In response to LGBT Awareness article- A letter to the Editor
Nov. 25, 2011
This story assumes that all students struggling with same-sex attraction always must be identified as gay or lesbian, no exceptions.
What about those young people who, despite this struggle, desire to obey the Christian prohibition against homosexual acts? Is there any place for them in the homosexualist agenda now on display at Jasper High School? Where is the support for Christian youth who desire to remain true to their Catholic Christian faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and that same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered? These students will not receive that kind of support from the gay community, which is actively seeking to overthrow the traditional understanding of gender, marriage, and procreation.
In the interest of true fairness, Jasper High School should allow a similar organization on campus which is committed to the formation and reinforcement of traditional male-female gender identity, in order to support those who desire to affirm in their lives and decisions the biological gender they were born with.
Angela McDonald, Huntingburg
I embrace what the school is attempting to do. They are raising awareness about discrimination gay teens face. This is regardless of any struggle they may have attempting to follow a Christian doctrine's prohibition on homosexuality.
I say "a" Christian doctrine because there are many and not all have a prohibition on homosexuality. For instance, Anglicans have gay priests and will marry gay couples.
A gay student determined to embrace his religion's doctrine regarding homosexuality should look to his church for guidance as our schools cannot be prepared to address all religion's doctrines correctly even if only Christian. The school can teach tolerance and to embrace people's differences, especially those differences that hurt no one else.
In short, I am saying a gay catholic student struggling not to be gay already has a support structure, his or her church.
Regardless, there is no agenda from the LGBT community except acceptance and they are far from attempting to "overthrow" any description of "traditional" marriage. Heterosexuals have done this well enough on our own from no-fault divorce and affairs to just-friends and elderly couples marrying and not procreating… and while I am no fan of people breaking their vows to each other, I for one think most of these changes are good. After all, my sister, who is married, is determined to never have children.
I forgot to mention…
I am rather certain any organization can form a group at the school provided they do not discriminate against students and can find a teacher sponsor. I am aware of high schools having a variety of no-compete clubs: Christian Student Aliances, Secular Student Alliances, Chess Clubs, Chemistry Clubs, Math Clubs. When I was a kid there was a programming club…it didn't last (it was 1987 and the teacher was clueless).
JHS may already have a Student Christian Group that addresses your point…then again it may not because many of our churches have youth clubs already.
The two replies seem to make a better case for the point of the original letter, if unintentional. As was aptly cited, there are churches with support groups that align themselves with various "Christian" religions and practices, acceptance, etc…same as was cited for more traditional, mainstream Christian/Catholic churches, etc Therefore, schools ought to either remain completely free (out) of this, or be ready to allow exactly the same rules, rights and privileges for each group, as mirrored for their respective focus.
Problem is, Joseph – and I really don't know how you can make such a statement of irresponsible assessment – but in case you either haven't noticed or have chosen to ignore, deny or bury your head in the sand, there IS indeed blatant and wisespread discrimination – a form of reverse discrimination I suppose – if "no agenda from the LGBT community" and their well-intentioned and politically correct supporters (including straights, btw) aimed at taking Jesus out and letting S&G in.
I do agree with your sad but factual assessment on hetrosexual marriage and how we're doing our own good job in messing it up. As for the above, it's best not for the schools, period.
You say, "Therefore, schools ought to either remain completely free (out) of this, …"
The schools cannot ignore the bullying. It is happening on schools campuses. They have to mitigate this. While, the schools and support groups cannot address every possible religious doctrine they can teach acceptance. We shouldn't allow bullying of gay couples any more than we would allow bullying of interracial couples.
You ended the sentence with "or be ready to allow exactly the same rules, rights and privileges for each group, as mirrored for their respective focus."
I addressed that as well. In my high school most any group could be formed with a teacher sponsor. The JHS website is down so I cannot determine what student groups are out there.
Where gay students can get support, they should. A gay catholic student looking not to be gay can look to church. A gay catholic student comfortable being gay, may not be able to… it is in this case the S&G alliance could help.
However, there is a claim of aiming to remove Jesus and it just is not true. Not all Christian religions teach prohibition on homosexuality. You cannot claim the S&G alliance is doing something "against Jesus" when his believers are not in agreement that it is "against Jesus." I personally cannot recall any scripture about homosexuality that actually is quoting Jesus.
Regardless, I don't know if I can take your claim of "reverse" discrimination seriously when JHS forms one S&G Alliance and some folks are complaining but I count nearly 20 churches in Jasper with an attendance I am sure pales anything the S&G alliance might receive.
Prah prah yuh
why?
Well said, Joseph.
I would, however, like to point out to Angela that this article did not "assume" anything. It was a story about an event to bring awareness towards intolerance and its effects on the LGBT community, not an assumption that there are no young adults struggling with a sexual identity crisis.
If we want to take a look at an attack on the institution of marriage, we need not look at homosexuals but heterosexuals like Rush Limbaugh(on wife # 5) and Kim Kardashian who seem to make a farce out of marriage.
The problems do not originate in one particular group, as it exists in BOTH, and statistically, more in heterosexual relationships.
I believe strongly in Christian principles, which is why I have never, ever understood why Christians care so much about the topic of gay marriage. If you view it to be a sin, it is THEIR sin, not yours.
Also, I've always questioned why things such as the following are not taken seriously but homosexuality is, because it seems to me we like to overlook things that we ourselves and people that are our friends are at fault for and instead condemn those who are not like us and that we are incapable of understanding:
MARK 10:1-12
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
I don't see us executing anyone over adultery, do you? So why do we need to stop the LGBT community from peacefully seeking it's right to marry since we have thrown out other biblical commands and ideals?
It's called selective biblical literalism.
We're all so quick to overlook God's love for ALL of his children and instead point nasty fingers at our brother's and sister's who are not like us.
The LGBT community is not seeking to overthrow any sort of gender, marriage, or procreation traditions. It is seeking to overthrow intolerance, ignorance, and discrimination against it's basic human right for each human to LOVE whomever he or she so chooses.
There is NOT ONE single Christian teaching in the Bible against homosexual LOVE.
Have a nice day,
Dakotah Asbell
Proud Christian heterosexual female,
Jasper, Indiana
As indicated if you read my reply, I agree that mainstream, traditional hetrosexual Christians are, sadly, way too often poor examples where marriage is concerned, no matter what socio-economic classes they're from. Also, no one – not I nor anything I've indicated unless wrongly assumed and/or interpreted as such out of context and for your position – is in any way whatsoever suggesting that bullying is acceptable for any reason. It's not, period.
The cruxt of the issue for me is: There's nothing whatsoever wrong with peaceful demonstrations and support groups for the LGBT community – but not through schools, in schools, school-supported-sponsored, etc. Let the individuals, parents, friends and/or churches handle this, and I really believe that's what the original letter was primarily about, though we all have a tendancy to stand on our soapboxes a bit too much.
That said, I'm not sure which bible you read and study but there are NUMEROUS references, instruction -teaching and admonition against homosexuality in my bibles (NIV and King James), but that's another story of out-of-context and/or maligned interpretation for another time. I might add, however, lest anyone interpret the sin of homosexual behavior and those who practice it or support it, as reasons to be intolerant, bullying, or otherwise less than Christ-like toward and against such persons, it is wholly against true Christianity and teaching to do so. Hate the sin (behavior, actions) but love the sinner (a human created in God's image)…it's true, and anything beyond such (ostracism, hurt, bullying, etc) is plain wrong.
I complete disagree with you wanting to keep the support out of the schools. A number of the LGBT participants in the school had to lie to their parents about where they were going that day. Many don't have LGBT friends who can truly understand what they are going for. Churches are not as welcoming, and many students are agnostic or atheist and not willing to put trust in the people of the church (not saying the people wouldn't help, but just looking at it from an outsider's view), and letting the individual handle it themselves is exactly what can lead to suicide. A school is supposed to be a safe place that students can feel accepted. Schools of interests clubs that span from language, to culinary arts, to other minority groups to help people feel a since of community such as African American groups, religious groups (not practicing in the school), and others. The school has the resources (building, faculty, information) where a student-run group such as a GSA can work and grow. The school is the perfect and most suiting place to have a group such as this especially since it is where the growth of tolerance and acceptance needs to occur the most. Any school group would be optional to students as well and be restricted to the rules of the school as far as protest and outreach. Plus, a governing law exist that a school must allow every "club" or no "clubs" at all. So boycott this group all you want, but if this doesn't happen, then goodbye to student council, community service groups, and anti-drug/drinking awareness.
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
If you ignore these, you're spot on, Dakotah
I think you missed the more important point, Allen.
Why do folks persist in quoting Lev 20:13 and not Lev 20:10 for their moral guidance?
It reads, ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
Why is it more important to uphold the "law" regarding gays and not the one regarding adulterers?
Plus if we need to refer to the Old Testament for what laws god wants us to keep, we are going to be punishing a lot of people and changing the way we do a lot of things.
But I have to ask, what does Jesus say about homosexuality in the bible?
Well, i certainly wasnt suggesting we murder homosexuals, i'm just reading the book back to you. It's in YOUR holy book. If you take issue with ANYTHING in there, you ought to take it up with the big man.
You X-tians have never been much for consistency, have you? Why don't you just get rid of the Old Testament if it's inconvenient? The only thing you'll miss out on is Genesis and the 10 commandments.
If you're only going to use the words of Jesus as your holy text, i don't see how on earth anyone can not be a socialist though. "As you have done to the least of these, you have done unto me" or some tripe like that. The old testament god was at least a badass, if a total bigot. Jesus sounds like a hippie.
Allen, I am not Christian.
I thought you were quoting verses that supported your position. I must have misunderstood the purpose of your comment.
Art, what is this "gay agenda" that is supposedly using bullying and suicide as a base to promote?
Break it down for us, piece by piece.
Figured I'd ask straight-out since you are deliberately ignoring Tommy's numerous attempts at having you explain it.
Also Allen, I said "homosexual LOVE" not homosexual sex. Why are you citing verses about homosexual sex? That does not apply towards love. One can love without sex, though the two often come hand-in-hand. Still, not in every instance.
I'm not ignoring those, I'm acknowledging the fact there is no word against homosexual love. The concept is simple.
I seem to have posted the comment towards Art in the wrong place, my apologies.
Dakota, The view that we, Christians, do not kill law breakers for any reason is because of the coming of Christ and the adoption of a new covenant between God and humanity. Loosely the old covenant allowed the death of an animal to cover their most of their sins until Christ came. Many sins were to be too bad and far too harmful not only to the person but they endangered the blood line of the coming Christ. To prevent the total decline of the Jewish people these people were to be cut off entirely. The new covenant is the same as the old covenant in that there is still sin by transgression of the law but the sacrifice is Jesus, He paid the price for our sin so that we do not have to pay with our own life for our own transgressions. Since Jesus came we no longer need to protect a race or a civilization any longer therefore we are left to our own demise.
We no long take JUDGMENT in our own hands to determine life and death of the transgressor but we leave that decision to be made at the end by a Just God.
If we can not control ourselves and the lusts of the flesh to the point of even our own destruction then He will not intervene for good or bad until the end of time.
The end of time, as I see it, will be when the hope of lost souls accepting Christ ends. Once our civilization finds terminal velocity, so to speak, when even the very elect will fall to ways of the coming Godless society and all hope of people accepting Christ is over then the time will end.
Sorry Joseph. I repeated much of what you had said, but I've been busy today and just skimmed this conversation. Thank you for your support, and you are correct in many of your points about the school having to allow it. It is the law.
Sometimes the same thing must be said a thousand different ways before it can make sense.
After reading all of these posts I have to ask what is the reason that we as a society need a separate group to raise awareness for bullying or suicide? Does it really make a difference why someone is bullied? There should not be any bullying of any kind for any reason. It is clear that bullying causes depression and some people go so far as to commit suicide because they lose all hope. If there was a group that raises awareness for bullying and depression and suicide in general then everyone, regardless of their religious or personal affiliation or lifestyle could all come together to support "the cause". But it seems that by mixing this cause with LGBT or any other group or cause it takes away from the real purpose, which I think is bullying = depression = suicide.
You are correct. It makes no difference why someone is bullied, but knowing why helps address the problem. Bullying in general is handled by the school.
What is unfortunate is that a significant number of folks think that gay bullying is just fine and is "their own fault" even if they find bullying wrong.
From what I have seen, an S&G Alliance attempts to raise awareness while teaching acceptance and tolerance for those that are different (not necessarily "just gay" but orientation is their starting point). [Disclaimer: I did not go to this thing and do not claim to know their specific message, but have been to others.]
As I said, your point is valid, sometimes you have to atomize the approach and hope the message sticks and is applied to all groups.
Exactly Joseph.
Joseph & Tommy please understand I am not saying that S & G don't have right to assemble but rather to assemble for this purpose and mixing in LGBT agendas only divides the support and narrows the field to primarily S & G people and alienating those who are not supportive of this life style. I just think it is not the wisest means to stop bullying or suicide especially if the aim is to raise awareness in the general public i.e. Those not supportive o the S & G lifestyle.
I didn't think you were saying that at all. We just disagree on approach.
As Sarah and I have made clear to you before Art, this campaign is not just focused on suicide and bullying. It will cover many other issues as we do more events. The next one we are planning will be taking a look into LGBT lifestyles as to teacher through example what it means to be LGBT. Yes, this event we used bullying and suicide as are focus, and of course, we agree that one should take the message we were promoting into other aspects of their life and who they discriminate against, but this is very much focused on the LGBT community with aspects that will bleed into other areas. If someone is not in support of the LGBT community I suggest they come to these events to become educated, but Raise Up will not be accommodating those who want to focus the message of our events onto a different aspect because they don't like LGBT involved in the message.
Tommy, make sure the next event date is posted out there (and a website if you have it). I would like to be there and show my support.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Raise-Up/1720898495…
This is our Facebook page. Also, if you want to email at raiseuplgbt@gmail.com, I can put you on the mailing list.
The first event we didn't promote mostly because we didn't want protests, but the next event, if what we are planning comes through, we should have promotions in the paper and what not.
Tommy, whether something has been made clear is largely up to the one seeking to understand not the teacher and the primary thrust of these meetings was not made clear until these last several statements were made in this venue. What is clear is that LGBT is all about pressuring society into accepting the lifestyle. The observation could be made that there does not appear to be any major difference in the suicide rates for your group compared to any other group like poor, overweight people, to demand that people outside you group should be made aware of. If the suicide rate for your group were 2 or 3 times the rate of any other group then I think your purpose would be legitimate. Since this is not the case, you are just using suicide as a launching pad to raise awareness for your lifestyle and not bullying or suicide in general. The idea is to take a neutral topic, that everyone shares like bullying or suicide, and piggyback your real motive into it thereby gaining support from society who would otherwise not listen to argument for the gay lifestyle.
As off-base as this comment sounded at the get-go, the statistics point to exactly what your conclusion indicated.
I would love to be able to verify some LGBT statistics regarding prejudice and victimization but my current location blocks LGBT news websites…and no I am not joking.
I would love to see it
I guess you missed the irony of attempting to research statistics about LGBT victimization and discrimination followed by defeat because the sites that would likely have the information are blocked because they are LGBT related.
Regardless, I was not making a claim that you were right or wrong. I just wanted to find some reasonable research about it. If I recall correctly, the CDC does not typically track the sexual orientation of suicide victims and I am not really convinced they could do so accurately. (Not every gay is out).
However, I did finally discover a few articles:
A 1989 study by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concluded gay teens are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide. I believe the same study predicts that as many as 30% of all teenage suicide deaths are due to sexual orientation but could not conclude such because many of the students did not date.
Another article (http://www.parentdish.com/2011/04/19/gay-teen-suicide/) reports that gay teen suicide rates are lower in communities that are more supportive. It also reports that as many as 25% of gay students attempt suicide. Only 4% of straight students do.
There is very little existing data about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. For that reason and many others, it is very difficult to know exactly how many young LGBTQ people attempt suicide every year. The below data are among some of the best research statistics available about LGBTQ youth and suicide attempts.
LGB youth are four times more likely, and questioning youth are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide as their straight peers. (2011 CDC, “Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12”).
LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are up to 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide than LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection (2009 Family Acceptance Project™).
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24 and accounts for 12.0% of the deaths every year in that age group (2009 CDC, “Suicide: Facts at a Glance”).
Nearly half of young transgender people have seriously thought about taking their lives and one quarter report having made a suicide attempt (2007 Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior,“Transgender youth and life threatening behaviors”).
Two-thirds of calls to the Trevor Lifeline originate from non-urban or rural areas (2011 The Trevor Project).
http://www.thetrevorproject.org/Suicide%20Resourc…
Yes, suicides and bullying were chosen by Sarah and I as the first meeting because it is something that most people can relate to and be moved by. This was not done in a heartless way to diminish the stories or glorify the situation to move a gay agenda. To think that this was used to launch a gay agenda is just absurd. It was used because it is less forward and abstract to a small town compared to other LGBT topics. A gay agenda assumes more of a political drive, but Raise Up is quite the opposite. While a political shift may occur in favor of the LGBT community, Raise Up is focusing more on educating the community on what it means to be LGBT and the hidden aspects of the community that one may not recognize. Never will we be pushing people to change religious believes or their political stance based on our events, but just to explore a different aspect of the world that may be taboo or unknown to you. While you think we are tricking people into a belief system (which sounds a lot like religion so you might want to protest that as well), what we are doing is providing a means of education that is viable to the audience at hand, like a good teacher would do. Obviously, in talking to you, most of your protest of Raise Up comes from a lack of education or misinterpretation. And while looking at suicide statics, you will not find an overwhelming rate for LGBT compared to other causes, but what you will find is that most stem from a form of depression that can be generated through all the causes you mentioned. Raise Up never claimed to be more important than other issues or stated that the LGBT suicide rate was so extreme that it needed to be placed in front of every other cause. What we did do is show people the extreme consequences of their intolerance or non-accepting natures, examined through an LGBT lens. One point out to that LGBT suicides stem from the depression developed through the inability to change and the loss of what to do in that lack of change as society is trying to force them to be straight. While poor or overweight people may feel the same inability to change, most the bullying done is focused on outward appearance while LGBT people feel more attacked in a morality and humanistic stand point that is harder to change, but in saying that, I am trying to diminish the psychology of poor or overweight suicides since I don't have information it but to make a opinion I would say it is a whole different psychology than that of an LGBT so placing it in the same event would not make sense with our message though as I stated before, the mindset established by our message would bleed into other issue on how we treat people. Having individual groups focus on individual issues, is way less overwhelming in educating people on how they treat people than a large group saying ACCEPT EVERYONE!
I'm not trying to diminish*
I find it interesting that when someone disagrees with you, you find them "lacking in education." The problem with the LGBT's that they want, indeed demand, that everyone accept them and their chosen lifestyles.
I agree bullying is not acceptable for any reason. But people who believe homosexuality is wrong are people too and should be allowed to express it in a reasonable way.
Stacy, I agree with your response. However i think you will find that conservative Christian view points are considered narrow minded and judgmental even by most of the people you may be attending church with every week, let alone the community at large. LGBT think they somehow in a minority but I actually challenged them to a test if we can figure out a way to test the public perception anonymously.
There's a big difference in believing something is wrong, and believing something is wrong based on misinformation, which is what most of the arguments that are thrown on LGBT rights is about. Not understanding gender identity and sexuality. Assuming what a gay lifestyle is. Interruptions of the Bible. That's what Sarah and I do here with Raise Up. Educate. Just as kids sit in school and learn about evolution (which they can take as fact or not). There are plenty of reasons why people believe being LGBT is wrong, but I challenge them to ask themselves about why they think that. For instance, I don't believe Christianity is right. But, I've been been Christian and agnostic so I've educated myself, to some extend, about what it means to be Christian and I completely understand why they believe the things they do and I can respect someone for being Christian though I don't agree with it. And I would really like to see how you would react if certain rights were taken from you, I think you would probably demand them back too. And "the problem with the LGBT's", love how we get scrutinized for grouping Christians into a melting pot.
Also need to address "chosen lifestyles". Let's not assume anything here. and I don't think anyone is stopping your from expressing your opinions in a reasonable way, but just realize that when it's happening on a post about the LGBT community that I'm going to stand up for it.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE00B401F6D…
I did fail to see the irony but if your IT guy us homophobic then I get it.
The study that shows a 25% to 4% comparison is comparing gay to everyone else not another group like black or poor or overweight teens.
But my main point is that the LGBT movement is primarily interested in promoting their lifestyle using bullying and suicide as their platform to garner the sympathetic support of the public in general.
At least that is what Tommy has made clear to me.
Originally I thought it was just bullying and suicide among LGBT but it's actually much broader in scope and the motive has shifted, in my opinion, from raising awareness about suicide to the gay agenda in general.
Did you even read my comment? "Motive has shifted" how would you even begin to know what the original point of this program was about. You really need to identify this gay agenda that we are proposing as well. I completely outlined our mission above. What you choose to interpret from that involves your own issues that I can't control, but I have stated what we stand for so be against what that is but don't try to tell us what we are doing.
Thank you for Janet and Joseph for providing stats for something that doesn't even need to be looked at to know that Raise Up is pursuing a much needed issue.
Janet, LGBTQ Suicide comes primarily from being rejected by family do to their gay preference.
So we are to automatically assume that the gay orientation is good and the standards and or morals that have guided the family unit and social order for hundred and thousands of years are now wrong?
What do we as a society use as our moral compass?
I would assume the most standard answer will be "so long as they don't hurt anyone it's all right with me".
Has this become our guiding light for our society?
Is this the rule that will shape our future?
If so what will the end of this be for our society?
A brief collection of "traditional" marriages (the basis of a family unit) throughout history:
Polygamy – Having more than one spouse at a time, such as one man with several wives or one woman with several husbands. (outlaWED in the US in 1862)
Polygyny – having several wives at the same time
Polyandry – having several husbands at once
Polyamory – the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.
Endogamy – The requirement to marry someone who belongs to his or her own social group, family, clan, or tribe.
Exogamy – The requirement by law to have to marry someone from another geographical area, social group, family, clan, or tribe.
Arranged Marriage – practice in which someone other than the couple getting married makes the selection of the persons to be wed, meanwhile curtailing or avoiding the process of courtship.
Forced marriage – a marriage in which one or both of the parties is married without his or her consent or against his or her will
Monogamy – The practice of remaining faithful, sexually, to one person at a time. Also refers to having one spouse at a time.
Serial Monogamy – yes this was meant to be funny.
Same sex "marriage" has existed since ancient greece at least (http://books.google.com/books?id=hR0_CoNj6GAC&pg=RA1-PA16&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false).
This article is also interesting: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/ma…
Once again, I would love to know the sources of your thought. "LGBTQ suicide comes primarily from being rejected by family" – This statement obviously is in need of more education on your part.
Art, the research and link were posted so people who want resources now have a site to find more education.
By traditional I am sure you are not meaning typical or usual or normal or common because even in the most liberal societies this gay relationships were not the norm nor were a majority of the rest of these relationships.
Note that I used "traditional" in quotes when I used it. I wasn't really trying to say much about gay marriage.
I was trying to illustrate that the "traditional" family you describe that begins with a marriage out of love was not always a common practice over the thousands of years you mention. Marriages were traditionally (no quotes) a means of positioning powering, money or politics.
Regardless, gay marriage could only be common if there is a lot of gay people. Typically gay people don't make a significant part of any population so it is unlikely that gay marriage will ever be common.
But you are wrong when you say that a majority of those are not common. Arranged marriages were the norm for thousands of years and still is in some parts of the world. As well, marrying outside one's tribe (or religion) is still a common concern for many religious folks be they jewish or catholic, etc. Finally, polygyny has more than a few mentions in the bible.
That being said, being rare does not make something not normal it just makes it rare. After all, red hair is rare but I don't think we would describe it as not normal.
Tommy, one if your people told me " the point was to raise awareness of suicide in LGST".
I did not make it up nor am I trying to tell you what your agenda is or was.
Perhaps you people were not quite sure what the full scope of your agenda was.
But you have already made it clear that it is to use the suicide and bullying platform to promote the gay agenda to our society to make it more acceptable for people to be LGBT. I believe I understand your motive perfectly clear now.
Yes I'm sure one of the people did tell you that because the event held was indeed for that but it is one of the many messages of Raise Up as a whole but not the mission. And you obviously refuse to see the clear mission here after this statement "But you have already made it clear that it is to use the suicide and bullying platform to promote the gay agenda to our society to make it more acceptable for people to be LGBT." NO NO NO! I have already typed a detailed description of our mission that you apparently did not read or refused to see clearly. Raise Up is not using suicide and bullying to promote a gay agenda. As I've asked you before, define what you think the gay agenda to be, and also, it's clearly stated that we are using a variety of LGBT topics in future events to EDUCATE people about a community that has misnomers that lead to inequality. We are leaving what happens with this education to the person at hand.
Tommy, I am sorry you must have missed where Janet sited the 2009 family acceptance project findings on this subject matter.
I would think we need a study to know that if a gay person is contemplating suicide it is because someone or some people are not accepting if their life style and I would also stand to reason that the the persons closest friends and family would cause the most pain if they were not accepting.
This does not seem like a thing that I or anyone else would need to be educated about. But then again these are indeed changing times.
Art, I don't know what you're still not understanding. We had an event to raise awareness about the LGBT community. As our focus for this specific event we chose bullying and suicide. We never claimed that suicide affected LGBT people more than any other group. But, if even just one person committed suicide because of their sexual orientation, then the public needs to be made aware and educated. We picked a cause that mattered to us and went about it in a way that we felt would be most effective. Tommy said all of this already, but apparently it didn't sink in the first time. The goal of Raise Up is to educate the public about the LGBT community and, yes, we want acceptance. But regardless of our "agenda", what is wrong with the public accepting the LGBT community? What if gay marriage becomes "traditional"? What harm would come from that?
Joseph, point taken.
Sarah, I think I got it awhile ago an I stated what I got to Tommy just before your post and what I said is very close to what you just said that is not sinking in.
So I am not sure what you think I am not getting?
The issue that none of you will touch and I must have asked this question no less than 100 times in the last 3 weeks.
What are we as a society using for a guide to determine right and wrong?
This will determine if there is something wrong with LGBT.
Please respond to this question.
As a society we should use the consequences of actions to determine right and wrong. As there are no negative consequences to being LGBT, there is no reason I can see for it to be wrong.
Tommy, if I was told that by one of your people then my first impression was not entirely correct because of missrepresentation not by because my inability to co
Comprehend like you have suggested.
As I have stated already we all agree now that your motive is to raise awareness of the homosexual lifestyle.
The problem is that I see your method to be a bit tricky to use bullying and suicide as a platform to promote the primary agenda which is a general acceptance of the gay lifestyle.
Of couse you would not see the coerrsion in this and I don't expect you to but I am pointing it out for others to consider.
Your initial confusion may have stemmed from the lack of knowledge from one of our volunteers , but I am made clear on here way more than need be. Correction, LGBT not homosexual. And once again you have to read clear enough, bullying and suicide was what the first event was about, but this will not be a consistant promotion in the events as they will tackle other issues and aspects of the LGBT lifestyle. So, I don't see coercion in displaying a facet of the LGBT lifestyle to EDUCATE people. You have to know your audience. Tricking them would to have some form of ultimatum at hand much like a religion does with aspects of hell and heaven to persuade people into a way of thinking. What we did at our event was tell true stories and urged people to listen and educate themselves which is how all Raise Up events will be. There was no DO THIS NOW! Or Funny ways of wording things to get people on the side of the LGBT issues. Much like a teacher, we are provide the public with information that they can choose to do with as they wish. Now as LGBT activists, Sarah and I do hope this will generate a policial swing in the public, but this is no where in the mission of the Raise Up. You are assuming a lot in your statements and bleeding things together.
Sarah, could elaborate on that point and give an example of how you see this working to mold a right or a wrong in our society.
I covet your response.
For example, murder of an innocent person causes the person to lose their life and it brings harm and sadness to the family, so murder is "wrong". Again, there's no negative consequences stemming from being LGBT, so there's no reason to consider it "wrong".
Sarah, so can we say the rule for determining right and wrong would be…..
So long as we don't actually hurt someone in a physical manner we can do what ever we want.
Is this correct?
I like what Paul Krugman said (and he was not the first):
"We should try to create the society that each of us would want if we didn't know in advance who we'd be." (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/more-thoughts-on-equality-of-opportunity/)
If you want to dig deeper into this, examine the concept of "Veil of Ignorance" by John Harsanyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance).
No, there are clearly other ways to hurt people other than physically. And not every moral judgement will be clear. But we have nothing else to base morality on other than the consequences of our actions. But, for what we are talking about here, which is the LGBT community, it is clear. I'll say it a third time, no negative consequences come from being LGBT so there is no logical way to condemn it.
Sarah please stay with this for a few more rounds.
We are trying to estAblish a rule that will determine what is right or wrong socially.
So that no one is hurt physically or emotionally or mentally then what ever you want to do is okay.
Is that the rule that we can use as our moral and ethical guide?
It's hard to say because someone being "hurt" is subjective, but for the most part, yes. But, I'd appreciate it if you got to the point and how it relates to this event.
Sarah, you and Tommy are troopers, i may not agree with everything you have to say, but for the sake of your cause, you should stick with this. Art appears to be using the Socratic Method (whether he's aware of it or not) to engage in a sort of dialectical argument instead of the formal debate argument you're probably expecting.
Terms of engagement are as follows:
The person initiating and the interlocutor agree on the topic of instruction.
The interlocutor agrees to attempt to answer questions from the person
The two are willing to accept any correctly-reasoned answer. That is, the reasoning process must be considered more important than pre-conceived facts or beliefs.
The skeptic's questions should expose errors in the interlocutor's reasoning or beliefs, and the interlocutor is free to object any time an invalid conclusion is drawn
Just answer his questions, and if he makes a logical jump, tell him where you think he messed up. This kind of conversation can be infinitely valuable in getting to the core of a problem. It might look like double-talk, and it kind of can be sometimes, but if you stick with it, the logical stance will win.
Well it's hardly 4 or 5 rounds but I will make my point.
Your question was what could possibly be wrong with LGBT life style?
Okay using the same logic that you are using to defend LGBT, no negative consequences can be caused or the action is wrong.
Aren't the parents of LGBT hurt emotionally when their son or daughter oppose their wishes for them to be straight?
Therefore either the rule not to hurt anyone in any way is absurd or we always have to do what others expect of us especially when it comes serious matters.
Aren’t the parents hurt emotionally when their son or daughter doesn't grow up to be a doctor/engineer/scientist/footbal star/president?
As ridiculous as I think your example is, I will address it like this.
Isn't the child hurt when forced to be something he or she isn't because of the parents' nonacceptance?
Then who is more wrong? The child for being what he or she is or the parent forcing him to be "normal"?
When people refer to a "no harm" rule they are referring to the parties directly involved. If one of my children wanted to date a child of a different race, why should he or she be concerned with what I thought or my parents or their uncles…and how would that be any different than dating someone of the same sex?
Hey Art….our guide to right and wrong – for most people is generally the bible. The bible says that you have no right to judge anyone! Therefore you (Art) either get it, or you don't get it. If you don't "get it" then you are not a christian believer in "only God has the right to judge". Keep up the good work kids…and don't let Art bring you down. He has a real knack of that!
The bible is a terrible reference for right and wrong. But even if it weren't, what the bible prohibits is the judgment of salvation. I can't say "Kathy did this, so she's going to hell" I CAN say "Cathy robbed a bank and that is wrong" . There are also 3 explicit verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality. That's more often than bestiality.
I hate how CHRISTIANS don't know the first thing about their book.
It WOULD be wrong to say "Lance is a homosexual, therefore god will send him to hell" It is NOT wrong to consider "Are Lances actions right or wrong?" "Why are these actions considered right or wrong?" But never questioning ANYTHING ever seems to be the easier approach, doesnt it?
I don't agree with Art. Or what he's insinuating. But at least he's asking questions. That's a more admirable trait than many people will ever show. Shame on you for being so unhelpful in what COULD be great philosophical discussion.
Kathryn,
I am simply having a dialog on how do we determine what is right or wrong for our society.
Because of the biblical stance on homosexuality of any kind (Romans 1) I really can not believe you would bring the bible into this discussion but since you did…
The problem with judging is not to say something is wrong but rather to think the the one judging is better, in regards to doing "good works", than someone else and believing that "they" are better as a
person than another just because of sin or "good works".
My sin or good deeds are no better or worse than anyone else's.
We all have sinned and fallen way short of the glory if God. We all deserve to die for sinning against God and His ways and no one is above another in the area of sin or in good deeds concerning salvation.
I am not condemning anyone I am simply asking what do we use to determine moral code if we do not use the bible as our standard? If you want to use the bible as our standard then fine but I seriously doubt that anyone else in this discussion, besides you, wants to open their bibles at all let alone to start judging based on what we find in it.
Joeseph, I agree with your take but I am try to determine a hard and fast rule to determine right and wrong. If the rule is as Sarah stated, that we can not cause harm of any kind to anyone, then based on your comments, the rule can not stand.
If you are right then we must find another rule.
This what I am really trying to find. What is the rule that we are to use as a society to determine right and wrong?
I doubt there is any one rule that would suffice. But I do think the quote from Paul Krugman and the thought experiment "Veil of Ignorance" I posted earlier are a very good start.
However, I think it would be interesting if you explained how accepting LGBT usurps what you think provides the moral compass for societies, now, or at least describe what you think provides a society's moral compass. (you may have mentioned it but there a lot of posts to search through, now).
Posting the Krugman quote again for convenience:
“We should try to create the society that each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.”
Allen, this CHRISTIAN know the bible very well but I do not want this topic to be about the bible or Christian ethics. I want to know what people think we are or will use to guide moral ethics.
So far Sarah is the only one willing to offer her ideas but from previous discussions people seem to concur with her idea too. However, as I pointed out there is s huge problem if we want make this rule and that simply that someone is being hurt when a child goes against their parents wishes.
Joeseph, when trying to establish a rule there can be no exceptions or it can not be a rule.
If we give up and say who cares if we can't define the rule then we have established that there are no rules.
Do you see my point?
I don't see your point.
You are asking for one rule to define what is moral but fail to explain why it must be one rule.
Do we have one rule, now?
How do we currently determine morality?
Why is it needing to change in order to accept LGBT?
Humanity is too complex for one rule.
For example:
Imagine a train coming down the tracks and tracks are going over a cliff.
The train is carrying 100+ passengers.
You can save the passengers by pulling a switch that forces the train on a different track.
But a car with people inside is stalled on that track and will be crushed, killing those inside the car.
If you have no time to evacuate the car or stop the train.
Do you pull the switch?
If you said, yes, the next question follows.
If you could save the passengers by throwing the person next to you on the tracks, do you do it?
What is moral and not is complex. Many would say it is best to choose saving more lives than less if forced to choose by flipping a switch in the first scenario but many would disagree to do the same in the second scenario.
I always hate bringing this up because it is a really abstract concept that rarely anyone understands to fit into our world but it really does.
Essentially nothing is "wrong" or "right". They are basic connotations for the tone of an action. For example, we associate the rape of a child to be wrong because in our society children are scared and guarded and the thought of having sexual actions bestowed upon them just puts a sick feeling in our stomaches. These emotions that we apply to an action are what make it seem wrong or right, but in a society where children are brought up with less care and are free to roam at any age, the idea of child rape would not be as universally wrong than a rape happening in our community. I think this adds to Joseph's point of having multiple rules. Right now in our society, religions and the law add to our ideas of what is right or wrong. They put connotations up two concepts (right and wrong) that really don't exist. Actions are just actions.
Joseph, I would love to continue the conversation in any way you like but first I would like try to complete this current thought.
but regarding the social construct I do not believe a law can be created strictly from a social aspect that can satisfy the needs of the many. The lack of a rule will result in whatever the many can agree upon for any short period of time but this will never be defined as any kind of rule to rely upon to control the urges of a population.
Anarchy results in the the rule of the powerful eventually by force.
Tommy, I hope there never was or will be a time where it would be okay to rape a 5 year old but this leads to my point. What ever a society finds acceptable will be acceptable.
By contrast, we could establish a rule that would prevent such an action from ever taking place without being punished to the point of discouraging future perpetrators.
So on one hand we could have no rules and let a society without moral standards evolve into whateve way society takes us or we could establish laws to govern us and limit such acts.
Joseph, I am saying that there can be only one rule but I am just asking to show that if left up just to what we want we could never agree on a rule of any kind to govern us as a society.
Rules conflict with what we want.
We will always degrade ourselves into a lower and lower state until we emplode and have to restart by establishing rules and over time people gradually lower our standards generation after generation until we break and start all over again.
History suggests that my idea is correct.
We are at the end of our time when we see our society has degraded to rejecting god of any kind because we don't want rules limiting our lusts.
See once again, you have your bias of religion playing again "the end of our time is when we see our society has degraded to rejecting god of any kind". So your idea of an ultimate end is when no one listens to God. I would see that as a step for man kind of not being controlled my an unknown power. A step in the right direction. Because each of us can form an idea of right or wrong, they are essentially not existant. I know it's really abstract, but morality does not exist but is the creation of our interpretation of the physical laws bestowed upon us.
"Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
I didn't have time to fully explain myself last night with my views on morality, but I will now. I'm going to explain why religion can't be used as a basis for morality. It centers around this question: "Did God command it because it is right? Or is it right because God commanded it?" There are problems with both options. If something is right or wrong simply because God commands it that means if God commanded that child abuse was right, it would be right. But, this is illogical. Child abuse causes emotional and physical harm to an innocent child. It doesn't make sense that it would be right simply because God commands it. This would make God's commandments arbitrary. So that leads us to the second option. God commands it because it is right. That means God commmands that things are wrong for certain reasons. He commads child abuse is wrong, because of the harm it causes to the child. This means that for any moral judgement there has to be objective reasonsing behind it. I agree with Tommy that there is no ultimate "right" and "wrong" in a divine sense. But, the point is that someone who believes in the Bible is in the same position as someone who doesn't believe in God when it comes to making a moral judgement. There has to be other reasons behind it, and those other reasons are what I fail to see when it comes to LGBT.
Sarah, I would love to take up the topic of God being right but for now I would like to focus on a world without God where we get to determine what is right based on whatever we want so long as no one gets hurt.
Since there really is no absolute right or wrong how do you propose to make the determination on what getting hurt really means? Talk about arbitrary.
I think we are at a point where we have to decide who's opinion matters the most.
If a child at the age of 14 or so decides or determines that they are gay and the parents are deeply hurt by the news then the rule, simply stated, means the child's determination is bad because someone is hurt.
On the other hand you would postulate that it is the child is being hurt by the narrow minded parents and it is they who should change to make room for a more liberal view of sexuality so as not to hurt their child.
Which view is correct and why?
The statement I made about people being hurt was an attempt at a simplified version of my last post. My point being that things have to be evaluated objectively, and that a world with a god is no closer to definiting morality than a world without. Zach and Tommy both said it well, there is no morality and discussing it is futile. But let's take a look at the situation you stated anyway. The parents being "hurt" by their child being LGBT isn't a direct result of the child actually being LGBT. It is a result of the parent's predetermined notions about it. The child, however, is hurt directectly by the parents not accepting who they are. If the LGBT community was accepted, which is what we're hoping for, then the parents wouldn't be "hurt" at all. But these are still secondary consequences of actually being LGBT. The "hurt" that you are describing comes from conclusions that have already been reached. I want to know how those conclusions were reached. Outside of the predjudices that already exist, what is the harm in being LGBT? And since you said you want to focus on how we define right and wrong in a world without God I'm assuming you're implying that in a world with God we can determine what is right and wrong. But that is exactly what I disproved in my previous post. We are in the same boat regardless.
Tommy, I am taking great pains not to let this be about religion, for sure, and not even the bible or even my God. I think you can attest to this fact.
I am referring to the social cycles that have existed in the more successful societies of our past that moved from law and order to lawlessness to ruin and back to law, if they survived to try again.
Tommy, with your stance on abstract reasoning I am wondering where you find the motivation for or against anything?
Are you prepared to say hay bullying is not bad and to this point neither is suicide as the result of bullying. How can you make the statement that bullying is wrong if nothing is wrong?
I know, you already stated, " it is the creation of your interpretation of the physical laws that were thrust upon you" but can you explain who and how and what physical law was thrust upon you that has caused you to perceive that bullying is wrong?
The reason I brought up the abstract theory of right and wrong not existing is to show how unnecessary it is for the question of "how do we establish the laws of morality?" Like I said, things are wrong and right because of the outside sources that add a connotation to an action, and by being an activist with Raise Up, I am attempting to change the connotation of LGBT being wrong by educating people about the community. Now, while I believe nothing is truly wrong or right, I live in a society that cannot manage that philosophy. So by changing the connotation you may say I am deeming LGBT right and those opposed wrong, but it is neither wrong nor right, I am just acting as I please without connotation.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fa…
This is getting tiresome. You've walked away from your own argument just to tear down the other one.
Joseph, I appologise but I mention to say that there does not need to be just one law.
Art, as has been previously pointed out, morality does not exist. It then becomes rather silly to establish rules for governing the nonexistent. Philosophers have tried throughout history to answer your question, but they have still come up short. Demanding an answer to a question like this is simply distracting from the true issue at hand. It is analogous to me asserting that bluegrass music is underappreciated, and you responding by asking "if bluegrass music is played and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The issue is no longer about bluegrass music, but about the very nature of reality itself. I hope you can see that this causes nothing but a stale mate.
Tommy and Sarah sponsored this event to promote tolerance of LGBT. They were hoping to show people of all moral views their side of the story. They are fighting for something I can hope we all agree is good: acceptance. They are not proving that LGBT is morally "right" or that people of differing opinions are "wrong." They are simply trying to make the world a better place for everyone.
So please, if you feel that their event missed the mark or that another event is needed to protect all victims of bullying, go ahead and sponsor your own event. Tommy and Sarah are assisting a community dear to their hearts, you are perfectly entitled to do the same.
So Tommy, Sarah and Zach there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad or any such thing as good morals for us as indiiduals let alone our society as a whole.
OMG
I trust the futility of their comments are apparent, but even more apparent, that the lack of a moral code leads to degenerate practices and actually devalue human life and self worth which cause rejection by moral people which leads to depression and in some cases suicide.
What you don't seem to realize is that by making lgbt more acceptable more kids will convince themselves that they are gay and while this will temporarily expand the gay community the moral fiber of the average person in our community will also be falling too, perhaps to the point that nobody has any moral compass and nobody believes in good or bad anymore.
If only our families, friends and neighbors could all get to the place where they did not believe in good or bad then we would all be happier people, to bad this will only be a very sad state of mind.
Zach, to your point about bluegrass music.
We actually still are living in a society where we have good and bad where there are laws.
I am not asking for them or waiting for this to take place.
It is you that are demanding that we remove the existing "bluegrass music" it is my right to ask with what kind of music you plan on replacing it with?
Sarah, a rules based society defines itself by those that rule and the rules they establish.
To go against these rules would require that you convience the majority that LGBT is a better way. The burden of proof is on you not on us to defend against loosing a standard that seems to have served the majority very well for hundreds of years, I mean it got this far, right?
So if you want us to drop our standards you need to provide a convincing solution that us better than the one we currently have.
Why us our society better off by lowering our standards regarding LGBT?
Why would our society be better off? The same reason our society was better off by "lowering their standards" regarding black people and women. With acceptance comes more happiness and the ability for all people to have an equal chance to contribute to society. If the civil rights or the women's rights movements had never occurred all the women and African American people who have doen great things for society would never have had a chance to do them. Who knows how many how many members of the LGBT commuhity could have contributed great things to our society, but are held back because of intolerance? Can you actually say that a society that is more accepting of how people were born would be worse off? That is ridiculous. Also, if the LGBT community had more rights, such as getting married and adopting children, more children could be adopted into a loving family that may have had to spend their life in an orphanage or foster care otherwise. And considering the amount of depression, suicide, and families that are torn apart because of intolerance of LGBT people I would hardly say that the current non-acceptance of LGBT people is "serving us well". And you still didn't adress the point that someone who believes in God is in the same position when it comes to morality as someone who doesn't. You say in accepting the LGBT community our "moral compass is falling", but even if there are morals, I still haven't heard a good objective reason why being LGBT would be considering "wrong".
Sarah,
I was told by DC Free Press that the content of our discussions has not been seen as bullying in their opinion, which is why my comments continue to appear on this open forum. Plus, You and Tommy both said you did not feel like sharing my opinions would be considered bullying either, so I want to address one of your questions that I did not have time to get to before.
You wanted to know " a good objective reason why being LGBT would be wrong.
I have spent considerable time trying to understand the interwoven issues and how to express my point specifically.
First, I think it impossible to provide you with any cohesive logical argument because you have no basis for which to draw a conclusion on the general idea of good or bad but I will attempt to show you my reasoning.
For something to be "good" for a person the "thing" would provide a desired outcome that would bring a short term and or a long term effect pleasing to the person.
For example, construction workers in the 1950's, that installed asbestos insulation or tile had, I think hoped to have a "good" paying job and while I think the did believe their job was indeed good but after time many of these people got cancer as a result of working with the substance. The qualities of what we would assign to a "good" job where met in that they worked and they got paid. But underneath this lied a cancer that would cause them to get sick at a very early age and die prematurely.
Can we say after all the people who were sick and died prematurely in fact had a "good" Job? On one hand I think we can in that they worked and got paid but in the end if they got sick and died because of working with the product can we agree that the job was in fact "bad"?
I think it was still a 'good" job but it was bad for their heath.
In order to determine the answer we would need to know exactly what the employee meant by having a good job and conversely we would need to know if they got sick would their poor heath kept them from taking the job or if they knew they were going to get sick and die would they had kept the job and thought of it as "good".
So I am trying to comprehend you and Tommy's comment that there is neither good or bad…how would you make since of the above situation regarding good and bad?
Regarding major collapses of historic societies the basic assumption of Egyptian civilization was that it was a social order as eternal as the granite of its monuments. But four hundred years after Cheops built his pyramid, that order suddenly disintegrated into anarchy and utter chaos.
The one thing the we know with certainty about the causes of the collapse is that they were internal. Egypt was not invaded by a foreign people and was not involved in a major war or even any military action other than routine policing of the few points at which she was not isolated from the rest of the world by natural barriers. But whatever the source of the spark, it is clear that the explosive materials lay deep in the structure of the society they destroyed. Since a small body of literature, especially the lamentations of Ipu-wer and Nefer-rohu, who witnessed the collapse, has survived, modern historians can learn a good deal about the causes. You will find them discussed at length in any good history of ancient Egypt.
What happened in Egypt was not a mere political upheaval to change the ruler or form of government; it was the ruin of a whole civilization through the collapse of its moral foundations. "If three men go along a road," says Ipu-wer, "they become two men, for the greater number kills the lesser." "I show thee," says Nefer-rohu, "the brother as an enemy, and the man who kills his own father. Every mouth is full of 'Love me!,' and everything good has disappeared." Order had vanished in anarchy and universal banditry, and no man knew when he would be struck down from ambush or murdered in his own house.
The Egyptians either violated some natural law that applied to civilizations, and could therefore have averted the collapse had they been more prudent, or they underwent a change that was "historically necessary" because imposed by some natural law that human ingenuity cannot circumvent. That alternative simply states the central problem that a philosophy of history must solve. And since we are subject to the same natural laws, the problem is vital and urgent
"What you don’t seem to realize is that by making lgbt more acceptable more kids will convince themselves that they are gay and while this will temporarily expand the gay community the moral fiber of the average person in our community will also be falling too, perhaps to the point that nobody has any moral compass and nobody believes in good or bad anymore." If you honestly believe this, you really have no need to be on this post because as Joseph has stated before, you are gathering nothing from our statements and continually posing irrelevant and unanswerable questions instead of addressing our rebuttals thoroughly and accurately. Because being LGBT is not a choice, the amount of people who would incorrectly announce themselves as gay would be insignificantly low, and honestly, not a problem of the anyone else but the individual who just needs to reflect to know the answer. But, this person could fall on the LGBT spectrum on the very tip of gay and straight to the point where the two are in constant battle in a way different than bisexuality. Either way this is not important nor a relevant concern because this "gay agenda" you keep proposing but have yet to define is not about increasing the number of LGBT people. We are trying to expand our number, which if I have to make clear again, would be impossible because it is not a choice. Yes, the community may grow as acceptance grows because of the ability for more closeted people come out, but this is a totally different way of expanding than you are proposing. And to think that by accepting someone so they can have equal rights and be happy, this would cause the downfall of a moral campus. I think history has proven how flexible the moral campus really is. I mean just in religious guided campuses people are constantly making exceptions for their own actions. But either way, the moral campus is always changing and always will. If you think that is depreciating it, well then thank you for proving my point on how everything is essentially a connotation and nothing more. And had you read my comment before I stated that the idea of right and wrong not existing could never work in our society.
campus = compass. whoops!
The lack of moral code cannot lead anywhere, if there never has been a true morality from the beginning. There was no true morality yesterday, is none today, and there won't be any tomorrow. Asserting this does not mean we are destroying some sort of existing idea of right or wrong, it simply points out what centuries of past philosophical failure have proven. The claim that true, logical morality does not exist does nothing to stop people from developing their own opinions and moral compasses. It simply means that we will never be able to agree on what is right and what is wrong.
An LGBT awareness event is not going to plunge America into moral darkness and lawlessness. Promoting acceptance does not change people into moral-less barbarians.
The "futility of our comments" is not apparent. Right or wrong never has existed in an absolute sense. Making this statement does not change anything, it is only an accurate observation about the world we live in. Continuing to argue this point will get us nowhere.
Art, "It is you that are demanding that we remove the existing “bluegrass music” it is my right to ask with what kind of music you plan on replacing it with?"
I never demanded the removal of bluegrass music. I said in my example that it was underappreciated. I fail to see the point you are trying to make.
Tommy I have been interviewing gay people since before you were born and a overwhelming majority confessed that they thought it was indeed a choice, difficult but a choice nonetheless.
Any avoidance that I may be displaying is do to keeping a single topic in focus and not confusing the issues.
I am always willing to discuss anything so long as there is primary topic and a serious desire to understand by all parties.
My research has showed me that gay men typically came from a home where, as a child, they were unable to win their fathers affection on their own terms. In other words they were starved in some way from receiving their fathers unearned natural affection.
I do not believe that this environment always produces a gay tendency but it is a most common reality among gay men. While I do not have as much research with gay women I have found a similar problem where small girls were raised in a home where the mom was the assertive dominant over that of a missing or weaker dad figure in the home.
As you said this is a small number for a world comparison but a study none the less that has shapes my opinion not just an opinion formed by my church or bible although my bible also supports my findings.
The amount of time of research does not add to its substance. Science can study something for years and in the end realize they were wrong. Please share with the general public of this post the exact nature of your research. Give us an abstract of your findings by explaining the number of participants, the counter subject matter, how you went about your questions and how those questions are justifiable in providing a truthful answer. Medical associations give out information on LGBT people as a biological disorder. These testing and results are not done in a bias format. Your research, if you can even call it that, are laughable at most in the holes that exist. Of course you lead your results to come out however you want or interpret. And to allow such unsupported "research" to shape your opinion is a personal issue that you yourself should question more closely.
Zach, my point to you and tommy saying that there is no good or bad or a moral compass is that we as a society are currently living in a society of laws and morals that say that homosexuality is wrong. Otherwise there would be no bullying or any need to raise our awareness. Bullying is wrong but it is a social mechanism that expresses our bias against something we think is wrong.
These rules exist and it is you that is asking us to remove our rules.
Correction we are living in a society where the connotation of LGBT is shifting from wrong to right in a very slow process.
Why is bullying wrong?
Secondly, is there anything wrong with asking that society change its view that the LGBT community has committed some sort of attrocity, by their vary existence? It is not all that unlike the realization of many Americans in previous decades that skin color has little to do with anything but maybe the kind of make-up one buys. I'm not asking that society remove its rules, only that it tolerates the LGBT community.
Zach bullying is wrong because I know I dont like it when I am bullied. I am only assuming that we both know what this term means.
I believe that our society is VERY tolerant of lgbt.
at least in USA there are no rules that gay people can not vote or must use the back door or another drinking fountain or take another bus.
I am not against lgbt people.
I think the life style is dangerous and hurtful to themselves and to their families.
I think what Tommy and Sarah are doing is a good thing because they are standing for what they believe is right. I like them, I do not wish any bad to happen to them in any way for any reason.
Sarah, I object to comparison of LGBT to racism or equal rights.
1st. It is not a matter of fact that homosexuality is a biological trait it is becoming a popular opinion but no scientific proof positive to make such a claim.
Secondly, homosexuals are not and never have been kept from voting treated anywhere close to the black people during their.
I question at hand is what I the rule and you postulated that if someone gets hurt by an action then the action is to be deemed as a bad action.
But hurting the parents somehow must not count or the rule can not be valid.
Therefore I think there must be some other rule defined or of course we could all follow Zach and Tommy off of the cliff of the is nor right or wrong.
So I am waiting to see if you have another rule to guide us or if you are going to say there us no rule.
As for the harm I believe I have expressed the parents view as sufficient harm as a reason not to further the LGBT.
Can you explain what the gay agenda that Tommy and Sarah are using bullying and suicide as a base for is?
The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Counselors, the National Association of Social Workers all share the official fourfold position: (1) Homosexuality is not a disorder but a normal variant of sexuality. (2) Homosexuality is inborn. (3) Homosexuality is immutable; it cannot be changed. Often the official professional bodies maintain that (4) attempts to change orientation are unethical and potentially dangerous to the client. It's much more than a "popular opinion". And I don't know how you can claim that your "research" is any more reliable than the conclusion of multiple official scientific organizations. Once again, you're missing the point of my argument about civil rights and trying to divert the argument away from the obvious. The point I'm trying to make is that the civil rights and the women' s movements were opposed because people thought that black people and women were inferior and allowing them equal rights would somehow harm society. They thought society was "lowering their stardards". That is exactly what you are arguing. The acceptance of the LGBT community will somehow plunge society into immorality and harm. I already adressed the parents being hurt in a previous comment, so I will copy it again here since you must have missed it.
The parents being “hurt” by their child being LGBT isn’t a direct result of the child actually being LGBT. It is a result of the parent’s predetermined notions about it. The child, however, is hurt directectly by the parents not accepting who they are. If the LGBT community was accepted, which is what we’re hoping for, then the parents wouldn’t be “hurt” at all. But these are still secondary consequences of actually being LGBT. The “hurt” that you are describing comes from conclusions that have already been reached. I want to know how those conclusions were reached. Outside of the predjudices that already exist, what is the harm in being LGBT?
I already said that I agree with Zach and Tommy that there is no actual "right" and "wrong" and no philospher in history has been able to come up with a rule to define them. When you demanded a rule, my statement about people being hurt was an attempt to simplify what I later stated about if there is morality it must be decided based on objective reasons and consequences of actions. But the point that I've made multiple times that you still refuse to adress is the fact that you are in no better position with a God to decide what is "right" or "wrong" that we are without a god.
Tommy I agree with your assertion that it is shifting and I noticed a significant shift in 1999 on TV and it is now a very popular opinion to hold indeed.
My concern is that along with this shift comes an over all decline in the moral fiber of our community.
But it is shifting nine the less.
Tommy, my research would never be good enough for you under any circumstance but it was and is very convincing for me and I have shared with you whatno have found.
I can only tell you do do tour own research any way you want to in any fashion that would be meaningful to you and not just trust LGBT reports.
The time I invested in my research was both difficult and lengthy at my own expense.
You can laugh and belittle my work all you want but it is my work and I have not trusted others to do it for me.
I am in no position to question the validity of the LGBT studies but I personally question weather the group doing the study and weather they had a bias or not.
Of course! Any person who wanted to be educated on a subject would not listen to an unqualified and unsupported research, and I asked you to share it so that public could see it because it is easy to say your research is right when no one knows about it to prove you otherwise. And one day I may do my own research, but I do not feel qualified enough to do a biological, psychological, and sociological tests on people and neither should you. And I would must rather put trust in someone else than my own if I do not feel justified in doing so. And these are NOT LGBT REPORTS. They come from the ones Sarah has mentioned, and fyi, those associations post materials from both sides of the cause but choose a stance as well. What you have done is posted material (from 2002 I will mention) from the association that they posted to mention both sides, but the APA has taken a "non-choice" stance as a whole though of course they will continue to examine both sides as a qualified researcher.
If being gay is a choice I want to know when all the heterosexuals chose to be straight?
Can any straight guy honestly say, "You know, I could choose to like wieners"?
That is what is amazing to me. All these folks saying, "It is a choice" are basically telling me they are choosing to be straight and that they could be gay if they so decided. After all, if homosexuality is a choice, so is heterosexuality.
I liked Adam Savage's response to Herman Cain when he said being gay is a choice. Savage responded with, I will paraphrase, "prove it…be gay." (NSFW due to language…. http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/10/2…
Joesph, I think the idea basically is that since 99% of the people do not show gay tendencies we view it as not normal. Therefore, we postulate that everyone normally is pre-programmed to like the opposite sex, this is the way we are hard wired it helps to further the species just a little.
I am not suggesting that it is just a simple choice, I am suggesting that our adolescent years altered our ability follow the wiring that we came with and for some of the homosexuals that I interviewed they said it was shaped for as long as they could remember and many more say that when it came down to it they recalled a time when they struggled with their identity. I understood them to be telling me that it really was a choice but it was the path of least resistance at least inside their minds.
Personally, I don't really care if it is a choice or not, but when you go quoting stats, you should cite them.
Homosexual behavior is not uncommon among animals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals , linking to wikipedia doesn't bother me if it is well cited.)
Regardless, I have mentioned earlier, rare does not mean it does not occur naturally. One in 17,000 people are albino. That is a significantly smaller percentage than your 1% you give homosexuals…are we to assume that albinos are somehow engineered since everyone is "preprogrammed" to generate "normal" looking babies that resemble the parents.
It may be safe to discuss this topic for now…
I was not aware the LAW or RULE that states that if one posts a quote then the stats should be cited…based on the overall finding in this room perhaps a less stringent stance on this rule should be accepted…that was my thinking any way.
According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7]
I would be most curious as to the number of animals actually studied for this perhaps it would be much less than the albino findings in your earlier study.
Not that i have seen enough animals to be able to form a reasonable opinion without consulting with professional groups or organizations but I would like to go on the record and say that growing up on the farm I did in fact see a LOT of animals and NEVER once seen any sign of homosexual activity other than a male dog of my neighbors humping everything in site but he did not care if it was your leg or a fence post he was always trying to show dominance in this way but i never seen him successfully have intercourse with another dog.
So the question would have to be asked concerning the study how many were studied how many actually had intercourse and where can i get a job that would actually pay to make a study like this….WOW.
"This was not directed to the lgbtq community and it was in no way intended to bully or insult or degrade a person of the homosexual life style, it was just a conversation with Joseph about animals, okay?"
There is no rule about posting citations but if one is gonna toss out information as factual it is helpful to your argument if it can validated. As it stands, I could simply state another value. Without citation neither is worth much.
If you are interested in those studies they are cited and can be looked up further.
Joseph, I was just poking fun a there not being any rules at your expense..I hope you dont mind.
Dakotah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda
Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a pejorative term used by some conservatives in the United States to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships.[1][2][3] The term is applied to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT issues (e.g., same-sex marriage, LGBT adoption, recognizing sexual orientation as a civil rights minority classification, LGBT military participation, inclusion of LGBT history and themes in public education), as well as non-governmental campaigns and individual actions that increase visibility and cultural acceptance of LGBT people, relationships, and identities.[2] The term has also been used by social conservatives to describe supposed goals of LGBT rights activists for which they themselves have never advocated, such as recruiting heterosexuals into "the homosexual lifestyle".
you got your source from wikipedia. enough said.
Andrea I was not aware that wikipedia was not a valid reference source any more. but it does accurately define exactly what I mean when I use the term "gay agenda". I would invite you to use any other reference you like, you do not have to use the first one that comes up on google if you dont want to but that is what I did it just seemed easier and it was accurate to my interpretation.
Sarah, I am in no position to doubt the validity of these organizations or their research as I am unfamiliar with them all. But a quick read shows that they will publish about anything unless you want to start picking which articles are good and which ones are bad.
Gay-To-Straight Research
Published In APA Journal
The American Psychological Association's prestigious journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice has just published a comprehensive research paper on sexual-orientation change. Clients have the right to pursue change, the author says, because "sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging trait, is actually quite flexible for some people."
An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays," has been published in the June 2002 issue of the American Psychological Association's publication Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
My research is more valid to me because I did it and this make it worth much more than trusting what others say.
The LGBT stance is not so big that it will by itself be responsible for our moral decline but it like many other issues indicate that a moral decline is taking place right in front of us but we are too blind to see it.
"The parents being “hurt” by their child being LGBT isn’t a direct result of the child actually being LGBT. It is a result of the parent’s predetermined notions about it". This is your own view formed by your predetermined notion about it…you see how this argument works. it is because you say it is.
Suppose we just decide that we are going to start believing that being kicked in the leg is good all we have to do is change our idea that being kicked is actually good and the pain is really a sign of love…after awhile i suppose parents would learn to deal with the pain since it means so much to the child and after all the whole world seems to be agreeing with it and what with all the professional organizations that support it it must be us old stick in the muds that need to change.
And with your position on right and wrong there can be no way to define it because you have closed all the doors that could potentially define it.
This is why I have stuck to my guns to get you to try to define it because you have no way to prove your case, all you can do is try to change the rules by saying we could not know good or bad and try to hide behind a technicality.
Please give me a break…can you imagine a time when a babies smile is a bad thing?
or can you imagine a time when the killing of that same baby is good?
I suppose a very good way to win at baseball, which is a rules based game and so are most things that we like by the way, would be to remove all the rules and say if both teams show up then everybody wins…of course we would no longer really have baseball as a sport then would we?
I am in a much better place to define it not because of religion, I am still unsure why you want to keep bringing up the religion card, but because I can test things and circumstances and develop rules based on my findings and share my findings with other people so that they dont make the same mistakes that I did.
You on the other hand can offer no such sound advise, will you be telling your children to go outside and play in the street or will you tell them no it is not safe?
Why do you suppose that now when i donate blood the application distinguishes between hetero and homosexual intercourse? Well i asked the last time and they said they would not take the blood for transfusions if I had homosexual intercourse but rather just for studies.
Then I asked why would they not use it for transfusions and they said because the health risk was too high. I wondered why but I assume its just because the health risks are HIGHER in homosexuals.
So the other people hurt in homosexual relationships are the homosexuals themselves.
"And with your position on right and wrong there can be no way to define it because you have closed all the doors that could potentially define it.
This is why I have stuck to my guns to get you to try to define it because you have no way to prove your case, all you can do is try to change the rules by saying we could not know good or bad and try to hide behind a technicality."
It seems you've reached the conclusion we've been pointing out to you. You keep asking for the impossible. There is no right or wrong, so it can't be defined. There is no proof for something that doesn't exist. There is no technicality. If you have some absolute, objectife rules for deciding morality, I beg you to share it!
Say you were able to go back in time and murder Adolf Hitler as an infant. Would that not be a good thing? You may say it is wrong to kill an infant, but this can't be absolute. One life or millions?
Zach,
If you were asking for my conclusion on the matter that would be one thing but to say that I have reached the conclusion that there is no right or wrong then you would be mistaken.
I would have said wrong but since that is not possible in your view, I had to find another word that may still have some meaning to both of us. Perhaps the word mistaken has no real meaning either.
In my opinion an accurate absolute rule that would help in deciding morality would be to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This would be at the very least a good place to start and a good rule to begin with.
As far a going back in time to kill Hitler as a baby..I would not go back in time to kill baby Hitler because I would not have liked it much if someone had gone back in time to kill me.
The golden rule is a good start, but I much prefer a slight modification…you basically say it in you last sentence. It would be "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT want done to you."
I don't necessarily want someone doing to me what one would like being done to one's self.
It is a minor change but can make a big difference.
Joseph,
Thank you for that response.
Now can we put this to a test to determine if this "rule" could serve as a "law" to govern our society?
Can we think of any circumstance where this would not work to produce a desired outcome any individual?
Most of our laws already use this as a guideline when they are created as a good number of laws are written to protect us from each other:
Do not murder
Do not steal
Do not speed
However, this can't be a 100% followed because someone will always fall into that rare category or asked to be protected from something that, no matter how hard they believe it is, is not any of their business.
I have more to say but have to leave right, now.
If LGBT acceptance is the decline of moral judgement, then I welcome it as will many others.
It has been brought to my attention that the lgbt community or at least some of its proponents are accusing me of bullying on this venue. which is against the law in this fine state its called cyber bullying, which is nothing close to what we have been doing here but now it is I that am being threatened just because of my moral convictions.
I have been engaged in conversation with many people most of whom I do not know.
I only want to uphold what I believe is a conservative Christian view on a very difficult subject matter that most Christians refuse to talk about.
I am a peaceful, loving person, I am a husband of 24 years, a father of 2, a business owner, an employer, I am an adult bible study teacher, I help the community and individuals with my time and my money. I sacrifice time with my family to help those in need. REGARDLESS of their life style or addictions or other race or creed.
For days I have been the only person offering a very popular conservative opinion regarding lgbtq.
I believe in people's individual right to choose.
I do not want people to follow me or change their life based on what I say or believe.
I believe that this freedom to choose is the cornerstone of our human existence even if we choose wrongly. I would never want to take your right to choose a religion, life style or any other personal freedom away from you as an individual for any reason.
On the other hand I believe it is my right to hold my own opinions and express them in a open public forum or debate like this without fear of persecution.
Unfortunately this is no longer the case.
As I discussed with Sarah last week, the lgbtq community is the majority view now and the conservative Christian view is the minority view even in a small town like Jasper.
If you hold any doubt that what I have just stated is true read these posts over the last week and you will find that I am the only one willing to express this opinion.
I have felt your condescending comments and I had my feelings hurt by your attempts to belittle me in the presence of your peers and I am the one on the outside looking in.
I think I could rightly say that it is I that have been bullied here for over a week if anyone has.
I enjoyed it immensely, I love open dialog. I think if I were alive in Socrates day I would have given him a run for his money. I hope that I have offended no one and if I did it was not my intention and if I missed your question it was due to the point of fielding so many of your comments the best way I could, mostly from my phone, as I was on the road working last week.
And now for a very real fear of prosecution i feel I must discontinue this discussion.
Respectfully,
Art Ross Jr.
In defense to Art, I do not feel his comments or discussion on this thread have been aimed to bully or belittle. While I do disagree with many of his statements and believe the basis for argument may lack education on some subjects, I have to admit that my views may fall under the same scrutiny at times whether mentioned or not. So Art, I don't feel you should feel bullied in any way just as I nor Sarah feel bullied by your comments. I agreed I have attacked your personal beliefs and research, but in a justified matter to reach an intellectual understanding of the topic at hand. Mostly do to lack of time, I would prefer to end conversation as well. But please, to who ever has made accusations, gain the maturity to know the difference between discussion and bullying. If your own views are of substance and you are undoubtedly educated on who you are and what you stand for, these comments should not attack you on a personal level but challenge you to further comprehend the world and how you view it.
Art, I'm sorry a bunch of people have their head up their butt. I've thoroughly enjoyed your comments, even if i haven't agreed with them, and i'd like to tell anyone who accused you of bullying to get their heads checked. I'd like to tell them much more than that, but i'm afraid my comment would be too far moderated to read.
look me up on face book and we can continue this dialog in private message if you want to but I am afraid the social pendulum has fully swung so far to the left that I am not free to express my opinions.
sorry, i really like this open dialog.
I want to defend Art here. I never felt bullied and I don't feel anything he said could be classified as bullying. However, nothing that me or anyone else said on the other side could be classified bullying either. I would hate to see the day when an open discussion can't be had for fear of prosecution.
Sarah, you said "if there is morality it must be decided based on objective reasons and consequences of actions" and also concerning what is wrong with being LGBT and who is harmed, "There has to be other reasons behind it, and those other reasons are what I fail to see when it comes to LGBT", "But we have nothing else to base morality on other than the consequences of our actions. But, for what we are talking about here, which is the LGBT community, it is clear. I’ll say it a third time, no negative consequences come from being LGBT so there is no logical way to condemn it".
I trust even in just these two reports you will see the underlying harm to the inevitable actions that LGBT people will take and once taken the consequence of their actions place them in a seriously more dangerous life style, not only to themselves but those with whom they will eventually also come in sexual contact with.
This goes along with the view that there is no right or wrong, is it wrong to instruct a child to play in a busy street. I think we could all agree that this is a rule we could live with but why? It is not because we absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child, would of a certainty, be harmed but rather that there is a high probability that the child might be harmed.
To these issues I offer two very credible studies by the "centers for disease control and prevention". http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFact…
4% of the men in the USA have sex with other men and this study shows that there is a 44% higher risk to contract aids by men who have sex with men.
A more detailed study specifically on high school age students grades 9 – 12 released June 6, 2011,
Shows that the LGBTQ community present a higher risk not only in suicide but also in health and safety issues from wearing seat belts or bike helmets to drug use, fighting, sexual intercourse before age 13, owning or carrying a weapon to school and more.
This study properly portrays that LGBTQ community places their followers directly in harms way by supporting, condoning and encouraging our youth to "play in the street" so to speak.
Of course I encourage you to read the study yourself, as i have, but I took the liberty to condense most of the comparisons below to see the contrast between gay and straight life styles.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
Drove When Drinking Alcohol
2.9% to 10.2% (median: 7.8%) among heterosexual students,
7.0% to 30.2% (median: 15.4%) among gay or lesbian students,
6.0% to 18.3% (median: 13.3%) among bisexual students,
2.1% to 19.5% (median: 16.3%) among unsure students
Carried a Weapon
9.8% to 17.6% (median: 13.6%) among heterosexual students,
19.8% to 31.0% (median: 22.9%) among gay or lesbian students,
18.9% to 36.5% (median: 22.5%) among bisexual students,
8.1% to 34.5% (median: 20.4%) among unsure students
Carried a Gun
2.3% to 5.3% (median: 3.8%) among heterosexual students,
6.7% to 18.2% (median: 12.1%) among gay or lesbian students,
5.1% to 20.7% (median: 8.4%) among bisexual students,
2.3% to 23.5% (median: 10.4%) among unsure students
In a Physical Fight
23.5% to 40.4% (median: 29.0%) among heterosexual students,
35.7% to 50.5% (median: 41.8%) among gay or lesbian students,
41.5% to 50.3% (median: 42.8%) among bisexual students,
23.5% to 51.2% (median: 35.0%) among unsure students
Forced to Have Sexual Intercourse
5.2% to 8.4% (median: 7.2%) among heterosexual students,
14.1% to 31.0% (median: 23.7%) among gay or lesbian students,
16.6% to 32.1% (median: 22.6%) among bisexual students,
10.4% to 25.3% (median: 19.8%) among unsure students
In a Physical Fight on School Property
8.4% to 18.1% (median: 10.5%) among heterosexual students,
13.5% to 33.3% (median: 22.2%) among gay or lesbian students,
12.7% to 26.4% (median: 19.1%) among bisexual students,
10.5% to 29.2% (median: 15.7%) among unsure students
Seriously Considered Attempting Suicide
9.9% to 13.2% (median: 11.7%) among heterosexual students,
18.8% to 43.4% (median: 29.6%) among gay or lesbian students,
35.4% to 46.2% (median: 40.3%) among bisexual students,
17.5% to 40.4% (median: 23.7%) among unsure students
Current Marijuana Use
11.9% to 26.6% (median: 21.8%) among heterosexual students,
25.9% to 44.8% (median: 34.5%) among gay or lesbian students,
28.4% to 47.8% (median: 36.8%) among bisexual students,
9.8% to 32.3% (median: 25.4%) among unsure students
Ever Used Methamphetamine THIS IS STAGGERING 7X worse in homosexuals.
1.6% to 4.0% (median: 3.4%) among heterosexual students,
10.6% to 25.2% (median: 21.5%) among gay or lesbian students,
9.7% to 23.0% (median: 14.9%) among bisexual students,
6.5% to 29.5% (median: 13.2%) among unsure students
Had First Sexual Intercourse Before Age 13 Years
4.3% to 11.2% (median: 4.8%) among heterosexual students,
13.3% to 28.5% (median: 19.8%) among gay or lesbian students,
9.0% to 23.3% (median: 14.6%) among bisexual students,
5.7% to 23.6% (median: 13.1%) among unsure students
Had Sexual Intercourse with Four or More Persons During Their Life (by age 18)
7.6% to 20.7% (median: 11.1%) among heterosexual students,
10.6% to 39.9% (median: 29.9%) among gay or lesbian students,
22.9% to 37.0% (median: 28.2%) among bisexual students,
6.6% to 23.8% (median: 18.8%) among unsure students
Physically Active at Least 60 Minutes per Day on 5 or More Days
29.0% to 47.7% (median: 38.1%) among heterosexual students,
14.0% to 41.5% (median: 24.3%) among gay or lesbian students,
18.3% to 32.4% (median: 26.8%) among bisexual students,
21.1% to 35.2% (median: 25.2%) among unsure students
Sarah,
Finally the last question you asked of me that I think I should provide a response was. and i quote "And you still didn’t address the point that someone who believes in God is in the same position when it comes to morality as someone who doesn’t."
To make contrast between the two positions, I will state that on one side there is a person with a bible in his hand that says he has a rule that states that people of the same sex should not have sex with other people of the same sex. On the other side there is a person that says that there are no rules, I can do anything I want so long as society will allow me to get away with it.
The one with their adherence to the Bible will not likely contract aids for example.
The one with out the Bible will have to see hundreds, thousands or MILLIONS of people die before society will acknowledge that there just might be a problem.
There is a book "the Bible" that has stood the test of time like no other, it has no contemporaries, that just happens to have inside of it the instruction for abstaining from same sex partners and for the sake of argument, who cares where it came from.
If people would be following this rule at least 44% of the current and new aids cases would be eliminated according to the study. http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFact…
To quote my source for an instruction that has existed in print for almost 2000 years:
The Bible
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Art, I just wanted to tell you that you are not alone. The conservative Christian view is NOT in the minority here in Dubois County. And the LGBT is definitely not the majority. The problem is people shy away from controversy and are afraid to speak up. Do not get discouraged. I did not write the following quote but I thought it reflected perfectly what my Church says.
“The official position of The Catholic Church in regards to homosexuality and is that homosexual sexual acts do not respect the Dignity of the human person and must never be condoned. Our inherent complementary nature as male and female has been endowed to us from God from The Beginning. We are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, created to live in a communion of Love while being called to The Perfect Communion of Love, simultaneously. Referring to oneself or someone else as an object of sexual desire is demeaning and in direct conflict with God’s Commandment regarding the sin of adultery and lust. Those who insist on using the terms homosexual, heterosexual, etc., do so in order that it may appear as if those of us who refuse to condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that does not respect the Dignity of the human person are discriminating against a person, when in fact, we are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts and demeaning sexual relationships. It is precisely because The Catholic Church teaches that we must respect the Dignity of every human person that homosexual sexual acts must never be condoned. Refusing to condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that does not respect the Dignity of the human person is an act of Love.”
How can anyone say that disagreement equals hatred or intolerance. I wonder if they've ever considered that they could be wrong. They don't understand that their salvation is at stake. My hope and prayers are that anyone consumed in a sinful life will turn away from that sin and live according to God's plan.
Julie,
There may be a majority, of people in Dubois county, who hold a conservative view on this subject but when it comes down to their public expression the majority will choose another path. I believe most have and would cave on this issue so as not to seen as "judgmental" ,as if people actually knew what thus was, or hateful just for even upholding the conservative Christian view. Most people would rather be viewed as nice, understanding or supportive rather than a conservative Christian in open public.
Wow, yet another insane post from this community. Lady, the LGBT community does not care whether their acts are condoned by the church in anyway (unless the LGBT person wants to be in the church and if so, there are plenty of alternatives they can reach out to). "the office position of the Catholic Church" see one problem that has always struck me about the church is that nothing is official. Interning at PFLAG, pastors, reverends, bishops, etc. come from all the over the country to speak about their interpretationa of homosexuality and many choose to make the exact opposite statement than you in regards to the subject, I would stretch to see how official that remains. And I would add that I think a lot of people are and want to be in support of the LGBT community in this town but are so pressured by the views of church and their friends and family that they can't be open about it because they will be judged. And i know that this is a little hard to comprehend, but people are starting to actually life their very short lives without the worry of salvation which tends to force everyone into the same lifestyles. Exactly why America was founded in the first place. So keep your close minded views within the church because the United State is at the core of civil rights movement. These people are real, they are your neighbors, they are your friend, and family. Eventually, just as every minority did, they will gain their salvation in the church as views change and generations progress. Once again, it's hard to say anything is ever official in the eyes of the church. And obviously, you haven't fought every hard to consider you may be wrong, I don't know, but personally, trying to find equality for all seems pretty good to me.
You cited a credible resource. Good job! But, I would really like Janet Schnell to take a look at this. She would have better resources than I would on the subject, but I would argue that all the things listed above are characteristic signs of depression and people who are bullied, or unaccepted, and feel a need to fit in. So, while it would appear that simply being LGBT makes you do these things, I would argue that the straight society has forced these actions upon them. as said, I would like Janet to comment with any statistics that she knows of, but I have heard how bullying and feeling unappreciated can lead to drugs, alcohol, and suicide. So, maybe we should be less concerned with trying to change the unchangeable, and start fixing the problems of bullying and intolerance that lead LGBT to do these things. Oh, wow, sounds like Raise Up! also, LGBT make up roughly 4-10% of the population, obviously the percentages are going to be inflated compared to the rest of the categories.
I don't know if you understood my inflation comment, but for instance, if you did a study on 100 kids on whether or not they have tried marijuana and you divide the percents by sexuality. Well out of 100 kids (roughly 4-10%, lets go with 5% will be LGBT) so the break down is 95 straight kids and 5 LGBT. Ok lets say 20 straight kids tired marijuana and 2 LGBT students have, the percents are 21% of straight kids have tried it and 40% of LGBT students have tried it. See how those statistics can be misleading. Really more straight people have tried marijuana (20 to 2).
Tommy,
In the face of these statistics, from a credible source. Thanks by the way.
You really only have 3 options:
1. Accept the study for what it is.
2. Reject it completely.
3. Determine that there must be some underlying reason to discredit the findings.
The first study I listed states that 4% of the male population have sex with the same sex.
The second study is looking at the overall population of high school kids grades 9 – 12.
I dont know Janet Schnell, but I dont think we need anyone translate these statistics do we? regardless of the cause everyone should be made aware of just how dangerous this lifestyle is and the harm that comes from it.
Assuming that the whole world did accept this life style with open arms from this point on it would not remove the health risks of gay sex and the shorter over all average life span because of it. ( am looking for a credible study for this and as soon as i have it I will post it and the number of years one could expect to loose as a result)
The actual cause for same sex attraction is an arguable point that may never be fully understood or have a single cause for anyone in particular as there are many possibilities psychologically that could be deemed to cause it but the assumption that homosexuality is genetic is not accurate. While there is overwhelming support for your assumption in many circles but fortunately there lacks any scientific proof of a specific genetic cause for homosexuality.
Until there is absolute proof for homosexual attraction it should be understood that there is NOT a genetic cause for it.
In any case if someone finds themselves helpless to play in the street, so to speak, then just be aware that it is very dangerous but for those that actually do question their sexuality and the cause of same sex attraction perhaps the knowledge of how dangerous it is would save a few from the very undeniable harm that comes from traveling down this road.
Tommy,
concerning your doubt of the validity of the numbers I think the study shows that they took this into account. It was the purpose of the study.
Thank you Sarah, but it was posted by someone in the lgbt community.
Once again you failed to see the points that were even made, I asked Janet Schnell because she would have statistics to show how people who are bullied or discriminated against are more apt to do things like drugs and sex. Not to translate these statics. Your case really makes no sense. You are saying that by choosing who you have sex with (I'm using choose here because apparently there's not enough evidence, i'll get back to this later) that this choice leads you to do bad things. Just fyi, you can take any group and apply a statistic. More black people carry guns than white people. Poor people are more likely to steal than rich. Do you blame these actions on because they are a certain skins color or financial situation, NO! You blame it on the way they were brought up or the kind of person they are. When a straight person gets busted for underage drinking, people don't blame that they like the opposite sex. They blame it on parenting or the media or peer pressure. And no where does the statistic say that they accommodated inflation on that statistics. It specifically says 40% amongst gay students. The wording follow what I already explained. Ok, so you say "until there is absolute proof for homosexual attraction it should be understood that there is NOT a genetic cause for it". Wow! Glad you get to make the rules. I think I'll keep my rule as "until there is absolute proof of what causes homosexuality, I believe it is genetic cause" Oh, and I don't know if you are just using the internet, but there is more than just support for this claim from people. And you won't find an accurate source because same sex sex causing shorter lives is not true. Lesbians have sex just the same as a man and woman would but have to use prosthetics, and straight couples can have sex just the same as gay men. And about AIDS, HIV is an infectious disease. Everyone has the same chance of catching it just like the flu. Gay blood is no different than yours (I mean it is a choice right? so how could it be) Now, because of the way men have sex it is a more direct way of catching the disease, but they are no more apt to catch it than you.
I have not failed to see any points you are dismissing the points I am making because you just dont like them.
I am not saying that a individual is helpless to buy a gun or take it to school or use a drug.
There is a 4% chance that I will be a man that has sex with another man if you were to read it the way you are suggesting. WOW!
The report clearly shows that there is a MUCH higher risk in all these areas among lgbtq.
it does not say you will be the one to use meth but it does define the group as a whole as being more prone to bring these odds.
A class on statistics would be helpful.
Let me make it simple, if any individual were to hang out with 100 lgbtq kids in school, as opposed to hanging out with 100 straight kids that person would be 63.8% more likely to be hanging around kids that pose a higher "propensity" to do the things specifically mentioned in the report.
a person hanging around with lgbtq is more likely by 63.8% to find people that do the things in the report.
To use your black people example, if your assumption is correct, ( you failed to show a credible source for your statement by the way) you would be (whatever % the report found) more likely to find the people in this group to carry guns. It would not suggest that any black person would be helpless to have a gun.
Tommy, other than a blood transfusion or my wife cheating there is almost no way I will contract aids. Conversely, a report I recently studied, (Weinberg G. SOCIETY AND THE HEALTHY HOMOSEXUAL. NY St. Martin's, 1972) shows that a gay man averages 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters per year.
If this number is reduced by 400% you would still have 25 sex partners and 20 rectal encounters per year and at this rate you would have to include all the sex partners that they had in a short period of time and if we say just 1 year that would be 25 X 25 = 625 – 12,100 sex partners in just 1 year.
Can you honestly say, for one second, that I would have the same chance at contracting aids or not to mention any other std than a gay man in this day and age?
Come on Tommy be honest to yourself if not for all the younger kids looking up to you as a roll model.
Until you educate yourself, I have no further discussion because your last comment completely disgusts me with ignorance and the inability to comprehend statistics at all. And I need the class. Oh please. And to be clear, I wasn't dismissing the statistics. I'm sure what they found was correct based on the association that credited it, but statistics can be manipulated to sound like something, and it is exactly what you are buying into. And you have yet to address that even if 60% of LGBT people have tired marijuana, this could indeed stem from the unaccepted nature that is bestowed upon them. People don't do things because of who they are attracted to, it comes from outsides sources. Dividing delinquency by sexuality is just absurd. And you used what I said on a statistic that wasn't even in the same study. The study bluntly says 4% of men have same sex sex. The rest of the statistics say among. But i'll let your mix matching slide there. Your reading on the stats are all wrong. It does not use the words more likely to in any of its research. And i'm the one dismissing. in a much more updated research than 1972, gay men and heterosexual men tend to have the same number of sexual unprotected sex. As I stated and as the article has stated, gay sex transmits the disease easier than heterosexual intercourse. And duh! If I have a HIV negative partner, I am in the same case as you. Unless a blood transfusion or an unfaithful partner, I can not contract the disease either!
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4…
Oh and the chances of someone catching a disease doesn't make their lifestyle dangerous. They just have to be more conscious. Just as my family has problems with heart disease, I have a better chance of getting the disease than someone who's family history doesn't have heart disease. That doesn't make my lifestyle dangerous, I just have to be careful about what I ate and do compared to other people.
Tommy, even very skilled doctors, in their fields even after a life time of work, still mis-diagnose problems with their patients.
What we are dealing with is a mis-diagnosis on your part that you were homosexual from birth.
if this were true then I would see many of the issues you are talking about.
Since you will not operate based on the facts, that homosexuality is not a genetic cause, then from what do you base your belief?
On the way you feel and the way others believe?
Sounds like a religion since you are not operating from any kind of absolute proof.
I did address the issue of 60% may have tried it because they got beat up on a bus for sitting in the wrong seat? Or they accidentally killed the family cat.
I would stipulate that the underlying psychological reasons could be numerous but the reason why is not the issue.
The fact is that there is a very isolated group of people out here, that demonstrate an overall unsafe and unhealthy lifestyle.
The typical gay man changes partners many many more times than a typical straight person.
Therefore the odds demonstrate that this is a much more unhealthy life style.
if one had a choice this would be a more dangerous choice.
Regardless of whether the statistis you posted are correct or not, they are irrelevant. There may be a higher percentage of the gay population that does drugs, but they do not do drugs because they are gay. You could say that a higher percentage of black people commit violent crimes, but this is clearly not because they are black. No one would argue that the characteristic of having black skin is wrong because of a statistic, because every black person decides for themselves how to lead their lives. It is the same with the LGBT population. A gay person can choose to use drugs, drink and drive, and have many sexual partners, but none of these things are a result of being gay. They are the choice of the person. There are gay people who have never done drugs, never drank, never committed suicide, and who have only had one sexual partner throughout their life. This leads into the AIDS question. True, a higher percentage of gay people have AIDS than straight people. But, here is another statistic you might find interesting. A higher percentage of black people have AIDS than white people. Does this have anything do with actually being black? Of course not! And a gay person is not automatically at a higher risk for AIDS. If two gay men are each others only sexual partners throughout their life then they have a 0% chance of contracting AIDS. I want to know the direct harm of being gay, not statistics associated with other actions. If two gay men only have sex with each other, and never do any of the aforementioned things in your statistic, then where is the harm?
Sarah and Tommy,
I am sorry but you really do not understand statistics an how they apply to people in general. Perhaps you both are too close to the situation to have any kind of an objective understanding.
Dont you think that the insurance industry would have a very real grasp of this situation of homosexuality and it's effects on the population and they absolutely apply a higher risk to homosexuals than straights. The red cross screens for it from blood donners.
Why would this be if there were no higher risk to lgbtq.
Sarah, your claim that two gay men who never had additional sex partners or never would is not only very unlikely but wishful thinking at best. But even if there were such a mythical couple as this they would still be exposing themselves to a much higher risk simply due to anal sex and the fact that it is very much more unhealthy due to human contact with fical matter in all those places not designed for it, if for no other reason.
The fact is that a typical or average gay man will not have one sex partner, and live happily ever after. The statistics say they will trade sex partners hundreds of times in their life time and you have to consider all of their sex partners.
If a man has a choice the choice to be gay will expose him to a substantially more risky life style and still does reduce the average age.
Reports to follow.
I think its funny that before statistics weren't relevant unless they were conducted by you personally, but now all that is being used are other statistics to defend a completely irrelevant argument. Even if all the statistics were correct, unbiased, and read properly (which they aren't), it has nothing to do with just being a GAY MAN. And it would seem that you are too close to the opposite end of the spectrum to make a rational case if Sarah and I are at fault for the same. Oh, and have taken a class on statistics and also marketing, and I think they go pretty well together to underline how they are provided to people. And insurance does not apply higher rates to homosexuals. Those cases stem from same-sex couples not being able to be on joint health care, not because they are at a higher risk that others. And fyi, the blood donations have been on heat for a long time and efforts are in process to change that because of how unjustified it is. In the UK, homosexuals are allowed to give blood so the United States will be changing in the near future. You can lie on blood donations and absolutely anyone can have AIDS, all blood must be screened and as the statistics in this decade are proving, the risk is not high enough to remove a group of people from giving blood. Bottom line is that sexual practices do not justify an answer to anything. Straight people can have anal sex and do things just as dangerous as the LGBT community. LGBT people have full control of their sexual choices just as a straight person does. An LGBT person can have 1000 partners just as a straight person can. And while an LGBT person might have to be more careful in their sexual practices due to the high number of HIV positive people, ultimately, they can remain at a 0% chance of catching the disease just as straight person can have a 0% chance of not getting pregnant by following certain practices. You are taking to concepts and putting them together. Chance and risk. When you buy a lottery ticket, you have a certain % CHANCE of winning the lottery and you also carry a risk of losing the money you spent. But while you may be eligible to play the lottery, until you buy a lottery ticket, you are not at risk and do not have the same chance as losing the lottery as someone else who bought a ticket. If two lotteries exist, one gay and one straight. The gay lottery may have a higher chance of losing than the straight lottery. But each group can only be eligible if they buy a ticket, and risk applies to the action of buying a ticket not the person. Whether gay, straight, black, white, male, female, we can all buy a lottery ticket, and our risk of losing is controlled by how much we put in and the choices we make in the numbers.
Tommy, I never said statistics were not relevant I simply asked if there was a significantly higher rate of suicide among bullied lgbtq than any other group. An par for the course, you do not have any facts on the matter that support a reason to have a seperate group of bullied people.
My original point was that if there was not a significant difference among lgbtq compared to overweight or poor people, then why not just have a anti bullying group for everyone.
Concerning your lottery example, if getting goal was getting aids, you would have much better chance of winning if you bought a ticket in the gay lottery compares to the straight lottery. Choosing to have sex with the same sex is your ticket to the gay lotto.
The only way to even the odds or better yet to beat the odds over heterosexual sex I to remain totally celabate, or not to buy a ticket at all.
I started looking for "credible" reports simply because you gave no credit to my, I think you called it laughable, own interviews with gay people.
So in just a short time I found just a few studies and the deck is totally stacked against what you are saying.
I think anyone who I willing to look with an open mind and do their own research would realize that there is no question if the risks to sexually practicing a gay life style.
To believe otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand.
I am searching for a doctor that will address the issue of aids/HIV related to homosexuality.
And a statistician to explain the numbers we find in the reports.
Your statement: I simply asked if there was a significantly higher rate of suicide among bullied lgbtq than any other group.
Art–there is a significantly HIGH suicide rate among LGBT youth whether they are bullied or not, and we don't even know how many at this moment are contemplating it. That is why I am supporting the efforts of "Raise Up."
I will not get into a discussion concerning AIDS, HIV, etc. with anyone here because that is NOT the point of "Raise Up." Nor will I discuss genetics or homosexuality as a choice (who in their right mind would choose it??????)
If we can save one young person's life by allowing them to openly talk about his or her homosexuality–among their peers–then I truly believe we have accomplished far more than a lot. It is that simple.
As a devout and gay Catholic, believe me when I tell you the situation is one that is extremely difficult with which to live. That is why so many sadly, choose to die. If this area in particular continues to turn its back on these kids crying for help, then I suggest that we not only think about the sixth comandment–we'd better also give some serious thought as to what part we may be playing in committing the offense such as that which God condemns–in the fifth commandment as well.
Jesus, the Christ–Savior for ALL–made it quite clear in the Gospels that we must take responsibility for each other. That did not mean we shoud judge–rather, we should listen and care.
Thanks.
Thank you for sharing with us.
I am not shutting the door I am opening a door that the gay community is closing or has already closed. That if you think you are gay then you are and there are no other options.
I am very comfortable talking to gay people and I do not judge them as any worse than anyone else or that I am any better than anyone else. I love the people in the gay community and I care for their health an safety or I would certainly not fight this fight.
My fight comes from the attitude that anyone that holds a negative view to the gay agenda then I am an enemy just because of my view and I am not free to be here and freely discuss my views openly with out being judged.
I do not judge them they judge me.
If you are accusing me of murder for voicing my opinion, my motive is to help not to condemn, so I am not breaking any commandment. Are you judging me by accusing me of murder? No, I don't think you are but by your standards you would be.
Judging has to do with thinking we are better than another for any reason and I do not think I am better than another, because of sin we are all reduced to sinners and in need of salvation and that is what Jesus does for the believer.
But if I say something is wrong, especially if the bible says its wrong Rom 1, how can this be any different than you telling me to not judge.
I have been listening and caring for gay people for 23 years, I have met with them and cared for them by talking to them and praying with them and most of them are still practicing homosexuals.
I have demonstrated for 23 years that do not condemn or turn my back on gay people or reject them for what they think or even what they do.
I think the bible is clear about its teaching that homosexuality is wrong and blessed is the one who puts their brothers an sisters in remembrance if these things and if you are ashamed of Him and what he said then he will be ashamed of us.
As we've said before, we're not arguing the validity of the statistics. We're saying the statistics aren't relevant to our discussion. Every person has the same ability to choose to do any of the things in the statistics regardless of their sexuality. The statistics don't prove anything about actually being LGBT. You're claiming that because a higher percentage of LGBT people do things you consider "wrong" that makes actually being LGBT wrong. That's like saying a higher percentage of people who wear red shirts do drugs, so wearing a red shirt is wrong. All the actions in the statistics are separate from being LGBT. It is possible for a person to be LGBT and do nothing on that list. Even if you think this person is "mythical" the fact that they have the choice is what matters. And they're not mythical. Tommy is proof. So, there's no need to validate your statistics with professional opinions, because it doesn't affect our argument at all.
Sarah, jut is my hope that there are people reading this discussion that are deciding if the feelings they have inside means that they are gay or not will see that there is a 44 X bigger chance to getting HIV by being a sexually active gay man than being straight and Di what a lot of people I have talked to and that is reject the idea that they are gay, because of the way they feel inside, and choose to be straight. There are many more statistics than just getting HIV, like stds and just associating with a group of friends that expose you to higher element if risk for harm pointed out in the study.
And yes I am suggesting that being a sexually active straight man will make life much easier and they would avoid, at least, the people with a higher propensity for doing these unhealthy things.
If you think that a gay man in this day and age will be celibate or always practice safe sex and there by stay clear of the reasons why the statistics are what they indicate, you are sadly mistaken. The high school subculture of being gay is new and exciting and fun to poke fun at old fuddy duddies like me but from my interviews and the diaries of gay men, even though it was 1972 tell of a much much different and ugly adult subculture filled with orgies, drugs, free sex and an over all unabashed life style.
No they can certainly be a super human and try to live a celibate life and always practice safe sex but statistics tell us that it just does not happen.
So if you are reading this and you just don't know what to do about the feelings you have inside please consider all the Heath risks and what the adult life style might be like after college and perhaps find another reason that you feel the way you do.
I offered a conclusion that I found after interviewing adult gay men of a psychological explanation that counseling would not only explain why you feel the way you do but show that you do not have to be gay if you really don't want to.
You all can operate based on facts or wishfully thinking about the cause but until you have the proof of a genetic cause perhaps you should not assume that there is unless you don't have a problem tossing science to side.
To the entire public: Yes, if you are a gay man you have a higher risk of contracting AIDS than a straight man if you have random sex. But the fact remains that every individual has the choice to what extent to put themselves at risk. It doesn't matter what people are likely to do, because if someone is gay they can be gay, be sexually active, and have a 0% chance of getting AIDS if they take the proper precautions. And again, the statistics Art posted do not assign causality. There is no reason to believe that anyone did these things because they were gay. I will go back to the analogy of black people. There are a higher percentage of black people who commit violent crimes, but they don't commit voilent crimes because they are black. There are other factors that lead to these statistics. If someone is gay, they are not powerless to the odds. They have the ability to make their own choices, reagardless of what the majority does. These arguments would be the same regardless if people choose to be gay or if they are born that way. However, Art is the one operating on the premise that people definitely choose to be gay. And where did he conclude these findings? His own, unpublished, outdated, personal, and unable to be verified or analyzed interviews of gay men. He has stated before that there is no evidence either way (though there is some promising studies in leading toward the conclusion it is not a choice), but let's assume there is no evidence either way. Then it is at least possible that people are born that way. If it is not a choice then what should one do? Art's whole point is that a questioning person can and should choose to be straight, but if it's not a choice then what is he left with? And if he truly is telling people that they can choose to not be who they then that is what will lead to miserable, depressed, and suicidal people. But say it is a choice, someone could choose to be gay and also choose to lead as healthy a life style as any straight man. But, if we are going to follow Art's rule and go with the rule that we should always lead the least risky life style then every woman should be lesbian. Because lesbians are at a significantly lower risk for AIDS than straight women, being lesbian is the only right option according to Art. No one is tossing science aside here. I am arguing from a place where either side could be true, but Art are relying on the uproven idea that being gay is a choice.
Sarah, thank you for admitting you were wrong concerning the data that the average gay man is at a higher risk than a straight man. The purpose of the exersize was because you wanted to know what harm could come from being gay, well HIV is just one dangers facing homosexuals. However I will agree that every one has a choice to control themselves from actions that lead to harm.
If you think you can always practice safe sex by controlling your urges then why couldn't you control the urge of being attracted to the same sex?
On this wise a heterosexual must do exactly the same thing as far as protective sex but also to be true to his or her partner by controlling their lusts.
I am NOT saying that all girls should be L.
This would end the human race just as if all men were gay. That is why it is against nature.
Not only does this act take away your heritage but it reduces our population and if everyone did it it would lead to our extinction. Also, anal sex, because of coming in contact with fecal matter is alway unhealthy and also causes harm unless special precautions are taken. Which again proves its not natural.
People behave the way they do to either avoid pain or gain pleasure. We are not helpless to control our urges most people just don't want to be told what to do an the rest take the path of least resistance.
We've made our position very clear, and obviously we're not going to reach an agreement. Raise Up is going to exist and continue to advocate acceptance for everyone regardless. If you think this is wrong for whatever reason, you can organize a group in opposition. But if not there's no point in continuing this discussion. We've provided enough arguments on both sides for anyone to read this and decide on their own.
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Evidence of Long-Term Outcomes
(October, 2011) The best-designed study of sexual-orientation change efforts (SOCE) to date, has just concluded in a follow-up report that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts.
Evidence from the study suggested that change of homosexual orientation appears possible for some and that psychological distress did not increase on average as a result of the involvement in the change process” (Jones & Yarhouse, 2011, p. 404).
The authors followed 98 individuals (72 men and 26 women) who undertook SOCE through the assistance of a variety of Christian ministries over a period of 6-7 years. The authors’ motivation for conducting this study was, in part, that the American Psychological Association had gone on the record indicating that change in sexual orientation was not possible, and that risks to those who engage in such efforts could be significant.
The authors note that the APA has moderated its viewpoint somewhat since then, fluctuating between statements that sexual-orientation change is “uncommon,” to the view that science “cannot yet” make conclusive statements about such change from the available literature.
Success: Conversion: 23%
Success: Chastity: 30%
Continuing: 16%
Nonresponse: 7%
Failure: Confused: 5%
Failure: Gay identity: 20%
Comments from the authors"
":No doubt this study will be dismissed by skeptics who for ideological reasons remain dogmatically unwilling to acknowledge the reality of sexual orientation change in some people. However, Jones and Yarhouse’s study of SOCE should go a long way toward putting to rest two extreme positions: i.e., that change always occurs and is simply a choice, or that change never occurs and is generally harmful."
Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M.A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2011). A longitudinal study of attempted religiously mediated sexual orientation change. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 404-427. DOI: 10.1080/009263X.2011.607052
We’ve made our position very clear, and obviously we’re not going to reach an agreement. Raise Up is going to exist and continue to advocate acceptance for everyone regardless. If you think this is wrong for whatever reason, you can organize a group in opposition. But if not there’s no point in continuing this discussion. We’ve provided enough arguments on both sides for anyone to read this and decide on their own.
I do thank you for your comments as well and as a conservative Christian I can only ask that you can find acceptance for our small minority as well.