Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Disney Smear

Derick:

You have totally made my day with that post!

Nina

PS: He's right, you know

Actually Derick, I could have retired at 42, I just wanted more money, so I'm hanging in there 'till 52. :p

As to "domestic partner" benefits, a corporation is free to do as it wishes. I personally would not do it, if I owned the company, because I am not a proponent of gay marriage(although I have stated that a legal contract of some kind may be appropriate).

TomK,
I respect your opinion. I look at my children and they are great kids and know I do my best. Which is all I ask of them. I've taught my kids to do their best, they don't have to be the best but if they are the best then that's a gift from God. I do my best with the cards God dealt me. My children are very spiritually and emotionally sound. The youngest is questioning his sexuality. What do you expect? He's been called "gay" all his life even in elementary school. He's been beat up on his way home from school. And still he's the most loving and compassionate individual I know. Then after twenty years of marriage his parents get divorced. Do you think I wanted to get divorced? I thought I was happily married for twenty years. My kids were (pride cometh before the fall) proud that their parents were still married. We seemed to most people "the perfect family." I volunteered for Little League, Boy Scouts, Sunday School and at the library. My ex-husband was a nice guy. He was loyal and loving. And honest except when it came to his sexuality. My kids and I have gone thru some very traumatic events. And whether it's a sin or not, if my son turns out to be gay (which I pray he's not) I'm going to love him anyway. I'll grieve and I'll hurt for him. And I'll know that that boy is filled with more love than most people have in their little finger.
I asked the question about "gay day" out of curiousity. It's easy to say you'd do things a certain way and be righteous, until something really testing comes along.
Peggy

My Friends Meeting has been taking gay and lesbian marriages under its care since 1987, so it's no big deal to us. My question is whether heterosexual "marriages" are any business of the state? Yes, the kids have to be cared for; yes, there have to be ways to divide the goodies; yes, there has to be someone to sign the DNR order. All of these could easily be taken care of through civil union. But why do we have to build a social order in recognizing chattel relationships?

If "marriage" is a sacrament, let it be that, and keep it out of the civil sphere. "Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's, and keep our husbands and wives as far away from him as possible!"

Then are we defining deviancy downward?

Can mental gymnastics overcome any divide between right and wrong?

Does rationalization triumph over millenia of religous thought?

You are correct here. Interestingly Conservative Alberta was one of, if not the first province, to extend civil benefits to gay couples. It was not through altruism or social awareness though. It was on account of Supreme Court of Canada ruling forcing the Alberta G'ovt to extend spousal death benefits to the long time partner of a deceased gay provincial employee.

Derick:

Great post- a classic if I might say so. But I don't think that all of N.A. would want to become gay owing to some piece of Canadian social legislation. Nevertheless I'm sure some CEO's will want to exploit the productivity of gays and incorporate it into their hiring practices. Greed and money are great levellers n'est ce pas?

Cogito ergo sum. Its been the trend for the last 250 years. Its the basis of all modern science.

Derick, stupendous post. A "save" for me. But are you sure you didn't read that the corporations are extending "same-sex" benefits only to their new Indian and other overseas employees? Soon that may the majority...

What is deviant about one person loving another person, committing him/herself to that other person for a life time and expressing that love physically, emotionally, psychologically and materially?

I do not see the love between any two consenting adults as deviant.

What I do see as deviant in our modern day societies it is a fascination and addiction we have developed for sensational visual violence- whether for entertainment or informative purposes.
This violence if anything does more to erode the social fabric of the family than any gay union.

I am assuming that by "one person loving another person" we are referring to consenting adults.

de·vi·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

WWW.DICTIONARY.COM

My question is:
Is being gay evil? I don't think so.

Jolly,

There's nothing inherently evil about wanting more money. The evil part steps in when it turns into greed that tramples the powerless.

Doesn't it make one pause when "Greed" is among the seven deadly sins, but "Homosexuality" is not. Before anyone says it, I know someone is going to lump homosexuality under "Lust" but... The only way homosexuality could possibly be lumped in under this sin would be if people were having indiscriminant sex with both men and women. And all the gays I know are "exclusive" homosexuals. However, I have known one or two individuals who lable themselves as heterosexual to occassionally "cross the fence". The bottom line is that "Lust" must be taken as a "stand alone" sin. We all know people who spend most of their lives trying to, or actually having sex, with as many people as possible; this type of behavor is not the exclusive domain of either sexual orientation.

You are a thrifty man Jolly, and that is commendable. But you will never own a major corporation. And you want to know one reason why you will never own a major corporation? Because you won't offer domestic partner benefits!
You gotta be competitive in today's market place and you have to pull out all stops to attract top talent. Sorry, no corporation for you. Your a man of fortitude and will not give in. Fortitude, one of the seven heavenly virtues; there's just no room for it in today's corporate America.

Thanks Nina. I hope everyone that reads the post will realize that there is a lot of seriousness, and, food for thought, buried between all the wise-cracks.

Jodi, did you notice that not only did I work in the most evil, three digit character string known to mankind (CEO), I also worked in my favorite three digit acronym; BMW. I purposely left out IBM because they are being investigated by the SEC.

Renauda & Ariel . BTW, there are no gays in India, it's not permitted. Besides, the savings corporations accrue from firing tens of thousands of Americans and hiring Indians is what's really going to make the stockholders smile.

Derick

Hang in there Peggy. You are doing great.

Sorry guys - I think it is more important to have a heart guided by love than a bible verse. God speaks in many ways.

I suppose the issue that divides many on this topic is how the social standard relating to people falling in love and expressing that love is defined.

I would define the social standard as people falling in love, moving towards a committed and covenanted relationship and then living it. It seems to me this has been the norm and the standard for intimate human relations throughout much of human history since the establishment of the Common Era.

Others, of course, would add criteria to this standard -- specifically the way in which two people express their love physically and a determination as to whom they can fall in love with based on gender. Adding these criteria, of course, begs the question of how one is supposed to control natural impulses. But there are those who want to incorporate these criteria in their definition of what is the standard and what is the norm.

As to gay being evil? Well, at one time, being left handed was a sign that one was a witch. We moved past that one. We will move past this one as well.

No, just homosexual ones, on the same basis we do not recognize multiple partner marriages from countries that allow it.

First let me state that this post is from a bogus persona. I have been a very active member of the Piano World forums for quite some time. I have always shied away from posting anything when this subject comes up, because I am a gay man. What seems unfortunate is that nearly all of the posts on this subject are from the point of view of people who are unabashedly heterosexual. So, I am offering here a bit of counterpoint to what I consider a rather slanted viewpoint.

There are several points that I would like to address here. First, of course, is the societal acceptance of homosexuals. Obviously, if I felt the climate here was one of tolerance for people like me, I would not feel compelled to post under a pseudonym. It is not that I am ashamed of who I am, but that my sexual identity is only a small component of what makes me who I am. To be defined by my sexuality is just as meaningless to me as being defined by my hair color. Yet, society insists on doing this to us, and in so doing ignores many much more important aspects of our personalities.

Societal, as opposed to legal, acceptance of homosexuality is probably a pipe dream. Most likely the best we can hope for is a sort of equanimity about it, where it is viewed less as immorality or a character flaw than an idiosyncrasy. Until such time, though, thousands upon thousands of homosexuals will continue to practice self-deception in hopes that they can overcome being homosexual. They will lead lives of hypocrisy and deception, hiding their sexual nature from, in extreme cases, even themselves. But what effect does this self-deception have on society?

Let's take the example given in a previous post in this thread. A seemingly average family is torn apart because one spouse can no longer bear the pain of living a life that is based on deception. This, tragically, leads to additional pain for the rest of the family, and that pain and confusion ripples out into manifestations that are detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of those only remotely involved.

Would it not be better to have a social environment where that first person would not have felt compelled to deny his own feelings? Would that not in turn help prevent such family crises? If the social stigma of being a homosexual were lessened, wouldn't that lead to a lesser rate of troubled family situations like this?

Secondly, I would like to take on the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality. As a principle of Christian love, this is the ideal. But how many of us are truly capable of living this ideal? To put this in practical terms, let's build a not-so-hypothetical situation. Let's say that the married pastor of a denomination with a stated moral abhorrence of homosexual acts finally goes public and declares that he has always been a homosexual, whose sexual thoughts had always been for other men. Yet, he says, he will continue to stay with his wife and will not act on his homosexuality. How long would it take before this minister was banished from the congregation, whether formally or just socially? This is where the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" becomes mere lip service, because if the minister had kept up the outward appearance of not being homosexual, he would not be rebuked, and nobody would be the wiser. Yet the reality of the situation would remain unchanged. For it is far easier, to say nothing of comforting, to espouse hate only for the sin, while in reality one despises the sinner.

Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that homosexuality itself is not a sin, but that homosexual acts are. This is a fine rationalization that denies one of the essential qualities of being human. If the tables were turned, and heterosexual acts were to be shunned, would you truly have the fortitude to permanently abstain from sexual contact? Few, if any of us, can answer this question sincerely.
Finally, let's examine the idea that the moral authority for suppression of homosexuality rests in received religious text. It strikes me as the pinnacle of moral arrogance to presume that one's interpretation of texts that have been sloppily copied, poorly translated and deliberately altered over the course of millenia is somehow infallible. For those of you who believe in an omniscient but loving Creator, are you prepared for being judged on this conceit? Are you willing to stake your very soul on attempting to interpret the supreme will of God? Strength of conviction is often something to be commended, but in the end, do you believe there's a shopping list of infractions for which points will be deducted at the final reckoning, or do you believe that humility, love for one's fellow man, and gentleness of spirit will be more highly valued?

Multiple partner marriages are not recognized because of bigamy laws that have as much to do tax law as with civil contract and family law. What if a married gay couple with legally adopted children from Canada move to the US on a green card for work purposes? Is their legal status suddenly null and void? If they were to divorce how would their joint property be divided? What about custody of children? The couple is after all, legally married.

"Oscar",

Beautiful post.

I wish you could feel comfortable posting under your real (or at least usual) PW name, but I quite agree that it would be a bad idea.

Hopefully some of those reading your message will think briefly about what it must be like to live permanently feeling that a vital (though not necessarily pivotal) part of your identity has to be hidden. To have to pretend to be other than you are, at least to many (and for some even to oneself), and to feel shame, for no reason under your control.

That's why so many gay adolescents commit suicide, as one earlier poster remarked, not so much killing themselves as stopping being gay the only way they know how.

Ariel

Oscar,

Take a bow.

None of the gay haters will touch that post with a 10 foot pole.

Derick