Ok, so I just came across this thread and read it end-to-end. I'm feeling a little exhausted, but it was well worth it.

I think it's a tribute to all of you that this conversation (thread) exists and allows for each of you to express their ideas/thoughts/beliefs.

Don, I am in agreement with everything that you have expressed in this thread. I suspect that there are other's that do as well, but may be reluctant to speak up. I just wanted to say I admire your courage to share your views.

I think gay couples should be able to adopt and/or become foster parents.
I do agree that gay marriage is a separate question, and should not be predicated on the adoption issue (or vice-versa).

Love you all (no conditions implied),
Danny

Daniel, thanks for jumping into this thread and adding your perspective.

It brings up some things I've been thinking about (and if the OP thinks this too far off topic, I'll start another thread on it.)

I'm just going from memory here, but I think the American Psychiatric Association is about to completely eliminate homosexuality, or same sex attraction, as a dis-order in their list of disorders. (and I hope everyone does not read the word disorder as a pejorative; rather if human sexuality is "ordered" to a union of one man and one woman, they every other type of sexual act is "dis-ordered", that's the sense that I'm using it)

I know the APA has spoken about this since 1973, but I just recall reading something about a significant change in their policy going on this summer. If anyone is a member of the APA, maybe they can jump in and clarify.

So it got me thinking about certain religious groups, such as Catholics, who teach that homosexual acts are dis-ordered. (and I don't want to get into a discussion here about Catholic doctrine and what a Catholic ought to do because of that doctrine, I'm just using our religion as an example.)

Now within the Catholic community there are people with same sex attraction who want to live in full accordance with the teachings. In other words, they want to live celibate and chaste lives. And they make this decision out of their own free will. So they turn to groups like Courage, and they seek out therapists who can help them.

Going forward, are groups like Courage, or therapists who advertise that they treat same sex attraction, going to be singled out and accused of hate speech? Will this mean that those members of religious groups who want to completely follow their groups teachings on homosexuality will be left out in the cold?

So I'm wondering if you think groups like Courage have a place within the life of our religious community. And if so, if you think that their existence is threatened because of decisions like the APA's.

Peace.

Welcome and mea culpa.

We like to kick around ideas, not people. If you experience any nastiness, let the moderator know and it will be dealt with swiftly. Don't be shy!

Speaking of kicking around ideas (thanks for the opening), this idea that if the government allows homosexuals to enter into a marriage contract the sanctity of marriage is threatened. Since when is it the government's job to sanctify (or make holy or sacred) a legal partnership/contract? I reject that erroneous premise - and I would think that religious institutions would balk/tremble at the idea that the goverment is getting into the holy business.

It is the various and sundry churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques that "sanctify" a marriage, not the civil authorities after all. If people want to protect what is sanctified, they should do it where the sanctification occurs - in their religious houses. 

I know Don's last post was aimed at Daniel...but I thought this article I read was relevant.  Here is a section of it.  It basically talks of 3 founders of Exodus, a group that tries to "cure" homosexuals. 

Jeremy Marks, former head of Exodus Europe stated,

Perhaps I should take this opportunity first to say how sorry I am, and to ask forgiveness from all my fellow Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Trans-gendered people who might be listening to this—for my part in colluding with the religious right in the Western world. Though at the time we did not see it this way, our collusion involved setting up and maintaining an oppressive anti-gay, and I must also say equally anti-Christian view of homosexuality, that profoundly dishonors Jesus Christ and has betrayed the Gospel.

He then went on to outline more of his own journey of moving past ex-gay ministry into his current role at Courage UK, an LGBT-affirming Christian group in the UK.

Michael Busse, one of the original founders of Exodus shared some of the realities he witnessed during his time at Exodus recounting the good and the bad.

I need to say that some had a positive, life-changing experience attending our Bible studies and support groups. They experienced God’s love and the welcoming fellowship of others who knew the struggle. There were some real “changes”—but not one of the hundreds of people we counseled became straight.

Instead, many of our clients began to fall apart – sinking deeper into patterns of guilt, anxiety and self-loathing. Why weren’t they “changing”? The answers from church leaders made the pain even worse: “You might not be a real Christian.” “You don’t have enough faith.” “You aren’t praying and reading the Bible enough.” “Maybe you have a demon.” The message always seemed to be: “You’re not enough. You’re not trying hard enough. You don’t have enough faith.”

Darlene Bogle gave a moving apology that got a number of people in the audience crying during the press conference. CNN showed some of the footage on the Paula Zahn Show last night.

My heart was in the right place, but my message was not. I apologize to those individuals and families who believed my message that change was necessary to be acceptable to God. In recent years I have seen the resulting damage from rejection, shame, and conditional love. I apologize for my part in presenting a God of conditional love, and ask forgiveness for the message of broken truth I spoke on behalf of Exodus.

 

 

Just a note to clear up a factual matter... homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Assoc in 1973.

OK, got it.

Do you know what changes are going on with APA policy currently.  Again, I'm just going from memory, but I think there is something currently on the table for them around this issue.

Maybe it's time for me to hit Google.  

What was vaguely implied but not at all clear in my post was that we have the occassional troll pop up. They are usually dealt with quite swiftly - but the moderator needs to be alerted in some cases because they just don't see everything.

Thanks for adding that Michael.

I think the group Courage is trying to help people live chaste lives, as defined by church teaching, rather than trying to make them straight. That could mean being celibate. At least that's the sense I get of it.

I don't personally know any members of Courage, but I think the help they offer is similar to the kind of help I've needed over the past few years.

For over two years now, my wife and I have lived in continence, (in the vernacular that would be "as brother and sister" or celibate) due to our previous marriages and divorces. Living in this state is considered a chaste way of living by the Church, and therefore I may fully partake in the sacramental life of the Church.

It would be really difficult for me to do this without a lot of prayer, both my own and that of others, and in particular it would be difficult without the Eucharist . It's not an individual effort, but is a communal effort in a sense.

Yet despite the difficulty, it's maybe the best decision we've ever made for our marriage. Takes a while to get into why that is.

And maybe precisely because of the difficulty, it's allowed us to go deeper into the mystery of what our relationship is about.

So I just hope and pray that Daniel is correct, and that decisions by groups like the APA do not impact on the ability of groups like Courage to continue to offer their services.

fair enough. 

I was not in any way commenting on Courage...I just thought that it was interesting that three of the founders of an ex-gay conversion group, publically appologized.  Oddly enough, the group was having a meeting at my old college (Theres that angry feeling in the pit of my stomach again)  Daniel is correct that many of these groups are not evil, they think they are doing what is best for people.  And it sounds like Courage handles it quite well.  I give all the power to you, for having that much conviction of faith.  I am lucky that my faith encourages sexual energy and does not find it in any form a sin.  (As long as it is Safe, Sane and Concensual). 

Hijack.  On a side note.  There is a great series of mystery novels / TV movies, about a gay detective.  In one of them a man who was going to a group that tries to "straighten" gay and lesbians out was murdered (Make them ex-gays).  The portrayal of the group atmosphere was really well handled.  They were not evil people, and they thought they were doing good.  The detective is an ex army man, who does not want to be known as "the gay detective" but just as a detective.  He just wants to live his life with his partner.  - Donald Strachy Mysteries. 

Nope not even close.  It's not even close to the notion of seperate but equal.  You may think it "sounds" a lot a like that but it isn't even close.  Before you throw out that certainly inflamatory term you might want to read Plessy v. Ferguson and a review of the state of the application of seperate but equal that occurred as a result of that decision. 

What I outlined above is open to all citizens, in deed the problems associated with some of the issues are not simply those of the gay community.  For instance look at the right to die issue in the Terry Shiavo case.  Again a simple medical proxy would have solved that entire issue.  Similarly issues of inheritance are litigated on a daily basis in this country, as are issues of insurance and pension beneficiaries in divorced individuals.

No, I simply was pointing out the fact that the "rights" that many claim are denied to gay couples are not in fact denied to them, they just have to take advantage of the legal requirements that are open to all citizens, i.e. wills, trusts, joint mortgages, insurance beneficiaries, medical proxies.

Yea, I understood that from what you wrote. Just pulled that line out of your post as a way of saying that not all groups are trying to "convert" people.

I understand what you mean here.

I just want to add this, because it is often misunderstood by people outside my faith.

Human sexuality is seen as one of the highest goods by my faith. It is one of the greatest gifts from God.

A lot of people, not you Michael, will pull out one or two lines from someone like Augustine in order to show that Christianity thinks of sex as evil.

But at least within Catholicism it is just the opposite. In fact, Pope John Paul II dedicated a year and a half of his pontificate to teaching what has come to be called The Theology of the Body. As a "theology" JPII means to say that we can come to know the nature of God through our bodies and the gift of our sexuality.

It's really an amazing teaching, and I recommend it especially to Catholics, but also to my Protestant brothers and sisters. A good primer on The Theology of the Body is a book by Christopher West .

It is especially illuminating on the Catholic teaching on contraception. After reading it, a light bulb went on over my head. Suddenly everything made sense. There is an internal consistency to this teaching about human sexuality that I simply haven't found anywhere else.

Your assumption is that marriage confires these rights upon married couples...What about the Terry Schiavo case three years ago?  An example of a hetero sexual married couple and the problems with not having such a document.  Or lets take the individual that wants to leave their estate in a way other than what is set out in the statutory probate scheme.  Without a will that persons intent would be defeated.  Or lets say I was married, I got divorced.  during my marriage my wife, now my ex-wife, was listed as my primary beneficiary.  I, for what ever reason, don't change the beneficiary of that insurance policy.  I get re-married.  Who gets the insurance proceeds when I die?  My ex-wife because she's the listed beneficiarie or my current wife because she's my current wife?  My insurance beneficiarie has nothing to do with my status of being married.  There may be a presumption, but the marriage and my wifes status as my legal partner in this marriage has no bearing on it.  (Although in most states you can't divest your wife from your estate)

ANd your travel to Atlanta hypo isn't accurate.  If I want to draw up a will and leave my estate to someone I draw up a will and follow the State's laws in drawing up a will, a homosexual goes about it the exact same way.  No difference.  If I want to draw up a medical proxy and set out my end of life wishes including what to do if  I'm in a vegatative state and can't speak for myself (think the Shiavo case) I draw up a document according to Florida statute...a homosexual person does the exact same thing.  It's not going to I-75 for one person and I-4 for the other, the trip is exactly the same.

I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. And you're right, it's not the exact same thing. But in my mind, the concept is similar. You (not you specifically) deny someone equal right to something and then say, "but look! There are all these other options that give you the same result!" But as Renee pointed out with the driving metaphor, it's not the same, and it's not equal. It's a time-consuming, expensive, and stressful process that could be eliminated by a simple law allowing two men or two women to enter into a marriage contract. If you (specifically) had the options of spending a lot of time, money, and effort to do something, and going down to city hall to sign a piece of paper, which would you choose? If you had access to only the former, wouldn't that bother you?

You say that these rights aren't denied to gay people, but the fundamental (civil) right we're talking about here is marriage (with the person of their choice). And that is denied to them.

Yes, this is true in the general case. If I wanted to leave stuff to my sister, I'd have to specify that in a will. True enough. But if I were to get married, wouldn't my estate automatically pass to my spouse without the need of a will? Same with medical proxies. If I wanted my sister to make all my decisions should I be incapacitated, I'd have to draw that up legally. But in a marriage the spouse is automatically given that power, correct?

I've posted this before... the US General Accounting Office identied 1,049 laws affecting married couples. One thousand forty nine. This does not begin to address state laws affecting married couples. Or how these laws affect private industry (recognition of rights to insurance benefits, 401k benefits, etc).

Throwing out red herrings like Terry Schiavo - where the wishes of her husband were ultimately held to legally trump the wishes of her parents - does not at all negate the simple fact that I can enter into a marriage contract, and enjoy all the legal benefits and obligations, simply by saying "I do" while homosexuals cannot do likewise.

I don't know, ask Terry Schiavo's husband?  Ask Anna Nicole Smith?  That presumption can also work to defeat a persons intent:  For instance, a person gets married, has kids, first wife dies, he gets re-married, dies, doesn't have a will.  His children are now grown adults and have children of their own.  Who gets the money?  Do his kids get anything or does the second wife get everything?  Do the grand kids get anything?

Some of these things are the major issues...What happens when I die...who gets my stuff...but it goes even a little deeper.  I am very happy that I live in a diverse area.  My SO recently had to be admitted to the hospital.  He had some internal bleeding and they were not sure what was causing it.  I was at the hospital very late, way past visiting hours.  Every room he went into, for tests and waiting.  Rickey, was very scared, uncomfortable and angry that he was there (he knew what was causing it and knew it was not life threatening it, but that is a whole different story).  I was invited by the medical staff to go everywhere he went.  Even when they did the ultra sound (It's an alien boy...damn those probes). They knew I was his life partner.  My aunt is a nurse in MO. I have heard from her that they would not have allowed that.  I would not be concidered family in the small county she lives in.  I have been with this man for 11 years, through thick and thin, sickness and health.  I am more married to this person than many people are married to their spouse of opposit sex.  But I would be denied the same privilege that a married couple would have been granted.  Yes, I could go and be named as a medical proxy, to make sure that in the future the same thing happens.  But I shouldn't have to. 

with all due respect for your education and profession, ASA, you have no idea what a pain and expense all of those things are, what they cost, and how humiliating it is to have to explain, re explain, carry documents etc at every turn. Whatever, I understand what you are trying to say, that everyone should get their papers in order, and yes they should, but refer to Renee's thread about all of the things that automatically happen for legally married people.

In our case, I do get DP benefits through my partner's job. Great. But because we are not legally married, the federal gov't taxes the heck out of it since it is viewed as extra compensation, it cannot work the same way no matter how progressive or inclusive an individual company wants to be.

All kinds of red herrings on both sides (Schiavo, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney's overnight marriage etc.) do nothing for either argument.  Maybe life isnt  meant to be fair, that's fine, I can live with that, but please, do not tell me that in this country, it is.

Exactly.

Look Renee I'm not disagreeing with you.  You set out the argument very artfully.  What I have a problem with and was trying to convey is to counter those that aren't as artful or as truthful as you in their arguments.  Those people argue that these "rights" are denied to homosexual couples.  (I leave for another day whether these are actual rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government).  I see your argument differently than that. 

There are those that seek to mislead by purposefully or negligently make assertions about what homosexual couples can and cannot do.  There are those that have asserted that homosexual couples are "denied the right" relating to inheritance, property distribution ect.  It simply isn't true, they are not denied those rights, they simply have to exercise the right.  That's what I was trying to convey.  And it's a subtle but important distinction in the argument.  It's one of those cases where the misperception is repeated so often, that the misperception then becomes the general populaces view of reality.

Additionally, the Shiavo case isn't a red herring as you put it.  Everyday in this country, court houses are filled with probate issues and issues relating to end of life concerns.  The Schiavo case is an exception only because it was highly publisized.  So don't dismiss it so out of hand.  I bet you could walk to the Hillsborough courthouse this afternoon, check the civil docket and find 20 probate cases, all involving traditional marriages.  Not to mention the ruling wasn't that the wishes of the husband trumped the wishes of the parents the ruling was that the wishes of Terry as expressed to her husband should be followed.