1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?No. No, I don't. The right to express opinions, whether wrong or right, apply to everyone. I don't care if a person believes that the earth is flat. It's of no concern to me if a group of people believe that humans reproduce through storks. The right to share beliefs applies to everyone.
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality -- names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?No, Mission: America, I don't. I understand that there are misguided people out there who don't understand how homosexuality works. Objecting to a particular lifestyle does not, in my mind, make one a bigot. What does make a person a bigot is actively working to deny people the exact same rights that you enjoy. This next part is particularly important. If you deny people rights that don't even remotely affect you, or the people around you, you are absolutely a bigot. Similar to how people are diagnosed with mental illness, bigotry isn't truly bigotry until you act on your issue. If a person has a desire to rub his or her genitals on a person, he or she might have frotteuristic tendencies, but won't be diagnoses a with frotteruism until the desires are acted upon. Similarly, you're welcome to have bigoted tendencies, if you don't act on them, I don't take issue with you.
3.Do you believe "gays" have been deprived the right to marry? Doesn't pretty much everyone have the right to marry now -- to a person of the opposite sex?Technically, you're right. Homosexual people do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. But, why would they? Would you, a heterosexual, marry a person of the opposite sex who you find completely unattractive? If you found their personality repulsive and their appearance unpleasant, would you marry them? My question to this is as follows: How would you feel about your question being phrased like, "Do you believe "people attracted to different races" have been deprive the right to marry? Doesn't pretty much everyone have the right to marry now -- to a person of the same race? Let's not forget that the exact same book you use to justify "traditional" marriage was used to justify the denial of interracial marriage less than one hundred years ago.
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?This one I'm going to have to break apart, because it asks multiple questions, each one deserving of an answer. Do I believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? I understand that research by Schachter and Singer has been performed to show that people can experience fear and assume it means sexual arousal. Additionally, further research has been done that shows that those who report negative affect towards homosexuality showed higher sexual arousal when exposed to homoerotic stimuli. So, yes. Those who object to homosexuality have a good chance of being motivated by fear and ignorance. Fear of being homosexuality and ignorance and/or denial of their own sexual orientation. Now, might they be motivated by compassion? Yeah, sure, they might be, but the research shows they're motivated by them misattributing their sexual arousal. My question in response is as follows: Do you care about research?
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there's a set percentage of the population that will always be 'gay', and that this won't increase, even if a culture embraces 'gay' sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become 'chic' and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?First, I have to point out how annoying it is that you ask multiple questions under the heading of one question. Do I believe some people will just naturally be gay? Yes. There have been example of homosexuality throughout history. There are non-human animals who are homosexual. There are mountains of research that shows that brain structures that control attraction and arousal are different between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This lends credibility to the idea that some people are "inevitably" homosexual. Do I believe that the number of homosexuals will increase even if a culture embraces them? No, of course not. I want you to show me research that indicates that acceptance of homosexuals increases their population. Keep in mind, that you have to show that acceptance of homosexuals causes an increase in their population, rather than the amount of people who stop hiding it out of fear of people like you.
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe that you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?No. I'm open to my opinion changing if facts contradict my understanding of the world. I do consider myself well-informed, because I've spent the better part of three years studying the research performed on this very topic. As far as what homosexuals "actually do," I'm now curious about how it's any different than what we heterosexuals do. Do you believe they love their partner more than you? That would be a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Do you believe they influence the children they raise to be homosexual? If so, I implore you to find some research that supports that idea and show me. As far as risks, I'm curious about what risks you specifically mean. Do you mean an increase in STDs? It's curious that there is a direct correlation between devoutness of religious belief and the number of STDs such that as devoutness goes up, so does the number of STDs. The same can be said for teenage pregnancy.
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?To the first question, I have to say not necessarily. There are many factors that can lead to suicide. If a person of color is bullied repeatedly for months or years on end for his or her color, then commits suicide, who is at blame? If a person who is blind is picked on for his or her blindness for years on end, who is to blame if that person commits suicide? You might say that it's the fault of the person who commits suicide. I agree, to a small degree. Everyone holds their lives in their own hands, but if a person is repeatedly told that they're a disgusting, abominable, immoral creature, what more do they have to live for? You might say, "The glory of Jesus, of course!" You have to remember, however, that there's no reason to believe that your god or Jesus even exist.
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundred of groups started by ex-'gays" and the thousands who live in America?I don't dismiss them automatically. What I do is consider the likelihood that a heterosexual individual could be conditioned to be gay. It's highly unlikely, according to research. I also would implore these people who claim to have once been homosexual to undergo the same research I mentioned above. I would love to see how they reacted to homoerotic stimuli and compare it to their past sexual lives. That might shed some light on these people.
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?I do believe that homosexuals are born that way. I believe it because of the mountains of research that back that claim up. I would consider the research against that claim if any legitimate, peer-reviewed research existed. Please present it. I have looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction. There isn't a legitimate claim. If there is, please present it. I have some follow-up questions. Have you ever requested the arrest and prosecution of a Catholic priest, or any child molester for that matter, for homosexually molesting a child? If not, why? If so, I'd love to see documentation of this activity.
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the 'correct' way? Do you feel it isn't necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it's impossible to be "kind" and oppose homosexuality?No, I don't believe they have interpreted the Bible passages that condemn homosexuality in a "straightforward" way correctly. I also doubt you interpret the Bible passages that condemn men looking lustfully at at a woman as worthy as plucking his own eye out, even though it states that straightforwardly. I think a person can be kind and oppose homosexuality, so long as that person doesn't actively work to impede the happiness at others, particularly when that happiness does not affect the one who opposes in any way. Now, I have to wonder if you, in a straightforward fashion, interpret the passages in the Bible that plainly state that a seven-headed beast will rise from the sea. If your answer is that the seven-headed beast is symbolic, I'd like to see rationale for that. Then, I'd like to see rationale for believing that the straightforward language condemning homosexuality is not symbolic while the seven-headed beast is.
11. Are you quick to say, "Judge not, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all while being very judgmental yourself?Sure, I've pointed it out. Has Mission: America ever said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell," without considering the Christian theology behind it? Sure, you might say that Jesus commanded it, and that makes it morally sound. Does it? How did you mean your husband or wife? I put it to you that no marriage, outside arranged marriages, would have ever happened had someone not looked on another lustfully. It's a fundamental part of our biology to be sexually attracted to others. The bible got it wrong, here. Who are you to say it's not wrong in other places?
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there is such a thing as 'sin' and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn't Christ's death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a "Christian"?If Jesus existed, and the bible is correct, I believe that his love of the woman at the well speaks volumes about what he would have accepted. This woman was an outcast and a sinner, yet he loved her for her flaws. Yes. Jesus would have accepted homosexuals. Apparently, Jesus is not cool with people doing whatever. He ordered people to pull their eyes out for being turned on! I don't believe in "sin," but I do believe in immorality, which is defined as that which we ought not to do. I define immorality for myself, yes. I define it through an understanding of reality, not an assertion of authority. I don't have need of a savior, because there is nothing to be saved from. "Sin" is a uniquely religious invention designed to control people like you, Mission: America. Christ may have lived and died, but I'd love to see evidence that he was resurrected. It's because of all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs that I'm proud to call myself "not a Christian."
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all 'gay' people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?No. Do you believe that all gay people are guilty sinners or that all conservatives must be nice and smart?
14. Do you close your ears and figure it's a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?No, of course not. That can easily be explained by the fact that unprotected anal sex is more likely to result in HIV infection than unprotected vaginal sex. What about lesbian sex? What's your objection there?
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically "hateful," while you seethe with hate yourself?No. I try to explain the facts to them. What's your excuse?
16. Do you believe it's okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents "ignorant" and accuse them of "censorship"?Your question is loaded. The average person doesn't have sex until around sixteen. The issue is that people become interested in sex around puberty, which can start before age thirteen. I don't believe it is my place to tell anyone who they can have sex with or when they can. Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged that schools aren't educating their children about the facts of sexual activity? You probably say that it's up to the parents to educate children about sex. Maybe so. How do you account for the fact that when abstinence education was implemented, STD rates and teen pregnancy rates skyrocketed? It's almost as if people have sex even when they're told not to! Wouldn't it make more sense to present the facts to children? Maybe, just maybe, if we told them that if they're going to have sex (whether gay buttsex or, in your eyes, "normal" sex) condoms reduce STD and pregnancy rates. You know, educating people about proper firearm cleaning and safety doesn't lead to a higher rate of accidental gun deaths. Consider that.
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the 'real' truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?Let me answer your questions with a series of questions. So what if "several thousand years" of cultural prohibition of homosexuality happened? That's a blink of an eye to the amount of time that species have participated in homosexuality. Do you believe it's not arrogant, narrow, or immature to believe that you, with your severe lack of insight into human sexuality so quickly discount a large portion of it? Wait, I doubt you understand evolution. Do look that up, then come back with evidence disproving it, collect your Nobel prize, and then argue it with me
18. Do you believe that 'gays' are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don't support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about how overall civil liberties if trumped- up charges of so- called "hate speech" were used to silence people?I understand that all minorities are the target of violence that does go unpunished in the U.S. I understand that hate crimes might, just maybe, be committed by hate groups with the power to evade persecution. Would I be unconcerned about how overall civil liberties if trumped-up charges of so-called "hate speech" were used to silence people? I'd be concerned if anyone had a claim of being the victim of unfounded hate, like black people during Dr. King's era. Would you stand up for someone, regardless of his or her sexual orientation if he or she were subject to violence or discrimination because of sexual orientation?
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?I'm assuming that "a behavior" means homosexual behavior. I am absolutely concerned that conservatives are making a big deal out of homosexual behavior. There is not any evidence to support that homosexuality is harmful to individuals, families, communities, or societies. You go on to ask about the health issues like STDs. As said earlier, STDs and teen pregnancy rates increase as religiosity does. Are you not concerned that as a strength in Christianity increases, so does the number of STDs and teen pregnancy within a community and society? It's almost as if your belief causes the same problems it claims to want to combat... Strange, no?
20. And--very big question: Is your need for other people's approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worth cause, to speak up and inform family, friends--and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?No, my need for approval is far less than my appreciation of truth. My speaking against you goes against an unpopular belief, Mission: America. You refuse to take a viewpoint that is, for now, unpopular because you fear change. I sincerely doubt that you were once a person who understood equality but changed your mind. If evidence surfaced that showed that homosexuality was immoral, harmful to society, or any of the other claims you make, I would gladly switch sides. If you have it, please present it.
And remember, you might be a born again child of some god, but not all of us need to be born again. Some of us grow up the first time.
