Comments on "When you point a finger, 3 point back at you. REMEMBER THAT."

Go to No Answers Found Here.Add a commentGo to "When you point a finger, 3 point back at you. REMEMBER THAT."

Re: FYS, nice to read you again.
Chyrlann, thanks so much for reading, and for your very thoughtful comment!  I hope many read what you left here. 

posted by FineYoungSinger on February 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM | link to this | reply

FYS, nice to read you again. Good stuff here. I appreciated your question

regarding the difference between promiscuous homosexuals and heterosexuals and your defining comment regarding the repercussions of promiscuity as well. Heterosexuals are not under a microscope (in general) regarding who they have sexual relations with, homosexuals are because that IS the differentiating factor. It is nobody's business what transpires in the confines of anyone's private life unless they make it so and society and the media generally attack the promiscuity of homosexuals moreso than heterosexual promiscuity. Point; There is no difference, looking for love or lust in too many faces doesn't discriminate against who is damaged. That is what is sad, not sexual orientation.

According to statistics, there are over 10,000 transsexuals born in the US every year. Male virtues with female parts and visa versa, even a high number with female and male parts. God doesn't create accidents. It isn't gender specific or sexual orientation that's the problem, it's shallow minds of shallow people. Hurting, damaged people are reaching out to be accepted and loved; through God's eyes were are all perfectly and wondrously made.

Abstaining to meet ones 'soul mate'....I just LOVE that! Now that is one classy guy!

posted by roadscross on February 6, 2008 at 9:58 PM | link to this | reply

Re: AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ATTACK.....READY TO SHAKE THE HAND
7---EVEN if they attack, ready to shake the hand.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 9:45 AM | link to this | reply

AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ATTACK.....READY TO SHAKE THE HAND

posted by star4sky5 on January 30, 2008 at 7:55 AM | link to this | reply

to everyone in this discussion:
I want to thank you all for following my blog house rules!  This has been a very healthy discussion.  I hope everyone got some good food for thought from all the participants.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 7:37 AM | link to this | reply

thoughtfulness, thank you for reading.

While I can appreciate your zeal, I am compelled to point out to you that the word MARRIAGE does not have one singular meaning.  There is a Civil marriage, governed by the STATES (federal laws would be overturned in the appellate courts because marriage does not fall under the 24 powers of congress) and there is a Christian marriage.  I'm writing a blog about this now, since my research for my comment has given me even more food for thought.

So my comment in reply to your conversation is that I have to agree with Gomedome---marriage has little to do with homosexuals, since it's a legal privilidge from which they've been excluded.  This isn't an opinion, but a fact.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 7:36 AM | link to this | reply

Re: well Wiley and I certainly aren't together to have children.
AMEN, KABU!!!  We must love everyone.  No, we don't have to condone bad behavior.  But we must LOVE them, regardless their personal choices.  It's not up to us to judge.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 6:26 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re:
PS...and by the way, according to the Gospels, Christ HIMSELF said that the only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit; the unwillingness to accept God's love no matter what kind of a sinner we might be. 

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 6:22 AM | link to this | reply

Re:

hey spinner...thanks for reading, and I can appreciate your view; I mus point out to you, however, that while Leviticus does say "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (ch 18), in an entire litany of "Do nots"; it also says, "'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people." (ch 20)  Leviticus also calls for sinners of ALL KINDS to be put to death, and lists a pile of rules that are not explained or discussed.

The litany of "do nots" found in Leviticus had a purpose---to break the permiscuous behavior of the Hebrews who have lived among Egyptians with a very different set of principles.   Today we know the common sense of NOT being promiscuous--the spread of disease, the diminishing of the person's esteem.  We also know that sex can be misused, and diminishes a person into preditor or prey.  We know this today because we've grown, compounded knowledge and also have the benefit of the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Now my question to you is, does God look down on any of us, shake his head, smile and say "their so cute", when we sin in any way?  Sin is sin, and it's not our place to condemn others.  Let God tell the sinner Himself how He is displeased.  Our job as Christians is to follow the teachings of Christ, which is to love one another...and telling a person that they're going to hell for any reason is not loving them.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 30, 2008 at 6:17 AM | link to this | reply

Re: thoughtfulness - Surely you've heard of the amendmends on marriages
In 1996 Clinton passed legislation of some sort declaring same sex marriages invalid. The majority of states have banned this too. Every state has been battling on this issue and you haven't heard of it?  Oh yeah, sorry to have corrected you, I realize I'm no match for your intellect but my passion makes up for that.  To date I believe Vermont is the only state to recognize this union, or maybe mass. too.  One thing is certain, this is a very heated debate on which my position really doesn't matter one bit.  What matters to you is the less religion, the better.  You keep guessing about what I'm really trying to say, as if to make this more than it is.  My views are simply different than yours.  I truly respect your position, and regret that voicing my opinion has become such a big deal. Opinions are just that. Truce?

posted by thoughtfulness on January 30, 2008 at 4:36 AM | link to this | reply

thoughtfulness - the first thing you might want to do if you are going to

attempt to correct me is broaden your scope just a wee bit.

The opinions of the members of predominantly Christian religions in the USA do not represent the opinions of the world. Same sex marriage is legal in my country and this is only so because the Christian religions do not have anywhere near as much influence in the political process as they do in your country. Don't attempt to tell me that your country held a referendum on gay marriage - it never happened. 

You believe marriage is profoundly a religious ceremony reserved for a man and a woman only, as you put it, and ordained by God. Good for you, unfortunately that viewpoint is not shared by everyone, how could God possibly ordain my marriage for example? . . . he doesn't exist. Nor does everyone get married in a religious ceremony, that is merely a tradition and though still practiced by a shrinking majority in our societies, it ultimately has nothing to do with the legality of marriage.

You clearly state what criteria you feel is necessary for marriage. Are you saying that civil marriages and marriages involving those who do not believe in God are invalid? (You actually are saying this but may not realize it) Now we can go back to my very first question to you: Where are the barriers drawn in what constitutes a marriage?

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM | link to this | reply

Re: thoughtfulness - no one is showing a disrespect for what you believe
Well, round and round we go.  Let me correct your spin efforts. The members of one religion are not calling the shots here. Rather the American people who have even voted on this subject, proclaim a shared belief for this issue, which is that marriage is ordained of God, and he designed it to be a holy union, with deep spiritual meaning, and a sacred act, between a man and a woman.  This majority of people make up a variety of different religious viewpoints. They just agree on what is right for them, not the government, the people. And as for all the rights and priviledges you speak of , those can be laid out on paper and set up to be legally binding.  I think our right to pursue happiness with whom ever we choose is fine.  I just believe marriage is profoundly a religious ceremony reserved for a man and a woman only.  Get it? The vast majority happen to agree with me and have struck down every amendment or whatever, that has tried to change the definition of marriage, or the laws regarding marriage. And there it is.

posted by thoughtfulness on January 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM | link to this | reply

thoughtfulness - no one is showing a disrespect for what you believe

Your conclusions are based on an idea that the religious traditions surrounding marriage in your religion somehow usurp the rights of others to be married. A better question than your " . . . what rights to marriage do gays have?" might be: what right do members of one religion have to impose their view of what constitutes marriage on everyone else? ....but I can answer your question; gays like everyone else in society have the right to prusue their own version of happiness, find companionship and enter into committed relationships. Once committed to building their lives in a relationship; rights of property ownership, spousal priviledges, survivorship and distribution of wealth upon dissolution of that relationship, should be inherent for all law abiding, tax paying citizens.

 

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM | link to this | reply

Re: thoughtfulness - sorry, I just thought that you might have been able to
I'm not confused, in my "notions" I just don't agree with you and that doesn't seem to be enough.  God is responsible for the joining together of man and wife.and what rights to marriage do gays have? This sacred covenant is being trampled on, redefined at will, and expected to surrender itself to 5% or less? You might as well leave me alone since you obviously refuse to allow my love for the sanctity of marriage to exist. I am free to disagree with gay marriages. You should learn to respect that as you always say believers should respect your ramblings.

posted by thoughtfulness on January 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM | link to this | reply

thoughtfulness - sorry, I just thought that you might have been able to

expand on what you had said earlier about "marriage being all about children" (paraph.)

What I see instead is a confusion and intertwining of unrelated notions. There is no arguing that the family unit is the most important aspect of a healthy society. It is of the utmost importance to the mental health and general well being of children in any society. We've seen the deterioration of the family unit over the last few decades to a degree we have never seen before. Witnessing this has shown us how important it is and the consequences to society of not reversing the trend.

But how do gays fit in when it is clear that they have had nothing to do with creating or proliferating this problem? It is also clear that the problem of the deterioration of the family unit over the last few decades has been caused and proliferated almost entirely by a believing, predominently Christian majority.  When you say this: "The breakdown of the family is the major reason for the problems we have today." . . . no one will disagree, but gays have never had the right to marry (with some exceptions) and they only make up 5% or less of the population. So who created this widespread problem and why is a group that had nothing to do with it denied access to marriage rights because of the problem? 

I can answer that question but I'm afraid you would not like to hear it.

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 5:08 PM | link to this | reply

well Wiley and I certainly aren't together to have children.
Love is the corner stone of Christian teaching. One can't really chose to love some and not others.

posted by Kabu on January 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM | link to this | reply

Re: thoughtfulness - then how do you view childless marriages?
I view childless marriage to be just as meaningful as the other. It's just that children need the security, trust, and assurance which comes from an intact lifetime family structure, to believe they will always be loved and can count on this by experiencing it first hand. Their needs come first as the most important reason marriage was designed in the first place.  And furthermore, what's the problem with marriage holding  a deep spiritual meaning for me. Same sex marriages don't have to be embraced, while the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman gets disregarded.  Children can only be created by a man and a woman. Therefore to me, marriage is a holy union that seems to be diminishing to the detriment of society. The breakdown of the family is the major reason for the problems we have today.  Hope you can just accept my belief as being just as  important as yours, without labeling me as intolerant of any person who happens to be gay.

posted by thoughtfulness on January 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM | link to this | reply

to me it does not matter if people shun them or if the church shuns them or if the goverment shuns them. I my self truly do not hate anyone it is there actions that I am disturbed by, I believe that the lord more than likely has some what of the same view because I think that God is incapable of hate, just as christ is incapable of hate, I trully do not believe that it is condoned a man/women's action if they are wrong. you are right I don't recall ever reading where Christ spoke of homesexual's, more on just sin it's self but he did say that the old testament was to not be ignored that we should follow it writings and in the old testament Gods veiw on a man laying with a man is one of the most despised sins of all, Christ new this and that is why he wept and said forgive them father for they know not what they do, he knew he had to die, he knew that humanity was so curropt and full of sin that the only answer was for him to die. Does God look down on homesexaulality shake his head smile and say their so cute togeather, I think not. Instead he gave his only begotten son. what matter's I think is what God thinks of the matter, marriage is a sacred bound of the flesh thier is nothing sacred about two men or women laying with their own sex married or not in God's eyes. As far as we go as christian or non christian no matter we should not hate someone for thier sin. it is the sin itself we should despise. Very good Writeing and God bless

posted by spinner on January 29, 2008 at 2:58 PM | link to this | reply

Re:
lustorlove, thanks for the comment.  Shunning is never the right answer.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 12:42 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Gays
Gome said it better than I could.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM | link to this | reply

thoughtfulness - then how do you view childless marriages?
A marriage can be childless for a number of reasons. Choice, infertility and age come to mind immediately. Many people marry later in life when they are beyond child bearing age, many marriages take place for a number of other reasons such as: combining resources or companionship. Would you have trouble with a scenario of say two persons in their 60's getting married so they have someone to talk to and spend time with and have no intention of ever having children? I'm just curious where the boundaries are?  

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM | link to this | reply

my daughter has several gay men friends and few lesbian, but she treats all equal.  One spends more time with us then he does his own family.  She likes them because they relate to her and help her dress, do make up etc.  All the ones that come around here have better manners than most.  My mom who was in her 90's and came from a totally different generation thought it was wrong for church to shun them.

posted by Lanetay on January 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM | link to this | reply

Gays
While I completely agree that we should love each other for who we are, and could care less about anyones sex life, I do have trouble with marriage being anything other than an institution designed for the benefit of children, and what is best for them.  It's simply something I believe.  If I have offended gays, I apologize now.

posted by thoughtfulness on January 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM | link to this | reply

Re: FineYoungSinger - of course that is the right attitude but not all

Regarding the discrimination---I know 1st had of what you speak.  We've lost gigs because of the gay following, and more recently my faith has been questioned, since I'm also a local Christian musician.  I am affected adversely by my associates.

It has the potential to become a little time and place that we like to call Nazi Germany.  Is the next step going to be make gays or people thought to be gay or associated with gays wear an armband identifying them?  Where could it lead beyond that?  This goes for any group, by the way, not just gays.  Alarmist?  I don't think so.  All it takes is a dynamic leader to capture the attention of the masses and in less than a few years we're there once again.  This is why it's so impoortant the separatist, hateful attitudes of misguided zealots of whatever creed they belong be corrected.  This discussion is a good start.

Now, do I care that my associates cause adverse repercussions in my life beyond the social?  Of course my reputation as a musician is very important, especially being a local Christian artist right along with being a coffee club entertainer.  My answer is that it doesn't, because my ideal, my core belief that I am here to love my neighbor, does not allow it.

Ultimately, being a Christian isn't sitting in church every Sunday, quoting the Bible, declaring that you're "saved" and trying to save others from hell.  Being a Christian means making the hard choice to love those that are persecuted without apology.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger - of course that is the right attitude but not all

situations of discrimination as a result of association are created equally.

Sometimes there is more at stake than making a social statement and doing the right thing can bring with it unseen costs. Losing business because a person is mistakenly identified as being gay is one example that comes to mind.

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Hiya FYS -- your observation about your "feminine" guy friend
Pat B, you got that right.  People are people, they aren't their sexual preference, or anything else for that matter.  Thanks for reading!

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 9:37 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: FineYoungSinger and company . . . another thing you must consider is that
PS--gome, I forgot to mention that it's a good point, which is why I addressed it as I did.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 9:36 AM | link to this | reply

Re: FineYoungSinger
Thanks, Wiley!  Thanks for reading, and for your consistent open-mindedness!

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM | link to this | reply

Re: FineYoungSinger and company . . . another thing you must consider is that

Being the only hetero in an all-girl band with a serious lesbian following, I can tell you that this could be a real issue, gome, if I allow it to be an issue.  In reality, people think far less often of me than I might think they do.  I think this is true of everyone.

This fear is irrational, no matter how real it might be.  It's another example of our own aversions being a block against loving others.  If I suffer discrimination by socializing with gay women, then I need to simply say shame on the discriminator. It's up to me to be better than that, because I know how great these people are; how giving "Donna" is, or how funny "Lindsay" is, or how talented "Monica" is, and how much these women enrich my life, whether they're gay or not.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM | link to this | reply

Hiya FYS -- your observation about your "feminine" guy friend
who's not promiscuous but looking for a soulmate is nothing out of the ordinary. The outrageous flamboyant drag queens and leather boys are actually in the minority -- although they get the most attention from the media and other people. I have gay relatives who live ordinary "boring" lives, go to work every day, spend their weekends doing chores, going to movies, watching TV, attending church, etc. 

posted by Pat_B on January 29, 2008 at 9:29 AM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger
Good post kiddo!!Well it's a very positive thing that people at least have advanced far enough so that we can write and talk about it if we so choose.

posted by WileyJohn on January 29, 2008 at 9:19 AM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger and company . . . another thing you must consider is that

you are speaking of male homosexuals from a female perspective.

My point is that in most instances, a person will not have to deal with the element of feeling threatened by someone who has same sex preferences if that person is not the same sex as they are. The "threat" they pose is also not as simple as an unjustified fear of being hit on. In a society that is capable of treating any group of people with prejudice, there is the reality of suffering discrimination for anyone associating with members of the targeted group.

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 9:07 AM | link to this | reply

Re:
hi sam, thanks for reading.  We are absolutely here to love.  The only way to love others is to get to know them, and we can't get to know people when we stereotype them.  This is no different.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 8:45 AM | link to this | reply

Re: FYS
Thanks Troosha!  You are so right on with this comment. There is a completely incorrect assumption that a gay person wants to have sex with every straight person on the planet, so they have to be announced as gay.  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!  I never announce my friends as being gay, any more than I announce them as being anything else. If you get to know them, their sexual preference will become clear if they so choose to share that with you.  Get a grip, people!

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 8:44 AM | link to this | reply

I wholly agree. We are not here to judge. Love one another is most critical!  sam

posted by sam444 on January 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM | link to this | reply

FYS
It is a necessary discussion.  Bravo for the position you’ve taken!  As someone who socializes with a number of gay people I am also perplexed by the emphasis on their sexual preference.  Does someone, for example, refer to me as Troosha the heterosexual woman – no, of course not.  Why then is there a tendency to label gay people.  There are some people who choose to verbalize the fact that they are gay and others who find no need to do so.  So why then to we hetros tend to categorize friends or acquaintances by their sexuality…. “My friend Frank is gay…”  Who cares?  Did I ask what his sexual preference is?  

posted by Troosha on January 29, 2008 at 8:31 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Gomedome, you are exactly right....and therein lies the real sin.

I wanted to add this to your comment.  Sometimes I think our "aversions" are indicators as to deficiencies within ourselves---predjudices and views that we must overcome so that we are able to see only the human there, and do something to meet their need.   Our aversions are hurdles to upholding the commandment of Christ to love one another.

The friend I illustrated in this post has a very deep need.  I know this because I'm a human being too, and I have very deep needs.  If I were to submit to my aversion, justify it, find scripture to uphold it, preach against the aversive behavior and then ultimately against the person by telling him that he's going to hell...am I meeting my friend's need?  Am I following the commandment of Christ to love one another?   NOPE.

Looking past my own aversion, on the other hand, I'm able to get to know my friend.  I'm able to start a conversation with him, find out what he likes and dislikes, discover what his core values are, and then discover his need.  And his need is to be heard; to be accepted; to be loved; to be treated like anyone else...am I meeting my friend's need?  Am I following the commandment of Christ to love one another?  YEP.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome, you are exactly right....and therein lies the real sin.
Thanks for inspiring this, and for opening up a very necessary discussion.

posted by FineYoungSinger on January 29, 2008 at 8:06 AM | link to this | reply

FineYoungSinger - I feel the root of the problem lies in the fact that we

all as heterosexuals, have an inherent aversion to homosexuality.

It may vary widely in degree from one individual to the next but even if it is no more intense in a person than a "Coke versus Pepsi" type of preference, it exists nonetheless. When religious beliefs are added to the mix of making sense of it all, a built in justification is created for those not willing to look further. Some people are simply not capable of looking past their own inherent prejudices, especially when their backwards mindset can find what they feel is divinely endorsed justification and they are surrounded by the re-affirmation of others. Somewhere along the line and through the evolution of these lines of "reasoning" amongst some religious groups, their own underlying religious beliefs that should contradict this position of discrimination, are somehow shunted aside.   

posted by gomedome on January 29, 2008 at 7:57 AM | link to this | reply