The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 448,153 views

I think homosexuality is:

  • a problem that needs to be cured.

    Votes: 88 6.0%

  • a sin against God/Nature.

    Votes: 145 9.8%

  • OK as long as they don't talk about it.

    Votes: 62 4.2%

  • OK for anybody.

    Votes: 416 28.2%

  • nobody's business but the people involved.

    Votes: 765 51.8%
  • Total voters
    1,476
I talked to my wife (a former catechist) about his role in making official social/political comments for the church, and she said that unless someone is specifically appointed that role nothing of that nature that they say on their own is considered official church doctrine. Not that it matters after the Vatican gave it the OK, but I did want to clarify how that works, based on how the trained Catholic educator in my home understands it.
 
This guy gets it.

http://www.governor.state.nc.us/new...ory-defends-constitution#sthash.LiHT0dHA.dpuf

"I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2."

For those not aware of the Bill he's referring to:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/HTML/S2v0.html
 
FoolKiller
I talked to my wife (a former catechist) about his role in making official social/political comments for the church, and she said that unless someone is specifically appointed that role nothing of that nature that they say on their own is considered official church doctrine. Not that it matters after the Vatican gave it the OK, but I did want to clarify how that works, based on how the trained Catholic educator in my home understands it.
Click to expand...

The official in charge of the servers was Card. Ortas who most notably expanded their ranks to include female servers despite their ineligibility to move beyond the Lay. He was succeeded by Card. Estevez, their statements may not become law in the country but they do represent the equivalent of statements by the most senior politicians (as VC has none). Academic though, the statement was made by a Cardinal whose authority to speak on the subject is beyond doubt.

As an aside; I visited Vatican City a number of times as part of my studies with LST back in the early 90s, it's a truly bizarre place. It's much easier to be openly LGBTQ there now but at the time... shudder.

R1600Turbo
This guy gets it.

http://www.governor.state.nc.us/new...ory-defends-constitution#sthash.LiHT0dHA.dpuf

"I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2."

For those not aware of the Bill he's referring to:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/HTML/S2v0.html
Click to expand...

Blimey, I wouldn't have expected that! :D
 
R1600Turbo
This guy gets it.

http://www.governor.state.nc.us/new...ory-defends-constitution#sthash.LiHT0dHA.dpuf

"I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2."

For those not aware of the Bill he's referring to:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/HTML/S2v0.html
Click to expand...
Hmmm wouldn't a veto essentially block people with strong (and even not so strong in some faiths) religious convictions from becoming magistrates?
 
KSaiyu
Hmmm wouldn't a veto essentially block people with strong (and even not so strong in some faiths) religious convictions from becoming magistrates?
Click to expand...

It certainly appears that way, doesn't it? The Governor invokes the Constitution as a smokescreen, but the US Constitution is firmly on the side of the objecting magistrates. I foresee an anti-discrimination lawsuit, or possibly a veto override if there is provision for that in the NC state constitution. In itself, the bill is non-discriminatory because it prohibits the recusing magistrates from performing any marriages.
 
High school valedictorian denied ability to give traditional graduation speech because he wished to use the opportunity to come out of the closet.

http://news.yahoo.com/controversial-reason-high-school-cancelled-valedictorian-speech-164016528.html

Colorado senior Evan Young was a model student. He finished his high school career with an impressive 4.5 GPA and a scholarship to Rutgers University, and he was named Twin Peaks Charter Academy High School’s valedictorian. But when school officials read a draft of his graduation speech—a customary honor given to the highest achiever—they opted to silence the student.

The talking point principal BJ Buchmann had a problem with was Young’s revelation that he is gay. Young planned to disclose his sexual orientation publicly for the first time during his speech.

“My main theme is that you’re supposed to be respectful of people, even if you don’t agree with them,” Young toldThe Denver Post on Thursday. “I figured my gayness would be a very good way to address that.”

Young sent a copy of his speech to the school administrators, who returned it to him with requested changes, most of which Young said he made. But when it came to omitting his sexual orientation, Young drew the line.

“I’d told him I’m not going to remove the part where I say I’m gay, because I am. It’s important to me,” said Young.

Adding insult to injury, the principal also called Young’s parents to let them know about the problem with the speech, and in doing so outed the 18-year-old to his mother and father.

“My parents are very liberal. I think they were totally OK with it,” said Young. “But I was not OK with it.”

The administration’s unsympathetic treatment ultimately left Young speechless at the May 16 graduation. According to Young, he was only informed that his speech was canceled minutes before the ceremony, and he was further dismayed that the school declined to even mention his academic achievements during the commencement event.

The school board issued a statement Thursday, saying that it was well within its rights to censor Young’s speech in order to “to protect the solemnity of the evening and to preserve and protect the mission of the school,” adding that “references to personal matters of a sexual nature…are never appropriate for a speech at a graduation ceremony.”

The school’s attorney, Barry Arrington, added that “[Graduation] is not a time for a student to use his commencement speech to push his personal agenda on a captive audience.”
Click to expand...
I have no issue with a school having specific rules around content and if it involves personal matters. In fact, I could see wanting to avoid having this become a public personal outing of any nature. It will shock some people and draw attention away from the graduation, even if it is relevant to his speech. I get that, but I can't judgeships specific case without seeing the entirety of the speech.

Unfortunately, the school had to out him to his parents and the school board and their lawyer jumped into the fray and referred to it as a sexual nature (it's not a fetish or risky activity) and accusing him of pushing an agenda (gay mafia and all).

I ultimately believe the school had a legitimate concern and wished to stop that, but their handling of the situation revealed their understanding of the situation and their actual motivations were anything but.


All that said, I think any school that censors their valedictorian's speech because of anything other than not being family appropriate has shown that they've missed the point of their mission.
 
Over 70% of Australians are in support of gay marriage, and our politicians have been using the Ireland referendum to add momentum to the movement. There is speculation that gay marriage could be completely legal by the end of the year. However, in the face of growing support, the far right (far right by our standards) insist that a "silent majority" of people will categorically reject gay marriage:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...ians-will-reject-gay-marriage-senator/6515534

This is on the back of absolutely no evidence and is really bring fuelled by a very small minority who would never dare considering voting anything other than conservative.
 
sammy neuman
It certainly appears that way, doesn't it? The Governor invokes the Constitution as a smokescreen, but the US Constitution is firmly on the side of the objecting magistrates. I foresee an anti-discrimination lawsuit, or possibly a veto override if there is provision for that in the NC state constitution. In itself, the bill is non-discriminatory because it prohibits the recusing magistrates from performing any marriages.
Click to expand...
The veto override vote took place yesterday.

http://abc11.com/news/nc-senate-overrides-mccrory-marriage-veto/761407/
 
prisonermonkeys
So there's some guy down here threatening to divorce his wife in protest if gay marriage is legalised. I quite like the way "The Project" introduced him, playing QOTSA's My God Is The Sun.
Click to expand...
I just watched that :lol:

Too bad that his reason of defying Marriage is misinformed:
upload_2015-6-11_19-35-51.png
 
prisonermonkeys
So there's some guy down here threatening to divorce his wife in protest if gay marriage is legalised. I quite like the way "The Project" introduced him, playing QOTSA's My God Is The Sun.
Click to expand...

Great story, I was a little worried about the complaints to the original newspaper who published the article - many of them seemed to be saying that they should never have actually printed the story.

RESHIRAM5
Too bad that his reason of defying Marriage is misinformed
Click to expand...

Well yes, but that's the whole point of their argument - they disagree with state/jurisdictional definitions of marriage and say that in fact marriage is something defined by god.
 
TenEightyOne
Great story, I was a little worried about the complaints to the original newspaper who published the article - many of them seemed to be saying that they should never have actually printed the story.
Click to expand...
The irony is that they are protesting the idea that the state can change the definition of marriage when at the time that they were married, the state had deliberately introduced a law to change the definition of marriage in a bid to stop gay marriage. But that law is consistent with their definition of what marriage should be from a religious perspective, and so I guess they feel that they can afford to by hypocrites.

The couple in question have very close ties to a prominent Christian lobby group, a group that has always enjoyed a very close relationship with the conservative side of politics, even on issues where they are a minority.
 
Very Christian of them :rolleyes:

I especially like these lines:

This otherwise odd move of the State into marriage was ultimately permitted as long as it was seen as upholding a pre-existing societal good. Families, as the basic building block of communities, benefitted from the support and security of formal legislation.

As if Christians/people of faith have a monopoly on "societal good", and this redefining of the state's definition of marriage is bad for society.
 
Last edited:
KSaiyu
As if Christians/people of faith have a monopoly on "societal good", and this redefining of the state's definition of marriage is bad for society.
Click to expand...
And how convenient of you to completely ignore the way they protested one law change, but not the other.
 
KSaiyu
Not sure I understand
Click to expand...
They are protesting against the state trying to change the definition of marriage. But this isn't the first time that the state has changed the definition of marriage. Ten years ago, the state changed the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman - it was to stop gay marriage. This couple protesting the proposed changes didn't bother to protest the original change ten years ago - and neither did you.
 
That's....That's the point. They only protest when it goes against their personal definition. Why they think Australia should only define marriage laws on Christian beliefs is what I'm mocking.
 
A teacher in North Carolina made the mistake of attempting to stop bullying by reading a book used to teach acceptance. The teacher and an administrator have now resigned.
http://news.yahoo.com/teacher-resigns-reading-students-book-gay-couple-233520620.html

Teacher resigns after reading students book about gay couple

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — After a third-grader tearfully recounted how another boy had called him "gay" during gym class, teacher Omar Currie chose to raise the issue during story time by reading his students a fable about a prince who falls in love with another prince, ending with a happily-ever-after royal wedding.
That decision in April ignited a public outcry from some parents in the rural hamlet of Efland, North Carolina, resulting in Currie's resignation this week from a job he loved. The assistant principal who loaned Currie her copy of "King & King" has also resigned, and outraged parents are pressuring administrators at the Orange County Schools to ban the book.
"When I read the story, the reaction of parents didn't come into my mind," Currie, 25, said Tuesday. "In that moment, it just seemed natural to me to read the book and have a conversation about treating people with respect. My focus then was on the child, and helping the child."
Currie knows firsthand what it is like to be bullied. Growing up gay and black in a small town in the eastern part of the state, his memories of middle school are of being a frequent target for teasing and slurs.
As a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Currie entered a teaching fellows program with the intent of helping young people. He was first introduced to "King & King" during an education course that included strategies for introducing topics involving diversity in the classroom.
After graduation, Currie became a teacher at nearby Efland-Cheeks Elementary School. Though only about 15 miles west of Chapel Hill, a college town considered among the most liberal enclaves in the state, Efland is a socially conservative community of about 750 people where churches line the highway through town.
Within hours after reading the book to his students, Currie said he got a call from the school's principal requesting a meeting in her office for the following morning. The parents of three children soon filed written complaints to a school review committee, which twice upheld the use of the book after heated public meetings. But the school's principal also issued a new directive that teachers must submit an advance list of all books they intend to read with students to their parents.
"King & King" has been a subject of controversy before. In 2006, the parents of a Massachusetts second-grader sued after the book was read in their child's class. A federal judge later ruled against them, saying the rights of parents to exercise their religious and moral beliefs are not violated when children are exposed to differing ideas in public school.
In his two years at Efland elementary, Currie said his sexual orientation had never been an issue. His co-workers, and some parents, knew he lives with his male partner.
But at the committee meetings to discuss Currie's use of the book, some parents whose children were not in his class made their attacks personal, telling him he would die young and spend eternity in hell. He also began receiving hate-filled letters and emails, including one copied to other teachers at the school, described homosexuality as a "birth defect" while accusing Currie of trying to "indoctrinate" children through "psycho-emotional rape."
Though he says administrators never formally disciplined him for his decision to read the book, Currie said he was made to feel that he had done something wrong and felt pressured to leave the school. He is currently looking for another teaching job.
A spokesman for the Orange County Schools said Tuesday that Interim Superintendent Pam Jones was not available for an interview.
Meg Goodhand, the assistant principal who resigned after loaning Currie the book, also declined to comment.
The decision to allow "King & King" in the classroom has now been appealed to the district level, and a public meeting to discuss the issue is set for Thursday.
Currie plans to attend and says he will speak out.
"I'm resigning because when me and my partner sat down and talked about it we felt I wasn't going to have the support I needed to move forward at Efland," he said. "It's very disappointing."
Click to expand...

I could see the issue if this was read out of the blue to attempt to cause the children to think in a certain way, but this was done as a reaction to a bully calling another student "gay." As a parent, even if I disagreed with the content of a book, I would accept that it was appropriate in the circumstances that had occurred.

As I read this article I thought that this was just a conservative town where parents don't want these kinds of subjects discussed with their young children without notification or their involvement, but if the reports about what happened in the meetings are true then this was clearly due to ignorant individuals who have a bigoted view of homosexuals and just need an excuse to attack the gay teacher.

I feel sorry for the teacher that he felt the need to resign, but I believe that he could never feel 100% comfortable in that job after this. I hope he lands in a more accepting community.
 
Last edited:
But at the committee meetings to discuss Currie's use of the book, some parents whose children were not in his class made their attacks personal, telling him he would die young and spend eternity in hell. He also began receiving hate-filled letters and emails, including one copied to other teachers at the school, described homosexuality as a "birth defect" while accusing Currie of trying to "indoctrinate" children through "psycho-emotional rape."
Click to expand...
How nice of them. :rolleyes:
 
FoolKiller
As I read this article I thought that this was just a conservative town where parents don't want these kinds of subjects discussed with their young children without notification or their involvement, but if the reports about what happened in the meetings are true then this was clearly due to ignorant individuals who have a bigoted view of homosexuals and just need an excuse to attack the gay teacher.
Click to expand...
I think that simply calling it bigotry is an over-simplification, however accurate it might be. The teacher's sexuality was no secret, and does not appear to have been a problem until now. The inciting event appears to have been his decision to read the story to the children, which the parents may have taken as an attempt to indoctrinate their children and "convert" them to be gay. As tolerant as they had been of his sexuality until that point, that was what brought out their hate. I think it's proving to be a bigger issue than the legalisation of gay marriage; there is a real fear among conservatives and religious groups of "normalising" homosexuality - they may accept the idea that people are born gay, and they may accept that people are gay by choice, but they reject (and vehemently so) any attempt to "convert" others.

I sympathise with the teacher and condemn the actions of the crowd, but at the same time, I think he could have handled it better. As teachers, we have to be extremely careful in handling anything that might be considered controversial. My school does a unit on social commentary in Year 10 where we explore short films that address issues of social concern. One of the films we can do is about homosexuality, and I'm hesitant to show it to fifteen year-olds (it's not the only reason why; there are other, better ones to show the class). As sympathetic as I am to the teacher's plight, I can't help but think that trying to address homosexuality with a group of seven year-olds is anything but a bad idea.
 

Similar threads

GranTurNismo
  • Poll
First Amendment Discussion Thread (Freedom of speech/expression)
3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
Dotini
Dotini
Masscot
  • Locked
Concerns about post merging, deletions, and editing in the AC PC Mods General Discussion thread
Replies
22
Views
2K
Famine
Famine
Famine
  • Poll
2018 GTP Awards - Thread of the Year
Replies
1
Views
803
TexRex
TexRex
DQuaN
  • Locked
  • Poll
2016 GTP Awards - Thread of the Year
Replies
17
Views
2K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Famine
  • Locked
  • Poll
2017 GTP Awards - Thread of the Year
Replies
8
Views
1K
BigJimmy
BigJimmy

Latest Posts

Back