The Reflector

Please do NOT double post. People can see your opinion just fine by reading through it once.

Originally posted by

Blake

The question being addressed is not the right question to discuss, in my opinion. The problem is that the writer tried to give both sides an equal shake, while he most likely believes homosexuality is wrong (which is probably next to impossible). That question is a more central one. Is homosexuality wrong? Obviously, the commentators here will disagree and the writer will agree. In a perfect world, the two sides would intelligently debate this issue. Even then, it is unlikely that the writer will change his mind, and vice-versa.

My point is that until this question is discussed, further discussion will not be constructive.

Right. If an answer is required, then here: Homosexuality, both as the sexual orientation, is not wrong. As the subsequent acting out of said orientation, it is not simply not wrong, it is right.

Homosexuality as an orientation has been observed in nature. It is a natural phenomenon, similar to having blond hair or being double jointed. It is outside the norm, but no more a "perversion of nature" than is being particularly tall or short. It is important to note than no mainstream psychological organization supports efforts to change sexual orientation, or even the idea that such a change through therapy is possible.

As the acting out of said orientation, homosexuality is right in that it is the honest expression of one's feelings toward another person. Marriage is, at it's core, a committed relationship between two people. This, or any relationship, can only be viable if the two participants are both involved. A straight man can only have a true sexual relationship with another woman; a gay man can only be honest with a man.

Furthermore, it is important to note that relationships, when entered into honestly and fairly, are good. In this respect, homosexuality and heterosexuality are good because they provide the framework for sexual, loving, fulfilling relationships. To each his own, the chief criterion of judgment should not be the gender of the lovers, but whether or not they are lovers. Anything else is, as they say, a perversion.

Originally posted by

Irinfox

No surprise here. Mr Austin is a product of what passes for "education" in a state that ranks 50th, not just in this area but in every other measure of civil society. As the say in Texas, "thank God for Mississippi".

A blanket statement such as this shows your true ignorance. I'm sure things are much clearer up there in your ivory tower.

Otherwise, I agree with the general consensus in that this article should never have been posted.

Originally posted by

Irinfox

No surprise here. Mr Austin is a product of what passes for "education" in a state that ranks 50th, not just in this area but in every other measure of civil society. As the say in Texas, "thank God for Mississippi".

CP, educate me. Show me where Mississippi ranks on national social indices.

Originally posted by

Irinfox

No surprise here. Mr Austin is a product of what passes for "education" in a state that ranks 50th, not just in this area but in every other measure of civil society. As the say in Texas, "thank God for Mississippi".

Not a good idea to attempt to insult an entire state on the website of one of that state's student-run newspapers... Your beef is with the author, whom you assume was fully educated in Mississippi, not the entire state. In reality, now you look rather foolish because you don't have the first idea where the author of this article was educated, do you?

And the shooting took place in California, have you considered that? The murderer was a product of the California educational system, not Mississippi's.

By the way, I was not educated in Mississippi, but I am educated enough to know that Mississippi ranks #1 in per capita charitable giving amongst US States, and I certainly think that's relevant to "a civil society."

Originally posted by

Irinfox

No surprise here. Mr Austin is a product of what passes for "education" in a state that ranks 50th, not just in this area but in every other measure of civil society. As the say in Texas, "thank God for Mississippi".

Rob, " Not a good idea to insult an entire state on the website of one of that state's student-run newspapers."

Why? Can I now expect a noose on my door, or a cross burning on my lawn?
I think not, this old and honourable institution has a history of academic freedom and freedom of expression.

You seem confused, first you say that my beef is with the author, which is accurate. Then you rather redundantly inform me that the murderer was a product of the California educational system.What is your point? The California murderer did not write this bigoted screed.
BTW, does that charitable giving include mandatory tithes to Fundi churches?
I'm still waiting for anyone to disprove that Miss. is at the bottom of the heap on national social indices. Rob, how about you, got anything?

Originally posted by

Irinfox

No surprise here. Mr Austin is a product of what passes for "education" in a state that ranks 50th, not just in this area but in every other measure of civil society. As the say in Texas, "thank God for Mississippi".

And Texas is better in what way exactly? Texas can't even keep their border secure against the influx of Illegal Aliens, drugs, and possibly terrorists. As for your ignorant spew about nooses and burning crosses, you don't get out very much except for reading collegiate news websites. Some dimwit in Baltimore hung a noose in a firehouse because he got reprimanded by his C.O. Did I mention that he was black?

Exactly how are you an authority on civil society besides somebody sitting in their underwear, living in their parents' basement, hiding behind a keyboard?

Oh, one last thing, are you IRINFOX or IRONFOX? Try a spellchecker before you post again. Your credibility gets shot to Hades when you can't even spell.

Originally posted by

Ryan

I have a question. Im I considered a bigot if I believe that homosexuality is immoral and should not be accepted as "ok" or "that person was born that way"? I am a firmly rooted Christian who believes in the Bible and what it says. God condems homosexuallity. PERIOD. I dont think anyone has the right to tell me to "just except it."

I can tell you're a fundamentalist. Homeschooled, apparently.

Originally posted by

Ryan

I have a question. Im I considered a bigot if I believe that homosexuality is immoral and should not be accepted as "ok" or "that person was born that way"? I am a firmly rooted Christian who believes in the Bible and what it says. God condems homosexuallity. PERIOD. I dont think anyone has the right to tell me to "just except it."

I can condem[sic] your excepting[sic] of homosexuallity[sic] and tell you that you need to just accept it.

Does being a firmly rooted Christian who believes in the Bible and what it says give you the right to condem[sic] everyone who doesn't share in your beliefs?

Originally posted by

Paul

People have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is a lifestyle. The jury's still out on whether or not one is "born that way" or not. There has been little scientific evidence to prove either side, especially with the "gay gene" theory dismissed years ago.

All I'm saying is this: if someone believes a lifestyle is wrong, they are not a bigot. If they believe a person of another color is simply wrong for being a member of a particular race, that IS wrong.

Example: Joe Schmo thinks Ryan's perceptions are wrong. That is his right. Ryan's lifestyle and belief system reflects how he was raised. At the same time, Ryan also has the right to criticize others as well.

Amazing how some so quick to criticize can't handle it themselves.

This is wrong on several counts. There is quite a bit of evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality; I can cite at least half a dozen studies in the last three years. And far from the "gay gene" theory being dismissed, the UCLA twins study, in particular, essentially confirms a genetic component.

You're college kids - aren't you supposed to know these things?

Originally posted by

Paul

People have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is a lifestyle. The jury's still out on whether or not one is "born that way" or not. There has been little scientific evidence to prove either side, especially with the "gay gene" theory dismissed years ago.

Regardless of whether gays are "born that way", they should be entitled to the same respect and civil rights as everyone else. Democrats and Republicans are not "born that way" but no matter how wrong you may believe members of a political party are, they have a right to assemble, petition the government and promote their ideas. Christians are not "born that way", at least not the first time around, but they certainly have their fair share of constitutional protection.

Originally posted by

Ryan

I just have been raised properly and have a good head on my shoulders. I also What God says isnt up for debate.

You are wrong on both counts. If you HAD been raised properly, you would have been taught to accept those who are different from yourself, and would know that accepting people for who and what they are does not mean you have to emulate them. You don't want to have sex with a person of your own gender? Fine. Don't. See? Everyone wins.

Second, NO ONE KNOWS THE WORD OF GOD. The Bible was not written by God. God did not sit down one day and write His memoirs. The Bible was written BY MEN - human males. As such, it is subject to all the faults, ignoble feelings, jealousy, anger, hatred, victimization of those different from oneself, etc., that infect ALL humans. For pete's sake, the Bible contains TWO creation stories! Is that what God would do if He wrote it? I. Think. Not. So for you to say (or what I assume you meant by your illiterate scribbling) that "What God says isn't up for debate" is so totally stupid as to defy analysis. (That won't stop me, however, LOL!) God never said "Homosexuality is bad." Men said, in Leviticus, that having sex with a person of the same sex is bad, and said that it was punishable by death. Well, if you go by THAT rule, you must ALSO go by ALL THE RULES set down in Leviticus. A small sample: don't eat lobster, crab, shrimp, crayfish, clams, oysters, mussels, squirrel, rabbit, or any part of a pig (no ham, no bacon, no pork sausage); no having sex for 2 weeks of every month (the week of her period and the 7 days following it); don't have sex with ANY of your father's wives (hmm, OK, men can have multiple wives and that's OK...) or both of you will be put to death; no clothing that is not completely one substance -- no synthetics, only pure cotton or pure wool; no tattoos; no cutting of the hair that grows from your temples; no shaving; anyone speaking disrespectfully to their parents should be put to death (that would probably kill off the majority of the population!). And that's just a TINY sample of the rules you would have to follow if you want to keep your bigoted beliefs.

And if you want to use Paul to justify your bigotry, think again. For one, there is much speculation that Paul himself was gay. And even if he was not, he definitely was a human, and thus subject to all the faults and foibles of the rest of us, including bigotry. Also, any EDUCATED reader of the Bible understands that everything in it must be read with a knowledge of the historical context in which it was written. The authors of each book (not God, btw) were writing in a particular time and place, and had the beliefs of that time and place ingrained; thus their writings all have to be understood in context. At the time most of the New Testament was written, homosexual rape was a very common practice for the victors of any battle. Paul's comments were telling those who wished to follow Jesus not to engage in this practice. He wasn't commenting on the rightness of same-sex love. At the time of Paul, it was not known that being gay is inborn, with a strong genetic component. So interpreting anything Paul said about the victorious soldiers' practice of homosexual rape as a condemnation of being homosexual is just plain ignorant.

I resent that. I am not gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Originally posted by

Joshua Sabik

I'd expect this level of thoughtful, hard-hitting writing from a student whose best option was Mississippi State.

If you're criticizing Mississippi State, did you see where this paper originated from. Please be careful of your comments because it's obvious that you do not know that Mississippi State has produced many great individuals. Unfortunately, you are here. How depressing!

Originally posted by

J Mark

Great. So tell me then... just out of curiosity... how do we not stick our homosexuality in your faces? Maybe you can give us some pointers?

I mean you people have restaurants called "Hooters." Should we open one called "Holes?"

Every time I open my eyes in public I see scantily clad women embracing men on TV, on billboards, movies, commercials, bus shelters, magazine covers... Hey.. I see REAL PEOPLE shoving their heterosexuality all the time. Walking around holding hands, wearing wedding rings promoting their life style.

Now... those annoying couples who hold up traffic by driving slowly down the street in those "JUST MARRIED" parades... should we kill them all at once or one at a time? Since you know... they're inviting it?

I think as a whole, percentages are higher of heterosexual males being grossed out by guy-on-guy behavior in public versus homosexual males being grossed out by guy-on-girl behavior.

So because the vast majority engages in heterosexual behavior, suddenly we're the wrong ones for doing that in public? Wow. Gotta love your logic here, J Mark. What is that, like Marky Mark's cousin?