You say this:
Overall I'm pretty mellow.
But you preface that with this:
(ostrasizing works pretty well, some people just don't get the point though and require the use of Louisville Sluggers, one beat down teaches a lot of people though).
Are you seriously advocating the use of Louisville Sluggers if mere ostracism doesn't do what you would consider to be an adequate job of discouraging public displays of affection between homosexuals?
Please, say "no".
The only reason my "rules" effect homosexuals at all is that there's a bunch of them that trample all over these rules at every gay pride march.
I have to take your word for it that what goes on in public during "gay pride" marches is beyond the bounds of acceptable public behavior, because I've never watched a "gay pride" parade. Assuming you are correct, we agree that they are getting away with public behavior that would be equally unacceptable in heterosexuals.
But I have come to realize that some heterosexuals object to behavior in homosexuals that would be perfectly acceptable in heterosexuals, i.e., the placing of a photograph of a loved one on one's desk at the workplace, for example. For some, that's way more "gay pride" than they're willing to tolerate. Like you say, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
I belong to a church where the theology clearly teaches that homosexual behavior leads to an eternal loss of blessings and chance for progression. I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. But I believe that it is even more morally wrong to deny the freedom of choice to other individuals. You can preach, teach and exhort your fellow man to righteous works all the day long, and proclaim that God will discriminate between homo- and heterosexuals in the afterlife because he has prohibited such behavior here, but to carry out that discrimination is God's job, in the afterlife, and not ours. To give government that power in this life is for government to usurp God's authority. At least, that's the way I see it.
Wouldn't it be cool to turn on your TV find out their covering the latest gay pride march and see nothing but well dressed men and women behaving in a civilized fashion?
Yup, it would.
No of course not. Affection isn't on my gripe list (at least as long as that affect is not displayed in a way that would garner a PG-13 or worse if it were in a movie... like serious tonsil hockey, gay or straight that's got no business occuring in public), those that are keeping their public displays of affection (PDAs as my old McDs boss called them) strictly G or PG don't even need to be ostrisized. But if things are getting hot and heavy, and kids might stumble upon this activity people need to get a room, I don't care if they're gay or straight, sex-ed shouldn't happen on Broadway; if they won't get a room the situation will have to be judged individually. Now if somebody tried to hand a small child that was in my protection an R rated candy the kid gloves come off. If you want to give your kid smutty candy in your house it's your problem, my kid on the streets I have a duty to protect them.
I have to take your word for it that what goes on in public during "gay pride" marches is beyond the bounds of acceptable public behavior, because I've never watched a "gay pride" parade. Assuming you are correct, we agree that they are getting away with public behavior that would be equally unacceptable in heterosexuals.
I'm sure the majority of the marchers are perfectly A-OK. But they never seem to get any camera time. I'll never forget the first time I saw Stonewall coverage on the nightly news, I was at a fairly tender age and the stuff I saw led to a lot of explaining by my mother. That's just not right.
But I have come to realize that some heterosexuals object to behavior in homosexuals that would be perfectly acceptable in heterosexuals, i.e., the placing of a photograph of a loved one on one's desk at the workplace, for example. For some, that's way more "gay pride" than they're willing to tolerate. Like you say, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
You mean the whack jobs. Yeah, I seriously wonder about them. I think when the topic comes up you can see a lot of a person's hidden desires in what they object to. Clearly it's not against some rule for men to have pictures of men in their office; fathers, brothers, sons, childhood best friends they're all fine in everybody's book. Oh but if the person displaying the picture and the person in the picture ever fornicated it's only OK if they're of opposite genders?! That's so bogus. I've always wondered: what if one of my ex's had a sex change operation long after we split up but we stayed friends, would it be OK for me to have his picture? It's fun to throw these kind of questions at that kind of person, the react a lot like the robots in Star Trek.
I belong to a church where the theology clearly teaches that homosexual behavior leads to an eternal loss of blessings and chance for progression. I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. But I believe that it is even more morally wrong to deny the freedom of choice to other individuals. You can preach, teach and exhort your fellow man to righteous works all the day long, and proclaim that God will discriminate between homo- and heterosexuals in the afterlife because he has prohibited such behavior here, but to carry out that discrimination is God's job, in the afterlife, and not ours. To give government that power in this life is for government to usurp God's authority. At least, that's the way I see it.
Hate the sin love the sinner. It's harder than most people think, sounds like you're doing a pretty good job. One way or the other never get the government involved. Societal standards are best defended by the society not by it's government. Societies greatest defenses are ostrisizing and banishment, a lot of bad behavior can be corrected just by those. Problems arise when the societal standard changes but nobody remembered to change the law. A co-worker of mine used a great tool to teach his nephes to pick up after themselves. If they left stuff lieing around he'd call them back in the room, when they got there he'd point at he trash and stare them in the eyes. Doesn't sound like much but it's amazingly effective. Society has very similar tool built right into it.
Yup, it would.
Who'd a thunk OWK could be a peace maker.