How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Getting sick of the homophobes   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Getting sick of the homophobes

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


50 posted 07-28-2009 03:35 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos,


quote:
One is contrary to a standard:  faithful monogamy.  The other is also contrary to a stardard:  heterosexual monogamy.



But what about another standard: truthful monogomy?   If two people of the same gender desire and love each other most would it be truthful monogomy for them to go and enter monogamy with others they don't have any such desire and love for in order to meet the standard of being heterosexual?   Don't you think truthful monogomy is much more important than trying to limit all monogomy to heterosexuality?  
quote:
If gender is equally as sacred as marriage, then you can see how both adultery and homosexuality can be "on the same level".  


But if gender is sacred why would you suggest it can't have variation and still be sacred?   What makes you deny the presence of still having goodness and sacredness, even if you wouldn't consider something different (homosexuality) as an example of the best "ideal"?  There are many things that may not be  most "ideal", but that doesn't mean they no longer have goodness and sacredness.  What makes you demand that we treat homosexuality as contrary to goodness and sacredness just because religiously it is not the ideal of goodness and sacredness?  


quote:
Whatever you think Ess, you shouldn't keep repeating that the context of "love" makes everything different.  That is not a given.  It depends on whether anything else is afoot.


I agree that it is not a given.  But don't you agree that there are differences and things that are transcended and/or overlooked because love is more important?  Can you look at two people of the same gender that honestly love each and are loyal to each other, and honestly say that gender is not one of those things?    
quote:
So to advance the conversation, you'll have to tell me either why you think gender isn't divinely determined, or why you think gender isn't violated by homosexuality.


I can't find any reason why gender can't be divinely determined nor any reason why gender ceases to be divine by having some variation and exception.   I don't think homosexuality violates gender because nature and goodness have some flexibility and exceptions by which homosexuality is still able to be natural and good within gender even if comparatively it is not as natural and religiously not as good or ideal as heterosexuality.
 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


51 posted 07-28-2009 09:34 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     I'm unclear how being gay makes somebody untrue to their gender.  Simply because a woman can bear children doesn't mean that she has to bear children.  Nor does it mean that deciding not to bear children makes her untrue to her gender.  Nor does this mean that being gay precludes her from bearing children or raising them, and raising them well.

     I do not see how being gay means that a man cannot have sex with a woman and that the union will result in children and that the man will not be a good father.

     At least as stated this seems an ill-considered proposition.  Being true to one's gender does not consist of bearing as many children as possible, nor does it actually require bearing children at all.  That is unless you are to assume that people are only biology and have no other dimension.  In which case, you have reduced us to the same level as non-sentient plants and animals.

     If you are somebody who takes a primarily scientific approach to things, and I feel this is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but not an essential thing, then you should have no problem with the biology is destiny reasoning that you propose.  If you feel there are important psychological, ethical and spiritual dimensions beyond the business of genetics, then the proposition becomes not impossible but highly problematic.

    My own inclination is to believe that folks are more than simply a message being passed from one set of genes to another.  The things that I find meaningful in my life tend to fall outside that scope, into art and poetry and thought and relationships.  I will admit that these may be things that genes have provided simply to keep us people suckered into reproducing more genes.  I also find very little meaning in such an interpretation.

     And this line of discussion leaves theology out of it.  I don't recall any discussion of how God loves thy DNA with all His Heart, if you'll pardon the somewhat reductive metaphor.  I generally see much more of a whole person kind of thing, without leaving out significant body parts and features;  none of your God loves everything about you except your tan, or the size of your nose or how fat you are or how thin or your gender.

     And this doesn't even bring the notion of love and respect into things.

     I find what Stephanos says about Christian Church and Christian Communities much to the point here.  I've know quite a few gay folks who've had quite a robust religious life as Christians.  It's been very meaningful to them.  They've evidently found something deeply healing in the Christian Communion, if it's all right for me to speak of an overriding sense of Christian Community in this way.  I don't feel I should be more upset for them than they seem to be for themselves, but I do feel that they are somewhat ahead of the curve on this one.

     Other religious groups have the same issues, and in some of them the issues are actively dangerous and violent.  I have the sense that on this issue, as on so many of the issues that divide us, we find ourselves all attending a carnival of misinformation, and we seem to be happily advertising its wares to our fellows, each of us more certain than the other that our patent medicine vendor will be able to cure chillblains, cancer, the croup, distemper in farm animals, Consumption, and be a wife's friendly companion in times of pain anxiety and stress.
Buy some now.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


52 posted 07-29-2009 10:17 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
Me: One is contrary to a standard:  faithful monogamy.  The other is also contrary to a stardard:  heterosexual monogamy.


Ess:  But what about another standard: truthful monogomy?   If two people of the same gender desire and love each other most would it be truthful monogomy for them to go and enter monogamy with others they don't have any such desire and love for in order to meet the standard of being heterosexual?


Since when did desire become the standard of truth?  I suppose we would have to re-think covetousness too, since it is most "true" to the desires involved with covetous people.  I could give many other examples, many of which you also hold to be wrong, that would not be justified by the naked fact of desire, which apparantly you mean when you say "truthful".

quote:
What makes you deny the presence of still having goodness and sacredness, even if you wouldn't consider something different (homosexuality) as an example of the best "ideal"?  There are many things that may not be  most "ideal", but that doesn't mean they no longer have goodness and sacredness.  What makes you demand that we treat homosexuality as contrary to goodness and sacredness just because religiously it is not the ideal of goodness and sacredness?


Sacred, in its most basic form, means that which God has blessed and deemed proper.  If you do not accept the authority of God's word about such basic matters as marriage and gender, how do you determine what is "sacred"?  What does sacred mean?

Adultery doesn't fit the ideal either; so why not, according to your line of thinking, consider that it too may be "sacred"?

quote:
But don't you agree that there are differences and things that are transcended and/or overlooked because love is more important?  Can you look at two people of the same gender that honestly love each and are loyal to each other, and honestly say that gender is not one of those things?


The Mafia has family loyalty, moreso than your family I suspect.  Does that justify organized crime?  You are misunderstanding me, if you think I am saying that there is nothing "good" even in a sinful relation.  Loyalty has certain virtues, wherever it may be found.  But the context may still be wrong.  Most things that are wrong, are rationalized by the surrounding virtues.  Even an uncultivated thicket makes some flowers.  And when God has determined a garden, there can be little argument that the two are the same.

quote:
I can't find any reason why gender can't be divinely determined nor any reason why gender ceases to be divine by having some variation and exception.   I don't think homosexuality violates gender because nature and goodness have some flexibility and exceptions by which homosexuality is still able to be natural and good within gender even if comparatively it is not as natural and religiously not as good or ideal as heterosexuality.


You argue strangely ... You say that you don't see why it can't be divine, and then concede that it is religiously "not as good or ideal".  Is your standard for "divinity" sheer natural existence?  If so, then I suppose everything could be called that.

And, if you concede that it is "not as good", why could it not be sinful for that reason?  You misunderstand me if you think I mean that God is not involved (in ways of goodness) even in the most sinful of lives.  He was in mine, even before I ever knew him.  And in the most depraved relationships may grow things like friendship, which do not cease to be good because of the wrong.  


This probably answers some of Bob's questions too, if he surmises that by "gender" I am focusing entirely on biology or genetics.

Bob:
quote:
I'm unclear how being gay makes somebody untrue to their gender.  Simply because a woman can bear children doesn't mean that she has to bear children.  Nor does it mean that deciding not to bear children makes her untrue to her gender.  Nor does this mean that being gay precludes her from bearing children or raising them, and raising them well.

     I do not see how being gay means that a man cannot have sex with a woman and that the union will result in children and that the man will not be a good father.

     At least as stated this seems an ill-considered proposition.  Being true to one's gender does not consist of bearing as many children as possible, nor does it actually require bearing children at all.



Bob, firstly, there is nothing in scripture that explicitly says choosing not to bear children is sinful.  While "nature" is a good clue to God's will, it is not everything.  For someone like me, it must be coupled with what is fairly unambiguous in divine textual revelation, and consistent from beginning to end.  I could certainly argue that adulterers can also prove to be good fathers in many ways ... even good providers to their spouses.  It is always possible to argue from such points of tension.


Most women who choose not to have children, do so only for a time, or end up having them despite their overt wishes.  And many women who don't ever have children, attribute this to some physical disfuction or another.  But more to the point ...

My answer to your objections, would be that God deems sexual intimacy and complimentarity even more basic to gender, than child-rearing.  To a marriage, the period of child-rearing is much shorter than the physical complimentarity of sex, which is throughout.  And choosing not to have children does not violate gender in the same way homosexuality does, seeing that the sexual acts invariably involve someone "playing the woman ... or man".  Not having children, like not marrying (which was actually recommended by St. Paul) represents a kind of passive abstinence (which is permitted by God, since marriage nor children are required), while homosexuality is a more fundamental deviation from God's will and design concerning marriage itself.        

quote:
And this line of discussion leaves theology out of it.  I don't recall any discussion of how God loves thy DNA with all His Heart, if you'll pardon the somewhat reductive metaphor.  I generally see much more of a whole person kind of thing, without leaving out significant body parts and features;  none of your God loves everything about you except your tan, or the size of your nose or how fat you are or how thin or your gender.


Have I left theology out of it?  The caveat I would add to your idea of divine love, given and reciprocated, is the idea of authority.  God is called "Father" in scripture, for the reason that in many instances, especially where human arguments can be unceasing, love is best expressed as accepting a judgment call or pronouncement.  Which leads me to ask again, whether it can reasonably argued that such a pronouncement has not been made in divinely inspired scripture (in a holistic kind of way, rather than in a proof-texting kind of way) regarding homosexuality.


If you would be willing to explore such an issue, a couple of good books are:

"Out of Order: Homosexuality and the Bible and the Ancient Near East" by Donald J. Wold.

and

"The Bible and Homosexual Practice" by A.J. Gagnon.


I do understand Bob, that the approach to the text of the Bible, must differ for us ... hence the impasse.  But Christians, especially those who hold that "sola sciptura" holds a great truth, are bound to think that God has spoken, partially through nature, and clearly through scripture, though the human arguments may never come to water-tight conclusion.  That's not to say that there aren't more ambiguous subject matters in the Bible, but I don't think they have the same textual weight as this one.  

I still respect you and the thoughtful energy you (and Essorant too) put into these discussions.

your friend,

Stephen    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 07-29-2009 09:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Stephen,

          It is always refreshing to speak with you.

     To further confuse the discussion of gender, I suggest the Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

which covers far more material than I suspect anybody would like to deal with in a discussion of this sort.  I found it useful as a way of clearing my thinking process.   The article does make clear that should you wish to speak of somebody being "untrue to their gender," you will need to be much more explicit about what you mean.

quote:

  I could certainly argue that adulterers can also prove to be good fathers in many ways ... even good providers to their spouses.  It is always possible to argue from such points of tension.




     Yes, you could make such an argument; and by mentioning it, you float a trial balloon.  Unspoken is whether or not you intend this to be a comparison to relationships between same sex folks.  I will go with the affirmative on that, otherwise it serves no purpose in bringing the suggestion up.

    One of the key distinctions here is the nature of the relationship.  Another is the difference between "many ways" and "the essential ways."

     In a relationship in a couple with an adulterer present, the nature of the relationship as a container for the rearing of the child is already fractured and the love between the spouses is compromised; whatever other factors may be involved in that relationship, there is always an insecurity there.  One of the parents is willing to do something that will endanger the security of the child's
relationship with both parents for personal gain.  The child feels that on some level.

     In a stable same sex relationship, this is not the case.

     The two relationships are different in their ability to provide the containment function for the child.  Were the same-sex relationship be adulterous, of course, the same problems would apply, but we haven't specified that.

     As to adulterous fathers possibly being possibly good fathers in many ways, I wouldn't question that.  The notion that the adulterous partner would be male is a bit stereotypical. But I would suggest that there is a difference between ways of being a good parent, and that some of them may be more important than others.  Monitoring how much diet coke your kid drinks may be a very loving thing to do, but it may be less important overall than being a faithful partner to your spouse in raising that child.  The feeling of having a secure home base is, in the long run, more important than getting an early childhood grip on your sodium level.  If a child feels solid in herself, she can always learn to monitor her own sodium level later on.  If not, she may never be able to do so.

     Doing many things right is not as important as doing the core things right.  Having folks who love you there for you in a dependable way is one of those core things.  Having that parental relationship there for you is vital, and it's better if it's very stable, whatever it is.

quote:


My answer to your objections, would be that God deems sexual intimacy and complimentarity even more basic to gender, than child-rearing.




     I wish you wouldn't do this.  I know that you believe you can speak for God with certainty.  I understand that within your community, other folks believe the same thing and believe that God said and says the same things that you do.  In speaking with people who don't share your beliefs, though, it would help if you didn't expect them to do so already, and to believe that simply because you've said them they must be true.

     I don't know what God says, honest.  And when other people act as if they do it sounds as if there are holes in their reasoning process.  

     I believe it doesn't sound that way to you, and that the statement sounds completely natural and true.  To me it is simply the beginning of a familiar conversation where everything goes back to essentially, Because God said so.
If God says so or not, surely there some way of discussing this that doesn't try to bludgeon me with an authority that I'm not all that certain exists in the way that you conceptualize it.  

     You may feel I'm being presumptuous here.  I'm trying to find a way to talk that's not an appeal to a higher power.  I don't want to be bullied, I want to understand as best I can and explain as best I can and reach some sort interesting new way of considering things.

     I have an odd relationship with Saint Paul, and "It is better to marry than to burn" would not necessarily count as a ringing endorsement from where I sit.  "Burn" with lust or "burn" in the pit was never been entirely clear to me.  Probably "lust," I guess, but hardly on a "the greatest of these is love" scale in terms of marriage.  A bright and charitable man in so many ways, a good man, but not a humble man, I think.

quote:


But Christians, especially those who hold that "sola sciptura" holds a great truth, are bound to think that God has spoken, partially through nature, and clearly through scripture, though the human arguments may never come to water-tight conclusion.  That's not to say that there aren't more ambiguous subject matters in the Bible, but I don't think they have the same textual weight as this one.  




     I think you've hit on something here.  That is, I think there are lots of things in the bible with lots more textual weight than this issue.  Idolatry, for example, which ought to be a major subject in every church in the country when it comes to people's love of money.  People's lack of attention to social justice and the crimes that are committed in the name of punishment every day in this country and throughout the world.  People read the "Eye for an eye" verse as though it was demanding at least equal retribution instead of limiting it.  Issues of war, issues of how we treat the poor and the elderly and the ill.

     The bible is rich with text on all these issues, and relatively speaking, not so much on this one.  This issue has had way more written about it than it's textual importance suggests, and I think the reason for that has something to do with us, not with the mote but the log.

Your friend,

Bob


    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


54 posted 07-30-2009 02:48 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos,


quote:
Since when did desire become the standard of truth?  I suppose we would have to re-think covetousness too, since it is most "true" to the desires involved with covetous people.  I could give many other examples, many of which you also hold to be wrong, that would not be justified by the naked fact of desire, which apparantly you mean when you say "truthful".



Since when did it become a nonstandard, Stephanos?  I suppose we would have to rethink rape too, and forced marriages, when they are "true" to being heterosexual, and if mutual desire and love on both sides is not necessary?  If two people of the same gender desire and love each other most, you will call it false or sinful,  but if they involved themselves with people whom they don't have any such desire and love for to meet the "standard" of being heterosexual, you will call it "truthful"?    Come on, Stephanos                  

quote:
Sacred, in its most basic form, means that which God has blessed and deemed proper.  If you do not accept the authority of God's word about such basic matters as marriage and gender, how do you determine what is "sacred"?  What does sacred mean?


I consider sacred as meaning special.  A special relationship, such as a very loving and loyal relationship, is special, therefore it is also sacred.  Of course a very religious and beliefful relationship in God is special and sacred too.  


quote:
Adultery doesn't fit the ideal either; so why not, according to your line of thinking, consider that it too may be "sacred"?


Adultry is not sacred because it deceives and is disloyal to a special relationship and a breach to a vow, etc.   When two people of the same gender love each other though, the gender is part of the person whom (s)he loves, just as hair, eyes, nose, etc.  It is part of the one (s)he loves, not committing a wrongful act on the other or breaking a vow they make.  Don't you think that is a great difference?
quote:
The Mafia has family loyalty, moreso than your family I suspect.  Does that justify organized crime?  You are misunderstanding me, if you think I am saying that there is nothing "good" even in a sinful relation.  Loyalty has certain virtues, wherever it may be found.  But the context may still be wrong.  Most things that are wrong, are rationalized by the surrounding virtues....


You missed my point a bit Stephanos.   The question was not meant to consider things that love DOESN'T justify, but to consider the things that it DOES justify or transcend or overlook.  If my parents believed that it would be wrong for me to have a special love for or marry someone of a different race, would it therefore be wrong for me to have a special love for and marry someone of a different race?   What is the difference?   It is not necessary to be of this or that race to have mutual desire and love with someone.  Nor is it necessary to be a different gender, therefore, how can gender possibly be a more important "base" than the mutual desire and love two people have for each other, whether of different or the same gender?

quote:
And, if you concede that it is "not as good", why could it not be sinful for that reason?



I was just speaking hypothetically from a religious sense of "hierarchy".   If it be "not as good" as heterosexuality that wouldn't mean it were not good anymore, just as winning silver metal at the Olympics is "not as good" as winning gold, but is still good.  Something is not "bad" just because it is not the best or most ideal example of something.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (07-30-2009 06:38 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


55 posted 08-02-2009 12:44 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob:
quote:
Yes, you could make such an argument; and by mentioning it, you float a trial balloon.  Unspoken is whether or not you intend this to be a comparison to relationships between same sex folks.  I will go with the affirmative on that, otherwise it serves no purpose in bringing the suggestion up.


Of course adultery and homosexuality are different in many ways.  I of course, brought up adultery to say that the alleged virtues thereof (or the moral justification thereof) can be argued in a similar fashion.  You rightly argue against the rationalization of adultery.  But all the while you have your own rationalizations of homosexuality.  I of course can give you what I consider to be meaningful reasons for the censure of homosex, but to you, greater "good" will trump them.  I suppose the same could be said by anyone arguing the virtues of adultery.  If you think this is unheard of, think again.  There are pro-adultery dating services, and serious writers/thinkers saying that faithful monogamy is unnatural, and that occasional affairs may be healthy.  I'm not sure how our impasse may be solved.  But it does give an interesting dimension to your statements about divine authority.  I think there is one, ultimately, bearing on moral issues where no human consensus will be found.

Of course, I would object to the influence of homosexuality on any children involved, just as you would presume adultery to have a negative affect on children.  Intuitively, I feel that Children need Father and Mother (though of course there are exceptions, where this is impossible), and that vibrant heterosexuality should be modeled for children, who do find themselves asking "what is right?", regarding their own sexuality.  That research can never be conclusive, either for or against such claims, I am aware.

quote:
I wish you wouldn't do this.  I know that you believe you can speak for God with certainty.  I understand that within your community, other folks believe the same thing and believe that God said and says the same things that you do.  In speaking with people who don't share your beliefs, though, it would help if you didn't expect them to do so already, and to believe that simply because you've said them they must be true.

     I don't know what God says, honest.  And when other people act as if they do it sounds as if there are holes in their reasoning process.  

     I believe it doesn't sound that way to you, and that the statement sounds completely natural and true.  To me it is simply the beginning of a familiar conversation where everything goes back to essentially, Because God said so.
If God says so or not, surely there some way of discussing this that doesn't try to bludgeon me with an authority that I'm not all that certain exists in the way that you conceptualize it.


Bob, the original context that brought me into this discussion was a criticism of a Bishop, who believes essentially the same as I do about the divine specificity involved with human sexuality and marriage.

I, of course, would like to explain how a view that does not make homosexulity an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality, should be reasonable.  It's just that there is much data that will always be interpreted differently according to our views.   There is no more of a hole in my reasoning, which attempts to interpret data in light of a divine statement, than in your reasoning, which excludes divine authority and gives more weight to your sensibilities (and your own choice of what is most important in relationships).

I certainly don't like it when you say that St. Paul is arrogant, and anyone who says that God definitely said something.  But wishes are wishes, and I suspect our prospective views of things have bound us to certain feelings toward the kinds of arguments we each tend to use in these discussions.  

My argument is certainly not "just because God says so".  It is coupled with many reasons ... none of which, like yours, are incontrovertible.

I do feel that if you really believe that Gender is so ambiguous (a position which is much more academic than really believed or felt, except in rare unfortunate cases), I'm not sure we have that much common ground to speak from.  I feel that out of political correctness, people are generally afraid to say openly that homosexuality is a form of gender confusion, akin to transvestism.

quote:
Probably "lust," I guess, but hardly on a "the greatest of these is love" scale in terms of marriage.  A bright and charitable man in so many ways, a good man, but not a humble man, I think.


Nor do I think this particular prescription of Paul's was meant to be on that level.  But it is a persuasion that it is better to enter a God-sanctioned relationship where the sublimities of love may be learned in time, rather than to enter into sinful fornication which would only serve to damage, if not destroy the relationship altogether.  Not all statements are on the same level.  Some meet us where we are, rather than where we should be.

quote:
I think you've hit on something here.  That is, I think there are lots of things in the bible with lots more textual weight than this issue.  Idolatry, for example, which ought to be a major subject in every church in the country when it comes to people's love of money.  People's lack of attention to social justice and the crimes that are committed in the name of punishment every day in this country and throughout the world.  People read the "Eye for an eye" verse as though it was demanding at least equal retribution instead of limiting it.  Issues of war, issues of how we treat the poor and the elderly and the ill.

     The bible is rich with text on all these issues, and relatively speaking, not so much on this one.  This issue has had way more written about it than it's textual importance suggests, and I think the reason for that has something to do with us, not with the mote but the log.



Our common ground:  This should not be a pet-sin (usually someone else's) to harp on.  And there is much to clean up at home.  

  

Our divergence:  Conceding the former point doesn't mean that homosexuality is less significant than the other issues mentioned, given the words used in scripture to describe it.  "Abomination" is pretty strong language, that is never used for mere ceremonial pollution.  And if one is to conclude that homosexuality is a sin at all, then it is one of the few of which not only sanction has been demanded, but nearly celebration ... making it quite unique, along with the responses of the Christian communities (both the rancorous and more civil).  


later,

Stephen  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


56 posted 08-02-2009 12:55 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant ...

Be back later.  Must sleep.  

Stephen
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


57 posted 08-02-2009 02:03 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I'm curious whose definition of adultery you guys are bandying about? If ya'll are going to unilaterally condemn something, don't you think you should define it first?

From where I'm sitting, it doesn't sound like you're talking about adultery at all. It sounds, rather, as if you're talking about betrayal. They're not necessarily the same things, you know?

That's not unimportant, I think, because a comparison of sexual preference and betrayal is going to sound a lot different that a comparison of sex with one person versus sex with another person. The latter makes some sense, I suppose, even if it accomplishes very little.

The former, however, makes no sense at all. There is nothing there to compare.


crosscountry83
Member
since 07-30-2009
Posts 335


58 posted 08-04-2009 05:21 PM       View Profile for crosscountry83   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for crosscountry83

You are lucky your friends and family accept you, how did you tell them about it?
Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


59 posted 08-04-2009 09:09 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Well if your willing to hear the family story you might as well get comfy. Its sorta long.  

This was back when I was 14.

I was dating this girl for about 3 months and she was falling head over heals for me. (might be over exaggerating on that LOL) And well I could only respect her like a friend and my emotions for her weren't getting any stronger like her's were.
I didn't feel like moving in the next step in the relationship and I had to break up with her.


While this all happened I was struggling with keeping my secret under wraps. I wasn't ready to tell my parents. They being really big religious parents, and I thinking they wouldn't approve of my "life style."  I just didn't know how to do it. Or go out at it a certain way.


Until one day I was freaking out. Bottling up every emotion I hid from them was finally coming out. After dinner I asked them to meet with me in their room so we could talk.

My parents were always supportive and accepted what I did. They always were kind and helped me in any way they could. So they were concerned and curious on what I had to talk to them about it.
So I explained to them my situation about me and my girlfriend and about me not having an attraction to her or girls generally at that moment. All the while asking for advice, I was crying my eyes out. They understood and accepted me for who I am.

That's my story there.


What I did with my friends I just told the ones I really trusted and had a deep relationship with first. They were the hardest to tell. For me most of them were okay with. I consider myself lucky. But of course not everyone can be okay with who you are. One of them was convinced that I had a crush on him. LOL. I had to tell him many times that I didn't. He accepted it but I still don't think he's happy about it. Oh well, his loss. But slowly everyone grew to knew about my sexuality.    

So that's pretty much it.


But on another thought..

A month or so back I also asked my Mom if she would have a problem if I dated guys. Her answer was, "I'd be lying if I said I would be comfortable with you dating guys." I was sort of upset when she told me. But after a while of thinking I was okay with what she said.


That only goes to show you that not everyone has an easy experience like I did. I feel sorry for those who can't come out to their parents because I think parents and their children should have a great amount of trust. I mean if you can't trust your own family, who else can you?

Anyway... Enough of my ranting. I hope you enjoyed the story. Sorry If I bore ya to death.  

  
-Zach
crosscountry83
Member
since 07-30-2009
Posts 335


60 posted 08-04-2009 10:21 PM       View Profile for crosscountry83   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for crosscountry83

You didn't, thanks for telling me, very insightful.

Rileigh
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


61 posted 08-11-2009 05:07 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1


.

Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


62 posted 08-12-2009 03:05 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

I find it funny how you guys get way off topic here. lol. If you wanted to talk about something separately start a new topic

-Zach
crosscountry83
Member
since 07-30-2009
Posts 335


63 posted 08-12-2009 09:33 PM       View Profile for crosscountry83   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for crosscountry83

Haha, but that's part of the fun of The Alley, isn't it?  Look at Balladeer's threads with 200 posts on them. How is THAT possible to keep on topic? lol

Rileigh
Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


64 posted 08-13-2009 03:41 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Ahh true enough Rileigh. Haha.

-Zach
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Getting sick of the homophobes   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors