General Acceptance of Homosexuality Causes End of Civilized Culture
85
To Accept or To Reject... is That the Question?
I've been engaged in an interesting debate with one of my facebook friends. His status line stated:
"Not just homosexuality but the GENERAL ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality is one of the final indicators of the end of a culture or state."
My initial reaction when I read that statement was kind of a "WTF!?" reaction. How can acceptance of others lead to the demise of a civilization. Of course, I had to challenge his thinking... cuz that's what I do ... I was curious what his definition of "acceptance" is. Does that mean acceptance of people who are homosexual? It may just be my issue, but I don't understand how you can accept a person but reject who he is... ???
My friend explained that you can accept and even love a homosexual, but not accept his or her lifestyle as being okay. Again, I am confused. If we were to flip this over... imagine that homosexuals make up the majority in society and heterosexuals are in the minority. So I am a heterosexual woman and I fall in love with a man. Since the laws do not permit me to "marry" him, we live together in "sin". My homosexual mother loves and accepts me, but cannot accept my lifestyle as being okay. So this part of my life - this very big part of who I am is unacceptable to her. I wonder how she would communicate that to me? I wonder if as I was growing up, if I would have felt loved and accepted by her knowing that she hates the way I am.
I don't know for certain if everyone is like me, but my sexual orientation was not a choice. I know that I did not decide one day that I would be attracted to boys. I just was. I cannot imagine choosing to be sexually attracted to girls... I just wasn't. Of course I had the choice whether to act on my heterosexual feelings or not. Anyone can choose to be celebate. Very few make that choice, and those who do, usually do for religious reasons. So in my example above, my mother may believe that she rejecting my lifestyle CHOICE, but in reality she would be rejecting who I am, and I would likely have been aware of her hate long before I engaged in any sexual "lifestyle".
Does acceptance have to mean embracing or encouraging? To my heterosexual friends I ask, did you need your sexual attraction to others to be accepted, embraced or encouraged by society? I suspect that there are activities occurring in the bedrooms of adults that would not be acceptable to me. If I find something unacceptable I just refrain from engaging in it, but I do not expect other adults to hold or live by my standards. To do so would be absurd.
Loss of values, morality, integrity and purpose
My Facebook friend states that he is concerned that society's general acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle is leading to a loss of values, morality and integrity and "perhaps even purpose". He fears that because a majority of people are more accepting than in the past, that some teachers will teach little children that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Well, here in Canada, our children do get this kind of education. Not only in school, but it has even been seen in children's programming on television. Such programs (Sesame Street was one) teach children that family composition can take many forms. There are children being raised by single parents, by gay parents, by grandparents. There was a popular sitcom as well entitled "My Two Dads". Teaching children to value others and to respect differences is not a bad thing. How can it be?
There are certainly those groups in Canada who share my Facebook friend's concerns and fears.
In some schools children have been read stories promoting tolerance. Those stories have included stories about children with same sex parents. Perhaps my friend is afraid that such stories are used as a means for "recruiting" children into the homosexual lifestyle, but I submit that they are used as a means of teaching acceptance and tolerance of others. I personally have no problem with my children understanding sexual orientation, and no fear of them being "swayed" one way or the other. Their biology will take care of that.
Out of curiousity I asked my children (9 and 11 years old) if they think that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. Without hesitation they both said "yes". When I asked them if the same sex couple should be allowed to adopt children, I was a little surprised when they both said "no". Each had one reason:
- that kids should have both a mom and a dad.
- that the kids would get teased
I am sure the first reason (the 9 year old's) is based on her inability to imagine her life without one or the other of her parents. The 11 year old's reason (#2), tells me that we still have a way to go in teaching children acceptance and tolerance. While each child had their own reason, they each agreed with the other's as well.
Interestingly, there was an article in last week's Macleans magazine where it was reported that in Canada fewer teenagers are engaging in pre-marital sex or doing drugs. According to these statistics, it would appear that our young people have higher moral standards than previous generations. This is truly no surprise to those of us who believe that education is key. The increased communication and education, which has resulted in the increased acceptance of homosexuals and basic human rights, is paying off, and in ways quite contrary to the fears presented by my Facebook friend.
CommentsLoading...
Ironically, when a gay couple moves into my neighborhood I am glad because my experience is that the gay couple will fix up their house and their property beautifully and my property values will go up.
I like what you write. People are people and just like their political views or their religion or lack thereof, such things are best left out of the realm of the opinions of others. I personally see no difference in people I know other than the personal quirks they exhibit. I don't even know if some of my friends are secretly homosexual or not, but here in Spain it's generally really no big deal.
I have to wonder if your Facebook friend is drawing a parallel with the demise of ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome. These civilizations certainly did engage in a variety of hedonistic behaviors -- both homosexual and heterosexual. And they did ultimately crumble under their own sins.
Here's what you said, "My Facebook friend states that he is concerned that society's general acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle is leading to a loss of values, morality and integrity and "perhaps even purpose".
I do agree with your Facebook friend that society today seems to suffer from an eroding of values. I see it as much more related to our greed and focus on material things over human kindness and compassion. If God didn't want Homosexuals he would not have created them. Simple as that.
Lgali, the only thing that has changed is honesty. It is safer now for homosexuals to come out, but they've always been among us.
Tom, that is 2 funny! Great slogan for a Gay Parade... Increase Your Property Value ...
Ivan, I agree... when people are set on pushing their opinions and ideals onto others - THAT is what causes the demise of society.
MM, you are exactly right. He is drawing the parallel with the ancient civilations. Truthfully, those civilizations were not "civilized".I disagree that society is suffering from erosion of values. It is a different world today, but I am very encouraged by the studies such as the one done in Macleans magazine that clearly shows teenagers (in Canada anyway) have higher moral standards than past generations.
That sthilly nilly!..... The end of culture and state is caused by greed and abuse of power. Good Hub.....thanks! :)
Next thing you know there's going to be a homosexual as president and its still not going to make any difference in my life!
How can we get some dissenters over here? Where are you hiding, you protectors of the family?? Come on out and debate us!
I can't think of how it would impact you... or even why you would need to know your president's sexual orientation...
Well Karen its makes all the difference in the world! What would the first lady be! How can we have a government that is strictly determined to just set policy and regulate commerce? We need to know the sexual orientation because otherwise we might worry about real issues.
G'day Karen, you got no dissenter here either.
GT good one , real issues. LOL
Could it be the fact that the "civilized" societies that did collapse where collapsing before the rise in homosexuality and people turned to homosexuality as a distraction from the looming disaster.
Karen your hub gives much food for thought.
You're right of course Toad... the next president should be a lesbian... then you'd still have a first lady and all the heterosexual American men can obsess over what's going on in the presidential suite!
agvulpes, I think homosexuals are scapegoats for the greed and corruption as Tom so eloquently stated...
LOL MM... I had my flame suit and was all geared up for a big battle! Then Toad got me a little excited when he "appeared" to be a dissenter.
Love your avatar - that was one of my favorite books as a kid, and my kids favorite too!
I don't believe your choice of sexuality, or religeon, or politics, should be anyone's business but your own. The law is supposed to apply to 'people' not to groups or 'selected' categories. The only issue I can see is that politicians refuse to accept that.
I will fight over politics or religion, but a persons sexuality is entirely different as it is not chosen.
Hi Earnest,
I don't think my Facebook friend had any input into the choice thing. His contention is that the general acceptance by society that living a homosexual lifestyle is okay, is a sign of our society's demise.
Great hub - thanks and yes, I too believe we have a long way to go. I find it funny that the end of civilization, 9/11 and so many other things are attributed to homosexuality. I wish we were that powerful because if we were we would do better things with our "powers" than end the world, etc. we'd make it happier...isn't that what "gay" means anyway?
Wow, Wow, Wow, My standing ovation for this one Karen just loved your hub, the way you invert society and it's views is something I use in my daily life when questioned when the word choice is put on the table. Thank you for sharing such wonderful views and opening the page for this type of discussion, great, simply great. Society has to grow up and evolve and gradually does, as one of my favorite singer sings: " Nothing stays the same, the only thing that stays the same.. is change" Melissa Etheridge
Bravo! really great hub !
you have a fan in me!
I am not against any ones choice of lifestyle, but I do think that whatever area you are from might have an influence on how someone feels. I live in a very small town and there are alot of older people who refuse to change their beliefs. They are against homosexuals and also interacial relationships. We do not have hardly any homosexuals where I am from but if we did it wouldn't bother me at all.
judyann - I can relate. I live in a VERY conservative Christian small town in redneck county LOL. I have at least one homosexual nephew who has suffered ridicule and non acceptance by his own family. Sad... very sad. I am pleased to say he seems to be turning out to be a well adjust man in spite of the adversity.
I consider myself to be a Christian too. But my God does not abhor good and decent people just because they are attracted to members of their own sex.
I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a christian can condemn people for falling in love. Sexuality is a personal thing but being with someone you love and care about and can make a committment to is something that christianity and most other religions encourage. It is human support for their fellow human beings which makes society function. Whether that human is male or female is irrelevant. The relationship and committment is what glues society and communities together. When christians condemn homosexuality they are condemning an aspect of themselves which they reject and are unable or unwilling to express. The human society becomes a lesser place because of this hatred of aspects of ourselves.
the fact we even have to discuss this is moronic. i think we'll be looking at a sea change in public consciousness in a few years. this is a personal issue, as are many others. for example, what substances one chooses to put into ones body ie drugs. the rule is, as i understand it (and our country was founded on this idea fyi) if youre not bothering anyone, and it infringes on no one elses rights, its nobody's business.
Dennis, at the risk of pissing someone off, it seems to me that many who profess to be Christians are the most hypocritical and condemning people...
artfuldodger: MYOB... good motto to live by...
The comment of your facebook friend is in part true, but not just in the context of homosexuality, especially when you look at the demise of previous Empires(such as the Roman Empire). Empires tend to crumble when the become too idealogically heterogenous(they start allowing to many non-allegiant minority groups to have citizenship rights). In the case of the Roman Empire, every culture they conquered they then allowed to assimilate into their citizenry. This diluted the overriding value structure of the initial Roman system. Since these minority groups did not view themselves AS ROMANS they held none of the values of a true Roman citizen, the Empire became , valueless, directionless, decadent and non-disciplined, which eventually led to the slow takeover by stronger ,more ethnically pure, more dicsiplined Mongol races from the East. The same thing is currently happening to U.S. Society. As we freely allow different minority groups(Illegal immigrants, 'disenfranchised African Americans', gays, openly Socialist Liberals, etc..) that hold radically different value systems then the original "Constitutional American Values" that have made our country great, we dilute what America was originally intended to be. It is only a matter of time until our society will become unrecognizable and, therefore, not really America at all.
As with everything in life Karen, People make judgements and throw stones because of ignorance or prejudice. The fact that the christian religion is ineffective in reducing ignorance and prejudice flags the structures and application as being at best ineffective and at worst dangerous.Although religions tend to be good at certain things and less good at others depending on the context in which they were born.Christianity is not particularly good at promoting acceptance of others unless they profess the same specific views as the person doing the judging. Most of us probably grow up with a kind of inbuilt radar for things that are diffewrent and possibly challanging to our underlying belief systems. My personal choice is to accept the challange and possibly learn something about myself and others in the process. It took a personal rejection of my catholic upbringing at the age of 14 to enable my life to begin. I just wish a few more pople of my age had done the same thing.
I agree with your facebook friend
Care to elaborate Joe?
The comment of your facebook friend is undoubtedly true. Of course the first thing that comes to mind is the Word of God. Homosexuality is an abomination. I understand that those who support/practice such life styles are not Christian and thus not inclined to the Word of God. However, the authors purposed confusion of how a person can love the sinner and not the sin is unwarranted. Every person sins, yet Christ loves us. Homosexuality is a sin like many others. However, it is one that is quite visible and because of this can spread like cancer. Men's hearts are inclined to darknessm, so they fall prey to the temptations of the devil.
I'm not following your logic Me. If we are all sinners, homosexual and heterosexuals alike, how can you say that those who support/practice homosexuality are not Christian?
Does the visibility of the "sin" make a difference? If homosexuality is an abomination, why did God create homosexuals?
Omg. I'm a bit late but I can already see the basic divisions in ideology: family-based conservatism, which basically creates nations, aka the "right" and the generally intellectually irresponsible and unpricipled "left", or "gauche" (you know what I mean) whose primary call-out to anyone who doesn't accept their "progressive" (humanist, socialist) views as "ignorant".
As to the fall of societies due to the general acceptance of homosexuality, it's only one of the facets which cause the fall. The others were general lax, debauched lifestyles of their elites which included corruption, greed, sexual licentiousness, indifference to towards the welfare of the state, basically what I'd call the onset of the ancient version of the "Me" generation.
Greek homosexuality in the elites was primarily pederastic, i.e. older elite men would seduce younger, gullible boys. Just like homosexuality, it was nothing more than a "pitcher" and "catcher" relationship.
In the early days of Rome, homosexuality was condemned and considered a degenerate Greek act. As Rome grew large, elite Roman males would choose male slaves for partners. Little is said about the working class though. The whole thing basically fell apart upon the imperialization of Rome, which came about following internal strife (modern parallels anyone?). Emperors were expected to be homosexual.
What the facebook commentors SHOULD have written on their facebook discussion is that IMPERIALIZATION is the fall of a nation and a large part of its fall is due to the necessity of acceptance of factors which have been kept down during the the time of their pre-imperialistic nation, one of the most important of which being homosexuality.
Since emperors are not elected, they must submit to the will of the people as a whole else face revolt. They essentially submit to the ritchest and most powerful citisens and will play along witht he masses only when necessary.
As nations become complacently rich and powerful, they forget the founding principles which they built upon, namely the family, and I don't mean the "new-age" version of it, I mean a true father, mother and their biological children type of family, not some running experiment like having one dad and his butt-plug boyfriend. Recall, unless you're a test-tube baby, you can't have more than one dad, one daddy can't get the other one pregnant. Remember that.
As for homosexuality, the disgust towards it is primarily felt by what I would term, the "working class morality". In essence, the Judeo-Christian morality, since all of its central characters were generally either ex-worker slaves, working-class or elite detractors. I have to agree with this, simply because we know how to build a nation. Homosexuals simply know how to mess one up.
As to accepting a person but not "who they are", it's simply the act of hating the sin but not the sinner. Homosexuality is a choice, the individual can change if they want, so as they can make that decision, we're best hating what they do and not them themselves, we can in fact gain an ally in doing so. Everyone makes mistakes of course. In fact, it's not gender and race that are a construct according to humanists and socialists, it's homosexuality. And a failed, flawed construct it is.
P.S.: What's best yet is the good news that science has finally agreed that there is no such thing as a gay gene. Which is pretty obvious, since "gay" couples who produce infants through artificial insemination with the sperm of homosexuals and eggs from lesbians do not incur a larger percentage of births which translate into homosexual adults. The same for homosexual men marrying heterosexual women or vice-versa, which was common before the mass-acceptance of the 90s.
P.S.2: Honestly, so Canadian kids are engaging in less premarital sex and drug use under this new liberalized education. Wow. Actually, kids have been engaging in less premarital sex and drug use before the late 60s, that's before the "new age" movement hit the West. And the "new age" movement is a topic on its own.
P.S.3: Good things come in threes. Honestly, I don't see why we're having this debate either. A responsible, contractual, long-term relationship-based philosophy should the the only thing promoted in society. Homosexuality should be discouraged because in men it is absolutely disgusting (and the all to recent trend in involving heterosexual couples and anal sex simply makes me go psycho with anger, literally angry-enough to kill, because homosexuals defiling eachother is no big deal, but men defiling women in such a way, that's a line you're not supposed to cross), homosexuals should be converted or shunned socially or even imprisonned in mental wards lest they change. We have absolutely NO need for their corruption. And before you go blazing about me sounding like some short, squat, mustachioed german, note that much of the founders of German National Socialism were homosexual, and the NSDP was a thoroughly homoerotic cult, to say the least. More proof that empires are run primarily by faggots and their acceptance is in fact national suicide. So your friends were in a large part correct.
Scuse the double post. Just means it's doubly important ;D
I barely know what to say - this is just so... out there.
Really. A typical feminist response. Thank you though. I took my facts from history (I didn't quote, should have, will do at another time you're free to research it) and homosexual sites. Honestly, if it weren't for the general climate of fear from political reprisal from the pc-crowd, what I just wrote would be the defacto sentiment accross society. Here's the link to the "no gay gene" statement I made:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=
Enjoy the read.
Will this thing post properly?
Apparently not.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=
The remainder of the url is: "205608"
Omit quotes.
You have a problem with feminists too Michael? Not surprising I guess, but no, I am not a feminist, I am a humanist, which may by your definition make me feminist since I do believe woman are human and worthy of equal rights.
I have no doubt of your intelligence or that your "facts" are your interpretation of history, or that you believe passionately everything that you say. Of those things I am certain.
Whether or not scientists find a "gay gene", the choice issue is rather beside the point. I don't agree that it is a choice, but even if it were we live in a free society that allows consenting adults to make those choices when they don't infringe on the rights and freedoms of anyone else. Your anger over what consenting adults do in private is frankly a little frightening.
And for the record, I don't consider those whose views differ from mine to be "ignorant". Some are, but so are some who share my views! Others simply hold an opposing view, and some are very extreme in their thinking. I once had a college prof who said that people who hold extreme views - on either end of the spectrum, are often highly intelligent and walking that fine line of genius/insanity (think Hitler). I tend to agree.
Karen, God didn't create homosexuals. God created humans and some people choose a homosexual life-style. The practice goes against the created purpose of men and women. Even for those not sharing my belief system, but rather choosing evolution, you would be hard pressed to find a reason why it would be accepted. In that scenario as well it serves no purpose and would be rooted out by natural processes. As for your question about how I can say no person choosing such actions can be Christian lies in 1 Corinthians 6:9.
"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men."
Abusers of themselves with men - Arsenokoites
- one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
among other passages in Scripture.
The visibility, I would suspect, does play a certain role. However, I tend to think it probably has more to do with the overt disregard to law and design (not human law). A person cannot claim to love God and disavow everything He says. The visibility comes into effect when they start modeling such behavior for others to see and encouraging the perversion to spread.
I must reiterate though, homosexuals are in need of a savior just like all unrepentent individuals, and Christ died for them the same as for me. This is how a person can love the person and hate the sin. I hate what they are doing, but greatly desire for them to be saved.
A humanist! Even better, though the "we can do it" icon generally is generally associated with feminists, i.e. "women" men don't want. No wonder you would post something so completely ridiculously inane as your homosexual acceptance spiel. You guys are real pros at "accepting" and complete failures at critical thought and lasting social principles.
Sooo...you have no doubt "of my intelligence or my facts as an interpretation of history" (the interpetative part of course being a typical humanist flight response). First of all, everything I wrote is verifiable and not some personal interpretation you idiot. Not that you'd bother to check it out as it would burst your happy little humanist bubble. For all your self-professed love of humanity, you people hate the truth, simply because you tend to be a bunch of whiny little brats who simply can't take a challenge to their mousy little belief system.
"Whether or not scientists find a "gay gene", the choice issue is rather beside the point." IT IS THE MAIN POINT YOU IDIOT! The secondary point which derives directly from it is how to deal with homosexuality now that it is in fact an acquired behavior. I mean, alcoholism and other drug addictions are considered moral and psychological problems. Homosexuality therefore enters the realm of deciding whether it is a benefit to the individual or a problem. Given that it is primarily a sexual preference and in men revolves primarily around the utter filth that is anal sex, i.e. deriving pleasure from penetrating the orifice whose ONLY purpose is the evacuation of human organic waste
As for the latter part, as to "extreme" individuals being "...highly intelligent and walking that fine line of genius/insanity (think Hitler)." Sooo...are you telling me Hitler was a genius and I'm comparable to the guy? Being from a people on Hitler's WW2 racial hit list, I have to say that you just stepped in a landline, let's just hope you don't publicly make the mistake of calling Slavs or Jews you disagree with NAZIs just because they are racially white, you might be more than just a bit dis-appointed, especially considering what their grandparents had to go through in WWII. How can you, or your professor, assume that Hitler was anything but a complete stooge taking orders from people far more intelligent than he himself (note, he was refused a college education for lack of talent). You guys worship him in secret or something?
Seriously, anything you complete and utter fools write bounces back at you! You're completely illogical and basically act like chickens with their heads cut-off. You don't think, you just react based on what makes you feel good. You're disgustingly stupid, at least where it concerns your stance on homosexuality. As far as I and I would bet the vast majority of most western nations are concerned, we will see the day when homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality will again be made illegal and treated as the psychological disease it is.
Wow! Your angry little rant there complete with name calling certainly demonstrates that YOU are exactly what you claim I am! LOL I think the biggest difference between you and I is that you believe anyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated idiot. Yet you claim that I lack the ability to think critically. You have to be able to hear another point of view to actually consider it. YOU cannot do that.
I in no way, shape or form compared you to Hitler or his ideas. If there was a comparison to be made, it was about his mental state. He has been said to be highly intelligent and insane. Of course I do not know if you are for real or if you just enjoy attempting to push buttons, but I'd categorize these comments as crazy.
Since the topic was mine, I think I am qualified to state whether or not the topic I started had anything to do with the "choice" debate. It didn't. In YOUR mind it does and therefore I am an idiot ... things that make you go hmmm..., but since you insist, you do realize that I can find as much "proof" that it is not a choice as you can find that it is... right?
And BTW, with regard to the study in Canada concerning the sexual behavior of teens... it shows that the decrease in teen pregnancy, and the decrease in pre-marital sex, is highest in this current generation. Again, you prove yourself to be what you claim I am - "you don't think, you just react based on what makes you feel good." And since we're on that topic, shouldn't it make you feel good to see statistical evidence that teens are holding themselves to a higher moral standard than previous generations?
I sincerely wish you well Michal. The anger you carry has got to be a huge burden, and I do wish you peace.
I am so completely impressed with your response Karen.
I've always found it interesting how conservative extremists resort to petty threats and name-calling at their last attempt at creating a mockery of liberal ideas and statements.
The fact that his opinion was well-sculpted with an engaged thought-process near the beginning was enjoyable to debate in the conventional democratic manner.
After reading this heated argument (most of the fire coming from one side...wink...wink) my respect for you has gone through the roof.
However Michal, as your opinion is as important as any other educated individual, your true colors leave me disheartened.
Very mature and open minded. I agree with everything you said here. Makes me wonder where you've been hiding since we really could've used your help in California on prop 8.
I am not gay, and the reason I make a point to express that is because the fact that a person so vehemently protests people's interference into the lives of people who have nothing to do do with that person doesn't necessarily mean that the interference doesn't affect the person. Heterosexuals have to fight tooth-and-nail to maintain the perception of others that they ARE heterosexual, which isn't right in itself. Furthermore, it is beneficial to defend people from persecution when others can't pin bias onto you. Showing these (expletive)s that homosexuals are in fact accepted by many straight people is a step toward general acceptance of homosexuals. I rather enjoyed this article because it uses logic and not empathy to get a point across, and I would like to see someone argue with cold hard logic.
Second to last paragraph illuminates your political agenda. Children are the most pure of pure entities in this universe. Their feedback reflects the ultimate truth. The statement, "The 11 year old's reason (#2), tells me that we still have a way to go in teaching children acceptance and tolerance." just goes to show this article is anything but objective and only desires cult-like indoctrination/corruption of the purest form of humanity in existence. Learn from them. It will heal your soul.
LOL, my political "agenda"? I do agree that children are the most pure entities in this universe. And that their feedback reflects the ultimate truth - and in this case the child's feedback was that people would tease an innocent child for having gay parents. Kind of sad isn't it?
Do you think children are born mean and judgmental or do they learn that behavior? You'll note that my son's reasoning for why homosexuals should not have children is because they would get teased. Social stigma... no other reason. Generally speaking, children are pure and until they are taught to discriminate and hate, they generally accept people as they are.
I have no problem with anyone believing that homosexuality is wrong, an abomination even... but that does not equate to treating homosexuals, or their children, as sub human.
I do not try to influence my children's feelings on homosexuality. What I do try to do is encourage them to think for themselves. They do not hold my beliefs on this topic, nor on others. On the same token, I do not tolerate my children being cruel or mean to others just because they are different. They are certainly encouraged to form their own beliefs, but I don't compromise on my expectations for how they are to treat others.
THAT is my agenda. To raise critical thinkers who can accept others even if they disagree with them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Steve!
Hi Karen and Others
This post has really gotten people to talk and debate(read argue). LOL
I am a christian and a heterosexual. As a someone who beleives in what the bible teaches, it is quite clear that God does not agree with the practice of homosexuality and calls it sin. The bible also teaches everyone to love their fellow man, regardless of their background, creed, status in society or whether we disagree with their sexual orientation.
I have 2 kids that I love dearly but I can't stand the fact that they are sometimes mean to each other. Their disobedience does not mean I stop loving them. Now let's say one one of them should choose a homosexual lifestyle; I will be highly disappointed but will still continue to love them. I won't turn them away or hate them for it. But they will understand my feelings around their decision.
Also as a christian i must allow others to decide what sort of life they want to lead. Christians make the mistake of sometimes forcing their beliefs on others and even hating others for what they stand for. The life that Christ/Jesus led was an example to others.
He accepted others regardless of there lifestyles but also pointed out to them where they were wrong.
The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to love someone and disagree with their lifestyle. We do it all the time but the topic of homosexuality usually gets us all worked up and we feel the need to prove how they are wrong and we are right.
With regards to your kids: they were right. Gay couples should be allowed to do what they want.
But i also have to agree with their opinion on adopting children. The emphasis here is on "opinion". We all have a right to voice our opinions and all of us (gay or not) should have the power to practice it.
Thanks
Thank you for your comments Kurt. I agree with everything you said, except for the part where you indicated homosexuality as being a choice. To claim that sexual orientation is a choice, you have to say that you made a choice to be heterosexual, which means you are equally attracted to men as you are to women, or that you are in fact attracted to men but CHOSE not to act on that attraction. Personally, I have to believe it is not a choice and is simply an orientation because I do not recall choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex - I just was. The only choice was whether or not to act on it.
I do think the loving a person and not accepting their lifestyle can be tricky. Should one of your children be a homosexual, it would be difficult to communicate your profound disappointment and acceptance at the same time. What your child will feel is your disappointment. So while it may be "possible" to have those opposing feelings, it is virtually impossible to adequately communicate them. A child who feels he is a disappointment to his father does not feel accepted by his father.
And acceptance is very important, Kurt, because while a gay child cannot choose their sexual orientation or choose to change it, reacting to someone admitting their sexual orientation can make a huge difference in their life.
A 2009 study in Pediatrics revealed that GLB individuals who had families who were highly rejecting were over eight times more likely to have attempted suicide, nearly six times as likely to have experienced serious depression, and more than three times as likely to have used illegal drugs or engaged in unsafe sex than those participants from supportive families.
"Welcoming their LGBT friends and partners to family events and activities is one of the most important things you can do to support their wellbeing," said researcher Caitlin Ryan. Other important positive behaviors are supporting their gender expression, connecting them to LGBT role models and advocating on their behalf if they are victimized.
So Kurt and everyone who may have a GLBT child, if you could find it in you, you may want to consider what's best for your child and accept them for the things they cannot change so they lead a good healthy gay life.
You missed the point completely. You're friend was simply referring to all the past societies that accepted homosexuality and how that acceptance was strangely followed by the implosion of their society.
well I don't think I did miss that point... only my friend didn't find that implosion all that strange, and he was most certainly speaking in current terms
The loss of values, morality and integrity has lead to this acceptance. No society without moral absolutes will survive indefinetly.
To believe that the collapse of the Roman or any other empire was a result of there being gays in that society is absurd. The Roman empire lasted for hundreds of years, during which time there is no evidence to suggest that there was a change in attitude towards homosexuality. No empire can last for ever. The British empire began to collapse in the 1950s, a time when persecution of gay men in British society was at an all time high, when arrests and imprisonments of gay men was higher than at any other time in British history.
Are you seriously telling me that you cannot separate the person from their lifestyle, or choices in life? If so, than why is it if you see your favorite actor in a role you do not like, people say they hated him/her in that role. Another...you vote for the man who is to become presdent, but do not like where he stands on every issue. Do you see the pattern here?? It is very possible to care for the person, but not their lifestyle. Here is a personal example... I love my children unconditionally, but I do not care for some of my oldest sons choices. However, it does not change my love for him, but it does not mean that I have to agree/like his lifestyle.
Also, in one of your responses, you mentioned how you diagreed that being homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual being a choice. Well, not to pick sides here, but the thing about theories/ideas is that unless they are backed by FACTS, they are nothing more than trumped up opinions (and there is absoluetely nothing wrong with that). However, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if one bleieves that it is a choice, no one has the right to tell them that they are wrong. When reading your reply to Kurt, you strongly come across (even though you did not actually say it) as having some facts that no one else has discovered yet. Therefore, it seems to me that stating "in your opinion" is fine, but anything else (unless you have facts) is unacceptable.
disagreed*
Hi Critical Thinker,
Thank you for your comments. I am not saying that it is not possible to separate a person from their behavior, but I am saying that when you reject a person's identity, THEY will often perceive it as a rejection of them. Sexual identity is much more than a "lifestyle" whether you believe it is a choice or not.
I do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Of course that is just my own personal opinion, based on the FACT that I did not choose to be heterosexual. I assume that there are others like me, who were simply attracted to the opposite sex, but clearly there are others, such as yourself, who were attracted to both and therefore had to choose.
How wrong you are (assuming is almost as bad as believing/proclaiming theories with no hard facts to back them)Karen. Not that it matters, but I am in my final year of college pursuing my Ph.D. in psychology. The only thing I am trying to get across here is that there are so many theories floating around, how can anyone be sure if it is a choice or something we are all born with? You seem pretty adamant about sexual orientation being a choice. Therefore, maybe you would care to explain why some people know right away whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, yet others can marry and have children, and than one day...change. It amazes me that you could form an opinion about me from the two posts that I made, but let me clarify something, ever since I was old enough, I have been interested in females. There has never been any interest for me in males, other than friends. However, please go on assuming, and see just how far that takes you in life.
Critical, I am not a journalist or reporter. I am not bound by reporting facts... in fact, this article was clearly one stating my opinion. Everyone makes assumptions, and it is only "as bad as believing/proclaiming theories with no hard facts to them", if one is writing an unbiased report. So, I made an assumption that you must have made a choice about your sexual orientation because you clearly believe that it is not inborn. My opinion, that it is not a choice, is based on the FACT that there was no choice for me to make.
Still "reporting" my beliefs here, I would say that most everyone knows who they are attracted to at an early age. Some become confused because of society telling them that it is not "normal" to be attracted to the same sex. They try to be "normal" and deny their orientation. Others are indeed attracted equally to both sexes and some of those will make a choice. I don't think that those who marry, have children do not one day change. Rather, one day they "come out".
Since you yourself were not given a choice about who you would be attracted to, why do you believe that others do? How easy would it have been for you to engage in a sexual relationship with a man? I simply cannot fathom choosing.
When you "advise" others, it no longer becomes just your opinion. However, I will no longer engage in this conversation, because it is going absolutely no where, and I refuse to discuss psychology with someone who may or may not have any qualifications to do so. Therefore, you are free to continue expressing your opinions to whomever you wish. As far as what you mentioned about "coming out", think about what you said for a minute. What kind of sexual orientation allows a person to become happily married for 23 years, and one day it just hits him that he prefers men? So, you are honestly saying that for 23 years he subdued/hid his true sexual orientation? You said you cannot fathom changing...hmmmm, even when you do not chose, you are still making a choice. have a wonderful life, and God bless you.
choose* (dang, I am old and it is getting late).
One last thing, you do not have to be bound by facts, but when you are posting on specific topics, it is a good idea to completely inderstand what you are talking about. For instance, if I was to say that 3/4 of all latino men born this year would grow up to be homosexual...would you not like facts to back that up?
If I were reporting statistics, I would certainly cite my source Critical LOL. What do you mean about my qualifications? Do you honestly believe that because you are studying psychology that you are "qualified" to tell someone whether or not they chose their sexual orientation? I have a background in psychology, but that no more qualifies me than it does you. Psychology is ALL theory. When you are dealing with people, there are no absolutes, as I'm sure you'll recall from your first year. I do KNOW that I did not choose my sexual orientation. That I can report as an absolute fact.
As to my giving "advice", do please try to remember where you are - you are on hubpages, not Dr Phil, and I thank you for your blessing for allowing me to continue to express my opinion ;). As to the hypothetical man who after 23 years of marriage, suddenly discovers that he prefers men... perhaps he has always been bi-sexual but denied that part of himself? Again, we'd have to ask him.
You said, "even when you do not chose, you are still making a choice"... (I'm sure you meant choose). Once again, this is indicative of you having some personal experience with choosing. The choice I made was whether or not to act on my feelings, not whether I would have them. This is where choice comes into play. I personally cannot fathom choosing to go against my nature and engage in a sexual relationship with another woman. I could have chose to experiment, but it is quite simply not an experiment I have never had any desire or inclination to undertake. I am of the opinion that those who make a choice are those who are attracted to both sexes equally.
I could also have chose not to act on my attraction to men, I could not have stopped those feelings from occurring - they are biological (a science that is based in fact).
When did it become " normal" or acceptable for men to kiss, scr*w each other in the b*tt and suck on each others weewees ? Normal ? Think about it.
Karen, the main problem with the argument of a flipped society is that you wouldn't be in existence. Two homosexuals can't reproduce children. A second problem is the notion of a predetermined sexuality.
If sexuality is predetermined it begs the question who determined it? Since nature hasn't been found to be the primary cause of homosexuality, any call upon nature, is in my opinion an attempt by a homosexual to shield themselves from any kind of moral responsibility for their actions
I would argue that for something to be innate to an organism that feature would have to benefit the organism. Breathing is innate...Seeing is innate.. Sexual drives are innate, but that makes heterosexuality the norm because the functional purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce children. Since homosexuality has no functional purpose, it can't be said to be innate to a human being?
People don't go around have sex all the time. People are not their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a small part of the complex makeup of a human being, ergo it does not define the entirety of a person. I do believe that this gives credence to the belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder where a person's sense of self worth is wrapped up in their disorder...homosexuality. For instance, why is it the mother hates the way YOU ARE, rather than dislikes your abnormal behavior?
It's fair for a person not to understand the causes for homosexuality, but to jump to the conclusion they were born that way is a long haul and a copout. I agree that from the onset of their life they may not have decided to be homosexual, but any voluntary choice to engage in homosexual activity is a choice.
Sexual orientation can be thought of as an ongoing sexual preference. I don't believe it's fixed in the least. It is a best a variable. Bisexuals are a prime example. If I can choose to reject homosexuality then why is the homosexual exempt from such rejection? If a person was born a homosexual wouldn't they also be born without reproductive functions? After all, why would they need them. If by being born gay a person has a greater propensity towards homosexuality, does that mean they have to give in?
I also disagree that other adults shouldn't be held to a standard. We expect other adults to stop at traffic lights. We expect other adults to respect the standard of personal property, so why, in the case of homosexuality, as it pertains to society, is it unreasonable to expect another adult to hold to a sexual norm?
If anyone believes in God, than they cannot condone homosexuallity. It is contrary to everything the bible says and even in the natural world. I believe the problem lies with the definition of love. Love does not
necessarily have anything to do with sexuallity, but it does have everything to do with acceptance of a human being. Therefore, this verse best describes what homosexuallity is and what to do about it: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
It is perfectly rational to love a person who is a homosexual and yet not accept their sexuality as normal. A great many people actually do this, so this is a fact for many people in the world. To be normal something must be fit for purpose and it is obvious that male and female compliment each other in every way. It is argued that there is homosexuality in nature, but there are many aberrations in nature. There is also incest in nature, cross breeding between species and the eating of your own young, etc. The homosexuality in nature tends to be fleeting and not permanent. There is no proof either that people are born that way and there is a physical basis, but much proof that it is learnt.I deplore the hatred of homosexuals, but also the hatred by homosexuals of those who do not accept their sexuality as normal. As soon as you disagree you are subject to infantile abuse with the accusation that you are uneducated and unintelligent. I have never come across an example of this so called "education" that gives enlightenment and leads to acceptance of homosexuality. In reality it does not exist.
I'm a Christian. A pastor, in fact. Just piping in to say that as someone who gladly gives my and my family's time, efforts, money, food, clothing (and not just the "discard" stuff)... to others for the sole purpose of convincing them that they are worth all I have to give, it saddens me to be lumped in with the stereotype "Christian" who is so unforgiving and ignorant. True, there is a hateful outspokenness to many who claim Christianity, but it does not warrant blanket statements. It's interesting to me that when a "Christian" makes an ignorant statement, so many are quick to slam Christianity and blame it for intolerance, yet when an Atheist (just chose at random, no intolerance projected toward Atheists) makes an ignorant statement few will run from Atheism shouting "Injustice!". Something to consider when the truth is under scrutiny. Peace out, friends. Be nice to each.
Final thought as I won't be back because I just happened upon this thread and was spurred to read on out of a sad heart, it is my faith and belief in Jesus and The Bible that makes me love people. A true Christian can't do otherwise.
Thank you, this was a good article
There must be anchors for constant stability. That is what the Word of God is(The Bible). If you have not read the entire Bible--you really should. God wanted us to see how HE looked at things--wouldn't you want to know what the genius of the galaxy thought(That is what God is)?
God is very specific what he thinks about homosexuality---read Judges 19/20/21.
It's a lot more accurate than Obama Care(2900 pages-which is about control)
Lgali 3 years ago
This is big change in our society everybody is now equal, still this is a taboo in some places, Good hub