Standards

As I hope you know, Rod, I have a lot of respect for you as the chief wrangler of this motley herd, and someone with a lively mind, a wide-ranging eye and a good heart, who has generously given much of himself to these discussions. So I don't want to be seen as "against" you in any sense.

But I feel as if this characterization you're giving of what I'd call the loyal opposition isn't quite fair. Look at your numbered points of opprobrium up there--to be fair, every single one of those accusations has also been leveled against the more liberal by the more orthodox.

I often find myself bemused, since I never considered myself a left-wing culture wrecker till I wandered over here in search of congenial company! Since arriving here, I've learned that I hate babies and want to see white America extinguish itself on the altar of selfish hedonism, that I want to destroy marriage, that I hate men and am an oppressor of virtuous women, that I'm an irrational emotivist . . . whoo. The beat goes on.

It seems to me that advocates of gay rights on this board--and I name no names because I don't consider this an individual issue, but a general one, which includes myself--have frequently "pointed out errors in fact or logic" and attempted to engage in dialog. But the reaction to any issue partaking of the sexual, and particularly to anything concerning homosexuality, tends to be furious and visceral.

It seems there's one and only one right answer: admit there is something seriously wrong with you. Confess that your desires are wrong. Either pretend to be heterosexual, marry and keep pretending forever, or stay alone, touch no one and say nothing. If you don't want either of those options, then you should get out of the Church, get out of the schools, get out of the streets, get out of movies and the arts, just get out, period. Because heterosexual society doesn't even want to talk about this. Just existing is defined as "being in our face." Your marriage "destroys" our marriage. Your parenting automatically harms your own children. We don't want "our children" to even know you exist, because that would smirch them in some way. And GOD SAID SO, so don't try to confuse us with logic or statistics.

Well, come on! It's pretty difficult to get a dialog going when you're supposed to first prove that you even have a right to exist. Many people here don't even accept that someone can "be" gay. They think that everyone is REALLY heterosexual, but some people are just evil for some reason, and deliberately choose to be "perverted." How can there be a level playing field when the assumption on one side is that you're lying about yourself from the get-go?

Some of us do lose our tempers from time to time, but let's admit that the snark and snot is not all on one side. Besides, what fun would it be if all you could do is wag your heads in solemn unison over the latest Awful Scandal? Othello's occupation would be gone! :)>

~TV, you wrote: Seriously - one wonders what it is you people want, if not the complete erradication of gay people.

That was your opening gambit. If you were not actually accusing us of wanting to exterminate homosexuals, I would say the problem was one of clarity of expression, not of interpretation. You said "seriously," which would seem to preclude interpreting your remark as intentional hyperbole.

Anyway, I'm afraid I have to bow out now, because I'm about to travel. Be well!>

OK, Sigaliris and others, I really don t want to reignite the nastiness here. Perhaps I was being too sarcastic last night, and I am not personally attacking anyone here. I understand as well as anyone that there will be no consensus on this issue, and am not trying to persuade anyone to change their position. In fact, I mentioned in my first post that the conservative arguments thus far presented struck me as mediocre, and would not be convincing to me if I didn t already believe that homosexuality was bad. I m with the liberals in that I think any theologically based argument is inherently weak because it is meaningless to anyone who does not share that theology. That s what I said originally.

Nonetheless, I m with the conservatives because I believe there are sound arguments based on social history. Rod put it best when he wrote, But when I was last in Holland, I talked to a leading Dutch criminologist who told me that they're seeing in the young generations now the stark erosion of that inner Calvinist restraint -- and that this was having now, and would continue to have, serious consequences for the country. Why should this surprise anybody? Sustained, long-term marriage requires great sacrifices that are simply not worth it for many people if they only care about what is beneficial to them individually. That type of individualism is a vice of all who subscribe to modern values. That is why they would mess up such a great thing , Sigaliris. Commitment is tough. Many young men today have no stomach for it, while women often set an impossibly high standard for the kind of partner they seek, which keeps them from ever marrying. I acknowledge that heterosexuals who make the promise, Till death do us part, and then break it lightly, are more blameworthy than gays. In my opinion, by all means we should ban from the media people like Britney Spears who trivialize marriage!

The question for us remains, is the fact of gay promiscuity an accident that would go away if we allowed gays to marry, or is it inherent in the nature of a same-sex relationship? Conservatives believe the latter, and thus search for proof in the experience of European nations that have legalized same-sex marriage. Sure, we re too quick to seize on any evidence we can find, and you may think we re presenting it as proof positive, Q.E.D. This is admittedly unscientific, but if you want something other than theological arguments, social science is about all we can use. Social science is not physics, so the statement Gays are inherently more promiscuous than heterosexuals is not subject to proof. We just work from the best theories we have, and if a theory seems to be confirmed by the Bible as well as human experience, generally that pleases us.

You say that conservatives think that everyone is REALLY heterosexual, but some people are just evil for some reason, and deliberately choose to be "perverted." On the whole, it would be surprising if a theological traditionalist (you would probably say a fundamentalist ) believed otherwise. Theological traditionalism affirms the existence of evil, which is thought to be behind all types of sin, including sexual immorality. People DO have greater or lesser tendencies to seek homosexual partners, but conservatives believe this is no more a rationalization for homosexual behavior than the fact that some people have greater tendencies to commit other types of sin such as murder, adultery, or rejecting God.

Finally, I m sure all of you understand that marriage as an equal partnership does not mean the same thing for me that it does for liberals. I conceive of something similar to my grandparents marriage, which I consider an equal partnership even though they held to traditional gender roles. Since we have no common ground here, I won t say anything more on this point. No preaching on either side, please.>