The problem with gay marriage

My Recent Posts

This article was originally posted on New Honesty


To me, the problem with gay marriage is that there is no problem. I don’t understand how the decision of two consenting adults to join lives in matrimony effects anyone other than the two of them. For me personally it doesn’t matter as much because I don’t need a piece of paper or a ring or a law to validate a relationship – I don’t feel like I need to follow every hetero-norm to be a part of this society. However, I think it is important that gay marriage is legalized, so that same-sex couples who want to marry have the possibility to do so.


I didn’t plan on writing about this topic until I browsed some blogs. I was searching for reasons that people oppose gay marriage because I truly didn’t understand it. The most common argument against gay marriage is that children need a man and a woman as parents. I find this funny, not only because it is an argument against same-sex adoption and not marriage, but also because this hypothesis has been proven wrong a long time ago (inter alia by millions of kids growing up with only one parent): Adopted children thrive in same-sex households. Another common argument is that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’. I am certain that, whoever claims that homosexuality is unnatural hasn’t seen gay penguin couple Dotty and Zee in the zoo Bremerhaven. Also, be sure to read up upon this: Homosexuality, animals and families.


600_phpr66LhAWho is who at the gay zoo? Dotty and Zee (Zoo Bremerhaven)


However, I am not here to reasonably disprove all arguments against gay marriage. But I wanted to share the consensus of what I have learned while reading all the problems people have with gay marriage. It is – without any doubt – religion. Every argument against same-sex marriage can be lead back to some form of religious conviction, mostly from members of the Catholic church.


There is no point in arguing with someone about religion. They won’t listen to reason as I won’t listen to bible verses. But we must find a way to move forward together. Because the LGBT+ community and a multitude of religious communities will continue to share the same laws. I don’t believe that the church should have any say in legal matters anymore but we must find a way to co-exist. I guess what I am trying to say is, that whatever you believe is best for the future of society, it is nothing more than on OPINION. And whatever your opinion is, you don’t need to shove it down anyone’s throat. Live and let live.


couplebwPhoto by Patrick Lentz


If you choose to live your life by the standards of a religion, you may very well do that. However, this lifestyle is not for me (and probably not for anyone I know). Let me give you my honest two cents about how I think, you should live your life: whichever way you want. There is NOT A SINGLE PERSON on earth who can tell you what is right and what is wrong. You can do whatever you want to do and you do not have to follow any religious or societal guidelines. If someone has a problem with how you live your life, then it’s their problem, and not yours. Fuck them for thinking they get to have a say in how you live your (possibly only) life!




There is just one thing I want to add to this on-going discussion and that is a quote from pope Francis: ‘I believe that the church not only must say it’s sorry … to this person that is gay that it has offended, but it must say it’s sorry to the poor, also, to mistreated women, to children forced to work. […] I will also repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: that [gay people] should not be discriminated against, that they have to be respected, pastorally accompanied.’


Do you think religions should have a say in this matter? If not, who do you feel would be best to make laws going forward?


John Minehan Added May 14, 2017 - 6:12pm
In the US, this really should have come from the States (legislatures or referendum) and NOT from the US Supreme Court.
The result is just, in my opinion, but the process is lawless.
Billy Roper Added May 14, 2017 - 6:41pm
Phase one, their lifestyle doesn't affect you. Phase two, make the cake or else!
Patrick Writes Added May 14, 2017 - 9:36pm
I have no problem with this post. I think it's unfortunate the way that gay marriage was legalized in the U.S.A. via the courts in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision (similar to the Roe v. Wade decision).

Why not let the states come around democratically to this? Half already had at the time. (Or why not simply force all states to recognize each other's marriages following precedent that had been in place since the beginning of the Republic? So Texas, who hasn't legalized gay marriage, would still have to recognize as married, a NY-married gay couple. With practically half the states in favor at the time, how much of a burden would it be to, at the very least, buy a greyhound bus ticket to travel to a neighboring state to marry and come back to your home state that doesn't allow it.)

But these issues are more procedural than anything. The courts are not almighty and able to make pronouncements on whatever they feel like. And when we give them this power, what out where it leads (to bad decisions even on the Right like Citizens United).

I was personally against gay marriage, but felt that if the majority of people eventually came to favor it, then so be it.

But at the same time, in examining this debate I came to feel that the federal and state government need not be involved in marriage at all. Who cares about marriage? For the most, the religious do. It's very important to them. And if the government withdrew from the marriage business, it would continue to be important to religious people. Probably not to many others. But they'd still "own" their institution.

Instead, the way this has gone, it's created a collision course between the federal government and religious folks on what a marriage is, what a wedding involves and consists of, what pastors can say inside their own houses of worship, what churches can do with their own houses of worship (if you have a free community dinner, you may need a transgender bathroom, or allow dudes to use your female bathrooms, gay couples to use your church for their wedding if you are "open to the public", the list goes on endlessly).
Now, you have no longer have freedom of religion (not completely anyway). Live and let live indeed.
By the way, Canada was one of the first countries to legalize gay marriage. In 2011, they had a major judicial decision that barely disallowed polygamous renegade Mormons from legalizing polygamy. The polygamous couples used many of the same arguments used in favor of gay marriage (minus the bogus: "we're born that way" I suppose). This is EXACTLY what people who opposed said, that polygamy was only a few years away once you start this slippery slope of redefining every time its fashionable to do so, via the courts who have believe themselves to have unlimited power.

There is no firm evidence that gay people raising children do a better, worse, or the similar job as heterosexuals because no studies have gone on long enough to draw a real conclusion. So that is a spurious "fact" as well.
Tamara Wilhite Added May 14, 2017 - 10:13pm
The Regernus study has found that children being raised by same sex couples have about as bad an outcome as single mothers, and children who are the opposite sex as the parents have WORSE outcomes than from single mothers. In comparison, children of single mothers have three to four times the rate of drug addiction, mental illness, homelessness, dropping out of school and other bad life outcomes as married opposite sex parents.
The raft of studies saying same sex parents are just as good or better are biased because they take happy lesbian mothers – self-selected “good” outcomes – whereas the Regernus study looked at all couples, including the bad cases.
We avoid giving children to single parents because of the 3-4 times greater odds of bad life outcomes. It is thus wrong to give children to homosexual couples. Don’t cite need, because there are many heterosexual couples that are ready and eager to adopt children of all types but the foster care system impedes this.
The problem with the LBGT politics at the moment is not “love who you want to love” but “endorse our views or be punished by the state”.

Homosexual owned businesses have been allowed to refuse service to religious groups, but state Civil Rights Commissions have said businesses can’t refuse service per their beliefs. An unfair double standard. That's not tolerance, it is a demand for endorsement backed by the state.
Deliberate seeking out of people to punish through shaming, death threats, lawsuits per violations of said Civil Rights redefinition.  "Your beliefs don't matter, do what we say or you'll be destroyed".
Demands to silence freedom of speech of others, from disrupting speakers to seeking censorship on social media, because their opinions are considered more important than anyone else’s
Approaching religious private schools to enroll a young child of same sex parents, then either demanding they change teachings to not hurt the child’s feelings, sue for offending that child’s feelings or take legal action for not admitting the child. In short, “don’t share your views in public, do it in private institutions, we’ll try to destroy those, too”. That violates of freedom of belief and association. This has happened at multiple private schools in the US.
Nothing is good enough. In ten years, we’ve gone from legalization of sodomy to same sex marriage to a brand new “let’s demand accommodation of people with gender identity disorders”. Redefinition of marriage to include them wasn’t the goal – destruction of the institution and other social structures is. Transgenderism rocketing to the forefront is proof of that.
While using homosexuals’ feelings as a basis to silence Christianity, liberals are silent on homosexuals in the Middle East being murdered routinely, often by courts in Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is spreading into the EU via Muslim migrants, which is why attacks on homosexuals are spiking along with attacks on Jews. And liberal multiculturalists can’t condemn it and point at Christians as a boogeyman theocracy in waiting instead.

Fury as watchdog says it's OK to send gay people death threats – but only if you're Muslim
John G Added May 15, 2017 - 2:31am
If gay people want to marry that's why they should be able to.
The end.
That the culture warriors of the extreme right nazi/fascist sects like Wilhite get bent out of shape is irrelevant.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 12:57pm
Thank you for the comments. I know that this topic may be a little heated for some people but please stay nice and don't make up arguments or research results just to strengthen your own point.
@ Patrick: I understand where you're coming from that gay marriage was legalized via the supreme courts. I believe that this has a multitude of reasons, e.g. that it looks good internationally. News outlets all over the world could title: 'US legalizes gay marriage!' They didn't need to state: 'Now gays can get married! Even people from Texas are just a short ride away from marriage equality!' Btw to me it is unbelieveable that you think it would be ok the ask gay people who want to marry to move to another state to do so.
However, I am not from the US, so I don't know much about the politics there, so I am not really qualified to comment on that. I am from Austria where gay marriage is not legal.
It is not true that only religious people care about marriage. Believe it or not, but most people from Austria and Germany are Catholic but aren't considered 'active' members of the church. Some of them want to get married anyways, some of them don't. Marriage here is not so much about a 'holy tie' but rather about legal advantages e.g. partnered insurances, possibilities to inherit or adopt, being able to sign a lease together; and so on and so far.
I don't know what this discussion has to do with polygamy/polyamory so I will skip that argument. But please open your eyes: People who want to have multiple romantic partners do so anyways. That doesn't necessarily mean they want to marry all of them. Again: I am from Austria where polygamy isn't a big deal.
If you believe that there is no research saying that homosexuals can do an equally good job at parenting then so be it. But let me tell you from the view of a psychologist that there are hundreds of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies which came to that conclusion. Also, not all straight couples do a great job in raising kids, so I don't know why you mentioned that.
Thanks for your input!
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 1:14pm
You're citing the Regnerus study which was one of the few ones which concluded that homosexuals are not as good in parenting as straight couples. However, there are hundreds of studies saying otherwise as well as a lot of critic towards the Regnerus study, e.g.:
A reality check for the Regnerus study
Also, you claim that the studies coming to positive results faked their data which you can impossibly know. Publishing an article in a good journal is extremely difficult and the journals do peer-based reviews on every article. If discrepancies about the sample of a study were made public the researcher would never be able publish anything again. I don't believe that the hundreds of researchers concluding that homosexuals are fit for parenting took that risk. We are talking about LGBT research and not the illuminati.
Most of what you said has nothing to do with gay marriage but rather with the LGBT community and religious communities not getting along. If I'd own a business and a Catholic costumer were to shit all over me I would refuse to service them too. If the costumer is okay with me being gay (however he would find that out about me) I'd serve him or her of course. I don't believe that many (if any) business owners would refuse to service a huge demographic like the Catholic community. And if one or two do, how is that your problem? Just get your cupcakes somewhere else. But we are talking about fricking marriage equality here! Not about what a priest may or may not say. If I'd want to marry I'd go to a place where no one cares about my sexuality anyways! I wouldn't want to marry somewhere where I am not accepted. Also: I don't know why you are talking about marrying in a church. I meant registered official marriages at the registry office.
Gay people go all their lives being put in their place by people who feel like they have the power to decide over us. This needs to stop! Yes, it will be difficult, but change always is. And change will continue to happen because that's how the world rolls. 
Billy Roper Added May 15, 2017 - 2:17pm
In every case when the people had a chance to vote on whether to allow gay marriage, it failed, even in California. It had to be enforced from above against the will of the people by tyrants in black robes.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 15, 2017 - 2:37pm
I don’t understand how the decision of two consenting adults to join lives in matrimony effects anyone other than the two of them
I don't understand that either :-)
Donna Added May 15, 2017 - 4:34pm
I think anyone who wants to be married should be. I am not of a standard religion, i am a Pagan, we have no care whom marries whom..Basic rule, an it harm none..
States should have decided,in my opinion. )0(
Dino Manalis Added May 15, 2017 - 4:48pm
It's none of my business, but there's a good reason why God created Adam and Eve instead of Adam and Anthony or Eve and Erin, because the human race would have become extinct from the very beginning.  Heterosexuality creates babies, our sex organs go together like a jigsaw puzzle!
Jeff Michka Added May 15, 2017 - 7:40pm
John M writes: That the culture warriors of the extreme right nazi/fascist sects like Wilhite get bent out of shape is irrelevant.-Therein lies the rub, Wilbwhite will push legislative remedies, and laws based on semi-religious nonsense,  look how Billy the Nazi is excited by the topic.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 8:18pm
@ Dino: Thanks for your input, but this opinion of yours is completely irrelevant. I don't say that everyone should be gay from now on because that would be the end for humanity. I am saying that gay people have a valid reason to live their only lifes on earth exactly the way they choose to.
Also, have you ever thought about why God might have created homosexuality? Currently 7.5 billion humans live on this planet, that is double the population it was in the 1960s. Maybe homosexuality will help save this planet from overpopulation.
Patrick Writes Added May 15, 2017 - 8:42pm
@New Honesty - Thanks for your courteous response. I was attempting to be polite as well. But I think you didn't follow one of my points. In America, there are differences in state law. But for the most part, one state has always had to recognize what another state says is a married couple.
So if a gay couple lives in Texas which does not allow gay marriages, and they go to marry in NY, and come back to their home in Texas, Texas HAS to recognize them as married (despite gay marriage not being legal in Texas). That was the only mess the courts needed to clear up (because some states were saying they wouldn't recognize a gay marriage from another state). If that was all the courts did, I would have been in agreement with them. But instead, they struck down marriage laws in 30+ states to legalize gay marriage nationwide in one blow. That was wrong on numerous levels in my opinion. 
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 8:49pm
@ Patrick: Do you think it is more wrong than an estimate 5-10% of Americans not being able to get married? Do you think that the maintenance of different state laws is more important than equal rights for everyone? I truly believe that everyone is equal and no one is more equal than anyone else. I don't know much about American politics but sometimes right things get done the wrong way. More often than not it is the other way around, just look at your new president. The world talks a lot about what's wrong with American politics (e.g. a president being in office who wasn't elected by the majority of the country), but the marriage equality bill usually isn't one of the topics.
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 9:06pm
> I don’t understand how the decision of two consenting adults to join lives in matrimony effects anyone other than the two of them.
That would be true of any two consenting adults. Therefore, I take it, you have no problem with a parent marrying his or her child, as long as the child consented and was an adult.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 9:09pm
@ Peter
Comparing homosexuality to incest just shows how well-informed you are. Please don't raise your voice if you have nothing to say.
Jordy Leigh Added May 15, 2017 - 9:13pm
Controversial topic! ;) Doesn't it seem to be all the rage today!
I'm one of those who adheres to religion - though I think of my "religion" as more of a relationship given that it's primary focus is how we relate to God. The "rules" are secondary. In any case, I'm a simple born-again Christian. And since - in your own words - you won't listen to Bible verses, let me attempt to appeal to your reason, if I may.
You said that there is not a single person on earth who can tell you what is right and what is wrong. Yes, I agree! There is not a single person on earth. No atheist, no Buddhist, no animist, no Christian. No one. But if there is a God - a supreme Being who created the world, then wouldn't He have that authority - not Christians, but God Himself?
Of course, that's where the logic ends for most people. They decide there is no God and so they don't need to listen to His hypothetical decrees. At some point or another, there has to be an absolute truth regardless of popular (or unpopular) opinion. I believe every human knows deep down that there is a Creator God. But perhaps imagining Him away gives more freedom! With no moral standard, we can live how we please! However we please! I believe that's why so many reject Him.
But one day, we will be able to pretend no longer. Everyone will confess that He is God. It's far better, however, for those who choose to acknowledge Him on this side of death.
Notice, I haven't even said a word about gay marriage yet. I think many Christians like to pounce on sex-related sins as though they're more grave than any other. As far as I'm aware, God hasn't said that even once in the Bible. But gay-marriage remains the sin that Christians like to obsess over. So my comment here isn't an attack against the LGBT+ community. Rather, it's a call to consider again that there is a God and that He - not any human, Christian or otherwise - but He Himself has the authority to determine what's right and what's wrong.
If you've read this far, thank you! I would be glad to read your response, but please, if you would, keep your words honorable.
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 9:25pm
Here's a link to a PDF of the Regnerus Study:
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 9:32pm
>Also, not all straight couples do a great job in raising kids
Interesting argument.
"I don't know why you have a problem with drug-addict couples raising children. After all, not all non-drug-addict couples do a great job in raising kids, so therefore, it really makes little difference to the outcome of the children if their parents use recreational drugs or do not use them.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 9:32pm
@ Jordy: Thank you for your input. I enjoyed it very much up to the last sentence. I try to write in an honest way and I don't believe that swear words are 'bad' themselves, just what you do with them. As a person who has been called a lot of things in my life, I allow myself the luxury not to censor my feelings. But that's another topic.
As for the rest, what might surprise, I agree with you. As I stated I wouldn't hold myself to any religious standards but I do believe that there is more to this world than science and physics. It's hard to explain and I don't really talk about it too much so I will just leave it at that.
Now if God exists he didn't provide humans with a manual on how to live their lives, what to do and what not to do. Therefor, humans have always lived the way that was fit for the time being. At one point it was completely OK to be openly bisexual and to have multiple partners at the same time, at another point heterosexual monogamy is the societal standard.
But how do we know if what we do is good or bad? Is there even a good or bad? Why would I be gay but not allowed to act upon it? There is no way that we can know the answers to these questions. I believe that the best way to live a life is to hold yourself to the moral standards you personally believe in. And I wouldn't wanna change the way I am because of any religion.
That being said, I am really interested in where you stand in the debate of same-sex marriage.
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 9:42pm
>That the culture warriors of the extreme right nazi/fascist . . .
Another ignorant remark by the closeted egg-sucker. I suppose you're going to lie to us yet again by saying, "But I have a degree in history!!!"
Most of the high-ranking Nazi officials were themselves homosexual (of a "butch" rather than a "fem" variety) as many sources affirm. Hitler himself was confirmed by psychological examination as having "homosexual yearnings" and, indeed, probably worked as a male prostitute when he was down-and-out-and-broke and living in Vienna. In his infamous later years when he consorted only with women, it was affirmed by Eva Braun that Der Fuhrer was a coprophile. 
The data on this are easily found.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 9:43pm
@ Peter
As I stated earlier in another comment this study is one of the few to come to this conclusion. An array of prominent researchers from all over the world disagree. Also, the study has hit a lot of backfire as you can check out here:
A reality check for the Regnerus study
Your argument of drug abuse makes zero sense to me. Do you actually think that all homosexuals are drug addicts or do you just want to cause controversy for the sake of controversy? 
Let's put aside that most people use recreational drugs (if we include alcohol) and I will try to explain the point I wanted to make with 'Not all straight couples do a great job raising kids'. 
Kids are not (necessarily) a product of love, the product of a stable relationship or the product of people who are equipped for raising a child. Kids are the product of sex. Almost any woman can produce them. If the person getting this child actually wants to raise the kid, then great. There is no guarantee that the kid will thrive but the circumstances are good. That is different for adoption because the couple adopting do want to raise a kid. No one can guarantee that they will do a good job in raising the kid but the circumstances are good. That's why I believe that all parents who adopt have good chances of not screwing up their kids. 
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 9:52pm
On homosexuality in the Nazi Party and the SS:
The Pink Swastika (excerpt)
The Order of the Death's Head:
The Story of Hitler's SS
by Heinz Zollin Höhne
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 9:52pm
Btw best example for casual insults is Peter. Closeted egg-sucker? Even if you're not speaking to me, but do you think this is appropriate? I will not remove your comment as it shows so well what gay people have to deal with.
STAY NICE! There is no need to put any other person down. Find the peace inside you to realize that everything you think is just your OPINION. Everyone has them. Just like assholes, everyone has one of them too. Doesn't make them special.
Leroy Added May 15, 2017 - 9:57pm
I think two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Religious institutions should be able to do the same.  Business owners should be afforded the same.
The church should be able to refuse marriage within the church.  The church should be able to establish its own rules regarding orientation.  Bakers, caterers, and florists should be able to decide whether or not they will serve the gay and/or heterosexual community.  Businesses should be able to decide whether or not to provide benefits to gay couples.  The government should be able to say whether or not it is in the best interest of the child to be raised by a gay couple, especially when there are other options.
Where I draw the line is when the gay lifestyle is taught as normal to students.  Actually, I would prefer the government to stay out of teaching sexual lifestyles.  It wasn't done in my day, one way or the other.  It would be refreshing to have our schools focus on the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 10:05pm
>this study is one of the few to come to this conclusion
It does so because it uses a large database of random samples. The majority of other studies use far smaller samples where statistical errors are easier to make . . . especially if the social scientists interpreting the data are already sympathetic to a desired outcome. It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS and it's very common in published research studies, even "peer-reviewed" ones. It even appears in the "hard", quantitative sciences such as physics and chemistry, but it's rampant in the "soft", non-quantitative social sciences, especially psychology and sociology.
Your link to the "Reality Check" goes nowhere except to a useless and quite vague Abstract that merely says, in effect, "Regnerus is wrong! He made mistakes because he made some assumptions!" and then says little else. The full research paper is behind a pay-wall; why don't YOU purchase it make its full contents available to everyone here?
>Your argument of drug abuse makes zero sense to me.
Join the club. Your statement "Straight married couples don't so such a great job raising their children, ergo, so what if same-sex couples don't so such a great job raising children, also?" 
Sorry. That's not an argument. And the example of drug-users vs. non-drug-users was an obviously clear analogy of your faulty argument. Unless your English suddenly flew out the window, you understood my previous post perfectly.
>Do you actually think that all homosexuals are drug addicts or do you just want to cause controversy for the sake of controversy? 
See what I mean? I said nothing about homosexuals being drug addicts. Instead of trying to detour this discussion by a false accusation, why don't you simply respond to the argument?
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 10:06pm
@ Leroy: Thanks for your input, I do agree to some extent and I think it's refreshing to read a calm opinion.

You say that the government should be able to say whether or not a child should be raised by a gay couple, I find that a little concerning. I don't think that the government can know the answer to that question. I don't know who could answer that question. I don't know how the parent-selection process for child adoption should work but I think it should involve psychologists, social workers, pedagogues etc.
Why do you think that it's bad if sexuality is taught at school? (By the way: Being gay is not a lifestyle. We are not hipsters we just prefer same-sex partners) Why do you think that homosexuality isn't normal? Wouldn't it be helpful to queer teenagers to learn about homosexuality? Before you answer consider that homosexual and transsexual youth are the ones' with the highest rate of suicide attempts/actual suicides among teens.
Peter Corey Added May 15, 2017 - 10:10pm
>Kids are not (necessarily) a product of love . . . Kids are the product of sex.
Not exactly. Babies are the product of sex; "kids" — i.e., children who start as babies (as products of sex) and who are then raised through various phases of existence NOT known as "product-hood" but as "childhood" — are not products at all.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 10:16pm
@ Peter
I actually do have a hard time understanding everything you say because I have to ask myself if you're kidding, if my English actually is failing me or if I do understand you correctly.
You don't have to tell me about confirmation bias and statistical errors. But speaking statistically, what do you think is more likely: One study that has confirmation bias/statistical errors or hundreds of studies?
Also, you are wrong about studies with a large sample being better. That is not the case because large samples also allow for false positive results more easily due to alpha and beta errors. These are called random results. If you pick them carefully from a large dataset of hundreds of calculations you can build any argument you want. Ever heard of the Mozart effect? I believe this was quite popular in the US and was such a case.
I cannot download the original paper and upload it here because that is called copyright infringement. If you are at any university I am sure you can find your way to getting the paper.
Then you write a lot of other words, inter alia that I never said why I think same-sex couples can make great parents. Although this whole article is not about this topic, I already told you. Let me copy and past my last response here:
Kids are not (necessarily) a product of love, the product of a stable relationship or the product of people who are equipped for raising a child. Kids are the product of sex. Almost any woman can produce them. If the person getting this child actually wants to raise the kid, then great. There is no guarantee that the kid will thrive but the circumstances are good. That is different for adoption because the couple adopting do want to raise a kid. No one can guarantee that they will do a good job in raising the kid but the circumstances are good. That's why I believe that all parents who adopt have good chances of not screwing up their kids. 
As you see I never said that all homosexuals will make great parents. Statistically speaking I will only go as far as to say that I don't think they make worse parents than heterosexuals.
New Honesty Added May 15, 2017 - 10:19pm
Got me on my English there, nitpicky Peter. I mixed up babies and kids. I believe this means you have nothing more to add.
Jordy Leigh Added May 15, 2017 - 10:53pm
I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the last sentence. I won't try to change your views on swearing; as you said, it really is another topic. But since you now know that I personally am sensitive to swear words, could you please just be aware of that, at least in comments directed towards me if nowhere else.
You did surprise me when you turned the conversation around and said you agreed. But about God not leaving us with a manual, I truly believe He left us the Bible. I wouldn't call the Bible a manual per se; it's more diverse and personal. That makes it difficult for some people (like me) who would quite frankly love a black-and-white list of do's and don't's so I could feel certain about actions. So the Bible isn't a manual, but it does contain commands (amongst other things) and it certainly tells us about what's right and what's wrong.
This question is more personal, so ignore it if you would like, but may I ask why you don't trust the Bible to be the Word of God?
All that to say, I believe we don't have to go through our lives wondering what's right and what's wrong and if there even is a right and wrong. We've been told it in the Bible. If it seems unclear, God has given us the means to study it, and even to talk with Him and ask Him to help us understand it. We don't have to live our lives blindly trying to do our best and never knowing if we're succeeding until judgment day. THAT would be a scary existence, but I don't believe it's our existence.
I kind of agree with what you said that the best way to live our lives is to hold ourselves to the moral standards we personally believe in. But I also think that if we care about the eternal consequences we should take care to make sure that our moral standards are aligned with God's. The Judge is going to judge based on His standards, not ours. Then, as you say, I agree that we should hold ourselves to the moral standards we personally believe in.
As for my stance in the debate of same-sex marriage - and I'm only saying this because you ask - I believe it's wrong. I believe so because God calls it a "shameful lust", "shameful act" and "unnatural sexual relationship" in the Bible. I know you don't listen to Bible verses, but they're what I stake my views of same-sex marriage on, so I'm telling you as simply as I know how.
Thanks for engaging with me in conversation. In a time where conversations get pretty heated pretty quickly and can become arguments thrown back and forth in hate and pride, I appreciate the civilized discourse.
Leroy Added May 15, 2017 - 11:23pm
"Why do you think that it's bad if sexuality is taught at school?"
The responsibility belongs to the parents.  Personally, I don't want my child taught something I don't agree with.  Tolerating it is one thing; having it imposed on my child is another.  I don't need some teacher with an agenda trying to convince my kid that he might be a homosexual.  I suppose you would find it objectionable for religion to be taught in school for similar reasons and I would agree.
The biology of man and woman should give you a clue to why it is not normal.  It is not difficult to figure out that sex is intended by nature (ie, it is natural) for procreation.   Homosexuality is an aberration.  I am not saying that it is bad or sinful or wrong.  I can't say what gay men do.  I always assumed they engaged in anal sex.  I could be wrong.  It is very unhealthy and unsanitary to do so, even between a man and a woman.  Yes, precautions can be taken, but that it not exactly natural, is it?  Oral sex can be practiced safety between monogamous couples.  However, homosexual men tend to have many partners, I have heard.  Is that true? 
Peter Corey Added May 16, 2017 - 12:04am
>That is not the case because large samples also allow for false positive results more easily due to alpha and beta errors.

So sorry, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Allow me to correct you. Any sample, of any size, might allow a sloppy or biased researcher to cherry-pick data and either reject the Null Hypothesis when it should have been retained (Type I error, or "false positive"), or retain the Null Hypothesis when it should have been rejected (Type II error, or "false negative"). Large sample sizes increase statistical power -- the likelihood of detecting an "effect", if, indeed, there's anything to detect; ergo, with large sample sizes, the probability of committing a Type II error (false negative) diminishes. However, large sample sizes have no effect at all on the probability of committing a Type I error (false positive), and they certainly do not increase the probability of doing so. You're fantasizing if you think so. As far as Type I errors are concerned, there are other methods researchers use to reduce their probability, and intentionally using small samples is not one of them. The best thing, of course, about large sample sizes is that they increase the probability of their data being random.
>speaking statistically, what do you think is more likely: One study that has confirmation bias/statistical errors or hundreds of studies?
You're joking, of course. It's just as likely that hundreds of studies reveal bias as it is that one does . . . it all depends on sample size and methodology, especially for topics in which the researchers themselves — as well as, of course, their publishers — might be strongly biased. Your question was ridiculous.

You can read this if you wish:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis

The author teaches medicine and statistics at Stanford University. His findings apply to all published research (especially the social sciences) and not just to medicine.

And this, on statistical power and large sample sizes:

>I cannot download the original paper and upload it here because that is called copyright infringement. If you are at any university I am sure you can find your way to getting the paper.

But you, no doubt, are at a university, right? So you can download it and post a precis of it . . . unless, of course, you haven't read it yourself. Somehow, I suspect you actually haven't read it, but are merely assuming that it provides powerful arguments contra Regnerus. I'm not surprised. That would be a classic Type II error (Null Hypothesis: "there are no outcome differences between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual couples", a premise you've retained for reasons of personal bias, when you perhaps should have rejected it.).

On the street we simply call that kind of error "Bullshit."
John G Added May 16, 2017 - 2:44am
Corey is just a bigot. You won't change it's mind. It will never argue honestly. And it will spread it's cut and paste hate speech every time you respond.
Best to ignore the nutter.
John G Added May 16, 2017 - 2:56am
Good to see your research into my life is as good as your research into macroeconomics, Corey.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 16, 2017 - 8:15am
Babies are the product of sex; "kids" — i.e., children who start as babies (as products of sex) and who are then raised through various phases of existence NOT known as "product-hood" but as "childhood" — are not products at all.
What kind of logic is this ? So what's at first a product becomes a non-product after. LOL
Jeff Michka Added May 16, 2017 - 11:25am
Pete Corey notes: On homosexuality in the Nazi Party and the SS:-Now, Peter, you are going to cause Billy the Nazi to come down with a world-class case of gas by implying his SS Turd Reich "heroes" were, in words of Steven Colbert, cock holsters for each other. I still can't fathom all the rightists getting so upset over gay marriage.  Seems it might cut down the need for them to nudge the foot of someone in the next-over stall in the mens room.
Billy Roper Added May 16, 2017 - 1:07pm
Which is gay, Lily, or Nick?
Billy Roper Added May 16, 2017 - 1:09pm
America's Founding Fathers made homosexuality a felony. Jefferson stated they should be castrated.
New Honesty Added May 16, 2017 - 2:01pm
@ Peter
I previously said that I won't delete any comments but since you went as far as to personally attack another user, I did. If you want to publish another statement to John, go ahead.
As for the rest, I don't have the time to prove you wrong about every error you made in trying to explain what you think you know about statistics. So I will leave it at that. For everyone reading this, I advice you not to blindly believe everything Peter (or anyone else for that fact) says. Just one thing: You said that large sample sizes increase statistical power. So far so true. But with more statistical power smaller effects become statistically significant. That means that you can easily verify the hypothesis you want. That is the case for the Regnerus study as well as other infamous studies, e.g. the Mozart effect I already mentioned (along with random research results, which is another topic). However, I am not here to take the Regnerus study apart myself. Maybe I will in a future blog post. So if you enjoy reading articles you don't like, subscribe to my blog, Peter.
Yes I have the other article. If I summarize it here, will you believe me? I guess not. You don't listen to reason and bend scientific research results any way you see fit. So what's the point? Ain't nobody got time for that bullshit.
Also, please don't make any more assumptions about me or the LGBT community as you so clearly have no clue about what you are talking. 
New Honesty Added May 16, 2017 - 2:13pm
@ Billy, I have no idea what you're talking about.
@ Jordy 
Why do you talk so much about swear words? I didn't swear at you, did I? You didn't give me a reason to. But as I said before, if I feel like swearing. I will. You not appreciating swearing won't change that. You cannot make other people change just by saying that you don't like what they're doing.
I don't believe that the bible is the word of God (let's rephrase that to: I am uncertain if the bible could contain some holy messages) because it seems very unlikely. Let's put aside that many passages of the bible have been changed over the years by humankind and that most bibles are mediocre translations from the Latin language: Why would God leave behind an encrypted message about life and not make sure 'we' know about it (for sure)? If the bible is God's word what about the other religions on this planet? Are the all wrong? Do we seriously think that we as humans can have a grip on anything 'beyond'?
Then there is the next thing why I don't 'believe' in Christianity all that much: Why would God create a lot of evil in the first place? Why would I be gay but it is a 'shameful' act? Do the animals who have gay sex know that they will go to hell? Or is heaven and hell just for humans - why would we be that special?
I think religion has the potential to be dangerous just because it helps build fear against completely harmless people, e.g. gay people. I don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong just by being myself so that's how I will continue to live my life. If judgement day comes, let's all hope God has a sense of humor. But I believe he does - have you seen the Platypus?
New Honesty Added May 16, 2017 - 2:30pm
@ Leroy
I understand where you're coming from, but I believe that education should be thorough and tell the whole story, not a censored version. I think that we should hear about humankinds' wrong-doings in history class, I believe that the theory of intelligent design should be taught as well as evolutionary theory. I believe kids should learn that different forms of sexualities (and genders) exist. Learning about it won't make anyone gay. If that were the case I would not be gay - in school, sex ed was very hetero focused. But I was gay anyways waaaaaay before that - but that's another topic. 
Homosexuality is not a bad thing in any way. You may believe so and I won't try to convince you otherwise. But I can't let a statement like that stand without a comment. As I said multiple times before: If homosexuality was unnatural why do many animal species perform gay sex? If you're looking for a reason for the existence of homosexuality, I can't give you that. But two theories are: Homosexuality will help prevent overpopulation + that homosexuals can care for the kids that have been rejected by their parents - a thing, penguins for example, do.
Anal sex isn't necessary unhealthy or unsanitary. Protection exists. You said that protection (~condoms) are unnatural. They might be, but unprotected vaginal sex is a lot more unhealthy, unsanitary and dangerous than protected anal sex, wouldn't you agree?
You asked if all homosexuals perform anal sex. They do not: Gay slang knows three kinds of gay men: Active and passive (I will leave it to you to figure out what that means) and sides. Those are people who perform all kinds of intercourse but not anal. I can't give you numbers on how many there are, but they do exist.
Then you asked if gay men tend to have a lot of partners. Some do, some don't. I would guess that gay men might have more sex than straight men (I actually wrote about this if you wanna know more: Dear straight men) but I can't know for sure. I also don't think that having a lot of sex (no matter what gender or sexuality) would make anyone a bad person or a 'slut'. But many gay men and women live in monogamous relationships for years. I have the same partner for six years, many of my friends are in long-term relationships as well.
John Minehan Added May 16, 2017 - 3:33pm
Analogies to incest or bestiality to Gay Marriage are absurd.  The requisite consent is lacking.
However, the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) may be broad enough to open the door to polygamy/polyandry. 
I can't say categorically that is a bad outcome, but that change should come at the ballot box and not in the courtroom.     
John Minehan Added May 16, 2017 - 3:49pm
"Do you think that the maintenance of different state laws is more important than equal rights for everyone?"
As you are not from the US, you may not be aware of this.  The US is not a unitary Republic.  Like the FRG, it is a federal republic, which is composed of sovereign (but not independent) states.
States in the US are least sovereign with regards to powers reserved to the Federal Governments.  Thus, States don't sign treaties with other countries or declare war separately from the federal government or coin money.
States of the United States are MOST sovereign with regard to police powers.  For a specific example relevant here, there really is no such thing as "Federal Family Law."
Thus, the Obergefell decision seems to tread broadly into an area where Federal Law has little presence. While it is coached in Equal Protection language (a matter of legitimate Federal concern) it applies that concern in an area of historic state interest. 
This creates an issue of legitimacy, even if you agree with the holding..
Leroy Added May 16, 2017 - 4:01pm
New, I still don't see why we can't let sex out of the public schools and stick with the basics.  Youths today are pretty ignorant about so many things.  I would rather them know more about history or philosophy than about anal sex.
I don't think I ever said that homosexuality is a bad thing.  It is not natural.  I thought we were talking about humans.  Since animals don't communicate well with most humans, it would seem to be difficult to communicate with them about sexual preferences.  I don't mean to be offensive, but some believe that homosexuality is a brain disorder.  Could animals not have brain disorders?  Even if penguins have anal sex, I wouldn't conclude they were homosexuals.  You're certainly wrong about vaginal sex.  There is little risk between monogamous heterosexual couples who are a disease free.  That cannot be said of homosexual couples who engage in anal sexual.  I recently read that at least 90% of homosexual men having sex have anal sex.  Some engage in both anal and oral sex.  The anus was meant to hold stuff in and let it out.  It wasn't designed to have something large inserted into it.  It doesn't have natural lubricants like a vagina.  It can lead to tears in the anus and to hemorrhoids.  The anus contains dangerous bacteria, even for disease free couples.   Oral sex after anal sex is particularly harmful.  It isn't something nature intended, so an objective person has to conclude that it is unnatural.  Penguins don't use condoms last I heard, but I could be wrong.
Aids in certain parts of the world among heterosexuals is rampant where there is a high degree of promiscuity.  It is not so common where promiscuity is less common.  Aids initially devastated the gay community in the Western world because of the higher degree of promiscuity among homosexual men.  Agreed, not everyone is promiscuous but promiscuity is still an issue in the gay community.
I don't think you can make the case that anal sex is as safe as vaginal sex.  Unfortunately for the Western world, anal sex is being presented as normal and it is on the increase.  So is disease and anal complications.  My guess is that if anal sex can be accepted as normal between heterosexual couples, it can be accepted by gay couples.  I don't want my child to be taught this.
John Minehan Added May 16, 2017 - 4:14pm
Penguins, like most birds (and many other vertebrates, including monotremes), have one excretory and reproductive organ, a cloaca. 
John Minehan Added May 16, 2017 - 4:15pm
Why I know or remember that, I don't know.
New Honesty Added May 16, 2017 - 4:45pm
@ John
Thank you for clarifying this. Didn't think I would actually learn something in this comment section. I guess the problem with this decision is more political. I myself am rather interested in the societal outcome.
@ Leroy
I never said that anal sex should be taught in schools but it might not even be a bad idea. You can get a lot of different diseases from anal sex and come in contact with lots of harmful (and completely harmless) bacteria. So, advice about proper safe sex wouldn't even be the worst thing to happen to young kids. After all I read that anal sex is more popular than ever with straight couples. Do straight couples know how to protect themselves? Would you want your child to know how to protect themselves if they ever decided to perform anal sex?
Then again, you say that homosexuals might have brain disorders... Did you know that left-handed people were considered to have brain disorders? In fact, left-handed people do have significantly different brains than right-handed people. I don't know if such a thing as a gay brain exists, but I do know that you don't need to have a stroke to become gay. I actually do have an article about how someone becomes gay if you're interested in my opinions about that topic. Btw doing a lot of research on this topic for this article I didn't hear one reliable source calling it a brain disorder.
Do animals have the ability to 'be' gay? Tough question. You say a penguin having gay sex needn't be gay. Would you say a man having gay sex is gay? If not, what makes a man gay? Love? Do animals have the ability to love? I don't know. This doesn't make any sense at all! Last time I checked, sexuality of animals was based upon who they have sex with.
You say that there is little risk for disease transmission in monogamous vaginal intercourse? Well, did you know that there are tons of diseases a man/woman can get without having sex with another person - many of them can be transmitted too. Also, do you always get tested for all 200+ STDs we know about?
I believe you meant that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly lower for vaginal sex than for anal sex. This is true. However, condoms are considered safe. Safe sex will always be safer than unsafe sex. Even anal sex. If you don't believe me (which would be a good sign considering I'm not a doctor!), go ask your doctor or a person at an STD clinic.
Is it gross to perform oral sex after anal sex? Yes. Did anyone ever say they did so? Are we even talking about this? No. I would really appreciate if you didn't simplify gay men to (anal) sex.
Aids is not so common where promiscuity is not so common? That's a wrong conclusion! Aids is less common in countries where people are able to afford and know about protection.
While I obviously can't convince you that gay men do more than perform gross sex acts, I truly hope you give the LGBT community another chance. All we want is to live our lives. And to have the same rights as anyone else. I believe that's even covered in the US constitution; if not it is covered by the Convention for the protection of human rights.
Billy Roper Added May 16, 2017 - 7:25pm
I'll give them another chance. Pink triangles, or helicopter rides.
Leroy Added May 16, 2017 - 8:31pm
Don't get me wrong, New.  I have nothing against homosexuals.  My two best neighbors are gay.  Gays have shown me great kindness over the years.  Two consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as no one gets hurt.
"Would you want your child to know how to protect themselves if they ever decided to perform anal sex?"
My wife would lose face if that ever happened.  She could never go home.  Personally, I think it is better not to teach it.  I was a teen once.  Hard to believe; I know. The parents decided we needed straight talk about sex.  We were tricked into camping for a weekend.  A pastor was hired to educate us.  It excited us.  Breasts were headlights.  Penises were snakes in the grass.  It was quite lewd.  Did it scare us into abstinence?  Hell, no.  One of my friends sneaked out during the night with his girlfriend and had sex on the very spot, and left evidence for all to see.  If you teach them about anal sex, they will try it.  It is already becoming mainstream.  It is--I believe--part of the homosexual agenda.
"Last time I checked, sexuality of animals was based upon who they have sex with."
If a dog humps Jeff's leg, does that make it gay?  Does it make Jeff gay?
"Would you say a man having gay sex is gay? If not, what makes a man gay?"
That's an interesting question.  In high school, I knew a number of jocks who sought oral sex behind the Catholic church.  They used to hang out at gay bars, they said to stir up trouble.  The only trouble I know of was one guy picking up a tranny.  They thought they were asserting their manhood.  Personally, I think at least one or two were gay and convinced the others to go along.  It was indeed gay sex.  I consider them homosexuals.  The goes for prison sex too.    George Orwell wrote Down and Out in Paris and London.  It was a work of fiction but many say it was autobiographical.  He lived the life.  He noted that a large portion of homeless men was homosexual.  It was the need for sex, any kind of sex, that drove them to it.  A woman alway had a way out, but a homeless man couldn't always find a woman willing to have sex with them.  Does that make them gay?  
I believe everyone has the right to swing their arms and fists wildly about until their fist hits my nose.  I might not like it, but I will certainly tolerate it.  All I ask is that their lifestyle not to be forced on me or my children.  They have no right.
New Honesty Added May 16, 2017 - 9:01pm
@ Leroy
I don't find it hard to believe that you were a teenager once, your photo doesn't look old at all.
So you would rather have your kids have unprotected anal sex (maybe because A it is obviously trending, B you cannot get pregnant or C it's God's loophole) than have them being educated about safe sex? I didn't ask if you or your wife (who would loose her 'face' lol) would want your kids to have anal sex but if you would rather want them to have it protected or not. You can't control what kids do anyways.
I was also talking about real sex ed. From teachers. Not some pastoral BS. Kids won't do everything you tell them about. I thought Americans believed faithfully in the competence of the people to know what they should and shouldn't do. Or does that only apply to gun regulations?
Let's stop with all the animal talk. You intentionally pick my words apart although I'm quite certain that you understand me correctly. But bending everything you hear or read a way that fits you is not nice. As I said, I don't need to convince you of anything. If you think an animal isn't capable of being gay, then so be it. I say you're not capable of imagining an animal having the ability to have any other sexuality than heterosexuality. Also I will ignore that I think sexuality isn't binary but a spectrum.
No one is forcing anything on you. How often do gays turn up on your doorstep and ask if they can read you from the book of sins? There is no such thing as a gay agenda (other than legal stuff). If you believe people can't handle hearing about homosexuals without anything bad happening then I truly wonder how you think humankind could make it this far at all.
Leroy Added May 16, 2017 - 9:51pm
"I don't find it hard to believe that you were a teenager once, your photo doesn't look old at all."
I'm not the manly lumbersexual that you see in my avatar.  I started out with my real avatar.  Don't take this the wrong way but there are certain Europeans who when on the losing end of an argument refer to people they assume to be Americans as cowboys.  I changed my avatar to a cowboy.  He faded into the WB dustbin.  I was in need of a new avatar.  MJ posted an article on "Checked Shirts".  I was amused by the article, so I changed my avatar to the one you see today.  Don't know what happened to her.  She was a sweetheart.
I can understand why you would like for your lifestyle to be normalized.  No one likes to be considered abnormal or weird or a misfit or an aberration.  Like Rudolf, you have to make the best of your situation.  But please consider those who can't appreciate your lifestyle.  You have your rights; I have mine.
I really am not concerned about gay animals, although I prefer that they don't hump my leg.
Perhaps you are not aware of what is happening in the US.  It is indeed being forced on students, such as with books like Heather has Two Mommies.   You see caterer forced to serve at gay events.  You see bakers forced to adorn cakes with gayness.  You also see Youtubes making fun of how ignorant many of them are for not knowing basic events in history.   They are encouraged to explore their sexuality.  I'm sure you think that is good knowing more about gay sex than about a civil war that ripped the nation apart.  We will have to disagree.
Jeff Michka Added May 16, 2017 - 11:20pm
Leroy, the disposable plastic bag sez: You see bakers forced to adorn cakes with gayness. - What does that entail.  You made the statement and owe people a view of what your homophobic ravings mean.
John G Added May 17, 2017 - 2:23am
I love the way the wingnuts are all about liberdeee!!!!! until their own bigotry is challenged.
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 3:13am
>I love the way the wingnuts are all about liberdeee!!!!! until their own bigotry is challenged.
Actually, "liberty" has nothing to do with being a "libertine". Since you don't grasp the distinction, you might want to review some ethical philosophy while catching up on your economics homework. Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" might be a good place to start.
John G Added May 17, 2017 - 4:10am
Corey hates gays and expects others to hate gays too.
Corey looks like the classic closet gayboy to me.
I bet he sucks cock every Sunday.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 5:51am
@ Peter
As you saw I deleted your comments because you obviously have nothing more to say and I won't let your comments stand without a response. I feel I've said everything I needed to. If you have any valuable points to make I will let them stand of course. As I said I'm not here talk about the Regnerus study all day. And I'm not here to discuss sexuality with a narrow-minded bigot who thinks that the US has no bigger problems than gay marriage.
You guys have a worse health system than most European countries - doesn't THAT worry anyone?
You truly deserve the president you got.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 5:58am
@ Leroy
If you believe that 'everyone has the right to swing their arms and fists wildly about until their fist hits my nose' than I have the same right. By my guess I've been hit in the nose (figuratively and literally) more times than you have, so I have a right to speak up!
I don't want my sexuality (homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, are you even reading my responses?) to be normalized because being gay is and always has been normal. And I don't need someone without empathy and altruism who would rather want their child to have unprotected sex than be smart to confirm that for me. 
Although you may not be a cowboy you are one of the Americans who deserves the politics Trump serves you. 
Jordy Leigh Added May 17, 2017 - 7:06am
No, you didn't swear at me, and I'm very thankful for that, even though it doesn't matter to you.
Thank you for sharing with me why you're uncertain whether the Bible could have holy messages. They're valid concerns/questions to have. I'm not sure whether you're interested in hearing how I would respond, me being one person with one set of beliefs among millions, but I'm willing to either drop it or voice my response. (After all, it would seem like you have your hands very full given all the other comments that have arisen!)
Really, the same goes for your thoughts on Christianity and the gay community. I feel like I would be ready to respond to your questions/statements with my viewpoints if you're open to it... but if my voice is just droning on and on now... well, I don't want to be that person.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 7:21am
@ Jordy
I am somewhat interested unless your answer solely consists of bible verses. I would rather be interested in why you personally (without the influence of Christianity) think it is OK to judge a person based on their sexuality. I always thought brotherly love was important to Christianity but this comment section tells a different story so far.
Also I would like to hear your response for taking the bible as God's word but I would also like to hear why you personally think so; that would exclude reasons like your upbringing, your parents or education.
Leroy Added May 17, 2017 - 7:56am
New, I sense hostility where there is no reason to be.  But, that is exactly what I meant.  You and everyone else have the same right to swing their fists wildly about.  Tolerance.  That is the most you can ask of anyone.  If you want more, then you have an agenda.  If you want to promote and force your agenda on me or my child, then you will have a fight on your hands.  We have rights too.  Your rights do not trump mine because your feelings get hurt more often.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 8:00am
@ Leroy
One of human rights is the right to have equal rights. The LGBT community doesn't have the same rights. We deserve them. If we have to step on your toes for getting them, we will. This is 'our' agenda but I would call it longing for equality.
I may be a little hostile but I mostly am impatient with people who try to force their agenda (homosexuality equals anal sex equals grossness and Aids) on me.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 8:01am
I meant their opinion, not their agenda (writerbeat doesn't allow for edits)
Leroy Added May 17, 2017 - 8:28am
"I would call it longing for equality.
I may be a little hostile but I mostly am impatient with people who try to force their agenda (homosexuality equals anal sex equals grossness and Aids) on me."
I have never forced anything on you.  You wanted to know why I thought it was unnatural.  I can understand why you don't want to be open about it, but if we want to have an adult conversation, all should be on the table.  What you call equality is like me complaining that I don't have enough legroom on airlines.  Shouldn't I have equal rights to ample legroom?  Maybe, but I also should be tolerant to the norms.  If I could exercise my rights, it would drive up the price of flying for everyone just to accommodate me and a few others.
If you want more than tolerance, you are asking too much. 
Bill Kamps Added May 17, 2017 - 9:08am
NH, it is very simple.  Yes of course religion should play a role in our decisions FOR MEMBERS OF THAT RELIGION ONLY.
We get into problems when people try to force others to follow their religion.  Most arguments I hear against gay marriage, yes have something to do with the Bible or a religion.  However, if I dont believe in the Bible or that religion why  should  I follow it's teachings?
The gay marriage matter gets more complicated because there are economic rights attached to being married.  So denying a couple from getting married has an economic penalty to it.  If this penalty did not exist, the Federal courts would have had less reason for allowing gay marriage.  Denying a couple from getting married, violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.  This is why the Feds had to step in.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 10:49am
You are stepping on another person's toes if you are anti-gay marriage and keep them from being happy and married.
You've said before you don't care if another persons feelings get hurt (2nd to last comment), so I don't have to mind your feelings either.
I'm simply playing the game that society taught me. And 'losing' is not an option.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 17, 2017 - 12:39pm
When you're queer go ahead and marry. So what ? I'm not and was married as well, now the 2nd and last time. But it's only a paper. I don't really give a shit about papers. Do I need a paper to love someone ? The rest is just Western insurance security blabla which doesn't count in the end when the breakup is done. Or - it only counts for MONEY. Who is better ripping off the other once loved one ;-)
John Minehan Added May 17, 2017 - 1:50pm
Political and legal.  One of the things that makes the US a unique culture is our Federal System and a legal system that unites a diverse population.  
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 2:45pm
>Corey hates gays and expects others to hate gays too.
I don't hate anyone except intellectual frauds and monetary cranks like you. You have a "degree" in economics? I think you're lying. Tell us from what school, college, or university you have your degree in economics.
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 2:54pm
>But it's only a paper. I don't really give a shit about papers. Do I need a paper to love someone ?
Marriage is "only a paper"? Really? For thousands of years it was claimed to be a special covenant; the paper merely attested to that in writing.
So if in your view, marriage is "only a paper"; and if, in addition, you care nothing for a piece of paper, then same-sex couples who might agree with you can simply call themselves "married" and dispense with the paper (which you claim is unnecessary anyway). And yet, same-sex couples very much want that piece of paper, that written attestation; a fact you conveniently ignore.
In any case, your concrete-bound, materialist reduction is interesting. If marriage is "only paper", then so is an employment contract, right? Why should the latter written attestation of an understanding between two persons (employer and employee) be categorically different from the former written attestation of an understanding between two persons (husband and wife)?
But I don't expect you to have thought this far. In your eyes, obligations, contracts, understandings, commitments, and covenants, are "only paper", just as babies and children are nothing more than "products of sex."
Your views illustrate the reasons that Europe is viewed by many Americans as a wasteland of moral depravity.
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 3:10pm
>the problem with gay marriage is that there is no problem.
The problem with same-sex marriage is that it flies in the face of 5,000 years of western tradition regarding people's conception of marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. And tradition is one of the facts that the law must always take into account.
This has nothing to do with "property rights" or "economic rights" or freedom of association. The main question that has neither been broached nor answered is this: Who said that marriage is a "right"? Life? Liberty? Pursuit of Happiness? Strong arguments can be made for claiming these last three are rights; specifically, rights pertaining to an individual in order for him or her to live as a dignified human being in society. But the "right to marry"? The "right to drive a car"? The "right to vote"? The "right to an iPad at no more than 10% above manufacturing costs"? Nonsense.
If a heterosexual married couple — a man and a woman — has a child, the law recognizes that the man is the father and the woman is the mother. The man does not have a right to claim that he, in fact, is the mother. The law can actually stop him from making that claim. Yet the law, nevertheless, recognizes equal rights pertaining to the man and the woman in the marriage . . . despite the fact that only the woman can call herself the mother.
Similarly, that only a man and a woman can claim to be married, denies no ascertainable individual rights to a same-sex couple.
If it can be proven that marriage is an individual right, promoters of same-sex marriage might have a substantive argument. So far, however, that hasn't been done.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 17, 2017 - 3:12pm
Your views illustrate the reasons that Europe is viewed by many Americans as a wasteland of moral depravity
Do we care ? Not really. Not when we see what happens over there. Unfortunately the irrational (childish?) behavior of the current elected US administration can not serve as an example for us LOL
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 17, 2017 - 3:14pm
BTW: Depravity ? Man, Corey, you seem to have a brick missing, really. Put your house in order and then start judging LOL
Bill Kamps Added May 17, 2017 - 4:49pm
Peter, it is only a right because of the economic benefits attached to it.  If there were no benefits attached to it, the it would have been decided at the state level.  When the government refused to attach those benefits to civil unions, then it forced the Supreme Court to act.
The fact that it flies in the face of tradition is no more valid than saying the same thing about segregation, slavery, or women's rights.
Getting married affects no other people, so what is the harm ?
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 5:09pm
@ Stone-Eater 
'Not when we see what happens over there.'
I hope that that's meant as a compliment ;) Over all we have it relatively good (in Austria at least). But in Austria gay men are not allowed to marry (they are allowed to adopt though). This blog post is actually meant for an audience where gay marriage isn't legal yet but I appreciate constructive and RESPECTFUL comments from anyone.
About tradition: Do we have the same laws we had 5000 years ago? Also, tradition for the US can at MAX be 300 years, for Europe a couple of thousand years. Laws change as does the society as do the people. That argument is just bull crap. Unless you want women not be allowed to vote but rather burnt alive again.
About 'what is a right': I am NOT talking about what is a right in this whole posting. At least I am talking about a fight for equal rights. From the view of a gay Austrian man that is inter alia the ability to marry and protection against discrimination. In Austria a gay man may can't marry and be fired from any job because of his sexuality. Those are the things that I want to see changed in my lifetime. 
I don't understand what you mean with your next paragraphs. Of course a man cannot be a mother... But he can be as important to the child by being his father.  I don't know what you want to say by that analogy.
You believe that 'marriage' is not a human right? You may wanna have a look at the convention for human rights (I don't know if this is binding in the US though): Human rights declaration
Let me cite article 12.1 for you:
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 5:09pm
Damnit I meant article 16.1 and can't edit it. You get the jist.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 5:18pm
You may wanna have a look at article 2, ban on discrimination, too while you're at it.
Leroy Added May 17, 2017 - 5:39pm
"Damnit I meant article 16.1 and can't edit it. You get the jist. "
If you are willing to go through some effort, you can go to your profile and copy the comment, then delete it.  Then go back to the article and repost with changes.  The inability to edit is my top complaint.
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 5:45pm
Yeah I must admit I was too lazy to do that because I would have to make the hyperlink again. It really is annoying. Also I accidentally deleted one of your comments while trying to do that on my phone the last time. Sorry for that.
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 7:24pm
>The fact that it flies in the face of tradition is no more valid than saying the same thing about segregation, slavery, or women's rights.
You're quite mistaken. As legal scholar Richard Epstein put it in this OpEd piece on gay marriage, "Tradition is a legitimate ground on which to defend social legislation elsewhere, so why not here?"
That tradition by itself cannot decide an issue, and that tradition by itself is not always right, may be true; but tradition as a socially-sanctioned practice is something the law has always considered — and ought to consider — in deciding on legislation.
Epstein is a classical liberal (a "libertarian") and so does not disapprove of same-sex marriage, though his position mainly rests on the classical liberal premise that government should keep out of the marriage contract entirely. 
Hard Questions On Same-Sex Marriage
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 7:36pm
>You believe that 'marriage' is not a human right?
You believe it is? Based on what? The U.N. General Assembly said so? That doesn't mean anything. PROVE THAT THERE'S SUCH A THING AS THE "RIGHT TO MARRY".
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 7:40pm
>Not when we see what happens over there. 
Do we care? Not really. Not when we read history or current news and see the economic and political fuckups of Europe.
Really, Stoned, put your guitar away for a little while and go to the library.
Peter Corey Added May 17, 2017 - 8:43pm
There is No Constitutional Right to Marriage ... Of Any Kind
The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.
The Constitution is an elegant document that is rigid in its respect for federalism. Its framework of powers is encased in a document designed to require overwhelming support to change. So hard is it to amend the Constitution, it has only been done 27 times in our history. Since 1971, it has been amended properly only once, and inconsequentially. Mostly, the Constitution has been amended repeatedly and improperly by the Supreme Court ... a job to which it is not tasked and for which it is ill-equipped.
The Supreme Court's mandate is determining the Constitutionality of laws. It is not charged with creating new rights in the Constitution. The difference is stark. In Roe v. Wade, it took over 65 pages for the court to create a right to abortion where the Constitution is silent on the issue. The Constitution is only six pages long. A competent jurist could read it and find no mention of abortion. In Plyler v. Doe, the court found a Constitutional right for illegal aliens to receive a K-12 free public education. The right does not exist. This begs the question of whether or not the Supreme Court is competent or merely rogue. Justice Robert Jackson once famously wrote, "[w]e are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible only because we are final."
In considering Constitutional questions, our Supreme Court often first considers its own opinions about the Constitution, rather than looking at the document itself. That's the problem. The document should be the primary source. The court need only apply the principles of statutory interpretation and construction in order to resolve many Constitutional claims. One principle of statutory interpretation is not to read into a law words not there. For example, the words "marriage," or "gay marriage" do not exist. Another principle of interpretation mandates that when determining the meaning of a statute, one must consider the plain meaning of the words. If the words don't exist, one need not consider any meaning, plain or otherwise. Finally, when considering the meaning of a line in any statute, one must consider the entire statute to make sure the interpretation is internally consistent. This brings us back to the elegance of our Constitution, its design and the mandate of federalism.
Judicially creating a right to marriage ignores the Constitution, eviscerates the 10th Amendment and is an improper judicial amendment of the Constitution. It defies all principles of interpretation or construction. For the Supreme Court to create a Constitutional right to marriage, it must first ignore and render dead the 10th Amendment, that pesky little part of our Bill of Rights that states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The people and the states have Constitutional rights. We have all the rights not delegated to the federal government. One of those countless rights is to permit us to determine whom, if anyone, ought to be given the right to marry and therefore accrue whatever benefits and burdens such license shall carry. The Supreme Court cannot create a Constitutional right to marriage without first violating the rights of the people under the 10th Amendment."
New Honesty Added May 17, 2017 - 9:58pm
@ Peter
You really talk a lot considering how less of anything original you have to say. 
But it was fun a while, hearing different views.
John G Added May 18, 2017 - 3:21am
@ Peter
You really talk a lot considering how less of anything original you have to say. 
That's his schtick. It's a Gish gallop approach like most libertoonians.
Jordy Leigh Added May 18, 2017 - 4:00am
I will try my best, then, to tell you about my convictions strictly related to me personally and not to my parents, and apart from what the Bible says... I don't know if I can entirely exclude my upbringing and education, etc from my convictions. What forms them if not these very things? But I will try my best to rely on common sense and reasoning which I think should be accessible to all.
First of all, I don't think it's OK to judge another person. It's okay for God to - He's God, after all! But it's not okay for us to when we're each so full of our own shortfallings. Better to concern ourselves with our own errors and make sure we're right with God. I do think it's okay - and beneficially - for us to warn others when we think they're on the wrong road, given that the context is appropriate. I differentiate this from judging because it's not for the sake of picking apart the other person and scrutinizing their every move. Rather it's done out of concern because we truly believe that they're violating God's design and that there will be consequences if they continue to suppress the truth. So the core difference is between judging and warning others is a heart matter, and therefore can be really hard (if possible at all) for us to determine which it is that another person is doing. But that matter is between God and that person. And if you or I try so hard to determine whether another person is guilty of judging or not, then we ourselves have started to judge. So that's about judging in general.
As for how judging where sexuality is concerned in particular (as you asked)... I honestly don't think there's anything left to add. Of course, I think people in general (and Christians in particular) are more inclined to judge people based on their sexuality than on perhaps any other issue, and I don't think that's okay, either. Who are we to determine that one sin is more grave than another! Again, that's God's job, not ours.
As for the Bible being the Word of God (again, I'll try to keep all that I say personal), I'll speak to the points that you brought up in a previous comment. You said we could put aside that many passages of the Bible have been changed over the years by humankind and that most bibles are mediocre translations. I don't think that's a small issue to put aside, though. I think that any translation of the Bible is the word of God to the extent that it faithfully represents the original texts. True, I don't always specify this when I say the Bible is the Word of God. I also think that certain translations of the Bible preserve the original translations very well. I've read statistics about this, but I can't remember the numbers anyway. Besides, the numbers aren't what's personal. What is personal is that I believe is that God has preserved His Word. Some translations are more faithful than others. The King James Version was translated very litterally, but not by Christians. I can't decide if that makes it more or less likely to remain faithful to the original. In either case, the language can be hard to say since it's full of Old English. I personally find the New Internal Translation and English Standard Version to be a good balance of easy to understand and less influenced by the interpretations of the translators. Versions such as The Message may be easy to understand and be considered "cool", but I think the interpretor had to read too much into the original text.
As for God not making sure we know 100% that the Bible is His Word, I would agree that there's no way someone can know if they don't read it with a teachable spirit. I'm not saying people should believe it blindly. I believe that this world is God's world and the Bible is His Word, and that His world and Word won't contradict each other, but each will support the other. That's why I can argue some of my worldview - if not all of it - without using Bible verses. However, I think that if a person reads the Bible determined to disprove everything it says (or if they never read it at all), they will almost inevitably find ways to twist things. But if we read it receptively and willing to be changed by it, then it will change. And it's really only after going through that change that a person can know without a doubt that it is the Word of God. Personally, I've been reading the Bible for years. Daily. There are passages I've read over and over that still have fresh power to challenge me, convict me or else transform me in some other way. That's power. I realise what I'm saying is that you would have to read it and be changed by it to know 100%, and that seems to be imposing my beliefs on others if nothing else is... But I'm so thoroughly convinced that it's true.
Other religions... Quite frankly, I believe that they are all wrong. There can only be
Jordy Leigh Added May 18, 2017 - 4:02am
Sorry... as I was sying that there can only be one absolute truth. It's common today to believe in relative truth, that what's true for you doesn't have to be true for me. I just believe that's wrong. If there's a snake in my living, another person can't just say that for them it's not really there. It is, and there could be fatal consequences if that person continues to ignore it. Obviously, this is a very basic example and very easy to see. I believe this applies to God's Word, too. Either the Bible is His Word or it isn't. The implications in believing one way or another are eternal! It's harder than in the case of the snake to get a grasp of the objective truth, but it exists nonetheless. And since I believe that the Bible is the Word of God (for reasons I explained above) and the Jesus is the only escape from Hell (because of what the Bible says), then the other religions, which are all contrary to the Bible, must be wrong.
Finally, I don't believe we can humanly claim to have a grip on the 'beyond' as you put it. Naturally, we just can't do it. But when we embrace the gospel and the Holy Spirit comes to fill the God-sized hole in our lives that only He can feel, it's such a perfect fit that we know with such undeniable assurance that it's true. At this point, we've gone beyond the natural and into the supernatural because now God is involved on a personal level.
What a response! It wasn't my intention to monopolize the comments section, but I hope that somehow, amidst all the words, I've done justice to the beauty that is the Truth (to the extent that I understand it!! I recognize and acknowledge here that I'm human and prone to misinterpreting the truth). Hopefully, I've also remained respectful amidst all these words. For what it's worth, you may just have to take me at my word when I say I'm not judging you, either for your position regarding same-sex marriage or your position regarding the Bible.
I welcome your perspective, too - though you don't need me to welcome it here in the comments section of your own post. ;)
New Honesty Added May 18, 2017 - 10:24am
How refreshing to see that it is still possible to post a respectful and well-explained comment even if your believes are almost an complete opposite to mine. You don't need to find numbers to prove your opinion. This comment section is full of ignorant people who bend numbers into an argument without realizing how silly they are.
That being said I disagree with most of what you said and I still believe that most of what you say comes from a 'fear' of judgement day. All in all, I think that it would be ridiculous for God to judge humans on living our only lives they way we want. In the end, isn't he the one who made everything possible?
I do believe that most religions have some good in them, e.g. that it's wrong to kill others or to disrespect others (a lot of people here seem to have forgotten about that part though). However, religions fighting each other and fighting against what's 'wrong' is bad. And don't try to convince me, that they don't. You may call it people who are misguided because they don't understand the bible correctly but I see the biggest danger in religion by giving people a reason to discriminate and oppress others. If the bible points out why homosexuality is wrong and on the other hand tells everyone to be nice to each other that won't work. Also I do believe that everything in this world, including homosexuality, is God's doing, therefor I don't believe that the bible is true to anything supernatural.
You said that it is OK to give people advice if you think that they might need it. I would agree but I guess that we mean diametrically different things. Let's take the example of a woman who is thinking about getting an abortion (for whatever reason). I believe it is OK to give that woman advice if I think I may be able to help her. But if a Christian person simply points out why abortion is wrong (according to the bible or any other believe) I think that is very judgemental. Also, I don't think that any person has the right to give definite advice and take away all other choices. We don't have to get into the topic of abortion but it would be the same for homosexuality I guess.
I think that spirituality can be something beautiful, but religion to me seems to be a lot about rules, dos and don'ts, oppressing each other, making it easier to discriminate others, making it easier to argue why some humans don't deserve the same rights as other humans, etc.
Leroy Added May 18, 2017 - 12:37pm
Simple question, New. Should all people be able to freely enjoy their sexuality?
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 18, 2017 - 1:33pm
Yep. Sexuality has never killed someone as an act, except some heart attacks. It's nature. 10% of all primates are homos. I never had problems with them. They have sometimes a pretty affective (womanly) behavior, but I think it's just funny :-)
....but usually they are far less aggressive as the average macho. That's more important, I think.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 18, 2017 - 2:39pm
Have you ever been tempted by one of these primates? 
Of course when I was 17, a hippie with long hair. IN public toilets or even in bars. It simply amused me. I mean, who takes that seriously when he's a hetero ? I mean they were never aggressive.
Primates ? Why the hate ? Did they fuck up your life or something ?
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 18, 2017 - 2:41pm
BTW: Probably it helped me that I was never religious. If I were I'd have probably the same POV LOL
Leroy Added May 18, 2017 - 2:45pm
I did get attacked by a monkey in China.  Although he was after me plums, I don't think he was gay.  Everyone was concerned for my safety.  They could sense the danger I was in and snapped pictures. Then I hear this peel of laughter.  It was my wife.  True story.
Tamara Wilhite Added May 18, 2017 - 8:39pm
I will skip the reproducibility crisis that affects all of science right now and jump right now to the very biased liberal sciences who are readily using scientific studies to justify far left political policies akin to Lysenkoism seen as justification for communism and dissidents labeled as suffering from sluggish schizophrenia by the USSR. In that light, liberals labeling conservatives crazy has been a standard for a century.

The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
The slippery slope argument against homosexual marriage has been proven true with the immediate and intense push after its legalization into supporting transgenderism - including demanding that in the name of fairness and compassion, we let biologically intact men who merely say they think they are women into spaces segregated for the privacy and literal safety for women. What about the meme that 1/4 of women are raped? Never mind - you're evil if you don't want that biologically intact man in a dress who is still sexually attracted to women in the changing room or locker room showers with you.
Where does it end? Since we said gender didn't matter in marriage, now we're at "gender doesn't exist".  Then there's Slate and Huffington Post trying to say pedophilia isn't so bad and plural marriage could be good.
Might as well say NO MORE because nothing will be good enough until there are no boundaries or rules and everyone is equally interchangable, abusable and isolated.
Tamara Wilhite Added May 18, 2017 - 8:45pm
A private religious school near me declined admission to a lesbian's daughter so they could continue teaching traditional values without creating conflict for the child. The lesbian demanded they enroll the child, and per prior such infiltration attempts, the school admin knew that they'd immediately demand the church change teachings or get sued for hurting the child's feelings. 
The church school gave them a list of alternative public and private schools. It was refusing admission, so they were losing money by not accepting the child.
The lesbian activist went to the press. For months, the school teachers and administrators received hate mail, death threats, suspicious packages. A threat to burn down the school with the haters children inside.
In the name of love, the social justice warriors threatened to murder 200 kids. This was several years ago, but it is part of a trend to find institutions that aren't PC, enter them, and then demand they change through either lawsuits or demands by the state.
They don't want tolerance. It is endorse their views or else, backed by threats of violence in every form they can muster.
Leroy Added May 18, 2017 - 10:28pm
Well stated, Tamara.
Really, why shouldn't people be able to marry their pets?  They love them, right?  I don't mean that is a perverted sense.  Many love their dogs like children or even go so far as to substitute them for children or a spouse.  Many prefer animals to humans.  Why shouldn't they be able to declare their love and get health benefits from the employer and the government?  When they die, they still need someone to take care of them.  Why not let them receive social security spousal benefits?  Even if they don't have intimacy with their horse, it still has health expenses.  If you love your horse more than any human, why shouldn't you be able to marry it (or maybe I should say her or him) and let the employer pay some of the medical costs?  I mean, it really isn't fair to someone who isn't married while his colleagues' spouses receive marriage benefits.  They need contraception too and pregnancy insurance.  They have their rights, by golly!
Jordy Leigh Added May 19, 2017 - 5:01am
I must say that I've appreciated the respect in your comments too, New Honesty, as well as your willingness to engage in civilized discussion with someone of such a different worldview. I must admit that I've been very hesitant to share many of my thoughts here because I don't want it to become another crossfire of hateful words.

However, I don't live in fear of judgment. There are other things I often fear or stress over - not living up to people's expectations, failing at a commitment I've given myself to, etc - but judgment day is not one of them. Not because I've lived a perfect life, but because the punishment that Jesus faced has been accredited to me. BUT I do see how I would be afraid of judgment had I not trusted in Jesus, and it's a terrifying thought when I think about what it will mean for others who haven't - particularly those in my life. And why not! It's a terrifying thought! Perhaps what makes it so terrifying is how firmly I believe Hell is real and how inescapable and inevitable it is for those who are destined for it! It really is a fear to dwarf all others.
Hmmm... yes. He did make everything possible, didn't He? Okay, here's something very personal. I participated in a Bible study with some youth from a Buddhist/animistic background who have shown interest in Christianity. We considered why God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden if eating its fruit would cause Adam and Eve to die, but everything God created was supposedly good. One of the Buddhist youth said that God had made a mistake. (It was a particularly interesting answer since, having an entirely Christian background, I would never think to suggest such a thing. But to these youth, it seemed like an altogether acceptable conclusion) So that was their answer. Mine would be that in placing the tree in the garden, God was giving Adam and Eve a choice: submit to His authority or become their own god in their own eyes. If He hadn't put the tree there or if He had created them with no free will, they would have been mere robots, "loving" God because it wasn't possible to love anything because they had no say in the matter. Just now, the image comes to my mind of a train restricted to a predetermined set of tracks versus a bus which can go where ever the driver chooses. Of course, not all places the driver might take His bus are beneficial. They can be dangerous - even fatal - to both himself and other around him. So God has given us freewill. Now those who love Him love Him because - by His grace - they've chosen to love Him, not because it was programmed into them. Does that kind of logic make sense to you?
The same can be said - I believe - of lifestyle choices, including sexuality. There are paths we could drive our lives on that are detrimental. That's part of free will. So though God has made everything possible, not everything is beneficial.
Good point! The belief you affirmed that most religions have some good in them resounds with me; I would agree! I think it's because most religions have some sort of moral standard that its followers - to varying extents - are bound to. Does that sound accurate? And in that sense, perhaps followers of such religions reap some benefits during this lifetime. Naturally, people benefit from being surrounded by a community that - in keeping with your example - say it's wrong to kill or disrespect others. But I believe that one day, all systems that are not pure good - all systems that have mixed some good with some evils or some truth with some lies - all these systems will be exposed for the counterfeits that they are in the long run, and those that follow them will be shown to have given their lives to something that didn't stand the ultimate test. Again, it's a terrifying thought! I don't advocate choosing to follow Jesus on the basis of this fear, but I do advocate pausing to consider the gravity of eternity and considering whether it's worth it to follow Jesus.
Another solid point you brought up about giving advice to others with the example of a pregnant woman considering abortion. Your point (correct me if I'm wrong) was that giving advice is okay so long as you think you can help her act on it. Basically, you're not just pointing out flaws and leaving her stranded, right? This brings to attention the fact that the Christian who brings attention to a sin in someone else's life (whether that second person be a Christian or not) can't do anything to help that person deal with their sin. Only Jesus can do that. The closest a Christian can do is humbly admit their insufficiency and recommend that person to Jesus in keeping with their belief that he can deal with that person's sin for them. Would you consider this sort of advice-giving to be acceptable even though the Christian technically isn't the on
Jordy Leigh Added May 19, 2017 - 5:02am
(Sorry! I keep passing the word limit!)
Would you consider this sort of advice-giving to be acceptable even though the Christian technically isn't the one with the solution?
How do you differentiate spirituality and religion? It seems to have become trendy today for Christians to say that Christianity isn't a religion. (Some say it's a relationship, others say that Jesus himself is their religion) I admit I'm wary of this movement. After centuries of it being considered a religion, why should people now say it's not? What has changed? To me, this seems like a bandwagon of a statement that people have jumped on because it sounds good to non-Christians and makes Christianity sound more "cool" and relevant in this day and age where religion is increasingly abandoned. So while I am wary of the catchphrase, I think there is some truth to it. I can't remember if I've said this already, but I believe that one thing that sets Christianity apart from other religions is that our God is personal. His knows each of His followers and at the center of this religion is relationship. It's about restoring the Father-child status that was broken by sin. I'm not saying that God lays no rules for His followers. (What loving Father puts no limits on His children's lives, especially when they are younger and haven't yet developed a sense of what's good for themselves) But the rules, I believe, are secondary to the relationship, just as me being a daughter in the Theriault family is more about my relationship with my parents, siblings and extended family members and more about doing life with them than it is about household rules. Does that all make sense? Or am I contradicting something I've said earlier?
New Honesty Added May 19, 2017 - 7:03am
@ Leroy
Going forward I will not comment on your nonsense anymore. I can't follow your train of thoughts or what they have to do with anything anyways. If you continue to comment, let me just remind you that I will delete comments claiming a connection of gay men and your peculiar obsession over bestiality or anything similar.
@ Tamara
I somewhat agree that all sciences are biased a little bit. For example gender studies are the strangest field of research, where I too wouldn't believe everything I read.
However, I don't think that this means you can claim that all research is wrong or that only certain research, e.g. the Regnerus study, is correct. The fact of the matter is that you can only 'believe' a research result if many researches come to the same conclusion. For same-sex adoption, most scientists came to the conclusion that while same-sex couples are very different than straight couples they probably are equally well equipped to raising kids as straight couples. The most problems that arise with children from gay couples are that society (in some countries!!) is not as open to homosexuality. Sometimes this can effect the kids in a bad way because they don't understand why others pick on them or their parents when they didn't do anything wrong. So, I would call this a problem of discrimination in the society which has nothing to do with homosexuals being bad parents.
Also, I don't know why everyone here has to deviate from the topic on hand, which is same-sex marriage, as soon as you don't find any more arguments 'against' it. Your despair of proving you're right is so silly.
Tamara, do you think it is likely that a man will dress up in drag so he can get into the ladies bathroom to rape someone. WAKE UP!! It is no problem for a man to get into a ladies' bathroom anyways. The door won't shut down for people who don't have two X-chromosomes. But transsexuals, who really have the problem that the biological and the psychological gender are not the same, exist and they suffer a lot. If you don't believe, they exist, you are ignorant, but don't try to find 'valid' reasons to undermine your bigotry. 
About the school: I don't know why some people always want to go the road less travelled. I would've not put my child through this and just went to another, more open, school. However, I do think it is wrong that the child was declined admission because that is discrimination. 
Leroy Added May 19, 2017 - 7:16am
"@ Leroy
Going forward I will not comment on your nonsense anymore. I can't follow your train of thoughts or what they have to do with anything anyways. If you continue to comment, let me just remind you that I will delete comments claiming a connection of gay men and your peculiar obsession over bestiality or anything similar."
Such much for Honesty.  Avoid discussing what is inconvenient.  It is all a legitimate discussion.  I can see why you might want to hide from it.  You are a fraud.
New Honesty Added May 19, 2017 - 7:46am
@ Leroy
I am not avoiding discussing what is inconvenient (Look at my discussion with Jordy!). I have answered to everything you have written so far, which was very time-consuming btw. I don't hide from anything and I don't even know how I could be a fraud. What did I claim I was that you think I'm not? Don't you believe me, I'm gay anymore lol
You repeat yourself over and over and over again. If you're able to write something new I might comment on it. But I don't have to comment on anything. And I sure as hell won't discuss lies thrown around about gays being into bestiality. 
New Honesty Added May 19, 2017 - 7:54am
@Jordy I'm sorry but most of my response got lost because I've been logged off of writerbeat :( I will summarize what I wrote in short:
About heaven, hell and stuff: I'm not saying that I can't imagine an afterlife featuring some kind of penalty but I don't think it is this simple. Two things convinced me of this; one was working with people who has NDEs (near death experiences) who talked about what happened while they were gone (which of course also could've just been the hallucinations their brains could come up with). They told different stories but there was no noticeable common thread, like Heaven or hell. The other thing was pope Benedict the XVI (please correct me if I'm saying rubbish) who I believe said that purgatory/limbo is not a place and doesn't exist the way humankind imagines it. How can he know? How can a human being say anything about the afterlife? This convinced me that many if not all of Christianities' symbols are mere fiction.
I do like the train of thoughts behind God not wanting that his followers love him blindly. That being said I don't know if I would even want to follow a God who punishes those who decide not to follow him. You are talking about sexuality and calling it, like so many before you, a lifestyle. Trust me, being gay is not a choice. When I was younger I would have done everything to change it! I couldn't change it hence I couldn't decide over it. In the end I started accepting myself, am now very happy and wouldn't change it, even if I could. That means that homosexuality can't be a lifestyle. If you don't believe what I just said, that is okay. But then we have no reasons to really continue talking.
I do agree with what you said about various religions and morals and I loved the story from the Buddhist. I just think it's so sad that some people use religion as a reason to hurt others. That does seem like a paradox.
I would consider this advice for a pregnant women better advice, but not good advice. Because in the end, the woman knows what you'd want her to do, so she could only benefit from it if she were Catholic as well. No one would have a 'solution' for her, because only she'd know what to do. But I think it would only be helpful for her to listen to everything she wants to say and go over all options.
I differentiate spirituality from religion like this: One is very definite (religion) which actually has rules to follow and doesn't need the following to question the teachings. Spirituality to me is more open to other forms of philosophical/religious/spiritual input, like Buddhism. It also leaves everything open for everyone to come to their own conclusion about how the world roles and how afterlife might look like (if it exists at all). For Christianity I believe it might have to do with many people excommunicating, so now they have to make it 'cool' again. But if Christianity is actually changing to a more 'open' form of religion that doesn't work with fear (I am sorry but to me it still sounds as if you live your live according to Christianity because you are afraid of landing in hell otherwise) and is open to input from the outside, I think that would be a good change.
Billy Roper Added May 19, 2017 - 8:52am
The only external influence which I'd like for Christianity to be open to is the rooftop tours Muslims give to homosexuals.
Leroy Added May 19, 2017 - 8:57am
New Honesty,
I understand that English may not be your first language.  Evidently, repetition would be useful in this case.  If you carefully read what I wrote, you'll see that I never accused you or any gay as being into bestiality--not even a hint.  It is not something which I believe.  It is a disingenuous attempt to smear me as being anti-gay, which is not true.
I'll try again.  You have your "sexuality" (gay).  I have mine (heterosexual).  You say that you deserve the same rights to live your life the way you desire because your homosexuality is natural and because of that it deserves to be treated equally under the law and you deserve the same rights as others to be married in every sense of the word.  Gays, in fact, deserve more rights because they are unfairly discriminated against, and government resources must be used to force people to accept theirs sexually.  For example, the government should force a Christian school to accept a lesbian student although it is against its religion and their rights and violates the US Constitution.  The Constitution should be suspended for the LBGTQP community.  Bakers should be forced to decorate cakes with gay themes, although it goes against their religion. LBGTQP rights supersede their rights to practice their religion because religion is pure nonsense.  Young students should be indoctrinated by the state to embrace homosexuality to remove its stigma.  Do I understand that correctly?
My point is that pedophilia and bestiality, using your logic, deserve the same rights as homosexuals.  They have their "sexuality" too.  Some are into incest.  Why should they be treated differently than for gays?  Stoney had the courage to agree.  I give him credit for being honest.  Maybe he should use your moniker.
 If your logic is to hold, it must be true in all cases.   If you can convince me that your logic holds in all cases, then I would have no choice but to agree with you.  Do you want to have an honest discussion or do you want to avoid inconvenient truths?
New Honesty Added May 19, 2017 - 10:15am
@ Billy Roper
I hope you feel very 'Christian' saying something like this. 
@ Leroy
Comments like this (Billy's) should show that it is important to have all sexualities (yes, ALL, I'm getting there) protected against discrimination. This is already done for genders, religions, races. Imagine yourself being picked apart by society for no reason although the bible/constitution/laws/whatever say that all people are equal (Sorry, am I annoying you with 'feelings' again?). No one needs to be forced to accept anything, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. But every time I read your ridiculous arguments like cake decorating and bestiality my IQ drops a few points. Btw I don't care about the US constitution which allows a president to be in office who wasn't democratically elected by the majority of the people.
You did more than simply hint that, you even 'hinted' that Scandinavians are prone for bestiality. I deleted that comment though because it was getting ridiculous. 
The difference between normal sexuality and abnormal forms of sexuality is that someone is getting hurt (Sorry, feelings again!). But I think that the state must also accompany those who deviate (like pedophiles) and help them. Yes, I said it - pedophiles deserve help. As I said this whole time again and again: We are talking about two people who consent to marry each other. Consent isn't possible for children or animals. 
Are all pedophiles and people who wish to have sex with animals evil? I can't answer that. I am a judgement-free person (unless someone like yourself judges me beforehand and don't claim you didn't). All I know is that they should get the help they need and the government should provide this help. If they already became deviant then of course they need to be put away.
Why I am not patient with you and the likes of you anymore is that you pull arguments out of your hat that don't make any sense. And you're always comparing apples with peaches. It stuns me that you don't see that. I guess you're desperately trying to prove your point.
Leroy Added May 19, 2017 - 12:49pm
Again, New, I know English isn't your first language.  I suggest you go back and re-read my comments a few times.  I never hinted any connection between homosexuals and bestiality, nor do I believe there is a connection. 
Beastiality is legal in Canada if there is no penetration.  That should satisfy your concerns about consent.  We continue to use animals as beast of burden so obviously, consent is not an issue.  You could solve the pedophile issue in a number of ways. Maybe I misidentified Sweden.  Perhaps it was Denmark and Finland that I was thinking about.  In Finland, you can do it as long as you don't harm the animal.  You can read up on it here.
I'm sure that many people from Austria visit countries where sex with minors is not enforced.  Their burden could be relieved by allowing them in the country.  What is the real difference?  Today, for species that are endangered, we allow farming, such a salmon farming.  Maybe farming children and for this purpose would satisfy your concerns.  If I read your response correctly, you would then be in agreement.  Am I correct?
With your concerns satisfied, do you now agree that others with aberrant sexualities deserve the same considerations that you demand?  should the government teach our children that these aberrant sexualities are normal? or should we not tolerant all sexualities?  Let's be consistent.
I also think you misread my comment about feelings.  I suggest you re-read the comments again.
New Honesty Added May 19, 2017 - 1:16pm
You don't understand me (at all) I don't understand you. I'm out.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 19, 2017 - 3:00pm
Looks like this subject has gone off the rails. Why the fuss ? I knew this subject provokes many replies - negative or positive.
That's the problem: While the world moves towards a new world war people are concerned about such minor stuff like gay marriage. THAT'S why the world fucks up: Because people have wrong priorities.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added May 19, 2017 - 3:55pm
I didn't read all the comments. I just wanted to state that for me the discussion about a paper and gay marriage is obsolete when looking at the problems the world is in. I don't really care for such stuff. Because I'm not concerned by it. It might be a big deal for some, that's ok, but then I don't understand why people make such a fuss about it.
And actually: Homos don't make kids. Good prevention against overpopulation of the planet. Maybe that should be pointed out more clearly :-)
Leroy Added May 19, 2017 - 5:14pm
I agree with you, Stoney.  Marriage is just a piece of paper.  Although it's called a marriage, in reality, mine is a civil union.  We weren't married in a church. I would prefer a legal document that spells out what happens when you decided to split up.
There are social benefits for being married.  I think New's point is that he wants all the benefits of being married or getting married.  And, I can understand that.  But, I also think a church has the right to refuse.  An employer should have the right to refuse benefits.  I am not suggesting that they should, only that they should have the right.
Tamara Wilhite Added May 19, 2017 - 10:40pm
Leftists Say There Are No Examples of Men Exploiting 'Trans' Laws to Harm Women. Here Are 9
Billy Roper Added May 20, 2017 - 9:15am
Homosexuality is nature's way of removing people with defective genetic material from the breeding population, but we owe it to the evolutionary process to be proactive and help speed the process along.
New Honesty Added May 20, 2017 - 1:32pm
@ Leroy
Just one addition because I really have to work right now actually. As I said before I am not talking about marrying in a church (unless there is a church which welcomes gay marriage), I am talking about marrying at a registry office.
@ Billy
And you are the evidence that this process isn't working. 
John G Added May 21, 2017 - 2:00am
It's hilarious that the libertoonian types here like Wilhite, Corey, Haluska, Sutrina, Leroy etc are antagonistic toward gay marriage. And gay people of course.
You can feel their seething hatred and intolerance. It's visceral.
While on other threads they accuse the left of being authoritarian freedom haters.
Pretty much everyone I know on the progressive left has my attitude. If that's what they want, go for it.
Billy is just retarded.
TaraElla Added May 21, 2017 - 3:12am
Of course there is nothing wrong with gay marriage!
Except the fact that it is being used as a political football every year. The US and Australia are classic examples of this. (I don't know if this applies in Austria too.)
Peter Corey Added May 21, 2017 - 5:41pm
> Marriage is just a piece of paper
So is an employment contract.
Yet the lefties who argue for gay marriage on the foundation that it involves two adults consenting to a certain piece of paper, are the same ones who argue against two adults consenting to a piece of paper specifying a freely-negotiated and accepted wage rate. Free consent among adults seems to be OK for the former but (for some mysterious reason) not for the latter. In their misguided view, government has to step in and forbid free consent in order to compel a minimum wage.
Of course, consistency in thought has never been the strong point of those on the left. They all follow the example of Napoleon the Pig from Orwell's "Animal Farm", who incited his barnyard fellows to love farm animals and hate humans with the following unthinking exhortation: "Four legs, GOOD! Two legs, BAD!"
Today's leftist porcine Napoleons shout, "Consent in marriage, GOOD! Consent in employment compensation, BAD!"
End of argument, I guess. Of course, what do you expect from a pig who thinks he's Napoleon . . . and others who uncritically believe him?
New Honesty Added May 21, 2017 - 7:45pm
@ Peter
Please stop spreading your idiocrazy any further. If you had understood (and agreed with) Animal Farm you would have posted very different comments.
I don't know that much about the employment situation in the US, but in Austria we have a minimum wage which was pushed to become the law by a 'left' party. Just saying. 
Also, inconsistency in thinking isn't only typical for 'right' parties but also you specifically, Peter.
Jordy Leigh Added May 22, 2017 - 8:52am
This is just a quick note to say that responding here is still on my radar, I've just been using my time in the last couple of days to tackle other tasks vying for my attention. You've probably noticed, too, that these discussions are quite time-consuming, and while I don't regret it, I have needed to take a break.
New Honesty Added May 22, 2017 - 4:37pm
@ Jordy
I understand completely. I have also given up responding to every party who don't have a clue what they're talking about but I do enjoy discussing with you.
Jordy Leigh Added May 23, 2017 - 4:51am
Finally, a window of time in which I'll respond to your previous comment (though I don't want to mislead you; this is no burden. I've very much enjoyed a level-headed conversation with someone of a different belief system and view of gay marriage).
Wow! You must have heard some really interesting stories from working with people who have had NDEs. Did these stories generally cause you to slow down and think, or did they seem entirely too wacky to stimulate genuine thought? My grandad had a near death experience. Like the people you mentioned, his experience didn't include heaven or hell either - at least not overtly. It involved him walking through a valley and reaching some gates at the end of the valley. I suppose these could have been the gates of heaven given the way that my mum retells the story with such eagerness... but who could really say they were the gates of heaven. I don't know why I've never asked my grandad himself about the experience. In any case, there's nothing in the Bible or my upbringing that talks about a valley after death as far as I'm aware. So yes, I wonder if there is more to it than a Heaven and a Hell, end of story. I haven't studied about it extensively, either in the Bible or in outside sources and even if I had, who would I be to say I know exactly what happens in an issue that is shrouded in so much mystery. There are certain beliefs that I'm thoroughly convinced of, such as that Hell is eternal... but now we're delving into things I really only believe in based on my upbringing... so yeah, I won't go any further.
And about the pope... I'm really wouldn't know what he said. But regardless, I don't believe that any human in the name of Christianity or otherwise, has the authority to claim to know about life after death apart from God's revelation.
I guess I called sexuality a lifestyle because that's what I honestly believe it is. That said, I don't think I've ever heard directly from a gay person about their point of view. So I thank you far giving me some of your perspective. You've seriously lived your whole life this way? I guess that's why I've heard it said that people are "born that way". What changed when you "started accepting" yourself? What clicked? How would you articulate the change of mindset?
Well, it's true that if I were the one giving the advice to the pregnant woman, there would be something that I would want her to do, only because I believe so strongly that there's nothing more beneficial than trusting in Jesus. However, I hope that in the middle of the situation (should I ever find myself in that postition), I would be level-headed enough not to pressure her into doing or saying anything, for the sake of pleasing me, that she doesn't truly mean. That would be just an act and God would see right through it. But from your perspective, do you (or why do you) think it would be wrong for me to want (or hope for) a particular outcome? 
Okay, so spirituality or religion: where would you place a particular belief system that has rules in one sense, but that salvation is by no means reliant upon. (Back to the image of the father-child relationship, family rules don't apply before an adoption and they have nothing to do with the qualification of the child. Rather they apply after in order to promote the fullest imaginable potential of thriving in the new family.) And out of spirituality and religion, where would you place a belief system that says certain things about the "afterlife" for sure, but also alows for a large amount of mystery?
I believe so too, that many people, particularly the younger generations, are excommunicating the Church. Some people are responding to this by changing how they represent Christianity. You think this would be a good change. I look at the same change and don't think it is good. This is because I believe God is unchanging (if He changes for the better, it means He wasn't perfect before and therefore wasn't God). So if Christianity is changing, but God isn't, then it means that Christianity is moving away from God, or starting to misrepresent Him. It means that people may accept this more tolerant version of Christianity, but they won't be accepting the truth. It will be just another club for people to join. I believe that's exactly what's happening today - at least in some "Christian" circles. And I see it as a very sad thing.
As a side note: how unfortunate about being logged off WriterBeat and losing your original response! A similar thing happened to me once, and now I copy my comment before I click submit... just in case. :/
New Honesty Added May 24, 2017 - 2:34pm
@ Jordy
I really don't know why everyone here is so aggressive. I get aggressive too... if others disrespect me or act as if their point of view carries more value than mine.
What would you say about things that e.g. Billy Roper wrote: 'The only external influence which I'd like for Christianity to be open to is the rooftop tours Muslims give to homosexuals.'
I think that's a disgusting thing to say but probably speaks of the character of the person saying it.
Yes, NDEs are really interesting although I always question if they have any merit or not. Working with elders was so interesting for me. To be honest it wasn't what I would have wanted to at that point but it was actually a very rewarding job. It was sometimes painful since not everyone has a happy story to tell about their live and dementia is no cake walk... But most of the times I really liked hearing what they had to say. It was funny too because one of the patients once told me that I had a nickname (which would loosely translate to 'the psychologist bringing death') - I was shocked when I heard it but then she explained that it was because I was always wearing all black, not because any of the patients died :D
Admittedly most NDEs I heard were from family members, I heard so many different things, the typical 'light at the end of the tunnel', one man said that he actually didn't see or feel anything which sounded depressing. My great-something-grandma yelled at the first responders and said something like 'Why the hell did you bring me back?! It was so beautiful where I was'. She spoke about a peaceful meadow with plants and high grass that she never wanted to leave. It was then that I thought that afterlife, if existent, might not be the same for everyone.
About advice: I guess we always know what we would want the person to do. For me it would depend on the situation but I guess the biggest difference is that what I think is best wouldn't be because of religion.
Since this is a grey area... where no choice is a good choice... I believe that as long as you're here for the person and not trying to push the person in deciding one way or the other... you're doing a good job.
But there are some things that are not up for discussion to me (most of these don't concern Catholics as far as I know but other religions): e.g. that sexuality is no choice, that safer sex is always the best option, that you don't have to/shouldn't wait to have sex until you're married, that you should trust in what your doctor says and that vaccinations are a good thing. I know some religious people would disagree..
About your question for a system that has rules but salvation isn't reliant upon: I guess my answer would have to be that it depends on how strict/life-limitating these rules are. And if the people practicing are allowed to make up their own mind upon certain things... For example I think that saying 'You should keep you body healthy and don't drink alcohol' would be a spiritual thing but saying 'You mustn't drink any alcohol' would be more typical for a religion.
I guess all systems fall under a spectrum... The poles could be spirituality - religion - cult (from most open to most limitating system)... would you agree or rather not?
I understand your concern about Christianity changing but maybe it is not Christianity moving further away from God but rather becoming a more accessible and true representation of Christian values? I'm not informed about what's happening but that seems possible to me.
Yes, I would say that I was 'born this way' (although I think it sounds silly) but I have known very early on. I think 3rd or 4th grade, so with 9 or ten years. I guess that's been the very early stages of puberty and it's been this way since then. I have some older friends who have been with women before. They either tell me that they were gay all along or that they didn't know they were gay and haven't considered being gay until trying it and finding out how right it felt for them. Self-acceptance is a very big step for al gay men. I remember that is wasn't easy for me and we're talking about a process taking many years. What changed? I guess after telling everyone I care about (getting mostly positive/neutral reactions) I realized that there was nothing to be afraid of anymore. Everyone else isn't important to me. In the end no one is more important than myself. 
As I said I'm deeply convinced that is wasn't a choice for me; at this point in my life it is like accepting that you are a certain height, have a certain hair colour, etc. And I am so happy being who I am, I'm generally very satisfied and I would miss being gay (It brings some positive aspects... e.g. the open and sweet LGBT community, not having to understand someone from the other gender...).
Jordy Leigh Added May 25, 2017 - 7:22am
Oh, for sure! They've been very aggressive! At first, I was following other people's comments. I like to get a feel for varying worldview and consider them. But after a while, I felt that I just had to stop. The language used to express the beliefs (which in an of themselves I'm not afraid to read about) became too harsh and disrespectful. I'm inclined to believe this shows that homosexuality is unnatural. Thus, it ruffles feathers. In general, those who are against it are readily upset by the suggestion that it's okay/good/natural, and those who are for it become quickly defensive. That's what I'm lead to believe, though I'm sure you would argue otherwise and I would like to hear how you would argue it.
About what Billy Roper said... I'm not sure. what are those Muslim rooftop tours about? I don't know what he's referring to.
So you were a psychologist? Huh! That piques my interest! I don't study psychology or even plan to, it's just one of the many subjects that I would love to know more about had I the time and liberty to study as many fields of interest as I wished!
So if I understand you, there's no fault in wanting a person facing a dilemma to opt for one choice over another, but the problem comes when you or I would apply pressure to that end. Correct? I follow your reasoning here. But can I just add a perspective? So imagine just for a few minutes that there is a Creator God. And imagine that He created a perfect world with a man and a woman to populate the earth and He intended for all of humanity to enjoy unhindered, sweet relationship with Him as their loving God and them as His devoted offspring of sorts. Then imagine that they defied His rightful authority (and it is rightful since we're imagining He's the Creator), and this completely destroyed that perfect relationship, not only for Adam and Eve, but for generations to come. If you can imagine this, you can surely imagine that the punishment would be brutal - a single offense against an infinitely Holy God warrants infinte punishment - literal Hell. You've probably heard all this before, so I'll try not to drag it on unnecessarily, but it's a lot to summarize. Imagine then that God set in motion a plan to rescue people from Hell and restore that broken relationship. He chose a people for Himself - Israel - through which to reveal Himself to the world. And imagine that eventually, He came to the world as a human Himself - Jesus. It overrules every protest that God doesn't know what human existence is like, that He's being unfair and that He can't/doesn't relate. God Himself endured the human existence. Imagine that Jesus died the death we deserved to die and assumed the punishment that was meant for us so that it might be accredited to the account of anyone and everyone who would believe he really did what he did and who would trust in him as their Savior and Lord. Basically, I'm asking you to imagine the Bible is true. I understand this is a huge leap, particularly since you've already expressed that you doubt the Bible contains some holy messages, but I'm not asking you right now to believe it, just to assume it for the sake of what I'm about to propose. Because if all that is true, then the eternal destiny of every human being is staked to one question: "Do they believe in Jesus and trust him as their Savior and Lord, or do they not?" The implications are hugeEternal! And so assuming all the above to be true, would it not make sense for those who truly believe in it (I'm not talking about nominal our cultural Christians, but those who truly believe it and understand the gravity of it) to urge those who are currently destined for Hell to consider the only means of salvation? Wouldn't that be the most considerate - even loving - thing they could do, to urge that person to make that decision?
So back to the original reasoning that it's fine to want a certain outcome for a person, but not to urge them accordingly, I think this holds together for trivial cases and for - as you suggested - gray areas where no choice is a good choice. But I think it falls apart when we come to this matter that has such grave, eternal implications. Okay, end of imagining session. But in all seriousness, does that all sound reasonable? Can you see why someone who truly believes all of the above would - even should - speak about eternity with such urgency?
Maybe this all seems like a rabbit trail to you. You started a conversation about gay marriage and here I am rambling about Christianity - something that is hard to determine whether it's even religion or spirituality or what. Maybe that's how you feel (or maybe not?). But the way I see it, homosexuality is the real side-issue. I don
Jordy Leigh Added May 25, 2017 - 7:23am
I don't mean to belittle the confusion and probably hurt that you faced regarding your sexuality, particularly when you were younger, I only mean to put it into perspective. Because people, Christians and non-Christians alike, tend to obsess over these things. I can't help but feel that the devil is very pleased to see scores of people engaging in heated crossfire, trampling each other with their own opinions about sexuality, abortion, animal rights, politics, free speech and a host of other things, while completely ignoring eternity. I can't help thinking that so many people are distracted - even consumed - with matters that may be important, but are of secondary or minor importance when compared to the matter of eternal destination. And I can't help but think that so many people will fight over these things, even until the day they die, and then be faced with the fact that none of their eloquent arguments for or against homosexuality will save them from Hell, and that it will be too late. I think that homosexuality is the real rabbit trail, not necessarily in this discussion here on your WriterBeat article, but in life.
But back to your proposal that there is a spectrum of sorts as it relates to spirituality, religion, and cults. Yes, I would agree, and I think I had a sort of lightbulb moment when I read your suggestion. Very well articulated! I've heard it said that for every mile of road that we walk, there are two miles of ditch - one on either side - into which we might fall. In that case, I suppose that religion would be the "safe" middle ground, if indeed it could be placed exactly half-way between spirituality and cult, and if indeed that saying holds true. And what about that saying? Do you see truth in it?
Yes, I hope I didn't offend you in bring up 'born this way'. I wonder if you often cringe at the generalizations and catchphrases that are made about homosexuality. Each person is an incedible intricate soul, and yet people tend to paint homosexuals with one paintbrush as though it's a fair representation. It sounds like you've found a community that you really love in the LGBT community. I suppose that would solidify your confidence and promote your comfort. After many years of struggle I imagine it was like a breath of fresh air to you. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just trying to relate with you as another human being who may not have experienced the same journey as you, but who has experienced the same core emotions. Love, community, acceptance (from self and others) and like-minded peers are all things that I think everyone longs for. For you and for others, this might express itself in homosexuality. For me, it shows by me tending to censor my words and behavior depending on who I'm with at a given time so as to appear acceptable to others. Why do we have such an unsearchable longing for community and acceptance? I would say it's that we might seek fulfillment and find God. What would you say?
New Honesty Added May 27, 2017 - 9:54am
Sorry for the writing up ahead. I am using a different System today which Autocorrects as if I were writing in German.
Just one Thing about our first discussion and how People here (and in real life) tend to become overaggressive and disrespect others. You said that them being so 'loud' made you feel inclined that homosexuality is unnatural. While it isn't my Goal to convince you (or anyone else) from the opposite let me just say that People behaving like assholes doesn't mean anything. Women were burnt because People were assholes and thought they were witches. Probably not the best example, but you get what I mean. Humans aren't necessarily right only because (it seems) that there are a lot sharing the same opinions. I guess it's important that everyone never believes anything blindly just because a lot of People say so. Questioning is probably harder, but it's never wrong to think our own thoughts.
I am still a psychologist and also a graphic designer. At the Moment I am finalizing a study about the Dark Side of Social Media. :)
With the rooftop tour Billy meant some cases were IS/Daesh killed homosexuals either on a rooftop or by throwing them off a rooftop.
About what you wrote with 'eternal consequences': Yes, if I believed that God judged our every move as critically as the bible says I might lead a more thoughtful life. But you always assume that 'we' know about eternal consequences exist and that doing a certain Thing may lead the path to hell. I believe that if there is anything to Christianity it is, that the human race is a deeply flawed species. We are literally meant to have Problems and flaws and we're destinied to make mistakes, not be nice at all times, have a temper, be angry, etc. Since we're built this way I can't imagine being judged by a comepletely absurd high Moral Standard...
Btw this is why I think that 'Christian' advice is probably not helpful for someone who isn't Christian.
I strongly believe/know, homosexuality is natural (Not only speaking about my Point of view but also from the accumulated Research results from psychologist, social scientists, biologists, epigenetics,...). So what's the worse mistake - leading a life without Exploration or making mistakes not being afraid of consequences that might not ever happen? If everyone who sins lands in hell, it's gonna be a damn crowded place! 
About advice: As a psychologist (and as a human too I guess?) you're never meant to tell the Client what to do but rather have them figure out what is the right Thing for them on their own. So I think very critically about 'spiritual guidance' (vs psychotherapy) or 'spiritual sex ed' (vs real sex ed) because you may never feel like you can say/ask anything you want. 
But you said something very true: That People rather obsess over (rather small) Problems than to tackle larger Problems - also that People rather like to think about how we differ rather than realising how very similar we (as human beings) all are.
What do you mean by homosexuality is the rabbit Trail? I'm not really familiar with that figure of speech in that way.
No, you didn't offend me! At this Point you'd have to be really creative to find a way to offend me. No Problem! I just had an inner cringe because that truly is a gay 'stereotype' :D
(Although I guess I believe that it is true... I think that genetics are the largest predictor for sexuality. I actually have an article on my blog about this called 'How to be(come) gay' if you're interested. I just have to warn you that the language might be explicit I don't really remember)
I don't know what People Long for in their life... I guess Religion is a good guidance System for some People. All I ever wanted was being happy. Now that I am I guess I can look for new Goals. Always becoming a 'better' Person is definitely one of them. 
New Honesty Added May 27, 2017 - 9:56am
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I strongly believe that our afterlife would be moe forgiving. We're just human. I believe (if existent) hell would be reserved for truly 'evil' People.
Jordy Leigh Added Jun 1, 2017 - 12:12am
Oh, a graphic designer! Now that's something that I have dabbled in. I designed my own cover for the first novella that I wrote (I only designed it for fun. I hired a professional to design the cover that it will actually be published with). But I'm no graphic designer, really! It just interests me.
Oh no! That's tragic! I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but how cruel to then slaughter homosexuals like that. That's setting themselves up as the judges over other people when God should be the one to execute judgment. How terrible!
I think I see what you mean about people executing certain women believing them to be witches. Again, a tragic result following a movement of people setting themselves up as judges where they should leave the job to Whom it is rightfully due.
Hmmm, about what you said about how Hell should be reserved for the truly evil... actually, before I go on, let me connect that statement to something you said earlier in your comment, that according to the Bible, God judges our every move critically. If you think about it, the severity of an offense varies depending on whom is sinned against. If you slap a rock, there are no consequences. It's a rock with no life or soul. If you slap a stranger in the face... well, I don't know exactly what the consequences are (and it would vary from place to place), but undeniably there will be consequences as opposed to slapping a rock. Then if you slap a policeman, the consequences will be greater still. And what if you slap the president/prime-minister/king/queen? I'm guessing a certain amount of jail time would be in place? Finally, what if you slap an infinitely Holy God in the face? The consequences are infinite by virtue of the fact that *He* is infinitely Holy. One sin. The nature of the sin doesn't come into question here, only the against Whom the offense is. So yes, Hell will be a "damn crowded" place. All of humanity has committed some offense against God. But it would be even more crowded had He not made provisions for a way to be exempt from the punishment of Hell - a way out, if you will. So back to the original statement, I don't believe Hell is reserved only for the "truly evil", but for everyone who commits an offense against God no matter how great or small (whether they be human, angel or demon). So we are in desperate need of help.
Now obviously, all that is nullified to those who simply don't believe in eternal consequences. As you said, I assume we know they exist, but not everyone does. But I would caution people to at least consider it as though it is a valid possibility so that they might look into the matter. It's not something that I would hope people overlook because they don't believe it's important.
I need to finish up this comment because I'm going to meet someone for lunch. But I think there's plenty enough for us to discuss in what I've already commented. And if you would like to hear my response to something that you said that I didn't respond to, let me know and I'll reply to that, too, when I get a spare moment of time (I've recently agreed to work more hours... if I thought I had too little time before, it's certainly truer now!).
I hope this finds you well and seeking answers to the important questions in life.