Comments on: Why Should Straight People Be Opposed To Gay Rights?

By: James

James — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:35 +0000

The concept of sexual orienation was not recognised or named in the ancient world. The ancients assumed that everyone was a member of the (unrecognised) heterosexual majority. The terms “heterosexal,” “homosexual,” and “bisexual” came into use in the late 19th century when researchers became aware that not everyone belonged to the majority group. Many persons have spent far too much time in Sunday school and not enough in the classroom, claiming that hosexuality is a sinful choice, expecting that religious beliefs will continues to be enshrined in secular law. Current enlightened opinion recognises that all sexual orientations are equal, and are in themselves morally neutral, being psychological states tha occur naturally in a small percentage of the population. The expectation that gay folk should refrain from sexual activity is plainly absurd. If marriage is the deciding factor, then society should allow same-sex couples to be married to meet that requirement. BUT, are all the straights observing the marriage requirement? Not at all!Religious people, especially the institutional church, have always had problems when changes in science and society arethought to be in disagreement with religious belief. Such people have spent far too much time in Sunday school and not enough in the classroom The early astronomers were persecuted (sometimes burnt alive) for daring to say that the earth orbited the sun, rather than the reverse. Religious belief was used to support slavery as biblically authorised, to support the “divine right of kings” to rule the world, as God’s chosen, to oppose the theory of evolution, as well as the emancipation of women from the home into busines and the professions, education, government posts, and more recently, into the clergy. There has been a woman prime minister in the Uk (and elsewhere). Women now serve as Speaker of the House of Represenative, the President of Harvard University, and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Other instances have included voting rights for blacks and for women. Gay persons now serve in the clergy of several denominations (even as bishops in the Episcopal Church).The recent developments have not been without controversy and disappointment, but the changes are taking place at a pace most people could not have predicted 50 or 60 years ago. Such changes will continue in a land such as ours, where it is increasingly recognised that ALL PERSONS, regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights and opportunity in every respect!

By: valydorneanu

valydorneanu — Sat, 24 May 2008 20:23:17 +0000

It’s not something against the homosexuals – it’s something for life itself!

By: Karin

Karin — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:23:49 +0000

What is this, Karin, about public schools not teaching morality? Of course forget about respect for your elders, table manners, playground etiquette, bathroom hygiene, how to express your opinions respectfully in a classroom, receprocity, avoiding gossip, not cheating on tests. . . Do you want public schools to be run in such a way that morality is left out of the picture?

Hmm…morality is left outta the picture in public schools.

By: Wei Hsien

Wei Hsien — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:04:35 +0000

Brian,

Agreed. It seems to me that public discussions of moral issues are rarely (or never) between close friends and always turn impersonal and cold rather quickly. So often, we talk about moral issues such as homosexuality as though they were just philosophical riddles to be solved, as though there were no faces–brothers, sisters, children–involved, whose lives might be at stake.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

W.H.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:31:15 +0000

@ millyonair: Again, excellent commentary.

@ Wei Hsien: I think communication is usually a good thing – as long as both sides are respectful of one another. If a person (Christian or not) has a genuine concern about the behavior of one of their friends, I don’t see anything wrong with discussing that with them privately in a non-judgmental manner.

I would feel much differently about the same situation between two people who aren’t close friends, though.

By: Wei Hsien

Wei Hsien — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:22:13 +0000

If you all don’t mind, I’d like to shift the discussion a bit. We’ve been working with the principle that people ought to be free to do whatever they please, so long as they don’t hurt others. Following this assumption, I think Milly is quite right: what someone else does, gay or straight, is not my business, although I think it could impact my life in some way (say, if my brother is gay).

But suppose that there’s more than this. Suppose that we human beings have a responsibility to genuinely care for each other, stranger or friend–because we are all connected somehow by the fabric of humanity. (I know I’m asking for a lot here, since that’s not the way society works generally; but indulge me if you can.) If I think that someone else is doing something that might hurt them on the long run (as many Christians do about homosexual relationships), do I have a responsibility to say something (not shout it out or write about it in the newspaper)–assuming that I genuinely care about this person? If I do, what are my limits, so that our relationship can continue after the conversation even if we disagreed? If not, would the lack of honesty prevent us from growing in friendship?

W.H.

By: millyonair

millyonair — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:23:10 +0000

In regards to the remarks made by greatwhitehype27 about my previous comment, I have this to say: Of COURSE parents should be involved with educating their children and instilling in them the values cherished by their religious doctrine. I would be a fool to suggest that we should depend upon the public education system alone to enlighten our children about what is right or wrong. My position is neither pro- nor anti-gay, mostly because it’s none of my business, and it’s not an issue that impacts my life. I’m not entirely convinced that the whole “in the beginning He created them man and woman” argument is concrete evidence that Jesus frowned upon homosexuality. But whether or not He did is not, finally, the point. Doling out conviction, I might offer, is territory that belongs exclusively to the Holy Spirit, not to man. And Jesus DOES illustrate this point in Luke 6, when he talks about the plank in our eye. Whether or not the commandments to love God and love one another were “summary statements” or the final word on our Earthly conduct, I sort of feel like the whole reason for Jesus’ existence was to elucidate the importance of these commands. All this quibbling over minutiae is redolent of the Pharisees; it distracts us, divides us, and fails to demonstrate love.

Peace,
Milly

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:53:46 +0000

@ Stephen: Those two assumptions do so much harm to millions of Americans. Thanks for pointing them out.

@ fightingwindmills: Thanks for the link. Can’t wait to read about Ani!

By: fightingwindmills

fightingwindmills — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:36:33 +0000

I really like where this conversation has gone. Thanks to all.
Brian, here’s a link for you to Kucinich’s vote on ENDA.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78200
I’m about ready to post about the Ani concert on Sunday; I’ll have it up sometime today.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:05:41 +0000

I think that people who raise religious objections to these issues make two common mistakes: they assume that their religion provides the rules by which all people should live, and they assume that being gay is a choice that people make.

All of this strife and contention could be avoided if they would realize that: everyone makes their own decisions regarding religious beliefs and there is no “one size fits all” religion, and that no one would choose to be gay if they really had an option.

One remark of yours that has gone uncommented-on so far, but which I think really gets to the meat of the matter, is that “God doesn’t make mistakes” …