solution than virulent attacks, given that more things have to be impacting them more readily.Of course my advocating that only pushes them more onto my back, as they are currently winning their battles against sexual expression and hedonism, and if they turned full force on my "kind", blech! This is why I try to treat this issue in a more generalized way. I mean I am essentially bi so I get nailed on their homosexual rants, and also get hit on everything else they hate sexually. Piecemeal efforts relieve pressure in one area only to find it reapplied harder elsewhere.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think the main thrust of the argument is against those who support legislation which prevent homosexuals from living in the same way that heterosexuals can. I can't remember what you said your position was regarding homosexual sex or marriage in a legal sense.Of course there is also the problem of enabling those who do the same thing simply by being a moralist against homosexuals and creating false arguments against homosexuality in general. Frankly I have no concern about the moralists but would against the people creating false arguments. Others may be criticizing both of these.It appears you are at the very least a moralist, but I'm not completely certain about the latter case. To me, so far you seem to be sitting on a line between false arguments and simply viewing something from a different perspective. Skip the test, you are correct. The homosexual movement's central issue is not marriage. That is simply one of the issues among many. They (I suppose I should say "we") just won the right to have sex (less than 5 years ago). They/we still have no RIGHT to serve in the armed forces like anyone who is 100% straight. They/we still face violence on a disproportionate scale to other minorities with the exception of pedophiles (ironically enough whom many gays would like to treat with the same unreasoned hatred as Xians do gays).Now lets talk about your test. What do websites turning up using "gay" as a search term suggest about what gays consider a central issue?I would note that the gay.com site is actually pretty diverse in nature. It has different sections. The news section is not sexual, unless by that you mean focused on issues effecting homosexuals. ??? You typed in "gay" not homosexual. Tell us what the returns are on that one. Also try heterosexual. I come up with about the same mishmash of stuff.You would be correct in stating that homosexuality is about sexuality, but so is heterosexuality. From experience I will say that homosexuals are generally MORE openly sexual in nature (even if that is confined to homosexual "safe" areas), but that would make sense given the fact that they have had to deal with their sexuality and may feel more comfortable about expressing it. In fact in the process of accepting their nature they have generally had to throw off a lot of the sexual baggage promoted by religion.So what? That does not mean that they have no other issues, or no other important issues in their lives. And your response doesn't address gasby's point which is that it is claimed that gays will not be happy, while laws are passed to guarantee they can't be.Nowhere in your post do you show why gays are unlikely to be happy if they are given the freedom to live as heteros are. As opposed to St.Patrick's day parades to celebrate the pride of being Irish? 4th of July parades to celebrate the pride of being an American? This seems like a pretty simple concept and one used by most groups.The only reason why overtly sexual groups haven't used them in the past is due to cultural heritage against open displays/emphasis of sexuality. Though of course that is not completely accurate. Many parades include beauty queens and other hetero "arousing" elements. And there always was Carnival or Mardi Gras.I do wish there would be general sexual pride parades where every stripe could be celebrated as basic to human nature. But my guess that isn't coming any time soon.I should note that in A'dam we have had yearly gay pride boat parades. They have gotten smaller in time, having both to do with already established rights as well as an increase in prudishness by the dutch. But the celebrations are large and it is interesting to see the number of families that attend them... I guess I should point out "straight" families.Despite being flagrantly sexual, and promoting homosexuality, it is just like any other parade. Why not? Yeah I agree, just like Xians, Jews, and Muslims who do the same thing. Once self identity becomes about one issue, to the extent of stereotyping themselves to prove it, it gets a tad silly. At least the gay ones aren't going on rampages killing people.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

As it is at this precise moment in time, a statemnet saying that homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage is not likely to launch me into a tirade about anti-porn politics. That's just the way it is.

---

That's because you're not holmes, berberry. How dare you complain about gaybashing when there are also anti-porn sentiments in existence?

Hahahahahah... cough cough cough... blah.My position was NOT as he took it at the time. The miscommunication has already been dealt with between berb and I and so why you have decided to extend it I dunno.I might also point out that I am essentially bi, I do have sex with guys, and so Xian criticism of homosexual behavior, or gaybashing in its more physical sense, hits me equally (unless they made exceptions for people that like girls too? Heheheh... the King David clause I suppose). I'm certainly not trying to switch or broaden debate because anti-porn tirades effect me more, if that is what you were trying to imply.If you are going to pop up just to insult me, at least get the subject matter right.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

I'm certainly not trying to switch or broaden debate because anti-porn tirades effect me more, if that is what you were trying to imply.

---

What I was implying was that you do seem to try to include porn and/or sex into every topic possible, no matter how tangentially related it might be.And it wasn't a real insult. Just a little tease.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

I feel that he is apologizing for the harm he has done to those that look up to him, and his family.I do not feel like it is damage control only, but that he is doing damage control by taking 100% of the blame, as he stated. There is obviously some repercussions of his actions amoung the people that like him, and he wants that to stop. He's already caused enough harm. Both maybe, and more. We all have a dark side, and struggle with what is right from wrong in out minds. Plenty of people do things that they think are wrong.

I never try to hide the rage I feel toward christians who can't discuss any aspect of homosexuality without quick recourse to insults and lies, but sometimes I feel a bit of guilt for not often enough pointing out those people of faith who I believe are working for positive change and who choose to celebrate our common humanity rather than to promote hatred and mistrust toward anyone who doesn't share that certain narrow-minded worldview which confronts us hour by hour on this very forum, among so many other places.Such a one would be Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Tennessee Baptist minister and writer who's columns appear from time to time in the USA Today newspaper. His featured column this morning is quite relevant to the discussions underway in this thread. This sentence mildly angered me at first read: When I reached that point in the article I thought to myself "why is it always about them? I mean, it's great that a Baptist minister seems to feel our pain, but why - for once - can't someone like this man talk about the effects of all this on us for a change?"Later in the piece he does precisely that, but the overall thrust of it has more to do with the potential for the church to be discredited to entire generations of people once it's proved beyond reasonable doubt that we don't choose our sexuality, which proof the pastor obviously feels is coming soon.This put me in mind of another discussion I had with holmes a year or so ago. He commented that it's rare to find an individual who will take up the cause of a minority or any other legitimately aggreived party unless he or she has some personal stake in it. The discussion, as I recall, was about Nancy Reagan and her fight for stem cell research funding. She's regarded as a near saint in many quarters for what she's put into the effort, but most likely she never would have become involved at all had Ronald Reagan not suffered so terribly through the last decade of his life.I think holmes' observation was accurate, and in considering it I realized that - sad but true - if Rev. Thomas had concentrated more on the effects of anti-gay bigotry on gays he might have bought himself some love from the gay community but he would have done little or nothing to change anyone's mind.So I've learned something from this column that can't be gleaned directly from its words: if we're ever to win any converts from among the anti-gay bigots then we're going to have to show them what they could lose in this fight.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Yeah, I see how it could seem that way (and maybe its true).But in this case the subject was about sex, and the only point I had been making is that they attack all sorts of underlying causes for adultery. I wasn't trying to harp on porn in specific, or get berb to address that as well, it just happens that porn is certainly one of their equally big "sin" factors so I used it in explanation. I believe I even mentioned intoxication as another one they go after.As a sidenote I once lived in an area which had a pretty active Xian coalition squad. We had known gay hangouts as well as a couple of porn bookstores. They spent all of their resources on attacking those bookstores. Oh what a time it was. See to them sexual material was the seed for deviancy which would lead to things like homosexuality. Clean up one and you would get the other (as well as all the OTHER perversions porn leads to).This was their argument... not mine. And I guess it does have precedent in the Bible where it suggests lustiness leads to such "strange" desires. It is errant to view their position as homosexuality being the root cause of all problems, but rather its a manifestation which in turn may cause other probems. I wasn't really insulted. Its fine to needle me. Its just in this particular case the "issue" was over (resolved satisfactorily), it had been a miscommunication which I personally wanted to avoid, and I was sensitive about it being rebooted in the public arena as if I was trying to broaden debate.A call for higher quality teasing, if you will.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)