Gay Pride Week?

[Jeff Endress]

If homosexuality is genetic then what it is the purpose of a parade or a pride week to celebrate homosexuality as a lifestyle?

Todd. I can't say for sure, but I would suspect that, unlike you,

I am in favor of civil unions for anyone who wishes to share rights of survivorship, power of attorney or such with anyone they choose

there are many who object to civil unions, etc. Perhaps, as in the civil rights marches of the 60's, it is an effort to secure the legal ability to have a civil union recognized.

Jeff

[michael gill]

Todd:

I think the reason for such designations is so that people can learn about and better understand a group of people so abused by society at large that they tend to hide "in the closet," as it were.

In this educational role it is just like Black History Month: people who have massively contributed to our society--fought and died in wars, helped rebuild neighborhoods, and have done any possible good deed a person from any other group is capable of--those people have been derided, literally beaten to death in more cases than we know, and marginalized.

It's for the betterment of all people if we know more about the accomplishments of all people. That's why setting aside a week for an opressed and abused group of people makes sense, regardless of whether those people are defined by nature or choice.

Ryan:

You never answered my question: has the teaching of history suffered because of Black History Month? That seems to follow from Mr. Bennett's logic.

By the way, you know what I love to hear? Black hoe moe sekshuls belting out Gospel music, just as if Jeezus loved them too.

[dl meckes]

If homosexuality is genetic then what it is the purpose of a parade or a pride week to celebrate homosexuality as a lifestyle?

Because people who are regularly discriminated against and left out of being a positive part of society have to hide who they are to get along in life.

The parade is partially about becoming visible.

[Bret Callentine]

Ryan, I did indeed follow the links. However, they do little more than keep to the logical fallacy of circular logic. Same sex marriage is illegal, and breaking the law is immoral, therefor granting parental rights to openly immoral couples should be illegal.

Their other main standpoint is that homosexuality breaks with the laws of nature. Basing their conclusions on the prospect of procreation. However, if that is the case where do you stand on the following issues...

1. should two hermaphrodites be allowed to marry and adopt kids?
2. should the government validate the marriage of a dual gender couple that can't have kids due to medical condition?
3. Are species that can reproduce asexually "natural"?

They do nothing to speak of socio-economic issues by sticking with generalities like "are more likely to" and "are prone to". "On average" women are not as strong as men, however, I know a couple that could kick my butt.

I know of a child that was adopted by a gay couple (married for over 15 years by the way). One is a doctor, another is lawyer and they had a third friend that also lived with them that is an investment banker. Now, you can make as many arguments as you want discussing the future of the kid based on biblical morality. But do you really want to try to suggest that the kid will have less opportunities available because of the sexual nature of their relationship?

Do you think this child would be better off in a group home? Or would his chance of success in life be increased if he were to live with a middle income heterosexual household?

Is it your fear that granting rights to homosexual couples will take away from a parents ability to teach morals?

[Ryan Salo]

Michael,

I hope that you are not serious. The logic would be if we were to socially accept anything more of it would occur. Just look at how many students are claiming to be bi - it is becoming cool to do so. Without social pressure people behave differently. Look at pro athletes that have many kids out of many relationships - it is becoming more acceptable so it is happening more, same with "shacking up", divorce, and casual drug use in California.

If we socially accept the gay lifestyle more kids will think they are gay and teach their "kids" that they are gay and it continues to grow into an epidemic. My root argument comes from the fact that even though many people have predispositions for things there are right and wrong choices that people need to make in life. By accepting wrong choices as socially acceptable more people will make those decisions.

I understand that some try to make the argument that it isn't a choice, but how do they explain the huge increase in students and adults that claim to be bi-sexual? It seems to me it is just OK to have sex with anyone or anything now so they do it. How do they argue the proof of people that have left that lifestyle? I have included a lot of links that supply example after example.

I know people like Bryan are looking for committed relationships but that appears to be a very high goal that very few can ever commit to, even the first married gay couple have gotten divorced already. So much for life partners.

[Lynn Farris]

Ryan,

I like you, think that children do best when they grow up in a stable environment with people with committed loving relationships. For many children that is not the case. I think way too many people get married without considering everything and way too many people get divorced too quickly. But I don't think being heterosexual or homosexuals are statistically different here - I may be wrong.

I do think more people are coming "out of the closet" and admiting that they are LGBT now than they did a generation ago. I don't think that means that there are necesarily more LGBT people - I think they are just more comfortable not living a lie.

Gordon Brumm wrote an amazing article for the Observer relating to Napoleon - but we can learn lessons from history. He states " First there was moral clarity. From moral clarity came self-righteousness and supreme self-confidence. Then came arrogance and out of arrogance came the waging of agressive war." He goes on to war us "Be skeptical of moral clarity. beware of absolutes. The world is a complex place, not amenable to the black-white thinking that absolutes present to us."

I think Mike is right, I don't get people trying to "convert" me to an LGBT lifestyle but they just want to be able to be themselves.

[Ryan Salo]

Lynn,

I like you too and I am glad you have been part of this. We may not agree on this issue but I appreciate your input and thoughts.

I have learned a lot by studying what psychologists have said about high school students and their sexuality. It appears that many test the waters before sticking with something. With an open environment their may be more people choosing a homosexual or bi lifestyle and they may actually be the ones living a "lie". Just a thought.

As far as living in an absolute world. I am smart enough to know that I don't know all the black and white's but I sure believe that they exist. I guess that is a major difference in our thoughts.

[Bryan Schwegler]

I know people like Bryan are looking for committed relationships but that appears to be a very high goal that very few can ever commit to, even the first married gay couple have gotten divorced already. So much for life partners.

Yes because we all know the straight divorce rate isn't high right?

Oh, but the greater than 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals is probably those darn homosexuals fault...

[lisa shaffer-gill]

Interestingly, the highest divorce rate in the country is in the the Bible Belt.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ly_values/

[ryan costa]

There are probably fewer bisexuals today than there were 200 years ago, as a percentage of the population. Unless you count prison sex, but that is offset by the decrease in the number all-male boarding schools such that George W.Bush and many pro-active older Republicans attended.

Some describe homosexuality as a third and fourth gender.

Are there Women's Pride parades?

[Laurie Campbell]

I guess when I try to sort through the myriad comments from you that I find amazingly offensive, Ryan S., there is one phrase that just keeps coming back over and over: Gay Lifestyle.

What, in your experience, exactly is the gay lifestyle? I'm really curious what that means to you.

How can anyone put an entire group of people into one "lifestyle"? I'm a woman, so does that mean I live a "woman lifestyle"? I hold an advanced degree, so does that mean that I live an "educated lifestyle"? I have blue eyes, so does that mean I live a "blue-eyed lifestyle"? I just have never understood the term "gay lifestyle." Does that mean that all gay people do, think, enjoy, suffer, and experience the same thing?

I live a life, not a lifestyle. My life is filled with love, friendship, family, laughter, joy, challenges, spirituality, and many, many more things. This is my life. Is that what you think of when you make reference to my "gay lifestyle"?

[michael gill]

Ryan,
I'm not sure what you're asking if I'm serious about. I am trying to follow your alleged logic, and that which you posted from Mr. Bennett. And still you haven't answered my question:

Has the teaching of history generally suffered because the schools honor Black History Month?

That's nice that "it seems to [you] that it's just ok to have sex with anyone or anything." I'm more selective than that, and so are all the gay people I know. Just a lifestyle choice, I guess.

Do you know any divorced heterosexuals?

How do you explain homosexuality among animals? Is there such a thing as "puppydog sin?"

There were other questions for which I'd also like to hear your answers. I know you have a deep concern for the welfare of children. I also know there are a lot of children being kicked around in various systems who are desparately in need of good homes. Trouble is, there aren't enough heterosexuals that want kids who are not babies, especially if there is anything unusual about them, like a disability, or behavior problems. I know gay people who have adopted children and who provide them with stable homes, diligent attention to homework, a work ethic, honesty, and respect for the community. Now really: Are those kids better off in foster care or homeless?

[Ryan Salo]

The National Association of Man Boy Lovers of America are pedophiles - not gay men

I noticed in your other post you want a reply to some of your posts in this post. So I thought I would.

I just wanted you to clarify how a man boy relationship is not gay.

[Lynn Farris]

[quote]sharon kinsella wrote:
The National Association of Man Boy Lovers of America are pedophiles - not gay men


I noticed in your other post you want a reply to some of your posts in this post. So I thought I would.

I just wanted you to clarify how a man boy relationship is not gay. /quote]

The same way pedophiles of old men who have sex with young girls are not heterosexual. This is deviant behavior and is not accepted by either the mainstream gay or heterosexual community.

[Beajay Michaud]

Do you really believe that someone wakes up in the morning and says - hey I think I'll be gay today. No one chooses to be gay. Its just they way that they were born.

My teenagers have friends that are openly gay. They did not choose to be that way, they are gay. It seems like children can accept that fact that their friend is gay better than most adults.

If gay people want to have special gay pride week so be it. There are more important issues out there to get heated up about.

Like the crime in Lakewood and the police levy...