And you also realize, Texican, that those articles you linked to/posted are about as representative of the general gay community as NAMBLA is of the Roman Catholic Church, yes? Also that “They give way TMI about sexual practices and the advocacy of the acts.” is not a fact but your own personal opinion, however widely you may believe it to be held?
Poly, I’ve seen the viewpoint you quoted espoused several times by conservative christians in several places. They generally do not seem to have much of a response to this very simple question, unless they start to argue in a way I’ll describe after the question:
“Why is it any of your business, unless someone is harming another person against their will, what two people do in the privacy of their own home, or one person does in the privacy of his own mind?”
Most of them can’t come up with anything, and the one major (in the sense that it’s the one that most commonly comes up) objection I have seen is that they think one’s sins should be told to everyone, under the reasoning that it will lead to embarassment and such things. They usually don’t take my offer to have me lis some sins I’ve recently committed and then tell me what they’ve been doing in bed, though;)
“Our job is to stand by them and help them to resist the temptation to sin. And we should do this because we are commanded to love them as our brothers and sisters, and to try to help to lead them out of their sinful lifestyles.”
I wonder how often those gay people go out of their way to try to help someone out of a consenting sexual relationship with different-gendered people (as in a heterosexual relationship). My guess is not very often. Perhaps, then, those who consider someone’s sex life (assuming there is any) to be their business should ask the person in question if s/he is receptive to “help” (in quotes because I rather doubt saying “you’re sinning” when it feels completely right is going to help). You can lead a horse to water, after all, but you can’t prevent it from kicking you square in the balls, spitting at you and running away, leaving you without a ride home.
lel posted:
" Now to me, it seems that when one tries to argue that homosexuality is wrong, homosexuality is often portrayed as a concept. One seems more likely to say that homosexuality is wrong than to say that person X, a homosexual, is performing a sinful sexual act. However, when one tries to argue the converse, they often portray people as good people who incidentally happen to be homosexual. It seems more likely that one would say that person X is an upstanding person who just so happens to be homosexual than to say that homosexuality is an inherently wonderful concept (I am not saying that it isn’t, but rather that that’s rarely how people argue in favor of homosexuality)."
When homosexuality as a concept is discussed in the frame of being a sinful existence (well, honestly, that’s when smoke starts coming out of my ears, but that’s another thing), it’s most often done by those who believe A) that all gay people have gay sex and B) all gay people choose to be gay because they want to spurn the bible/go to hell/rebel against their parents/some other less-than-rigorous thinking. In that sense it’s hard for me to think “okay, let’s discuss it as a concept and not bring in all the foul experiences I’ve had with this line of reasonong”, but I’ll give it a shot.
When homosexuality is discussed as a concept free of its manifestation in people, much of what homosexuality is about is missed. Let me draw you an analogy here … let’s talk about eating. How can you talk about eating in much of any meaningful way without discussing those who eat (such as people)? You can’t talk about how it’s necessary for survival because that begs the question of “whose survival?” You can’t talk about how a being eats because that gets away from the core concept and into the practice of eating, which leads right down to those who eat. But that’s the problem. This concept of eating is tied to those who eat (people and other animals). Similarly, to me at least, the concept of homosexuality is inextricably tied to those who are gay. You can’t really get a frame of reference for it without delving into the reality of it.
One of the problems with saying that something alternative is wonderful is that to many people that inherently implies that it might be better than, or even as good as, what is considered the norm. I find it to be a more-oft-won battle to simply start by agreeing, if possible, that it’s okay to be gay and that people’s sex lives, unless they’re purposefully harming another without said other’s consent, are nobody’s business but their own.
And if I post much more in this thread my ppd ratio is going to slowly fall back to the unholy number 7. Must find flirt threads…
