Ferel Wrote:
“ANSWER: Yes.....its a sin....no you can sugarcoat it..and say God loves everyone....but a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin.

Answer: If God had intended for man to sleep with man and woman woman he would of either created Adam and Adam or eve and eve....not the case...and very much scripture based....”

You know, one of the sure signs of determining if one had been subjected to cult programming was repetition of the same thing in defense to any question. You have passed the first test of cult programming. “Yes…it’s a sin… a sin is a sin is a sin” LOL!

The second is not recognizing that the phrase you choose, so comically, to refer to over and over again ‘faithfully’ (Adam and Steve remark) is actually a joke that was copyrighted by a comedian “MANY” years ago. Fortunately for you, you omitted it this time and referred to “adam and adam or eve and eve” instead – else I might have considered having you picked up for ‘deprogramming’. L – still!

Ferel again:
“Same as sleeping with another mans wife...now you might be ok with that and others might...But God is not ok with it.”

There are a lot posts in this tread, let me refer to a previous question. If one of your congregation, was a friend, divorced and in a physical relationship would you cast them out you Christian society?

And if that friend wanted to re-marry in your church, would you attend as a witness and allow your children to view this sinful act?

Would it not worry you that your kids, all the kids were witnessing the acceptance of sin?

Along with your answer, you might explain what the marriage ceremony of your church sounds like. Is it joining of a union blessed by God, that no man can put asunder? And who procides over the divorce ritual, in which God absolves the union he has blessed for a lifetime?

Do you not fear that this kind action will be viewed as normal an allowable, and not a sin at all, by the following generations?


Ferel
“In the eyes of God it is wrong....In my eyes I am not their judge and I happen to have alot of homosexual friends...they no where I stand on the issue but there still my friends.”

Then I can only say that your gay friends are more accepting than you are. They are no more, to you than slaves were to their masters. For you are content with the idea that they are not equal under the eyes of OUR countries laws. To you, that is the punishment for their ‘crime’ their ‘sin’, yet you don’t demand the same punishment of any other sin, if fact the sin adultery, even a lifelong of practice of it, is of no consequence at all to you. Perhaps they are your equals, while the gays and lesbians and transgenders are not.

Dianna;

I quote this merely as a reference:

"The quote above can only have been spoken in ignorance. I’m not calling you a name, we all have areas of ignorance. So let me lead you out of the dark. First let me bring to your attention, that it took one hundred years and a bold leadership under JFK, and an assertive activist M.L. King to FORCE this country to accept blacks, women, and handicapped people as equals. They did this by creating the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

>>> So from this - we conclude that laws existed previous to this that essentially allowed this bigotry to exist. My point is this - your implication is that it is because of the "Christian mindset" vthat these laws exist - when in fact, the abolution of slavery - "forced" on this country, primarily against the will of the entire south - was brought about by ASbraham Lincoln (A devote Christian) - and JFK and MLK were BOTH Christians. Your intent behind your post is totally contradictory. It is IN FACT the Christian leaders of the past who are fighting against the injustices that you sight as examples. Though you may include all Christians under an "umbrella" of inaction - why do you state that because someone claims to be doing something because they are a "Christian" that they speak for Christianity? Charles Manson claimed that the bible told him to rifd the world of blacks? Do you think he represents my Christian beliefs? And inaction over a particular issue in government is NOT condolance. I have extremely strong views against Abortion and the way it is handled in this country - but I don't feel the need to march on Washington about it. This in NO WAY represents condolance on my part. I believe as strongly as you do about the rights of ANYBODY being taken away. It matters not what the cause is, unless it is unreasonable. (That is I don't think the ACLU should be suing the government so an inmate can get a sex change on public funds) So that is the intent I see in your post. If this is not what you are trying to represent, then how am I at fault for seeing it this way?

What leads you to believe that Christians do not "allow" people to live their own lives or follow their own paths of belief? This is not my stance at all. What I protest against is statements like the one I just quoted from you. You are mis-representing me as a Christian! It is my belief that those who do not allow others to make their own choices in life are NOT Christians! They are misrepresenting the faith by claiming to be so. This is my argument. Now I have a question for you. Why is it that non-Christians attribute the behavior of those who's actions are clearly not Christian - I.E. Judgemantal, elitist, superior, etc - as representative of Christians because they claim to be? A Christian is one who "walks in the light" - not one who claims to, but through their actions contradict themselves.

Hey Redy

Redy wrote:
You know, one of the sure signs of determining if one had been subjected to cult programming was repetition of the same thing in defense to any question. You have passed the first test of cult programming. “Yes…it’s a sin… a sin is a sin is a sin” LOL!

Well I can only answer with truth redy...and why beat around the bush about it....It clearly states that it is a sin.....and thats good enough for me. And as I have also said a million times before....I happen to have both gay men and gay women as friends. I am not their judge...they know my feelings on it....but we are still friends.

Redy wrote:
The second is not recognizing that the phrase you choose, so comically, to refer to over and over again ‘faithfully’ (Adam and Steve remark) is actually a joke that was copyrighted by a comedian “MANY” years ago. Fortunately for you, you omitted it this time and referred to “adam and adam or eve and eve” instead – else I might have considered having you picked up for ‘deprogramming’. L – still!

Answer And I lil lady have been using that same phrase for over 10 years......and have no clue as to what comedian or what your talking about. And believe me to have to repeat myself over and over again does get old...to many people are just in plain denial...I will give me friends credit they have this lifestyle know its not what God intended but still choose the lifestyle...the opearative word being choose.....

Redy wrote:
There are a lot posts in this tread, let me refer to a previous question. If one of your congregation, was a friend, divorced and in a physical relationship would you cast them out you Christian society?

Answer: I wouldn't, I would prefer them to be married first.....and I would hold them accoutable...but again the decision is up to them. And I have no power to throw anyone out....But again as Christians in my church they would totally be held accountable for their actions.

Redy wrote:
And if that friend wanted to re-marry in your church, would you attend as a witness and allow your children to view this sinful act?

Would it not worry you that your kids, all the kids were witnessing the acceptance of sin?

Along with your answer, you might explain what the marriage ceremony of your church sounds like. Is it joining of a union blessed by God, that no man can put asunder? And who procides over the divorce ritual, in which God absolves the union he has blessed for a lifetime?

Answer: It depends on the circumstances. If they had relations before marriage. I would say no. How can I give a clear message to my girls to wait until their married and then go to a wedding.where they have had sex out of wedlock. Also my church would not marry them if that were the case. As far as the marriage service I really don't know, because I am always behind the scenes at weddnings. No one is perfect and I still have alot of issues both with marriage, divorce, and abortion when it comes to church.

Redy wrote:

Do you not fear that this kind action will be viewed as normal an allowable, and not a sin at all, by the following generations?

Answer: Im not really sure...and like I said....I still deal with issues about this myself as a Christian. Especially the abortion issue......I don't think either church or state should be involved in it.....

Redy wrote:

“In the eyes of God it is wrong....In my eyes I am not their judge and I happen to have alot of homosexual friends...they no where I stand on the issue but there still my friends.”

Then I can only say that your gay friends are more accepting than you are. They are no more, to you than slaves were to their masters. For you are content with the idea that they are not equal under the eyes of OUR countries laws. To you, that is the punishment for their ‘crime’ their ‘sin’, yet you don’t demand the same punishment of any other sin, if fact the sin adultery, even a lifelong of practice of it, is of no consequence at all to you. Perhaps they are your equals, while the gays and lesbians and transgenders are not.

Answer: ok if thats what you want to think......free to do that. But I would never consider them anything but my friends whom I would do anything for just as I would anyone else. And everyone in my life is my equal and pretty presumtious of you to say otherwise. You don't know me....or my life......Or what I do for all humanity.......so very rude the above Redy.

And that’s the offensive mindset right there Feral.

To claim that people who have beliefs which are differnet from yours are in ‘denial’ is the same thing as denouncing their beliefs as being completely without merit and totally fiction.

Yet somehow you feel that this is alright to do.

Yet let them tell you that the book you’re worshiping is merely written by men and not by God and that you are in denial of that fact, then you hit the ceiling screaming personal foul, insult and unwarranted ATTACK!

Yet here you are belittling and ATTACKING the beliefs of others by claiming that THEY are in denial.

Excuse me Feral but isn’t this the epitome of hypocrisy?

You have absolutely no problem whatsoever dismissing other people’s beliefs as ‘being in denial’ but should someone suggest that of your faith, you get all prissy about it.

It just looks like an artificial self-imposed double-standard to me.

Abra:

And that’s the offensive mindset right there Feral.

Answer:
When I said that about denial that was in relation to gays and lesbians. And honestly in the whole scheme of life do you honestly think that it was meant for man to have sex with man and woman to have sex with woman......Not even in the animal kingdom does that happen. And for people to accept it as ok.....Is total denial.....I have alot of gay and lesbian friends but I would never say....Yes sleep with each other, adopt children it the right thing to do....What a hypocrite I would be. It doesn't mean that I don't love them and hang with them......But they also know like I said to Redy where I stand on it. But it also isn't the whole base of our relationships either.

To claim that people who have beliefs which are differnet from yours are in ‘denial’ is the same thing as denouncing their beliefs as being completely without merit and totally fiction.

Answer: And it has nothing to do with their beliefs....it has to do all with the choice....and they have ever right to make that choice.....


Yet let them tell you that the book you’re worshiping is merely written by men and not by God and that you are in denial of that fact, then you hit the ceiling screaming personal foul, insult and unwarranted ATTACK!

Answer: And let me tell you.....that the Bible is of God...and if you think that God would let just a bunch of men write whatever they felt and thats thats.....sorry but that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Yet here you are belittling and ATTACKING the beliefs of others by claiming that THEY are in denial.

And what beliefs!!! no one believes they are gay or lesbian they just choose to be.....Did I ever say I denied their right to choose...NOPE



Excuse me Feral but isn’t this the epitome of hypocrisy?

You have absolutely no problem whatsoever dismissing other people’s beliefs as ‘being in denial’ but should someone suggest that of your faith, you get all prissy about it.

It just looks like an artificial self-imposed double-standard to me.

Ansewer: And I don't think you have clue about much of anything....just my opinnion abra...And if your going to bash me on my beliefs you best make sure you know what they are and read a little about what I put before you come in here all high and mighty screaming hypocricy to me.

Ok, I just stand aside and let you stick your own foot in your mouth.

Oh really and how do you the mighty great abra come to that conclusion? Its a choice.

I respect the people who tell me that this is their truth.

feralcatlady,

Just curious,

Where do you stand with regards to SLAVERY, and white supremecy in th US? Still think that your christian conservationist protestant predecessor BOOTH, was a better Christian than the inclusive and open minded christian Lincoln? Abolition of slavery was smack against the scriptures, and God's intent for the white man of the US!

Where do you stand with respect to women's right to vote? Your christian fundie friends were angrily against it. God did not intend for women's intellect to deal with such complex issues as those that men are required to think through, and vote upon. It's smack against the women's role as stated in the scriptures, your then fundie' friends would angrily claim.

Where do you stand with the issue of equal rights for blacks in the US.
Still support segragation?
Your easy to predict 'fundie' friends of the time again claimed that it was against the scriptures to allow for the mixtures of fundamentally different racial lines. Are JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King bad christians because they didn't toe the 'fundie' line?

How about equal civil rights for all human beings, which would include homosexuals, and the homosexuality that comes with it (a bit like an Afro-American comes with slightly darker skin).
Homosexuality as a choice?!!? That's a good one.
Did you CHOOSE 'white' as a skin colour before you were born, or somewhere through adolescence?!?!?
How about the right for them to live in dignity, without the 'fundie' moral, social, and physical persecution, which fundies have systematically inflicted on all other 'biblical errant' minorities before them?

It will come to past. The backwards fundie portion of the US (a small but unfortunately way too loud portion of US populartion) will not be able to isolate itself from the rest of the free world much longer, with an undefendable position in their treatment of homosexual fundamental rights.
Your fundie convictions, and misguided bigottry, disguised as religious beliefs against homosexuals and homosexuality, will soon R.I.P right next to slavery, equal rights for blacks, voting rigts for women, and so many more 'dead' religious prejudices.

Believe what you wish 'feral', it is your privilege. But please stop doing this 'puppy pissing on the kitchen floor for attention' act.

While you can hold racist, prejudicial and downright ignorant beliefs for yourself, you on the other hand, cannot direct those archaic and prejudicial beliefs in a free country, against anyone or any groups of humans in any way shape or form, regardless how true your personnal interpretation the bible is FOR YOU, or how many times your private God repeated racist and hatefull intructions to your ears!

The collective conscience of humanity has presceance over your, and your few friends' personnal litteral interpretation of the bible.

And on the issue of responsible, loving and caring human beings, humanity has ruled: sexual orientationis is not be taken into consideration PERIOD. The fact that this reality hasn't yet reached the soul of some backward societies and countries changes little. Prejudices, bible supported or not, eventually all die a shamefull death.

Praise the Lord and Hallelujah!

May God Bless the righteous.

when the Constitutional Congress convened and determined to adopt Christian moral and ethical codes and include references to religious expression and the role of a Creator over the inalienable rights of citizenry in a civil society, I don't recall the age old awareness of the homosexuality issue being one of great concern.

I can't say that the framers were necessarily determined to create a civil society that was to be an inherently Christian one.

Pragmatically, the framers were astute enough to include Christian beliefs as representative of the civil society they were framing and allusions to this intent are still remnantly visible today in the three branches of our federal government.

The ensuing flood of immigration from the predominantly Christian Old World of Europe suggests that certain inalienable rights were altogether trampled by those in power and privilege far too long to bear any reasonable endurance and tolerance of any longer.

To say that America was born of a need for a Christian Society is disengenuous. To say that Christians have dominated the landscape of a free and secular democracy within a Federalist republic would be more correct.

That sexuality and its intentions and acts are a national or corporate sin of individuality would be equally disengenuous.

To assume that homosexuality is an inalienable right is also disengenuous, as the sexual expressions of certain individuals can never find adequate representation in a civil society.

As a national priority, I believe that addressing avarice and greed is more appropriate as an abuse of civil societys' expectations. But that is not likely to occur in the present evolution of our culture.

Nevertheless, is sin in the act, or in the intent?

I have come to realization that sin is a symptom of the flesh gaining leadership and control of the human body and relinquishing the soul and spirit to the untenable roles of acceeding to the demands of the corporal needs for gratuitous satisfaction by the physical aspect of humanity.

Historically, the soul has been the benefactor of the wealth of inalienable rights given by God and privileged among men.

The sin, I find is in the misappropriation of the will to yield to the flesh, and not in the presumptive course of intention and endeavor.


I'm sure this is to be quite foreign enough and nearly impossible to swallow for the less than initiate of things truly Christian, but nevertheless, I posit tese insights to bridge a gap that in my estimation is only widening in this forum discussion.

Please feel free to entertain my mind with equally intelligent offerings from your heart.

Wouldee;

(Clicks the "thumbs-up" emoticon)

lj

If that’s the definition of sin then I’m not surprised that I have never been tempted by sin. I think I’ve always been cerebral and have almost never acted on the primordial instincts of physical gratification.

However, I might point out that even this definition is not gender specific so this would certainly have nothing to do with same-gendered relationships. Nor would love of the heart fall under the category of ‘sins of the flesh’, as most people believe true love to be spiritual. Obviously if they are confusing lust with love then that’s an entirely differnet ball game.

However, having said all of that I have never believed that physical pleasure, in and of itself, is necessarily a bad thing. For example,…



It’s been my observation that this is the basic position of many religions of the world. There seems to be an almost unanimous consensus in this regard. That somehow the physical world is to be rejected and denied in favor of pure spiritual growth.

I have never believed in this view. And I will confess that even many pantheistic religious hold this view. This is why I have always stated that I do not align myself with any ‘organized’ religion. I do not see my pantheistic view of nature as a ‘religion’, but rather as a world view. I don’t believe in ‘organized religion’ at all really. At least not in the sense of being 'socially organized' by man.

I think that physical creation would be one hell of a waste if it wasn’t meant to be enjoyed. People often talk about a purely spiritual world, but what would such a world be like?

We certainly can’t imagine it to be anything at all like the physical world. To imagine ‘seeing’ things implies a mechanism to see, it also implies that there is something to look at. These are “physical” ideals. Even if one images them to be ghostlike they are only fooling themselves. To be able to see objects implies ‘physics’ no matter what those laws of ‘physics’ might be.

The same is true for touch, sound, taste, smell, and even emotions.

For me, the physical world is how spirits experience existence. Therefore the physical world should be viewed as the ultimate spirituality. To see a beautiful sunrise, or enjoy a beautiful day, or even see a new born baby, these are all physical things. There can be no day, or even light, without physical sensations. To believe otherwise it to be extremely naïve.

To believe that a ghost could exist outside of the physical world and “have” existence that is non-physical is to just play with the meanings of words. Even an ethereal ghost must have it’s own type of physics if it is to sense its surroundings. Even the notion that it has surroundings to sense, is itself a physical notion.

The notion that heaven could be ‘non-physical’ is no different from the notion that it cannot exist at all. For if it has any ‘perceivable’ form at all, then there is something to ‘perceive’ and that makes it physical by the pure definition of what it means to be physical.

So for me, the notion of denying the physical world in the hope of attaining spiritual enlightenment is a naïve notion.

It is true, however, that quieting the mind will help a person become more cerebral and less physical, and that can be thought of as becoming more 'spiritual'. But the idea of becoming completely independent of the physical world is a notion that has simply gone awry.

Just my thoughts on temptations of the flesh.

Voil this is the most ridiculous questions I have yet to see from you.......Could you be anymore arrogant. What the heck does me believing that yes it is a sin for a man to have sex with a man and same for a woman with slvery and and women's right to vote...please this is a stretch even for you.

But just so you know here I stand.

Slavery was abolished with good reason.....And as far as women's rights I am all for it. In fact I am with not only the G.F.W.C., but also the C.F.W.C., whom played important roles in women being able to vote.


Equal rights.....I totally believe in equal rights, equal pay, equal the sugar substitute...but what does this have to do with anything......

And I don't disregard any human being not being able to live the American dream with both dignity, happiness all of it. And if you even had a clue about me at all....I don't have a prejudice bone in my body....and most again of what you spew is just utter nonsense......honestly not even worth answering....

Abra,

I understand you and appreciate your clarity.

Yes, it is a common concept, at least i"m certain of it in Christian views. However, the goal of Christian discipline does not rest with the precept that I have shared.

The goal, in Christian discipline, as I understand it, is to make oneself available to the spiritual man within to begin its leadership of the eternal disposition of the personal soul.

The accomplishment of this feat requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit to be accomplished.

The teaching of Christian discipline, in its original form, has been and remains the availability and surrender of control of our souls to the input, care and direction offered by the presence of the Holy Spirit, when manifested.

The transformation that occurs yields to the conscious soul sufficient experience and equipment of spiritual assets that bring the flesh into submission to the spirit of manh that has been consequently fused to that of the Holy Spirit within.

The prize for the individual soul of man is to return to God with the Holy Spirit and enjoy the company of the Creator for eernity as a conformed, redeemed and completed man.

Biblically, this perfection of the saints is not a perfect work as you or I would tend to think of perfection, bt rather perfect in the intended disposition of the individual soul that has received sufficient down payment on redemption due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and subsequently been conformed into the image of a man that is found fit for the Creators fellowship, sufficiently so, as to not yield further iniquitous acts initiated by a new generation of immortal and hence, eternal lifeforms.

The goal has never been to ignore or deny physical comfort and pleasure....but rather the common misconception of the purpose of a spiritually led life that is pleasing to God.

Time and space will not allow an in depth explanation, but I'm certain that you understand thaT IT REQUIRES THE INPUT OF gOD THROUGH THE hOLY sPIRIT TO EVEN BEGIN TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. we, as humans are incapable of naturally comprehending what's required to accomplish such a feat, independent of God, with the meager resources we possess in this natural life.

Although the topic is sin and whether it is in the intent or act, I believe the distinction of a greater root cause may be involved.

In terms of providing anything conclusory for you, that is beyond me.

I apologize for the fat finger bump that offset my caps lock key

Eljay wrote:
>>>your implication is that it is because of the "Christian mindset" vthat these laws exist - when in fact, the abolution of slavery - "forced" on this country, primarily against the will of the entire south - was brought about by ASbraham Lincoln (A devote Christian) - and JFK and MLK were BOTH Christians. Your intent behind your post is totally contradictory. It is IN FACT the Christian leaders of the past who are fighting against the injustices that you sight as examples. Though you may include all Christians under an "umbrella" of inaction - why do you state that because someone claims to be doing something because they are a "Christian" that they speak for Christianity?<<<

Sometimes new laws are deemed to be in order. Sometimes old ones need to be taken out of code. Sometimes changes and amendment are required to correct an issue that only time and change could have brought about. We are not subjects a monarchy, or peasants in a communist regime, we are supposed to be a republic in which the people take responsibility to make sure that each individual is treated with respect due them as equal citizens. That makes it OUR duty to ensure that our laws maintain the highest integrity of our Constitution. OUR DUTY as citizens. There is only ONE reason why GLBT are not given fair and equal treatment under our laws: the Christian faction that fights against the legislature that would correct an error that change has brought to light.

Eljay said:
>>>Charles Manson claimed that the bible told him to rifd the world of blacks? Do you think he represents my Christian beliefs?<<<

Another reason to argue against the many interpretations of that book. But that does belong in this discussion.

Eljay:
>>>I believe as strongly as you do about the rights of ANYBODY being taken away. It matters not what the cause is, unless it is unreasonable.<<<

The rights of the GLBT are in place, save for one small issue. The definition of marriage and I might the definition of ‘family’ as well. That issue can not be changed as long as the Christian faction that fights against a diversity of life is “allowed” to continue to speak for ALL Christians.

Eljay:
>>>What leads you to believe that Christians do not "allow" people to live their own lives or follow their own paths of belief?<<<

I can grant you the power to be President, but my granting it does not make you President. I can say taxation is illegal and tell everyone they don’t have to pay taxes, but that does not give them the freedom to do so. You can say you don’t ‘CARE’ how gays and lesbians live, but that does not make them free to live the same quality of life, under the law, as you are entitled to.



Eljay:
>>>You are mis-representing me as a Christian! It is my belief that those who do not allow others to make their own choices in life are NOT Christians!<<<

When you allow other Christians to speak for you in the matters of the laws of this country, you are choosing not to be a voice against that faction, therefore you are giving your permission to be represented by them. It is not me who is misrepresenting you, it is you who are allowing that conclusion to be made.

Eljay:
>>>Why is it that non-Christians attribute the behavior of those who's actions are clearly not Christian - I.E. Judgemantal, elitist, superior, etc - as representative of Christians because they claim to be?<<<

It has been estimated the population of this country is about 70 to 75% admittedly Christian.
And there is only one reason why corrections to the inequality that exists is being hampered, it is the Christian faction. If those who fight against equality based solely of Christian value are simply the “few” fundamentalists – then where is the voice of all those Christians, like you, who “cry” over being misrepresented?

Ferel:
>>>Answer: I wouldn't, I would prefer them to be married first.....and I would hold them accoutable...but again the decision is up to them. And I have no power to throw anyone out....But again as Christians in my church they would totally be held accountable for their actions.<<<

How are they held accountable by you, and by the church? Will you discuss their actions with your children at some point and your re-actions in response? And what will they learn between your words and your actions?

Ferel:
>>>Answer: It depends on the circumstances. If they had relations before marriage. I would say no. How can I give a clear message to my girls to wait until their married and then go to a wedding.where they have had sex out of wedlock<<<

So after their wedding, are they in good standing again? Does that change the facts? If their “intent” all along was marriage would that change how you viewed their pre-marital actions? Would you invite them to your home to have dinner at the same table as your children once they finally married? Or is friendship subject to rules of sin? What rules are family subject to?


>>>... Also my church would not marry them if that were the case. As far as the marriage service I really don't know, because I am always behind the scenes at weddnings. No one is perfect and I still have alot of issues both with marriage, divorce, and abortion when it comes to church<<<

When you were married, where you also behind the scenes, or just too nervous to hear the vows you took? What about Gods view on divorce, what scripture presides over this action?

Ferel:
>>>Answer: ok if thats what you want to think......free to do that. But I would never consider them anything but my friends whom I would do anything for just as I would anyone else. And everyone in my life is my equal and pretty presumtious of you to say otherwise. You don't know me....or my life......Or what I do for all humanity.......so very rude the above Redy.<<<

Friends you would do anything for - except contact your representatives to actively support legislature that would give them all the benefits of the law that you have. Friendship so close yet does not even deserve the benefit of doubt. For there is no doubt on your thoughts of their actions –

>>> Feral wrote:
“And what beliefs!!! no one believes they are gay or lesbian they just choose to be.....”
“When I said that about denial that was in relation to gays and lesbians.”


Testimony Submitted by
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions for the Hearing on
EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT (ENDA)
February 27, 2002
"The American Psychological Association (APA) is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. Its membership includes more than 155,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students. Our mission is to advance psychology as a science, as a profession, and as a means of promoting human welfare. We are writing to express our support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is the empirically-based position of our association that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is "detrimental to mental health and the public good" (APA Council resolution adopted February 1993).

The above was reiterated again recently, it is still a clearly defined position.

Yet you feel that it is gay and lesbians who are in denial! If there was absolutely no choice in the matter of the heart, then there would be absolutely no reason to ‘CHOOSE’ a spouse, why should you be privileged above others in that matter? Why should the choices of your heart bear any more consideration than anyone eleses?

Ferel:
>>>I have alot of gay and lesbian friends but I would never say....Yes sleep with each other, adopt children it the right thing to do....What a hypocrite I would be. It doesn't mean that I don't love them and hang with them......<<<

A friend who does not back up their words, their loyalty, their concern and love with actions to support those words, is obviously not hypocritical, but what then is the right word?

when a simple minority of legally qualified citizens retaining the right to vote in our democracy, actually act on the opportunity to speak collectively, and purposes to represent the will of the people in the absence of a full consensus, the resultant approval of the votive majority does in fact represent the will of an extremely segmented minority within a larger minoritys' potential.

This miscarriage of consensus is willful. The consequences are borne by all and the silent majority must concur by ommission, due to their abstinance.

Perhaps the Christian community in the US is assumed to be responsible for withholding the rights of minority interests; and in fact is only indirectly responsible for the suffered inequality being experienced societally by even smaller sub-sets of citizens with unique prejudices impeding their full particpation in protection under the laws that govern all within that society.

For example, the right to inherit the estate of a life long partner in a domestic relationship without taxation tiers as enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Which, when contemplated, may also need to address SSI benefits, pension allotments to survivors, etc., and at present excludes homosexual partnerships as not recognizable domestic unions.

Returning now to the composition of the identifying characteristics of the silent majority I would suggest that a very real and probable description of such a silent majority may be comprised primarily of citizens enjoying Christian influence over their conduct.
And though, on the surface, it may be suggested that these same citizens do not exercise their rightful duty as responsible voters and exercise their obligations to all under the rule of law within that society, it likewise may be suggestive of contravening influences that eclipse that obligation in the pursuit of their own rights under the law to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These pursuits may very well exercise precedence in the minds of this particular silent majority.

Chief among these precedents may be a willful ommission by abstinance from participating in the selection of the lesser of 2 or 3 perceived 'evils' ( for the lack of a better term).

Christians, authentic, and believers in God, authentic, share a very real daily awareness thatt a sumpreme being is guiding their welfare and find it , quite possibly, disengenuous to choose lawmakers from among themselves and bear responsibility for these lawmakers actions, in whole or part.

Though obedience of all is called to be acknowledged and submitted to by believers regarding the laws of the land, and obedience to the rulers of the land is to be respected, yet there exists abstinance from participation in the civil society's procedural principles of governance; as fallible, corrupt, invasive, deviant, mischievious, malevolent,preferential,and at times unjust.

I find it plausible that Christians in America are not the threat to a civil society's success, but rather the overlooked and abused and neglected silent majority that bears the cost of government and provide the vast share of financial resources by which big government has come to function and thrive from.

And that the contribution of these resources is greatly proportioned from this silent majority, and that the services and reciprocation from the government for their particular needs is effectively abrogated and tendered upon the minority interests within the nation that vote for personal needs from a representative governments' purse.

In short, the problem may not rest with the actions of a silent Christian majority within this nation, but with the vocal participation of select minority groups within this nation.

As a consequence, I could spin this to suggest that Christians AND the homosexual community have more in common with regards to the favor of the state, than they do have as appearing to be at loggershead over some needful acknowledgements by the government of their respective needs.

One group seeks temporal justice, while the other seeks moral justice. Which for all intents and purposes may be the same thing after all.

I sure hope this comes out right, because its a stretch, nonetheless a very possible reality.