The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

[Father Time]

There is a quick way to settle the argument on gay marriage and religion.

Force homosexuals to marry in churches that allow homosexual marriages. If there are none, then they can not get married!!

If they are some, then they can get married.

End of discussion!! Strange social problem resolved. Now we can talk about more serious things like "Is the moon made of Swiss or Parmesan??".

You know that people don't have to get married in a church right?

 

[sidneyworld]

There is a quick way to settle the argument on gay marriage and religion.

Force homosexuals to marry in churches that allow homosexual marriages. If there are none, then they can not get married!!

If they are some, then they can get married.

End of discussion!! Strange social problem resolved. Now we can talk about more serious things like "Is the moon made of Swiss or Parmesan??".

You know that people don't have to get married in a church right?

Quite frankly, in this day and age where marriage is not taken seriously in terms of spiritual devotion, dedication and collaboration with eachother of any potential offspring why bother? Love and marriage go hand and hand and there is nothing financial or practical about love. Many folks completely miss the point here. Those consider marriage a legal contract of convenience and financial prosperity.

Anne Marie

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Quite frankly, in this day and age where marriage is not taken seriously in terms of spiritual devotion, dedication and collaboration with eachother of any potential offspring why bother? Love and marriage go hand and hand and there is nothing financial or practical about love. Many folks completely miss the point here. Those consider marriage a legal contract of convenience and financial prosperity.

Anne Marie

So, Anne, are you saying that marriage is about love?

Because, if you are, then you condemn those whose love you don't agree with. And those who oppose gay marriage, oppose people who love eachother getting married for love simply based on their gender.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What rules would those be?

Oh, you know! No sex before marriage. No sodomy. No three-somes. Sexual privacy and appropriateness (like no sex in high-rise elevators - a dream of mine). Monogamy. You probably can't role play certain situations i.e. You're Mary and your partner is God, or you're Mary Magdalene and your partner is Jesus. You know, naughty things like that.

Well, in my opinion, none of those have anything to do with religion, but more personal choices. I really don't know of anyone these days, religious or not, that waits until marriage to have sex. Privacy and appropriateness? I've done it in broad daylight in the middle of a hike on top of a mountain, and various other places. Not sure where in the Bible it tells you where and when you should have sex, but I haven't read the entire OT either, nor would I follow everything in there. Monogamy is a choice and if you are in a committed relationship and that other person expects it, then you do so out of respect for your partner. Again, not really a religious thing, but I think whether you believe that adultery is a sin or not, it's still unethical no matter how you look at it. I also don't see anything wrong with role playing if that's what you're into.

Seems like you have a lot of broad generalizations and misconceptions that you assign to a given group, i.e. stereotyping. You should know better than that.

Some of that's bullshit, Newby. You can't tell me that many Christians don't wait until marriage to have sex for the first time (or at least mean to even if they don't make it). Or that Christianity is okay with three-somes (which I don't personally care for either). I agree monogamy is ethical, but it says not to be adulterous in your 10 Commandments (even though it doesn't say anything about incest). I'm sure not every Christian is sexually repressed, but, then again, I've never met one of those... until you, you dirty angel of sex!

 

[Newby]

Oh, you know! No sex before marriage. No sodomy. No three-somes. Sexual privacy and appropriateness (like no sex in high-rise elevators - a dream of mine). Monogamy. You probably can't role play certain situations i.e. You're Mary and your partner is God, or you're Mary Magdalene and your partner is Jesus. You know, naughty things like that.

Well, in my opinion, none of those have anything to do with religion, but more personal choices. I really don't know of anyone these days, religious or not, that waits until marriage to have sex. Privacy and appropriateness? I've done it in broad daylight in the middle of a hike on top of a mountain, and various other places. Not sure where in the Bible it tells you where and when you should have sex, but I haven't read the entire OT either, nor would I follow everything in there. Monogamy is a choice and if you are in a committed relationship and that other person expects it, then you do so out of respect for your partner. Again, not really a religious thing, but I think whether you believe that adultery is a sin or not, it's still unethical no matter how you look at it. I also don't see anything wrong with role playing if that's what you're into.

Seems like you have a lot of broad generalizations and misconceptions that you assign to a given group, i.e. stereotyping. You should know better than that.

Some of that's bullshit, Newby. You can't tell me that many Christians don't wait until marriage to have sex for the first time (or at least mean to even if they don't make it). Or that Christianity is okay with three-somes (which I don't personally care for either). I agree monogamy is ethical, but it says not to be adulterous in your 10 Commandments (even though it doesn't say anything about incest). I'm sure not every Christian is sexually repressed, but, then again, I've never met one of those... until you, you dirty angel of sex!

If you've never met a Christian that wasn't sexually repressed, then you don't get out much. So, why don't you care for threesomes? Obviously it's not b/c of your religious convictions, so why do you arbitrarily assign sterotypes to others? I'm sure if I said I didn't care for threesomes, you'd say it was b/c of my religious beliefs, yet there you are w/o any religious beliefs and you don't care for them either? Your mind takes the simple path and assigns dispositions to people based on their religious beliefs whenever that is probably not the case 99% of the time. People have likes/dislikes of things that have nothing to do with religion, yet you use that as a scapegoat most of the time to explain behavior that you can't seem to otherwise understand.

And why do you see enjoying sex as being 'dirty'? You sound like the 'repressed' one to me.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If you've never met a Christian that wasn't sexually repressed, then you don't get out much. So, why don't you care for threesomes? Obviously it's not b/c of your religious convictions, so why do you arbitrarily assign sterotypes to others? I'm sure if I said I didn't care for threesomes, you'd say it was b/c of my religious beliefs, yet there you are w/o any religious beliefs and you don't care for them either? Your mind takes the simple path and assigns dispositions to people based on their religious beliefs whenever that is probably not the case 99% of the time. People have likes/dislikes of things that have nothing to do with religion, yet you use that as a scapegoat most of the time to explain behavior that you can't seem to otherwise understand.

And why do you see enjoying sex as being 'dirty'? You sound like the 'repressed' one to me.

I just don't date Christians and I don't sleep around, especially with people I've met at church functions - not only because I don't go to church functions, but also because Christians don't tend to sleep around either.

I don't like threesomes because two women getting it on is a turn off, not a turn on. If two women are getting it on it most likely means one of two things 1. They're straight chicks doing it to turn me on, which means they're kinda slutty and definitely fake or 2. They're gay and have no interest in me. My reasons aren't based on religion. But you can't tell me that Christianity is okay with 3-somes. So if you're a Christian, most likely you don't engage in 3-somes.

A person's religious beliefs tend to permeate their perceptions, right? So if you're a believer you see God everywhere you look, and if you're not, then you don't see God. So a Christian, who is a true believer, follows the Bible, etc. is not going to engage in three-somes because homosexual acts are sinful, and because sex before marriage is sinful, etc. etc. So, if I meet someone who tells me she's a Christian it isn't unreasonable for me to assume that she doesn't sleep around, doesn't engage in 3-somes, isn't gay, doesn't have sex before marriage, etc. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but I'm not going to assume she's a slutty, wild, bi-sexual, easy Christian girl because to behave like she is would most likely blow up in my face and offend and insult her.

Now, I'm not saying that atheist girls are slutty crazy sex-maniacs riddle with STDs, because there are very logical specific evolutionary reasons why many women tend not to be promiscuous. Just like there are very logical specific evolutionary reasons why men, not matter what religion, are sex-crazed and would be hip-thrusting STD dispensers if women allowed them to be. And I wouldn't assume an atheist girl is slutty and easy. But, I would think that statistically speaking an atheist girl won't suffer from religious guilt if she sleeps with a few guys, gets it on with a man and a woman or two men or whatever, sleeps with her boyfriend before marriage, etc. and therefore she will be more likely to engage in sex acts that wouldn't be considered part of a sexually repressed person's healthy life-style than a Christian woman. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not saying that Christian women don't do it doggie-style, or wear leather and zippers, I'm just saying that they are less likely to talk about sex with their men, are less likely to experiment outside of the bounds of what is socially considered not sexually deviant, and are less likely to have sex with a man who isn't her husband in the first place.

Born again atheist girls tend to be more puritanical than girls who've always been atheists.

 

[Newby]

I just don't date Christians and I don't sleep around, especially with people I've met at church functions - not only because I don't go to church functions, but also because Christians don't tend to sleep around either.

So, you don't hang out with many Christians, yet you claim to know a hell of a lot about them and their habits and why they do/don't do things? Or do you just read a lot of stereotypical comments on your progressive blogs and choose to believe what you read without any actual experience? I have news for you, Christians are human beings with the same feelings/urges/needs as any other human being. Simply because you choose to have a cerain set of beliefs about life in general and what happens whenever this life is over doesn't exclude you from experiencing normal human needs and emotions.

I don't like threesomes because two women getting it on is a turn off, not a turn on. If two women are getting it on it most likely means one of two things 1. They're straight chicks doing it to turn me on, which means they're kinda slutty and definitely fake or 2. They're gay and have no interest in me. My reasons aren't based on religion. But you can't tell me that Christianity is okay with 3-somes. So if you're a Christian, most likely you don't engage in 3-somes.

Well, I'm with you on the threesome. Having some other woman with me and my man would do nothing for me as well. And watching my man with another man would likewise turn me completely off. It's just not something I would be comfortable with regardless of my religious background. And look at you passing judgement on women that do like threesomes, calling them slutty and fake. I thought you were open minded and didn't judge people based on their sexuality or what they got into sexually? Guess you're not so open minded after all then?

A person's religious beliefs tend to permeate their perceptions, right? So if you're a believer you see God everywhere you look, and if you're not, then you don't see God. So a Christian, who is a true believer, follows the Bible, etc. is not going to engage in three-somes because homosexual acts are sinful, and because sex before marriage is sinful, etc. etc. So, if I meet someone who tells me she's a Christian it isn't unreasonable for me to assume that she doesn't sleep around, doesn't engage in 3-somes, isn't gay, doesn't have sex before marriage, etc. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but I'm not going to assume she's a slutty, wild, bi-sexual, easy Christian girl because to behave like she is would most likely blow up in my face and offend and insult her.

Perhaps to some extent they do. But, based on comments that you've made, I think you've put religious people into this neat little box and have all of these preconceptions about them that just aren't based in reality. Just b/c someone is a Christian doesn't mean that they are constantly thinking about God. Altho, in a perfect world (like you with your socialist utopia) I suppose God would always be the priority in your life, but again we're just human, we're not perfect. As far as sex before marriage goes, I really don't know anyone that was a virgin when they got married, including myself. So, I'd say for the most part, you're at least wrong on that front. And there you are again with the slutty and wild adjectives? What does slutty and wild mean to you?

Now, I'm not saying that atheist girls are slutty crazy sex-maniacs riddle with STDs, because there are very logical specific evolutionary reasons why many women tend not to be promiscuous. Just like there are very logical specific evolutionary reasons why men, not matter what religion, are sex-crazed and would be hip-thrusting STD dispensers if women allowed them to be. And I wouldn't assume an atheist girl is slutty and easy. But, I would think that statistically speaking an atheist girl won't suffer from religious guilt if she sleeps with a few guys, gets it on with a man and a woman or two men or whatever, sleeps with her boyfriend before marriage, etc. and therefore she will be more likely to engage in sex acts that wouldn't be considered part of a sexually repressed person's healthy life-style than a Christian woman. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not saying that Christian women don't do it doggie-style, or wear leather and zippers, I'm just saying that they are less likely to talk about sex with their men, are less likely to experiment outside of the bounds of what is socially considered not sexually deviant, and are less likely to have sex with a man who isn't her husband in the first place.

Born again atheist girls tend to be more puritanical than girls who've always been atheists.

So if there are 'very logical specific evolutionary reasons why many women tend not to be promiscuous', then why are Christian women put in a different category in your mind? I mean, you seem to 'get it' where men are concerned, so why are women any different? And I disagree with you about the 'religous guilt' point of view that you have. Society in general has always looked down on promiscuous women, regardless of religion. A woman keeping her virginity was looked upon very highly by men, and not because of religion. Men, in general, throughout history have repressed women sexually and saw them as personal possesions that they owned. So, I'd say the guilt comes in many different forms since women historically have not been allowed to enjoy sex, and that is the case in many, many different cultures. Since that has only changed in the last several generations in western culture, I'd say it has come pretty far for such a short period of time. But, as far as your perception that Christian women are sexually repressed, I'd say that you are pretty far off of the mark on that one. Besides, if Christian women are so pure of thought, how would we even know what was 'sexually deviant' and what was not? Aren't we supposed to please our man after all?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So, you don't hang out with many Christians, yet you claim to know a hell of a lot about them and their habits and why they do/don't do things? Or do you just read a lot of stereotypical comments on your progressive blogs and choose to believe what you read without any actual experience? I have news for you, Christians are human beings with the same feelings/urges/needs as any other human being. Simply because you choose to have a cerain set of beliefs about life in general and what happens whenever this life is over doesn't exclude you from experiencing normal human needs and emotions.

Maybe you're right. The few instances, in recent years, when I met or was around a Christian or Christians my experiences with them led me to believe that Christians are religious!. My aunt teaches at her church and read prayers at my agnostic grandmother's funeral. But she lives in Alabama and I see her once every few years or so. Her son married a Christian girl and, although I didn't attend, I heard from my non-Christian family that the wedding was very religious and, for them, off-putting. I met this beautiful girl while living as a climbing bum in Yosemite Valley a few years back. I mean, beautiful! I talked to her, got to know her just a little bit, found out she was living in Yosemite Valley (but she was working whereas I stole food off of plates that old ladies hadn't finished when they left the restaurant - which by the way will get you removed by security if you're caught) and she was there to climb. It was a perfect opportunity. I could tell she liked me and I asked her to go climbing with me on her next day off. She gladly accepted. A couple of days later I ran into her. We started chatting. I asked her what she was up to. She told me she was going to church. It was a Wednesday night. I was SO put off that I later cancelled our date and didn't talk to her again. I know, I know. My buddy John, who was there, told me I was complete idiot because she was so hot. And she was. But I assumed that someone who was so religious as to attend church on Wednesday nights was not the kind to have sex before marriage or would find my, at the time, staunch atheism or offensive sense of humor very attractive or even tolerable. But who knows? She might have been a kinky sex kitten like yourself! Anyway, my girlfriend's parents are Presbyterians and her father didn't like us moving in together. He never said anything to me, but my girlfriend did. She didn't tell them right away that I didn't believe in God. I started to fear that they were the type to freak out once they learned that I wasn't a Christian. But, as it turns out, they are the sweetest people. Her father is a great guy and couldn't be kinder or more polite. When my girlfriend and I visited them at their home in Memphis last Xmas, they had even set up a room with one bed for the both of us. I have considered them the exception.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, and don't let it go to your head, is that you're probably right and I should stop perceiving Christians as Godbots (though some of them are) and as people who are striving to live by a certain set of, albeit somewhat silly, standards.

Well, I'm with you on the threesome. Having some other woman with me and my man would do nothing for me as well. And watching my man with another man would likewise turn me completely off. It's just not something I would be comfortable with regardless of my religious background. And look at you passing judgement on women that do like threesomes, calling them slutty and fake. I thought you were open minded and didn't judge people based on their sexuality or what they got into sexually? Guess you're not so open minded after all then?

I forgot to mention in my last post that, and I'm embarrassed to say, I'm kinda sexually repressed. But its because of several reasons, one of which is that I grew up in a very religious (Mormon) area and sex was extremely taboo. That and my parents weren't very good parents and when they sat me down to talk about the birds and the bees, I already knew all about it and they didn't go any further than to describe the plumbing. (I actually see a therapist and this is one of my hang-ups that we're currently working on - don't tell anybody!)

Perhaps to some extent they do. But, based on comments that you've made, I think you've put religious people into this neat little box and have all of these preconceptions about them that just aren't based in reality. Just b/c someone is a Christian doesn't mean that they are constantly thinking about God. Altho, in a perfect world (like you with your socialist utopia) I suppose God would always be the priority in your life, but again we're just human, we're not perfect. As far as sex before marriage goes, I really don't know anyone that was a virgin when they got married, including myself. So, I'd say for the most part, you're at least wrong on that front. And there you are again with the slutty and wild adjectives? What does slutty and wild mean to you?

I can't even think of one person I know, religious or not, who was a virgin on his or her wedding day. At least that I knew of. I guess I thought that, for Christians, even though they had given in to the temptation, it was wrong and frowned upon and regrettable. The reason I think that was because one of my friends from high school got his girlfriend pregnant not long after they'd graduated. She came from a very religious Christian family. So did he, but he would go through periods of being a normal kid and being a hyper-religious kid. They got married at the demand of her father (a pastor or preacher or whatever) and I guess, according to another friend who attended (I was in the Marine Corps and couldn't make it) that the bride and groom gave speeches about their regrettable behavior and choices, about how they'd sinned against God, etc. I thought it sounded terribly unromantic. Probably another reason why I perceive Christians thus.

So if there are 'very logical specific evolutionary reasons why many women tend not to be promiscuous', then why are Christian women put in a different category in your mind? I mean, you seem to 'get it' where men are concerned, so why are women any different? And I disagree with you about the 'religous guilt' point of view that you have. Society in general has always looked down on promiscuous women, regardless of religion. A woman keeping her virginity was looked upon very highly by men, and not because of religion. Men, in general, throughout history have repressed women sexually and saw them as personal possesions that they owned. So, I'd say the guilt comes in many different forms since women historically have not been allowed to enjoy sex, and that is the case in many, many different cultures. Since that has only changed in the last several generations in western culture, I'd say it has come pretty far for such a short period of time. But, as far as your perception that Christian women are sexually repressed, I'd say that you are pretty far off of the mark on that one. Besides, if Christian women are so pure of thought, how would we even know what was 'sexually deviant' and what was not? Aren't we supposed to please our man after all?

Okay, okay. So there are a number a contributing factors as to why women experience "sexual guilt" but I think some of that comes from traditional values, don't you? By the way, I hold man-sluts to the same standard as women ones. And it has nothing to do with traditional values but because of STDs. I think its stupid to sleep with a bunch of people because it increases the risk of contracting one or more STDs - and we know how serious some of those STDs are. I guess there's that and that I've never really been attracted to just any ol' person. I have to get to know a woman. I might think she's hot, but I won't be turned on just because of how she looks. So I guess I'm a little judgemental about it. Probably has something to do with my own sexual hang-ups....

Don't go gloating over this. I've had plenty of wild sex (stuff even you'd never consider doing, you uninhibited sex bunny, which I will not share here or with someone I've only communicated with via online forums), and that includes with Christians (who seemed to feel so guilty about it afterwards...). Just because you can deal with your sexuality better than I can deal with mine doesn't mean you can feel any sort of self-righteous satisfaction about me conceding on this matter.

p.s. I don't read liberal blogs or any blogs at all. I watch PBS for my news or, more often, listen to NPR. Yeah, both sources are a little left-leaning, but at least it ain't as partisan as MSNBC or Fox (where you get your news).

 

[sidneyworld]

I grew up Catholic and yes of course sex before marriage is a taboo. But it's difficult to decipher what is scripture, divine law/protocol and what is simply perhaps a misinterpretation or complete fabrication by man.

Colorado, if that young lady said she was going to church on a Wednesday it most likely was a meeting, bible study, not an actual mass. I belonged to a congregation that was wonderful. The paster, about my age really understood scripture and when he tells the story of how he came to such a calling it all came together. He's been married to the same woman for nearly twenty years and his teachings far exceeded anything I was ever taught by a priest during mass. It's almost as if I had to be deprogrammed to the strict regiment of an authoritarian religion to come down a few notches in beginning to understand true scripture and feel God's grace. I was right, from the very moment I walked into that church. It was also a Wednesday and I was invited by a few other people to just try it out. This was not a mass. That was only on Sundays and it was in the main church.

There were three guys and a girl playing their guitars and the music was just incredible. Her voice,, amazing. They could have cut an album just from that performance. The rest of the night just got better. The paster himself and the assistant pastor are both musicians. The pastor started as an accountant and eventually managed a ministry, but not after he traveled across the U.S. to California I believe where he thought he was called to help out a congregation there. After some time, he became aware that this area was not where he's supposed to be. He started this Chapel in New Jersey and has been doing this for many, many years, since. It's full time for him. As is his love for God.

As time went on I became completely enamored at how well I was received by most in this congregation. Very normal people who seem to have a glow about them. And as my faith has been extremely evident in my life, without such intervention and exposure, I was well within my caliber of people I could share that perception with.

But there were problems I ran into which I didn't immediately expect. Not regarding the Pastor but actually one of the guys who had invited me to join them that Wednesday. I had asked him about Nostradamus and his predictions and how they were not completely accurate but remarkably close to events he had predicted hundreds of years before, of our contemporary history. The question was prompted when the sermon dealt with one of the apostles' predictions that were similiar. Not exact in accuracy of name(s) but well within an acceptable believable parameter of events that actually happened. The point was, scripture describes the divine intervention of accounts as was told by the apostles as being absolute. But not exact. So I simply wondered what set Nostradamus aside and was he blessed if not at the very least motivated by divine intervention himself or was he driven by some other forces not worthy of God's blessings?

Well that sparked a very negative reaction from my friend. As if I was placing Nostradamus on the same level as the apostles. Sheeeesh! I was simply asking the question. Questions are a good thing, because it shows that you have a genuine interest and motivation to understand what all this stuff is about. If you don't question, you are truly being led, and perhaps not in the right direction.

This was only the beginning of a great deal of strife for me, in dealing with this guy. I mention this because of your perception of Christians, Colorado. I can't discount your level of apprehension because some folks simply have no ability to motivate individuals to that higher ground. And some simply hide behind God's cloak with a dagger in hand. I would have to say this person qualified such a distinction and it wasn't good. He was the classic Zealot who spent more time criticizing and challenging a person's belief and character and piety, than simply attempting to convey what should be in their hearts.

Many years ago, we used to hang out with this couple who became very good friends of ours. We used to hit the town just about every weekend or just hang at each other's houses. The guy was an early retired decorated NYC Detective and she was my independant recruiter who managed some great long term assignments as a paralegal before I went completely solo. We were also Harley enthusiasts. At some point they came across the Christian Motorcyle Association and they joined. Within a couple of weeks they would asked us to watch tapes and seriously consider joining as well. We would have but it got to the point where they were distancing themselves to us because we didn't immediately jump in. As if we were insulting their new found dedication to God. This was simply not true. We were annoyed by the way they began to challenge our faith in God. And it finally got to a point where the pressure they put on us, especially by my recruter was intolerable. There was just something truly wrong about this picture.

Now I don't doubt for a minute that they were genuinely moved by God's grace. Especially her husband. But like anything else so often, people have a tendency to become over enthusiastic about new endeavors and they forget themselves or any reasonable measure of humility. Like the homeless guy who finally got a job and now criticizes his homeless friends for being lazy and unmotivated. Except that we have always had a love for life and nature and a reasonable understanding of God and sense of spirituality. New "New Born Christians" tend to be rather overbearing. I know for the most part it's because they want others to share in the joy. But some don't bring this message across. What they use instead is criticism and condescension. This is why so many non-believers are so put off if not completely turned off by the very notion of religion and faith. It's really unfortunate and I do know why that happens, Colorado.

But I have to tell you that if you find the right congregation and just have any curiosity about faith and God and the overwhelming sense of peace that overtakes your senses, your life will be transformed into something so beautiful it's indescribable. No matter what happens, no matter what difficulties you will indeed face ahead, you get through them. You just seem to know how. And your understanding of life of human nature and of God increases beyond anyone's expectation. If you don't that's okay too. I have exercised a great deal of caution for both people who are obviously crewl and selfish as I do those who claim to have a direct hand with God, by challenging my character. We all know who we are, and we all know what's right and wrong within a reasonable parameter. And perhaps it's a greater sin to stand behind scripture to further a personal agenda, then to not believe in God at all. I find that to be the greatest of deception.

Anne Marie

 

[eagleseven]

Okay, okay. So there are a number a contributing factors as to why women experience "sexual guilt" but I think some of that comes from traditional values, don't you? By the way, I hold man-sluts to the same standard as women ones. And it has nothing to do with traditional values but because of STDs. I think its stupid to sleep with a bunch of people because it increases the risk of contracting one or more STDs - and we know how serious some of those STDs are. I guess there's that and that I've never really been attracted to just any ol' person. I have to get to know a woman. I might think she's hot, but I won't be turned on just because of how she looks. So I guess I'm a little judgemental about it. Probably has something to do with my own sexual hang-ups....

You just hit on my reason for staying monogamous. Promiscuity is a public health issue due to the prevalence of STDs.

You are right, it is stupid to sleep with lots and lots of people...the risks definitely outweigh the benefits.

Spot on.

Don't go gloating over this. I've had plenty of wild sex (stuff even you'd never consider doing, you uninhibited sex bunny, which I will not share here or with someone I've only communicated with via online forums), and that includes with Christians (who seemed to feel so guilty about it afterwards...). Just because you can deal with your sexuality better than I can deal with mine doesn't mean you can feel any sort of self-righteous satisfaction about me conceding on this matter.

I know this wasn't directed towards me, and I'm rather butting into your conversation, but I think you might be surprised what my generation (people in their early 20s) consider "normal sex." Few things are off-limits...and, well, I've seen things that I never would've imagined. Like a vibrant online community "celebrating" their love of anthropomorphic erotica...hell, among my neighbors, bisexuality is the norm, for both men and women.

My apologies if you are closer to my age...I'm assuming you are older based upon the quality of your posts, and the fact that you listen to NPR (see below)

p.s. I don't read liberal blogs or any blogs at all. I watch PBS for my news or, more often, listen to NPR. Yeah, both sources are a little left-leaning, but at least it ain't as partisan as MSNBC or Fox (where you get your news).

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You just hit on my reason for staying monogamous. Promiscuity is a public health issue due to the prevalence of STDs.

You are right, it is stupid to sleep with lots and lots of people...the risks definitely outweigh the benefits.

Spot on.

Yeah, there are very logical and practical reasons to, maybe not so much be monogamous, as to not be promiscuous.

I know this wasn't directed towards me, and I'm rather butting into your conversation, but I think you might be surprised what my generation (people in their early 20s) consider "normal sex." Few things are off-limits...and, well, I've seen things that I never would've imagined. Like a vibrant online community "celebrating" their love of anthropomorphic erotica...hell, among my neighbors, bisexuality is the norm, for both men and women.

Well I think it depends on the demographics of the area in which you live, as well. I used to live in Leadville, Colorado, pop. 2500. Everyone knew everyone else and everyone knew everything about everyone else. Promiscuity didn't really happen because of a number of reasons and most people tended to get into monogamous relationships. Here's why that might seem strange: they're all hippies. Free love, and all that. Most everyone in my large circle of friends in the town were in their early 20s to mid-30s. Without real research, I'd speculate that promiscuity wasn't the norm because of the threat of STDs, and because if someone was promiscuous they were less likely to start a relationship with someone else in town, or at least they'd perceive it that way.

My apologies if you are closer to my age...I'm assuming you are older based upon the quality of your posts, and the fact that you listen to NPR (see below)

Yeah, I turn 32 on Wednesday. I listened to NPR when I was in my early 20s! I think that you kids these days are nothing but a bunch of ecstasy-addled video-game addicted facebook-aholic text-zombies! Just kidding!

 

[sidneyworld]

You just hit on my reason for staying monogamous. Promiscuity is a public health issue due to the prevalence of STDs.

You are right, it is stupid to sleep with lots and lots of people...the risks definitely outweigh the benefits.

Spot on.

Yeah, there are very logical and practical reasons to, maybe not so much be monogamous, as to not be promiscuous.

I know this wasn't directed towards me, and I'm rather butting into your conversation, but I think you might be surprised what my generation (people in their early 20s) consider "normal sex." Few things are off-limits...and, well, I've seen things that I never would've imagined. Like a vibrant online community "celebrating" their love of anthropomorphic erotica...hell, among my neighbors, bisexuality is the norm, for both men and women.

Well I think it depends on the demographics of the area in which you live, as well. I used to live in Leadville, Colorado, pop. 2500. Everyone knew everyone else and everyone knew everything about everyone else. Promiscuity didn't really happen because of a number of reasons and most people tended to get into monogamous relationships. Here's why that might seem strange: they're all hippies. Free love, and all that. Most everyone in my large circle of friends in the town were in their early 20s to mid-30s. Without real research, I'd speculate that promiscuity wasn't the norm because of the threat of STDs, and because if someone was promiscuous they were less likely to start a relationship with someone else in town, or at least they'd perceive it that way.

My apologies if you are closer to my age...I'm assuming you are older based upon the quality of your posts, and the fact that you listen to NPR (see below)

Yeah, I turn 32 on Wednesday. I listened to NPR when I was in my early 20s! I think that you kids these days are nothing but a bunch of ecstasy-addled video-game addicted facebook-aholic text-zombies! Just kidding!

I've been listening to NPR and watching PBS since I was very young. It's exceptional programming, and although yes a bit liberal, at the very least, it cascades truth instead of spreading propaganda. Somethings do not have a political label, especially if you are a photojournalist of the highest caliber. National Geographic photographers and photojournalist are these kinds of people, and many make it on these programs. I worked for Blackstar Publishing for an extended assignment when I wanted to get into the business and learned more in that short amount of time about front line shooting and not disturbing the course of events of any coverage than I would have in any other way. That is very much the way these two broadcaster operate. Too bad the rest of the media in this country do not follow this protocol, necessarily.

Anne Marie

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is a quick way to settle the argument on gay marriage and religion.

Force homosexuals to marry in churches that allow homosexual marriages. If there are none, then they can not get married!!

If they are some, then they can get married.

End of discussion!! Strange social problem resolved. Now we can talk about more serious things like "Is the moon made of Swiss or Parmesan??".

You know that people don't have to get married in a church right?

No, it seems that many people who keep parroting, "Marriage is a religious issue" don't realize that many people get married without reference to any church at all, and many others get married in a church only because it had really nice architecture to go in the wedding photos.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is a quick way to settle the argument on gay marriage and religion.

Force homosexuals to marry in churches that allow homosexual marriages. If there are none, then they can not get married!!

If they are some, then they can get married.

End of discussion!! Strange social problem resolved. Now we can talk about more serious things like "Is the moon made of Swiss or Parmesan??".

You know that people don't have to get married in a church right?

Quite frankly, in this day and age where marriage is not taken seriously in terms of spiritual devotion, dedication and collaboration with eachother of any potential offspring why bother? Love and marriage go hand and hand and there is nothing financial or practical about love. Many folks completely miss the point here. Those consider marriage a legal contract of convenience and financial prosperity.

Anne Marie

The ones who consider marriage a contract rather than being about "impractical" love are the ones who manage to make it last instead of bailing as soon as the infatuation wears off, in my experience.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quite frankly, in this day and age where marriage is not taken seriously in terms of spiritual devotion, dedication and collaboration with eachother of any potential offspring why bother? Love and marriage go hand and hand and there is nothing financial or practical about love. Many folks completely miss the point here. Those consider marriage a legal contract of convenience and financial prosperity.

Anne Marie

So, Anne, are you saying that marriage is about love?

Because, if you are, then you condemn those whose love you don't agree with. And those who oppose gay marriage, oppose people who love eachother getting married for love simply based on their gender.

Why? Because they aren't married unless they get the state to agree with them and recognize it? Can't say I think much of a marriage or a love that only exists if an outside party says it does.

 

[Newby]

I grew up Catholic and yes of course sex before marriage is a taboo. But it's difficult to decipher what is scripture, divine law/protocol and what is simply perhaps a misinterpretation or complete fabrication by man.

Colorado, if that young lady said she was going to church on a Wednesday it most likely was a meeting, bible study, not an actual mass. I belonged to a congregation that was wonderful. The paster, about my age really understood scripture and when he tells the story of how he came to such a calling it all came together. He's been married to the same woman for nearly twenty years and his teachings far exceeded anything I was ever taught by a priest during mass. It's almost as if I had to be deprogrammed to the strict regiment of an authoritarian religion to come down a few notches in beginning to understand true scripture and feel God's grace. I was right, from the very moment I walked into that church. It was also a Wednesday and I was invited by a few other people to just try it out. This was not a mass. That was only on Sundays and it was in the main church.

There were three guys and a girl playing their guitars and the music was just incredible. Her voice,, amazing. They could have cut an album just from that performance. The rest of the night just got better. The paster himself and the assistant pastor are both musicians. The pastor started as an accountant and eventually managed a ministry, but not after he traveled across the U.S. to California I believe where he thought he was called to help out a congregation there. After some time, he became aware that this area was not where he's supposed to be. He started this Chapel in New Jersey and has been doing this for many, many years, since. It's full time for him. As is his love for God.

As time went on I became completely enamored at how well I was received by most in this congregation. Very normal people who seem to have a glow about them. And as my faith has been extremely evident in my life, without such intervention and exposure, I was well within my caliber of people I could share that perception with.

But there were problems I ran into which I didn't immediately expect. Not regarding the Pastor but actually one of the guys who had invited me to join them that Wednesday. I had asked him about Nostradamus and his predictions and how they were not completely accurate but remarkably close to events he had predicted hundreds of years before, of our contemporary history. The question was prompted when the sermon dealt with one of the apostles' predictions that were similiar. Not exact in accuracy of name(s) but well within an acceptable believable parameter of events that actually happened. The point was, scripture describes the divine intervention of accounts as was told by the apostles as being absolute. But not exact. So I simply wondered what set Nostradamus aside and was he blessed if not at the very least motivated by divine intervention himself or was he driven by some other forces not worthy of God's blessings?

Well that sparked a very negative reaction from my friend. As if I was placing Nostradamus on the same level as the apostles. Sheeeesh! I was simply asking the question. Questions are a good thing, because it shows that you have a genuine interest and motivation to understand what all this stuff is about. If you don't question, you are truly being led, and perhaps not in the right direction.

This was only the beginning of a great deal of strife for me, in dealing with this guy. I mention this because of your perception of Christians, Colorado. I can't discount your level of apprehension because some folks simply have no ability to motivate individuals to that higher ground. And some simply hide behind God's cloak with a dagger in hand. I would have to say this person qualified such a distinction and it wasn't good. He was the classic Zealot who spent more time criticizing and challenging a person's belief and character and piety, than simply attempting to convey what should be in their hearts.

Many years ago, we used to hang out with this couple who became very good friends of ours. We used to hit the town just about every weekend or just hang at each other's houses. The guy was an early retired decorated NYC Detective and she was my independant recruiter who managed some great long term assignments as a paralegal before I went completely solo. We were also Harley enthusiasts. At some point they came across the Christian Motorcyle Association and they joined. Within a couple of weeks they would asked us to watch tapes and seriously consider joining as well. We would have but it got to the point where they were distancing themselves to us because we didn't immediately jump in. As if we were insulting their new found dedication to God. This was simply not true. We were annoyed by the way they began to challenge our faith in God. And it finally got to a point where the pressure they put on us, especially by my recruter was intolerable. There was just something truly wrong about this picture.

Now I don't doubt for a minute that they were genuinely moved by God's grace. Especially her husband. But like anything else so often, people have a tendency to become over enthusiastic about new endeavors and they forget themselves or any reasonable measure of humility. Like the homeless guy who finally got a job and now criticizes his homeless friends for being lazy and unmotivated. Except that we have always had a love for life and nature and a reasonable understanding of God and sense of spirituality. New "New Born Christians" tend to be rather overbearing. I know for the most part it's because they want others to share in the joy. But some don't bring this message across. What they use instead is criticism and condescension. This is why so many non-believers are so put off if not completely turned off by the very notion of religion and faith. It's really unfortunate and I do know why that happens, Colorado.

But I have to tell you that if you find the right congregation and just have any curiosity about faith and God and the overwhelming sense of peace that overtakes your senses, your life will be transformed into something so beautiful it's indescribable. No matter what happens, no matter what difficulties you will indeed face ahead, you get through them. You just seem to know how. And your understanding of life of human nature and of God increases beyond anyone's expectation. If you don't that's okay too. I have exercised a great deal of caution for both people who are obviously crewl and selfish as I do those who claim to have a direct hand with God, by challenging my character. We all know who we are, and we all know what's right and wrong within a reasonable parameter. And perhaps it's a greater sin to stand behind scripture to further a personal agenda, then to not believe in God at all. I find that to be the greatest of deception.

Anne Marie

Very nice post, Anne. From my experiernce with CMM on this board, his problem is that he stereotypes every Christian as you have described several of your acquaintences in this post, instead of understanding that all people are different, including Christians. From my experiences, I've come across a few Christians as you have described, but the majority that I am familiar with are far more open minded and are only about sharing their experiences, not judging and condemning others. My entire congregation and my pastor would never tolerate that kind of behavior, and their outlook is completely the opposite. No one is perfect, we all sin and have faults, you're supposed to offer support, love, and help to those who need it, not judgement or condemnation. I would hope that the majority of Christians would also follow this concept, and are not as CMM believes they are.

 

[sidneyworld]

Very nice post, Anne. From my experiernce with CMM on this board, his problem is that he stereotypes every Christian as you have described several of your acquaintences in this post, instead of understanding that all people are different, including Christians. From my experiences, I've come across a few Christians as you have described, but the majority that I am familiar with are far more open minded and are only about sharing their experiences, not judging and condemning others. My entire congregation and my pastor would never tolerate that kind of behavior, and their outlook is completely the opposite. No one is perfect, we all sin and have faults, you're supposed to offer support, love, and help to those who need it, not judgement or condemnation. I would hope that the majority of Christians would also follow this concept, and are not as CMM believes they are.

Agreed, completely! Thanks Newby.

Anne Marie

 

[sidneyworld]

I get a good feeling from Colorado. His blatant honesty and candidness opens up many doors for me to talk to him and discuss anything. I appreciate that about him very much.

Anne Marie

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I get a good feeling from Colorado. His blatant honesty and candidness opens up many doors for me to talk to him and discuss anything. I appreciate that about him very much.

Anne Marie

Well, I must say I'm honored. Thanks for the thoughfulness and understanding.

And I'd like to express that I appreciate your kindness, you ability to articulate yourself well, and your understanding and patience without which I'm sure you would've grown to hate me by now! It makes me happy to meet someone on this forum, the only one I visit, who can disagree with me and not resort to personal attacks but try to facilitate a better understanding between opposing viewpoints and maintain a sense of humor about it all. Those people are rare, and you are one of those rare people.

Thanks.

 

[sidneyworld]

I get a good feeling from Colorado. His blatant honesty and candidness opens up many doors for me to talk to him and discuss anything. I appreciate that about him very much.

Anne Marie

Well, I must say I'm honored. Thanks for the thoughfulness and understanding.

And I'd like to express that I appreciate your kindness, you ability to articulate yourself well, and your understanding and patience without which I'm sure you would've grown to hate me by now! It makes me happy to meet someone on this forum, the only one I visit, who can disagree with me and not resort to personal attacks but try to facilitate a better understanding between opposing viewpoints and maintain a sense of humor about it all. Those people are rare, and you are one of those rare people.

Thanks.

Wow, thank you so much for that. Since 2001, when I first came on board these political communities/groups on MSN, I've only come across several posters who no matter what our respective views have been able to maintain a caliber of diplomacy, respect and dedication to topic wherein we would easily top to nearly 300 posts. And it really didn't matter about winning over anyone. It was more of an exchange of alternative views. It was wonderful. You stand out here, because while you still stand your ground on your level of apprehension if not complete disbelief, at least on this topic, you are at least open to further discussion. To me that is awesome, and to me you are truly a genuine person.

Thanks!

Anne Marie