The long and winding runway that PFOX and its allies have traversed with the Montgomery County School Board at the expense of their taxpayers finally reached a straitaway and green light earlier this month. The controversial curriculum was approved by a Maryland Circuit Court judge on October 10.
PFOX remains unhappy and intends to “keep up the good fight”. While the curriculum addresses sexually transmitted disease and condom use, PFOX insists that specific statistics regarding homosexuality and AIDS be noted, assuming, I suppose this will scare some students into pursuing opposite sex attractions. Continuing with that logic, if you’re going to end up with a sexually transmitted disease, just make sure you get it while practicing straight sex so you’ll go to heaven when you die from it. As always, PFOX persists in their folly of insisting that ex-gay constitutes a third orientation, as if we need another one, and are either hell-bent or heaven-twisted in their demands that it be included as part of the lessons.
Jim Kennedy of TeachtheFacts had this to say regarding the ruling:
“You have to figure, the county-level school board and superintendent approved it, and then it was appealed to the state, and the state school board and state superintendent separately approved it, and then they tried to appeal that, and now the court has said no — they declined to issue a stay,” he said.
“So what is that? About five strikes?”
A third orientation? Whatever happened to bisexuality?
And has any ex-gay ever given a real answer as to why it should be counted as another orientation, instead of just “straight”?
I suspect that would be far less provocative, or to be more succinct; what fun would that be?
Ex-gay is as much a sexual orientation as Michael Jackson’s bleached white skin constitutes another race. Why don’t ex-gays just call themselves straight for crying out loud? If they’re so BEYOND being gay (as if…) why even hang onto the word?
By the way, I like your name Skemono. 🙂
PFOX is extremely stubborne. They just cannot get it through their negative, narrow, bigoted minds that GLBT people can be Christian, Spiritual, moral and have a huge positive impact on our society.
Christian you say…
If you believe in the whole bible, your christian…
If you believe in the whole bible you’ll probably know its a sin, or, not something desirable, to God.
Sin and christian do not coexist… christians fight the sin for as long and as hard as they can with the help of their imaginary friend backing them up 100%.
So… saying ppl are gay and christian is like saying Bush is republican and democrat. Makes no sense. Under relative terms, however, its plausible that someone might be gay and believe in an imaginary friend.
I’ll just assume you were trying to make an imaginary point.
Joel,
1. What constitutes “believing in the whole bible” to you? Metaphorically, literally? Be a little more specific.
2. Jesus himself never put such prerequisites as believing in the whole bible as a path to salvation. So, can I take it you have an inside track that Jesus didn’t have to add your own checklist of what does and does not make a Christian?
3. Try reading the bible sometime. Knowing what it actually says makes your points stronger.
WRONG! There is nothing in the Bible that states a person must believe in the whole Bible to be Christian. In fact it is professing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and through him we have eternal salvation from his suffering upon the Cross. This is what Paul and the Apostles were proclaiming in every town and every city they traveled to. Free salvation through faith in Christ.
Joel, early Christianity relied heavily on “word of mouth” and tradition (handed down) by the Apostles. The first Bible as it stands (depending on what denomination you subscribe to, some books are missing from Protestant bibles) didn’t come about until the late 4th century and it was the Catholic Church that held all Scripture for interpretation. No layman had a Bible. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century that an average layman got his hands on a copy of a Bible. This of course made every man an interpreter of Scripture. Which is the reason why we have so many Christian denominations.
Dave,
HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the very real laugh out loud this morning!
And thanks Joel for stopping by and summing up the message, purpose, intent, and conclusions of God so succintly and without once mentioning Jesus. Wow. Since you obviously believe the whole Bible it strikes me as odd that you would take the time to sit down at the sin-laced internet. It must be difficult to find the time or resources to shed your thoughtful light among us since you’ve no worldly goods of your own.
Maybe you, as you stand accusing others, only believe the parts of the Bible that you choose as well.
Funny, when I pointed out in an earlier thread the same thing–that belief in Jesus is what makes one a Christian–you disagreed then. Odd, that.
Funny how I knew you were going to point that out Skemono as I was posting last night. I had thought about a longer post but being as late as it was, and I hadn’t gone to bed yet, I decided to shorten it.
To sum it up for you, again, any authentic Christian would know that believing also means living as Christ would. Believing is only the first step. You can claim to be a Christian all you want but if you murder others, well, that is a different story. You cannot claim to be an authentic Christian and murder people. It runs contrary to loving ones neighbor as Christ commanded. 😉
And all the people who don’t, well, they’re not authentic, so their beliefs don’t count? That seems rather circular.
Skemono, if there is any final point on this back and forth, please make it. Otherwise, as suggested earlier, this would seem to be an impasse where everyone can just agree to disagree. Hammering at it from thread to thread isn’t going to change that.
Skemono and Ken R, it seems like you guys are talking about two different things. I skimmed over the conversation the last time you were hashing this out, but it appears that you’re back where you started.
If your definition of Christian is nothing more than believing in Jesus Christ as your savior, so be it. But the issue here seems to be those Christians (noun) who, as a result of that, then feel that their sinful behavior is Christian (adj).
I would just add that it’s possible for a Christian to be a murderer, as it does happen. But if that Christian believes that their murderous behavior is “Christian,” simply because they believe in Jesus, then they’ve missed the whole point of what Christianity should mean.
So in that sense Skemono, yes, that person’s “Christian beliefs” don’t count.
To parse it out, I would say that the extent to which a Christian person believes that their sinful behavior is Christ like, is the extent to which their Christianity is inauthentic — or at the very least, questionable.
It’s one thing to “sin” and harm others, as we all do at times, but it’s quite another to then call that behavior “Christian,” simply because you believe in Jesus.
As I would put it, people like that may be saved, but they ain’t no Christian.
Yes. You got it right Emproph. Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make with Skemono. I understand Christians can murder but to claim to be a Christian and murder and see nothing wrong with it does in fact run contrary to being Christ-like.
I think that is well put Emproph, and I would agree.
Fair enough. My entire point was pretty much what you expressed in that first sentence: that murderers (and other bad people) can be–and many times are–Christian. I kept arguing when it seemed that David Roberts and KenR insisted that no, they are not then Christians (or “true” Christians, or “authentic” Christians). If I misread their arguments, then I apologize.
Speaking as a non-Christian, this thread seems to have gotten a bit off topic.
That being said, it seems to me that common sense has prevailed in Montgomery County. You can’t please everybody, and in some cases, no matter what you do, there are people who refuse to accept reality, if common sense is to prevail.
But then there are some people who still stubbornly adhere to the belief that the Earth is flat.
Go figure…..
I dont see how you can be gay and christian by that same ‘sinful’ behavior logic.
As Emproph pointed out:(im just going to replace a sin for another sin, and see if it makes sense to you…)
As for the topic at hand, what specific statistics does PFOX want to add? Haven’t AID rates gone down in general or in some places.. and if so, will they include specifics about that too? For Ex: “the Netherlands have reduced their aids transmission rates by 55% since they instituted gay marriage, source : the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.”
Joel said: “I dont see how you can be gay and christian by that same ’sinful’ behavior logic.”
:::
Original:
Joel’s version:
Ergo:
gay = murderer
homosexual behavior = murderous behavior
If consensual homo-sex is morally equal to murder in someone’s eyes Joel, then I would consider that to be moral relativism. Which I consider to be actively immoral. Because it makes no distinction between harm and the absence of harm in the determination of what is right and wrong.
That would be the difference.
Joel, your scenario requires that same-sex relationships be sinful by their very nature. Many would dispute that, but I don’t know that any would dispute murder as a sin. In spite of attempts to make it so, I don’t find scripture to be at all cut-and-dry on the issue of same-sex relationships among those for whom such attractions are the norm. In those cases, individuals must deal with the issue according to their own conscience and understanding of what God wants for their lives. And their decision should be respected, whether it leads to celibacy or same-sex relationships.
I suggest anyone who thinks that man’s interaction with God can be reduced to a neat little formula should probably hold on tight — they have a big lesson coming. Unfortunately, too many fancy themselves in the role of a prophet, announcing to others how wrong they are, when in reality it is simply a form of abusive control, with scripture as the pretense. Peter LaBarbera is a good example, so busy with other people’s business that he doesn’t see how warped he has become.
Harm? Maybe i just read the wrong websites or resources but theres nothing harmless about sodomy. If the harm is true then homo-sex(sodomy i guess ur refering to) is closer to murder than one might think. HOw do you protect equal rights for those that practice consentual destruction? It would make sense, however, if sodomy was banned and/or very discouraged but homo-relationships were not. After all… sodomy ain’t the foundation or a necessary behavior of a relationship. If it is a crucial part… then it should never be legal or at least, actively discouraged, imo.
First of all Joel, you are being vague. Unless you are going to post a link to what you are using for a basis of “harm,” please leave it out of the discussion. For all we know you are talking about Paul Cameron nonsense. Second, who brought up sodomy? And third,
I rarely say this, but what on earth have you been smoking? Perhaps you have been reading the wrong websites indeed. Either way, please don’t throw this stuff around without a foundation — what are you using as a source? And does this source also take the stand that heterosexual vaginal intercourse is “like murder” since it can be damaging, even deadly to those who practice it — particularly those who are careless or indiscriminate?
There is no logic to your logic, Joel.
Harm? Maybe i just read the wrong websites or resources but theres nothing harmless about sodomy.
Yes, Joel, you have been reading the wrong websites.
HOw do you protect equal rights for those that practice consentual destruction?
Although same-sex relationships are not consentual destruction, in this country we do allow those who seek to destroy theirselves to do so.
We believe in the right of the alcoholic to drink himself to death.
We believe in the right of the gambler to lose all his money in Vegas.
We believe in the right of the smoker to risk lung cancer.
We believe in the right of some religious people to refuse medical care and rely instead on divine healing.
We believe in the right of the conservative Christian to refuse HPV vaccination.
We believe in the right to self determination… even when someone like you erroneously determines that something is destructive, we still believe in freedom, a notion that many anti-gays find to be foreign to their thinking.
Ok… Im sorry about that. Didn’t have enough time to look em them up but here they are:
From https://www.cfsh.net/3.html
From https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/723699/posts
I wish these were wrong.. but I have not found anything that says otherwise. Thus I do not condone sodomy.
Timothy Kincaid said,
Yet… they are all warned of the harms they are doing.
I agree, we should let ppl do what they want with their lives, even if its for harm. That doesnt mean, however, that we should encourage it or promote it as if it had no adverse consequence.
Joel, I left your links but removed the enormous quotes – people can follow the links themselves if they wish. To be honest, I don’t want search engines linking us to that bogus stuff. Nice to see where you get your context from, however.
Let’s assume for a moment that all that scary stuff is true and let’s even assume responsible individuals are just as much at risk as everyone else. You still haven’t answered my original question — why are you talking about sodomy? Is it your impression that all homosexuals engage in sodomy?
Ok, I think the rest of the world can live with that. Don’t engage in sodomy.
David Roberts said,
Repost:
Imo, no they are not linked. But as I AM a virgin and I have had no contact with any gay friends/relatives or anything, due largely to my geographical and religously dominated society, I could not know if it’s a necessary part. Hence the questions. I’ve heard of gay relationships that do not partake in sodomy ever but I’ve also heard that a good sex life is essential to a strong relationship. Which is it? If theres no one answer then, anyways, ppl should really be warned of the dangers on practicing sodomy. Bear with me plz…I know i contradict myself at times, but its the only way im getting anywhere imo.
Im not going to involve myself in sodomy.. i’m just sad that I wasn’t told the harm that it might cause if I actually did.
Joel,
By your logic, lesbian relationships are completely okay. After all, we have the “safest” sex practices out of all the couples. (of course, “safest” is a loaded term. Caution must always be excersized.) Sodomy is not the considered the definitive sex act for us. Do you condone our relationships as a result?
I’m not sure you are really listening. There can be dangers associated with any sexual act. You are reading materials designed to place all homosexual activity in a negative light. Heterosexual activity can be deadly as well — it all depends on how careful or careless the participants are.
The material you quoted is severely distorted, but analyzing it all is beyond the scope of this thread. However, even if you were to accept it without question, anal sex is not practiced by all homosexuals, and obviously not by lesbians. That is not to say sex is not involved in these relationships, but not necessarily anal sex, which is what that material is using to scare you.
If you feel it is your mission in life to warn people about the “dangers of sodomy” then you better not stop there, warn them about the “dangers of sex” in general — heterosexual or homosexual.
Then by all means don’t. You make it sound like you have to have sodomy in order to be gay. I’m gay and I don’t engage in sodomy. Some straight people love sodomy. Gay relationships don’t revolve around the act of sodomy I’m sorry to tell you.
I think I am beginning to understand (somewhat) the uproar with most conservative Christians with gay people. They really think we all engage in sodomy? But what if two men/two women don’t engage in it? How would you feel then?
My question to you Joel is, can two men have a loving and committed relationship if they don’t engage in sodomy? If they omit that very thing from their relationship could you accept two men being together in love?
Don’t mean to be crude but we’re taking ‘sodomy’ to mean butt-f___king, right? Because last time I asked my doctor about these famed health risks the politicians were talking about she gave me a funny look and told me to use condoms. (I was there to get the pill.)
All this stuff about ‘sodomy’ being a major health risk is a desperate attempt to find a rational reason to oppose gay relationships. It doesn’t work on people who take two seconds to think about it because a) most anal sex occurs between heterosexuals, and they’re not dying by the busload and b) many gays aren’t into it, actually.
So yes, stop reading websites that are just trying to scare you about dangerous, disease-spreading, destructive homosexuals and read some sex-education sites that are written by people who want to educate their readers about sex.
I’m going to avoid the term “sodomy” for the following reasons:
1. The connection of the term with the biblical story from Genesis automatically assigns pejorative connotations. It is difficult to have a constructive conversation when the language used is slanted.
2. This term is vague and as a legal term can include anything other than penile/vaginal sex. In some states heterosexual cunnilingus is included in the definition of sodomy.
3. I don’t like dancing around with inspecific language. If we mean anal sex, lets call it anal sex.
Also, I don’t want to be deceptive. Many gay men, if not most, do incorporate anal sex into their sex life.
Point taken about sodomy.
Yes
Yes, and even if they didn’t omit it, its up to them.
Still, my worry is that gay ppl will be oblivious to any possible harm. Like alcohol and smoking, ppl usually, if not always, know the possible harms that doing that behavior might cause. And like many ppl that at some point want to drink or smoke, in this case, participate in anal sex, are discouraged to do so by one simple reason. Years of life > years of pleasure thru anal sex. Question is, why arent pro-gay ppl warning gays with the research and studies about the harm of anal sex?
Maybe on the gay movies, especially the explicit ones, they should have a warning, ‘anal sex, protected or not, elevates the risk of anal cancer’.
I dont get why they aren’t warning gay men . Many gay ppl do partake in anal sex, all the more reason to expose the possible harms.
Willie Hewes said,
Maybe the health risks are true? If not… y? Is their research only about barebacking?, i really dont think so.
Oh i’m listening.
Ok… plz tell me where this ‘severly distorted’ material could be undistorted?
Fear is a powerful tool. But still, I wana live forever :P.
I would feel more comfortable having some sort of data before making such a statement. I know many gay men who are not at all interested in anal sex and have found partners of the same mind. I’m not denying that it is common, but without data we can’t really make definitive statements. I wouldn’t want to give the false impression that this practice is a requirement for intimate gay relationships.
You could probably spend a lifetime picking through it all, but you can start with with methods used to make the benign seem deadly here.
David,
“… many, if not most …” is a definitive statement?
If you aren’t denying that it is common than surely you agree that many, if not most, gay men do incorporate anal sex into their sex life.
From the CDC:
Having anal sex without a condom continues to be a significant threat to the health of M[en having] S[ex with] M[en]. Unprotected anal sex (barebacking) with casual partners is an increasing concern.
From the American Cancer Society:
Anal cancer is found mainly in adults, with the average age being in the early 60s. The disease affects women somewhat more often than men. Of the 4,650 new cases, 2,750 will occur in women and 1,900 in men.
Most doctors think that squamous cell anal cancer is caused by a type of this virus called HPV-16.
___
From what I could tell, anal cancer isn’t caused anal sex.
A little Googling goes a long way. 🙂
But that wouldn’t be true.
The increase in anal cancer (about 0.035%) is traced to the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). A new vaccine appears to be 100% effective in preventing the contraction of this virus.
Incidentally, this virus is also linked to cervical cancer in women and throat cancer in straight men.
If all young men and women – gay and straight – were vaccinated, this warning you are proposing would be simply untrue. This increase in anal cancer would disappear.
And furthermore studies show that consistent and correct use of condoms significants reduces the transmission of HPV for those who have not yet gotten the vaccination. (Anti-gay activists are opposing the vaccination efforts in schools because they think it incourages promiscuity).
You see, Joel, we gay people actually are pretty aware of health risks and how to avoid them. We are quite good at informing our community of what does and does not present a threat.
Naturally, human nature being what it is, not all gay people listen well or heed warnings. But that’s true of all folks, gay and straight.
Of course, we gay folk are also quite good at debunking lies and deceptions of anti-gay activists who use bogus “science”, outdated information, and fraudulent models to bolster their anti-gay arguments.
“Many” can be a fairly useless modifier, like “some” but most is becoming more definitive, yes. Unless we want to contribute to the practice of muddying the facts with our own perceptions, we should admit that we really have no idea how prevalent it (anal sex) really is. Does it get a lot of attention, sure, but do you know what percentage of male gay couples engage in it? How often vs. other sexual practices? Those who have no desire to do so whatsoever, etc? I certainly don’t.
I’m certainly not willing to make anal sex a de facto requirement of being gay.
David,
I don’t have a definitive answer for you (though it probably is out there somewhere), but according to the CDC report released in 2005:
You may recall that this same study found that 2.3% of men identify as gay and 1.8% percent identify as bisexual for a total of 4.1% gay and bi.
I’m not arguing that this 3.7% of men who have had anal sex with another man is entirely included in the 4.1% who identify as gay or bi. But there’s probably a fairly good chance that they do.
Nor am I suggesting that all of those 3.7% of men who have had anal sex with another man continue to incorporate it into their sex life regularly. I really don’t know one way or the other.
Nor am I suggesting that anal sex is a de facto requirement for same-sex attraction or gay identity. Not only do many gay men not enjoy anal sex, the CDC study told us that 38% of men reported having had anal sex with a woman.
None of this proves that all gay men encorporate anal sex into their sex lives with any regularity. However, I think that with those sorts of numbers I can state with confidence that “many gay men, if not most, do incorporate anal sex into their sex life”.
I think the numbers back me up on that.
Honestly, no, you can’t. You can guess that “many” do, but I think we could get that far from anecdotal evidence. However, even if “most” do, the numbers you have provided don’t prove that at all – one set has nothing to do with the other.
You basically say “I’m not arguing this, but I strongly suspect this.” I may strongly suspect it as well, but my original point remains — we don’t know. If you do know of some legitimate study that reveals something about the prevalence of anal sex between gay male couples, by all means bring it into the discussion.
It was not my intention to create a detour into the study of sexual practices, but to make certain we didn’t, overtly or otherwise, claim that anal sex is part and parcel of a male gay relationship. Since you appear to concede that point, I have no issue.
I’m going to speak for “many” straight people here and say I previously thought that all gay men did have sex that way. (i’ve taught school too long to be able to use the word anal outside a discussion of the planets)
So, this discussion has been a bit of enlightenment to me. AND, I still don’t think the sex curriculum in Montgomery County needs to focus more on the dangers of homosex than straight sex. All sex can be dangerous if we are stupid about it, and we need to teach kids how to be responsible no matter what. Of course, PFOX believes the responsible thing would be for gay children to turn straight. I say, “good luck with that”.
Appears?… as in still has the potential to develop? or maybe, as in not too much data exists to corroborate?…
On a similar note:
(this is something I’ve heard in my daily life)
Does, ‘Anal sex increase the risk of condoms to break and fissures to occur when compared to hetero-sex’, hold water?
What kind of logic do these ppl use? I can’t see why promiscuity is a bad thing if theres no side-effects, except pleasure…
ANd, if theres a disease that can be cured… cure it? I guess we should stop researching a cure for AIDS then… After all, as long as were not promiscous were ok. How very one-sided. And is this like a force of faith?