Homosexuality

[RicMisc]

Homosexuality, a term that usually stirs things up quite a bit. I personally think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. I think it to be as normal as heterosexuality. Someone doesn't choose the gender one is attracted to. I know a lot of people have different opinion about this and I know that even within Western Civilization it is quite a difficult topic.

In The Netherlands we have had gay marriage since 2001 and were one of the first in the world to legalize that and I think it's ridiculous that there are countries that don't allow gay couples to get married. They are just two people in love, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.

I was raised to be very accepting of homosexuality which has led to my current views. I have first hand experience with homosexuality because my grandma is lesbian and has been since a few years before I was born. She was previously married to my grandpa (obviously) but after the divorce she had several relationships with women. And right now she's been married for about six years if I'm correct.

So, what this all comes down to. I am very accepting of homosexuality and think that it shouldn't even be a point of discussion wether they should be able to get married. And I think it's horrible that there are openly gay people everywhere that are mistreated because of their sexuality. How do you guys feel about homosexuality and gay marriage?

[Delta40]

I don't have a problem with it and personally, don't see why the homosexual community cannot have the same institutional right to marriage instead of civil ceremonies. Our Prime Minister recently gave a speech that legalisation of gay marriage would be an inevitable and an historical turning point in Australia but she wasn't going to be that person! How weak is that?

[OrphanPip]

I think some of this might verge on contemporary politics.

[Jack of Hearts]

I think some of this might verge on contemporary politics.

It's funny because verge is latin for penis.






J

[MANICHAEAN]

Which your avatar does not show!

[Darcy88]

Its not so much that I'm pro-homosexuality as I am anti-homophobe. I have people inquiring about my sexuality so much its just something I've gotten used to. My best friend for years was female, I am not afraid of the colour pink, I sometimes dress very metrosexually (though not anymore) and I am really nice. Also I am usually single. People see a decent looking single guy who never hits on women and they think GAY!

I don't focus on the gay marriage debate at all, but I am really a rabid opponent of any discrimination against the LGBT community. With youths hanging themselves left and right I wish there was more actual attention paid to this cause. The media does a good job but what is said in the media does not always change hearts and minds.

With more celebrities coming out recently it is becoming less and less taboo. People who call America down as a draconian neo-conservative state need to open their eyes and thank God that, unlike some places in Africa, to be gay in America (and the western world at large) is not a crime. Homophobia used to be so prevalent and potent that it was an actual crime for two members of the same sex to be together in that way.

Anyone who is gay and getting insulted by a homophobe needs to remind the homophobe that Alexander the Great and Socrates were both bisexual if not all out queer. The homophobe might not even know who Socrates is, but someone within earshot will. The greatest warrior and arguably greatest man of knowledge in all Western history (again arguably) both committed sexual acts with members of the same sex.

Caring about what sexuality someone else is really amounts to a lowly thing, not dignified, an uncalled for invasion of that person's privacy.

Homophobes need to imagine a hypothetical world wherein they (the heterosexuals) are the minority. Putting themselves in the shoes of the other might get them to understand how their words and actions affect said minority.

[cacian]

Hi RicMisc nice to see you back :)
I think it is none of anyone's business what people do behind closed doors.
I think sexuality is private and one can do whatever they wish with theirs so long as they are not impacting on anyone od hurting anyone.
It is about time the world grew a pair and let everyone be the way they want.
I personally cannot get into this stare of mind someoene who thinks the world owed up living get off thinking they can dictate to others how to ''sexually''be.
In this modern age people claim to be civilised and yet their sexual attitudes is borderline dark agy.
I think we should learn to live with each other and view each other as people and not sexual beings. The quicker we get that into our heads the quicker we begin to make sense of who we are what we want and get on.
OH and I would gladly erase all labelling of sexual nature. I think it is the most backward dated concept ever to be made. I personally find it offensive when someone asks me what it is that I am. So yeah erase the whole attiture. If they really wanted to know they can well do the work themselves.
In other words if one likes someone then one goes with who they are and not what they are.
In the meantime I ain't telling or whatever :sleep::wink5:
Enough said.

[Monamy]

I think it is none of anyone's business what people do behind closed doors.
I think sexuality is private and one can do whatever they wish with theirs so long as they are not impacting on anyone od hurting anyone.
It is about time the world grew a pair and let everyone be the way they want.
I personally cannot get into this stare of mind someoene who thinks the world owed up living get off thinking they can dictate to others how to ''sexually''be.
In this modern age where people claim to be civilised and yet their sexual attitudes is borderline dark agy.

Although my views about the issue are more strict (for reasons I see convincing,) I mostly agree with these points.

[Babyguile]

I think it is none of anyone's business what people do behind closed doors.
I think sexuality is private and one can do whatever they wish with theirs so long as they are not impacting on anyone od hurting anyone.

How is sexuality a private matter? Sexuality has never been so prevalent in all areas of our culture, and the sexuality that gets shoved down people's throats whenever we turn on the music channel or go to see a movie is always of the heterosexual kind.

So try and look at it from a homosexual person's point of view. It sounds like what you're saying is you can tolerate homosexuality on the condition it is "done" indoors and away from your eyes. How will society ever move towards acceptance and equality is that is the case?

Is heterosexuality kept indoors? Discrimination is borne out of a lack of understanding. People often think of homosexuality as merely a form of having sex when actually it's a legitimate form of love (and deserves respect for that reason). Do we not need to get homosexuality OUT THERE so that people can understand this?

Also you say that homosexuality should not 'impact' on anyone. Can you elaborate? Just like heterosexuality doesn't impact us on a daily basis (whether we like it or not)? Because homosexuality is inherently harmful in some way? Again, if you can, look at this issue through the eyes and perceptions of a homosexual person. This is all I am doing here since I have had very little experience with an openly gay person.

[cacian]

How is sexuality a private matter? Sexuality has never been so prevalent in all areas of our culture, and the sexuality that gets shoved down people's throats whenever we turn on the music channel or go to see a movie is always of the heterosexual kind.

Please do not misunderstand what I am trying to say.
I am pointing out a fact that sexuality is down to the individual and only themselves. I wish to live in a society where sexuality is not being made a scapegoat and where people are paraded as sexual beings rather then human beings.
I prefer it if people interacted with each other without being made to feel guilty about who they are sexually. when I go out for example and socialise I do not judge poeple by their sexuality but see them as me another human being wishing to interact and chat without having to raise the subject of sexuality. It is in that very sense private and nothing to do with me.
I prefer to spend my time talking and getting to know people rather trying to outguess whether they are straight gay or both or any. It is not something I take interest in , it is nothing to do with me and frankly I have better things to do and then spend my time talking about sexual orientation. It is rather off putting and stigmatising.
I am more interested in what individuals are and have to say and are and would like to be considered in the same way.

So try and look at it from a homosexual person's point of view. It sounds like what you're saying is you can tolerate homosexuality on the condition it is "done" indoors and away from your eyes. How will society ever move towards acceptance and equality is that is the case?
I am sorry but this is not what I mean.
What I have said is I do not wish for people to know what I do behind closed door because it is between me and me and partner.
In the same way I wish not to know what people closed doors too because it is not important to me to know. Sexuality is private and therefore must be kept that way. Sexuality is not politics and does not help me in any way shape or form in my daily life.

Is heterosexuality kept indoors? Discrimination is borne out of a lack of understanding. People often think of homosexuality as merely a form of having sex when actually it's a legitimate form of love (and deserves respect for that reason).
Labelling of people into boxes is wrong and I would rather be seen for who I am and what I believe then be seen paraded under gender/esxuality and race.
Labelling is divisive and create tension between poeple. The less we know about each orientations the better.
I respect myself and respect everyone not because they are straight/black/poor/rich....these are just devisive labels which helps deter the mind from other more important things in life and stop us from seeing ourselves and others in a different light.
So sexuality is private in this very sense.

[OrphanPip]

I understand your sentiment, Cacian. But, in reality the way people live makes it rather impossible for sexuality to be something that exists entirely behind closed doors, and I'm not sure it should be. People speak of relationships openly in most of the West, and it is generally standard banal banter to speak about one's wife/husband/kids etc. on encountering acquaintances.

People shouldn't have to guard the secret of their sexual orientation. The idea of it being no one's business is a bit of a cop out because it simply has no reflection on how people live their lives. It's particularly a position that shows the privilege heterosexuals have to not have to worry about telling anyone, that simply just isn't an option for most gay people. Eventually you have to tell someone, you have to tell your family or friends, you might even have to tell employers eventually if you want some sort of benefits for your partner.

[Darcy88]

I thought I was bisexual for years. It was a large part of my identity. I was very proud of it, pretty open about it. Then I fell in love with a girl. She was very queer friendly, having a gay guy for a best friend. She reacted with complete acceptance when I told her about my bisexuality. But then I became completely turned off by the thought of being with another member of my own sex. It just happened. Maybe it was the love I had for her, maybe it was just a natural progression, but I have not done or thought about doing something with another member of my sex for several months now. I had an epic talk with her about it. I did not want to call myself straight. I loved calling myself bisexual because I am the opposite of the gay stereotype of a weak submissive male who only cares about looks and chick stuff. She told me she thought I was straight and I said no way. I did not want to abandon the label which was such a large part of my identity. I enjoyed being a living testament to the errors of the homophobes who I despised and still despise so much. But I had to. I had to change my self-image to fit the facts. Now I call myself straight and I am straight. I get turned off by the thought of same-sex intercourse. I'm still kind of bummed about it. Like I said, I liked having that label.

[Helga]

Here on the ice it's legal for anyone to get married and the church allows it too. Our Prime minister is a lesbian. Recently there was an issue here with a teacher that blogged about the fact that the parents of one of his students didn't do everything they should have to keep him straight and even said that 'these' people need to be on medication.

The general population was very mad about this comment and the man was fired.

I personally don't care about this stuff, people should just be with whomever they want to. Being bisexual is very appealing to me (I am not though) I think it's amazing to be able to look beyond gender.

That is one of the things I love about captain Jack Harkness and the future he comes from.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When it comes to homosexuality, I have the distinct misfortune of living in the US, where, depending on the poll you're looking at, the majority of people don't think gay couple should be able to get married. It makes me sick.

There's this new mentality among conservatives that homosexuality is being "shoved down their throat," as if everywhere they look homosexuals are making out and challenging them, when the opposite is true. This mentality has been borne mostly from TV shows that center on homosexuality, gay pride parades and festivals, gay bars, etc. Apparently, that gays have become more comfortable with themselves in public is a very big threat to them, though if queried, they can never give a cogent reason why this is the case.

I always love when someone will say, "Oh, gays can have a 'gay bar,' but straight people can't have a 'straight bar.'" I always want to yell, "There are 'straight bars,' they're called EVERY OTHER BAR THAT EXISTS!" Seriously, the ignorance of some people is just so infuriating.

[Alexander III]

I always preferred the Roman way of thought upon the matter. Rather it was not being attracted to one sex or another, but being a penetrator or being a penetratee. As long as you were doing the penetrating it was considered manly, and straight, which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy, it seems far more manly than penetrating a woman. But for the romans, if you allowed yourself to be penetrated that was considered effeminate, for obvious reasons, but mainly for the willing act of submission.

I mean I have had the desire to do other guys, but never to be penetrated by another guy. So for me the Roman way of thinking just makes more sense. Because there is no such thing as gay or straight as most people have varying levels of attraction to the same and opposite sex.

[OrphanPip]

I always preferred the Roman way of thought upon the matter. Rather it was not being attracted to one sex or another, but being a penetrator or being a penetratee. As long as you were doing the penetrating it was considered manly, and straight, which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy, it seems far more manly than penetrating a woman. But for the romans, if you allowed yourself to be penetrated that was considered effeminate, for obvious reasons, but mainly for the willing act of submission.

Did you get that definition of gay from Larry Craig or something?


I mean I have had the desire to do other guys, but never to be penetrated by another guy. So for me the Roman way of thinking just makes more sense. Because there is no such thing as gay or straight as most people have varying levels of attraction to the same and opposite sex.

I don't believe projection makes for universal truths. A lot of empirical studies have demonstrated that gay men don't react physiologically to the opposite sex. To say that there is no such thing as gay or straight is about as logically consistent as saying there is no such thing as blue or red because there are discreet intermediaries between each extreme. The alternative is that everyone be born a universal bisexual, a la Freud, but this idea has been debunked not only by empirical evidence but also the majority of personal testimony.

And then there is the lack of functionality or reflection of identity categories that your definition provides. There are men probably far more masculine than you who bottom, and there are nelly queens who are exclusive tops. And then there's the problem that a large percentage of gay men are versatile, or relationships between two tops that compromise sexually for the sake of the relationship, or gays who are only into frot or other forms of "equal" sex, or gay virgins who might not know what kind of sex they prefer, or couples that flip flop (are they jumping from being straight to gay and back by acting like that?).

Then there is the issue of culture or the homosexual as "species" as Foucault put it. Being gay comes not only with sexual preferences but a set of cultural spaces, traditions, and history that are distinct from the mainstream culture.

The Roman beliefs derive entirely from sexist assumptions that are as outdated as their approval of pedophilia directed towards slaves.

[Monamy]

I always love when someone will say, "Oh, gays can have a 'gay bar,' but straight people can't have a 'straight bar.'" I always want to yell, "There are 'straight bars,' they're called EVERY OTHER BAR THAT EXISTS!" Seriously, the ignorance of some people is just so infuriating.

I think people who say that are generally sarcastic, hinting the 'bar' for another thing. Don't mind those people much.

[miyako73]

For some reason, I find frottage (male-on-male nonpenetrative sex) hot. Watching two hot guys rubbing and touching each other makes me want to buy the biggest toy. The question: is frottage gay? A lot of erotic stories have shown straight boys or men rubbing and masturbating each other.

[Babyguile]

I always preferred the Roman way of thought upon the matter. Rather it was not being attracted to one sex or another, but being a penetrator or being a penetratee. As long as you were doing the penetrating it was considered manly, and straight, which makes sense.

That's a misconception.

[Alexander III]

Did you get that definition of gay from Larry Craig or something?

Im usually quite good with American pop culture refernces but this one flew over my head.


I don't believe projection makes for universal truths. A lot of empirical studies have demonstrated that gay men don't react physiologically to the opposite sex. To say that there is no such thing as gay or straight is about as logically consistent as saying there is no such thing as blue or red because there are discreet intermediaries between each extreme. The alternative is that everyone be born a universal bisexual, a la Freud, but this idea has been debunked not only by empirical evidence but also the majority of personal testimony.

You are right, what I meant to say was the majority of people are malleable when it comes to sexual attraction. Sure some guys are grossed out by women, and some guys are grossed out by men and could never do anything with that sex - but this is a minority. Most people have leeway, proof in point, nowadays when lets face it, homosexuality is frowned upon by the majority of people, only about 1/10 guys is gay, if I recall the statistics correctly. But then if we look at societies of the past such as The ancient Thebeans and Spartans, or heck even the avant-grade circles of Elizabethan england where Marlowe famously said that "anyone who does not enjoy tobacco and young boys is a fool" and it seemed many of the Aristocracy of the times were in agreement with him - now that either means that during select times of history there was an overflow of homosexuality in genes, or that the majority of people are sexually malleable, and the norms of the times reflect upon it. In Ancient Sparta where it was expected that men have relationships with each other, most men did, which shows that in truth the normal human being is sexually malleable, and a man or woman who lacks sexual malleability is a minority not the norm.



And then there is the lack of functionality or reflection of identity categories that your definition provides.

Why? Me and my university friends all admitted that we would do a handsome guy, all of us were open about it, but no one said he wanted to be the bottom, we all wanted to be the top. Why? Because being the top would give us pleasure, being the bottom did not sexually attract us. So like I said in my orginal post, for me the penetrator/penetratee dichotomy makes more sense. Also neither am I saying that one is effeminate and the other masculine, I merely said that is what the Romans believed, I don't believe that, I merely believe that human beings get sexual pleasure in a variety of ways, some prefer to penetrate, some prefer to be penetrated and some like both equally. And this too me makes more sense that defining people either gay/straight. Besides the word gays carries with it many connotations which have to do with a specific culture which is in no way representative of the majority of homosexual men.


There are men probably far more masculine than you who bottom, and there are nelly queens who are exclusive tops. And then there's the problem that a large percentage of gay men are versatile, or relationships between two tops that compromise sexually for the sake of the relationship, or gays who are only into frot or other forms of "equal" sex, or gay virgins who might not know what kind of sex they prefer, or couples that flip flop (are they jumping from being straight to gay and back by acting like that?).

As I said before the masculine/effeminate thing is not my belief I was merely elucidating what the Romans felt, which is hardly supposing considering that it was a society based upon Masculinity.

There is a gay friend of mine at uni, who told me that he only likes being bottom, and he said most guys usually have a preference of whether they like being bottom or top. I would naturally assume that there would be plenty of guys who would enjoy both. I fail to see how merely because there is a large segment of men who enjoy both being penetrators and penetratees, that would mean that that divide would be false, as following your same logic, the Homosexual/ Heterosexual divide should be equally false as there are plenty of people who identify themselves as bi.


Then there is the issue of culture or the homosexual as "species" as Foucault put it. Being gay comes not only with sexual preferences but a set of cultural spaces, traditions, and history that are distinct from the mainstream culture.

No, no it does not. being gay comes with being attracted to other men. End of story, it does not come with anything else unless one chooses it. What do the ancient Spartan and modern gay pride dancer have in common besides being attracted to men? If you wish to make being gay out as belonging to some kind of separate culture that is fine. But to me it sounds like bull****.


The Roman beliefs derive entirely from sexist assumptions that are as outdated as their approval of pedophilia directed towards slaves.

Because our beliefs stem from a culture which has a healthy relationship with sexuality, am I right? I mean I am quite sure that the majority of Americans still believes that God shall condemn homosexuals to hell. Sure The Romans were sexist and had their own issues, but our modern understanding of sex, stems from a system which is no less corrupted and warped that that of the Romans. Also sure the Romans were sexist, but there were certain periods during the empire phase where woman had rights which were identical to male in Law and Finance, and it took Europe 1900 years to reach the same level of equality as Woman had in the empire. Also the pedophilia thing is wrong, much like the greeks sex was only allowed with post-pubesant boys, in fact there was a Roman law banning sex between an adult and a minor. Legally pedophilia could be practiced on a boy slave, as slaves were not considered people but property so the Law prohibit sex with minors did not apply, but it was not legal, it was a grey area which certainly was not approved, but scorned by society. That would be like saying that Canadian society approved of marijuana use merely because it is de-criminalized. Come on all you had to do was google it to find that out, so either you could not be bothered to check your facts or your purposely lied, either way such things do not reflect well upon you, especially when you would use statistics in one hand and with the other speck of erroneous facts.

Why is it that we must subject human sexuality to the Procrustean bed, why must we amputate limbs and stretch out joints; better to sleep on uncertain grass that force oneself on that bed, and yet we continue to subject human sexuality to Procrusteanism. Who is the fool who would use common sense when we have other methods of inquiry.


That's a misconception.

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

[OrphanPip]

Im usually quite good with American pop culture refernces but this one flew over my head.

American Republican who insisted he was not gay despite being caught having sex in a bathroom stall with a man.



You are right, what I meant to say was the majority of people are malleable when it comes to sexual attraction. Sure some guys are grossed out by women, and some guys are grossed out by men and could never do anything with that sex - but this is a minority. Most people have leeway, proof in point, nowadays when lets face it, homosexuality is frowned upon by the majority of people, only about 1/10 guys is gay, if I recall the statistics correctly. But then if we look at societies of the past such as The ancient Thebeans and Spartans, or heck even the avant-grade circles of Elizabethan england where Marlowe famously said that "anyone who does not enjoy tobacco and young boys is a fool" and it seemed many of the Aristocracy of the times were in agreement with him - now that either means that during select times of history there was an overflow of homosexuality in genes, or that the majority of people are sexually malleable, and the norms of the times reflect upon it. In Ancient Sparta where it was expected that men have relationships with each other, most men did, which shows that in truth the normal human being is sexually malleable, and a man or woman who lacks sexual malleability is a minority not the norm.

But being open to different sexual acts does not suggest that people have malleable sexual orientations. Using someone's body as a masturbatory aid does not mean you are attracted to them. Most gay men have historically had wives and tried women, it didn't mean they were ever attracted to the person they were with.



Why? Me and my university friends all admitted that we would do a handsome guy, all of us were open about it, but no one said he wanted to be the bottom, we all wanted to be the top. Why? Because being the top would give us pleasure, being the bottom did not sexually attract us. So like I said in my orginal post, for me the penetrator/penetratee dichotomy makes more sense. Also neither am I saying that one is effeminate and the other masculine, I merely said that is what the Romans believed, I don't believe that, I merely believe that human beings get sexual pleasure in a variety of ways, some prefer to penetrate, some prefer to be penetrated and some like both equally. And this too me makes more sense that defining people either gay/straight. Besides the word gays carries with it many connotations which have to do with a specific culture which is in no way representative of the majority of homosexual men.

Yes, clearly its your opinion, that's irrelevant to what I was saying though. I was saying your opinion isn't reflective of how most people seem to feel about their sexuality, and there is a lot of problems with reducing sexuality to simply to active/passive roles. How is that even a moderately useful definition, take a second to actually think about the definition of sexuality you're putting forward, it's just useless. In what sense do exclusive gay tops and straight men have something in common in terms of their sexuality? Do they date the same kinds of people, no; do they hang out in the same places, no; do they watch the same kind of porn, no. At the same time you could say yes for a comparison between gay tops and gay bottoms. And frankly the only exclusive tops who have never bottomed are probably closet cases.



As I said before the masculine/effeminate thing is not my belief I was merely elucidating what the Romans felt, which is hardly supposing considering that it was a society based upon Masculinity.

No, you actually said quite clearly with respect to the Roman viewpoint on the gendering of the positions: "which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy." You affirmed their viewpoint.



There is a gay friend of mine at uni, who told me that he only likes being bottom, and he said most guys usually have a preference of whether they like being bottom or top. I would naturally assume that there would be plenty of guys who would enjoy both. I fail to see how merely because there is a large segment of men who enjoy both being penetrators and penetratees, that would mean that that divide would be false, as following your same logic, the Homosexual/ Heterosexual divide should be equally false as there are plenty of people who identify themselves as bi.

Sure, if I bought into your initial premise, which I don't. One of the points of the example was a form of argumentum ad absurdum to continue on the ridiculousness of the strict dichotomy you presented earlier in the post. The other is that it creates divisions in identity categories that are already unified by similar experiences, histories, and cultural spaces. For no other reason than it seems to appeal to the bar room musings of a group of young men who have no real connections to the gay community, so they want to invent new useless categorization so they can feel cool and different.



No, no it does not. being gay comes with being attracted to other men. End of story, it does not come with anything else unless one chooses it. What do the ancient Spartan and modern gay pride dancer have in common besides being attracted to men? If you wish to make being gay out as belonging to some kind of separate culture that is fine. But to me it sounds like bull****.

No it doesn't. Being gay is different than being attracted to other men, or else we would see homosexuality manifest itself identically everywhere. And unfortunately, you don't get to choose everything that comes with it because society has this nice way of defining you no matter how you define yourself. I would say the Spartan was not gay, he would not have understood himself as being different from other men who were having sex with women, and he was probably having sex with women himself (a man who had exclusive interest in men would not have fit in with the Ancient Greek society).



Because our beliefs stem from a culture which has a healthy relationship with sexuality, am I right? I mean I am quite sure that the majority of Americans still believes that God shall condemn homosexuals to hell. Sure The Romans were sexist and had their own issues, but our modern understanding of sex, stems from a system which is no less corrupted and warped that that of the Romans. Also sure the Romans were sexist, but there were certain periods during the empire phase where woman had rights which were identical to male in Law and Finance, and it took Europe 1900 years to reach the same level of equality as Woman had in the empire. Also the pedophilia thing is wrong, much like the greeks sex was only allowed with post-pubesant boys, in fact there was a Roman law banning sex between an adult and a minor. Legally pedophilia could be practiced on a boy slave, as slaves were not considered people but property so the Law prohibit sex with minors did not apply, but it was not legal, it was a grey area which certainly was not approved, but scorned by society. That would be like saying that Canadian society approved of marijuana use merely because it is de-criminalized. Come on all you had to do was google it to find that out, so either you could not be bothered to check your facts or your purposely lied, either way such things do not reflect well upon you, especially when you would use statistics in one hand and with the other speck of erroneous facts.

This is all irrelevant blather, pointing out the inadequacies of Roman perspectives does not require our society to be better by comparison.

And besides, if you wanted to use the Roman view of homosexuality as part of an argument (where it also was not legal for a citizen to be the bottom), then you should realize that it's the same logic that they used to justify abusive paedophilic relationships to boy slaves, who were often castrated to keep their pre-pubescent characteristics a bit longer. There was nothing dishonest, or out of left field in my inclusion of it, because pedophilia and sexism were both parts of the penetrator/penetratee perspective on sexuality used by the Romans.



Why is it that we must subject human sexuality to the Procrustean bed, why must we amputate limbs and stretch out joints; better to sleep on uncertain grass that force oneself on that bed, and yet we continue to subject human sexuality to Procrusteanism. Who is the fool who would use common sense when we have other methods of inquiry.

Why do you think you have the right to redefine the ties that bring a community together? Especially when you seem to have little knowledge about the subject.

[miyako73]

I think Alex is correct with the penetrator-and-penetratee dichotomy in classical or ancient homosexuality, but it was only one of the homosexual relationships that existed then. It involved class and status. Masters penetrated slaves, and clients, male prostitutes. Alexander's relationship with Bagoas, a Persian eunuch, falls under this classification. Homosexual relationships between gladiators, between senators, between generals were also different. They were akin to bisexual bromance-brotherly romance where participants were equal in class and status and in sexual pleasure. Alexander and Hephaestion's is a good example. Another relationship-between teacher and student or artist and model-was homosexual and, sometimes, pedophilic and more on lustful appreciation of youthful beauty and body.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think people who say that are generally sarcastic, hinting the 'bar' for another thing. Don't mind those people much.

The ones I've talked to are definitely not. They're dead serious--gay culture is being constantly shoved in their faces.

And I find this whole idea of doing a guy, being the penetrator, pretty strange. I guess I feel I must say this as a precursor to what I'm about to say--I'm pro gay marriage, pro gay rights, all that. I think a gay couple should be just as free to make out in public as a starlight couple is (I find both equally annoying). Having said that, the thought of having sex with another man just completely grosses me out (and, honestly, anal sex with a woman seems kinda gross, though I wouldnt be above trying it if she wanted to). I don't think it would be possible for me because I don't think I'd be able to get aroused (and I don't plan on testing that theory). Maybe it's because I'm American and the culture around me has influenced me so much no matter why I believe, but to think a group of random guys would all be into having sex with another dude seems not only weird, but quite unlikely. Maube it's an Italian thing.

Here's something weird, though. While I think it extremely unlikely that a bunch of guys would never want to have sex with another guy, I don't think the same way when it comes to women. Maybe it's because of how "girlfriends" act around each other, being much willing to hug and what-not (though, the "bro-hug" is becoming more and more popular). And I'm sure my own fantasies probably have something to with my thinking.

[Buh4Bee]

When it comes to homosexuality, I have the distinct misfortune of living in the US, where, depending on the poll you're looking at, the majority of people don't think gay couple should be able to get married. It makes me sick.

There's this new mentality among conservatives that homosexuality is being "shoved down their throat," as if everywhere they look homosexuals are making out and challenging them, when the opposite is true. This mentality has been borne mostly from TV shows that center on homosexuality, gay pride parades and festivals, gay bars, etc. Apparently, that gays have become more comfortable with themselves in public is a very big threat to them, though if queried, they can never give a cogent reason why this is the case.

I always love when someone will say, "Oh, gays can have a 'gay bar,' but straight people can't have a 'straight bar.'" I always want to yell, "There are 'straight bars,' they're called EVERY OTHER BAR THAT EXISTS!" Seriously, the ignorance of some people is just so infuriating.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[tonywalt]

The ones I've talked to are definitely not. They're dead serious--gay culture is being constantly shoved in their faces.

And I find this whole idea of doing a guy, being the penetrator, pretty strange. I guess I feel I must say this as a precursor to what I'm about to say--I'm pro gay marriage, pro gay rights, all that. I think a gay couple should be just as free to make out in public as a starlight couple is (I find both equally annoying). Having said that, the thought of having sex with another man just completely grosses me out (and, honestly, anal sex with a woman seems kinda gross, though I wouldnt be above trying it if she wanted to). I don't think it would be possible for me because I don't think I'd be able to get aroused (and I don't plan on testing that theory). Maybe it's because I'm American and the culture around me has influenced me so much no matter why I believe, but to think a group of random guys would all be into having sex with another dude seems not only weird, but quite unlikely. Maube it's an Italian thing.

Here's something weird, though. While I think it extremely unlikely that a bunch of guys would never want to have sex with another guy, I don't think the same way when it comes to women. Maybe it's because of how "girlfriends" act around each other, being much willing to hug and what-not (though, the "bro-hug" is becoming more and more popular). And I'm sure my own fantasies probably have something to with my thinking.

I think it is, as you suggest, social conditioning. My first boss was gay and we remain good friends. He went to gay bars quite often, some of them quite cruisy. Initially the openly sexual behaviour was uncomfortable to see, but a dozen years later, it does not bother me. It's a true cliche to say that just about anything can become normal and benign with a certain amount of exposure.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Even though this sounds stupid to say (because it's usually said by someone obviously homophobic/racist/etc.), but I have gay friends, and I'm perfectly fine around them. And I seeing gay people interact doesn't bother me either. It's the thought of myself being involved in those activities that turns me completely off.

[miyako73]

Just repeating what I've heard before. Can you really say chitlins are nasty without trying them?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Can you say being shot won't hurt unless you try it? Can you say drinking a a glass of rotten, coagulated milk won't taste horrible? Can I say I wouldn't be into having sex with a man? I guess one can't be a 100% certain on any of those questions unless one actually gets shot, drinks rotten milk, or has sex with a man. That being said, I'll follow my gut instinct and say no to all three, and take the risk of missing out.

[Alexander III]

American Republican who insisted he was not gay despite being caught having sex in a bathroom stall with a man.

Yea I know, I hate when people catch me in a bathroom stall doing another guy. Happens all the damn time.


But being open to different sexual acts does not suggest that people have malleable sexual orientations. Using someone's body as a masturbatory aid does not mean you are attracted to them. Most gay men have historically had wives and tried women, it didn't mean they were ever attracted to the person they were with.

1) Most straight guys often use women as masturbatory aids, that does not mean they are gay.

2) you did not bother to reply to the whole crux of my argument, which is how would you explain that throughout history there have been various societies were the majority of men indulged in homosexual behavior?




Yes, clearly its your opinion, that's irrelevant to what I was saying though. I was saying your opinion isn't reflective of how most people seem to feel about their sexuality

It's reflective of how I feel about my sexuality. It's reflective about how my university companions feel about their sexuality. And are we really going to discuss how most people feel about their sexuality? Most people think that being attracted to another man is against the law of God and effeminate. Does this in anyway reflect reality?


and there is a lot of problems with reducing sexuality to simply to active/passive roles. How is that even a moderately useful definition, take a second to actually think about the definition of sexuality you're putting forward, it's just useless.

I never said it was flawless, but gay/straight is just as flawed.


In what sense do exclusive gay tops and straight men have something in common in terms of their sexuality?

They both appreciate a nice piece of ***.


Do they date the same kinds of people, no; do they hang out in the same places, no; do they watch the same kind of porn, no.

This could be said about anyone though. You can use these questions to make two straight men seem utterly different. For instance take straight guy A, the scion of a wealthy family. And straight guy B, the 6th son of a poor family in the gettho. They are both 100% straight. Do they date the same kinds of people? No. Do they hang out in the same kind of places? No. Do they watch the same kind of porn. Actually probably yes. But still you see how the questions you ask are influenced by a myriad of variables and thus kind of useless.


At the same time you could say yes for a comparison between gay tops and gay bottoms. And frankly the only exclusive tops who have never bottomed are probably closet cases.

Once again the only thing they will have in common will be the Porn.



No, you actually said quite clearly with respect to the Roman viewpoint on the gendering of the positions: "which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy." You affirmed their viewpoint.


I was affirming a viewpoint, not all of them. Are you in disagreement on this, do you believe that doing another guy is effeminate?



Sure, if I bought into your initial premise, which I don't. One of the points of the example was a form of argumentum ad absurdum to continue on the ridiculousness of the strict dichotomy you presented earlier in the post.

So you don't agree with me, ergo I must be wrong?


The other is that it creates divisions in identity categories that are already unified by similar experiences, histories, and cultural spaces.

Tell me what a gay chinese man and a gay canadian man have in common? They are gay. Nothing else. You are making being gay out to be a culture, almost sect like. I fail to see how being attracted to other men means that automatically you belong to something greater. Once again you and a straight canadian will have far more in common that you and a gay American.


For no other reason than it seems to appeal to the bar room musings of a group of young men who have no real connections to the gay community, so they want to invent new useless categorization so they can feel cool and different.

1) did not invent anything, merely re appropriated a definition which was used for almost a thousand years...

2) You are right we have no connection to the gay community. But that would mean that unlike people who define themselves as part of the gay community - we can think about our sexual interests both homo and hetero sexual in a much less biased way, as we merely use what attracts us, not what society thinks of us, not what we are told we should be like, neither what we would like to be like, we just use of simple method, does that turn me on? yes or no.




No it doesn't. Being gay is different than being attracted to other men, or else we would see homosexuality manifest itself identically everywhere. And unfortunately, you don't get to choose everything that comes with it because society has this nice way of defining you no matter how you define yourself. I would say the Spartan was not gay, he would not have understood himself as being different from other men who were having sex with women, and he was probably having sex with women himself (a man who had exclusive interest in men would not have fit in with the Ancient Greek society).

Actually there are many documented cases in greek society of men who had exclusive interests in men. And this was ok, except that they had to force themselves to father a child because it was every mans duty to make a heir. Alexander the great had not interest in women. He married for political reasons and everyone was fine with that as long as he made sure he mad e a son. The emphasis amongst the greeks was the duty of child making, no one cared if your were attracted to women or not. in fact the Spartans thought that a love between a man and a woman was inherently inferior than a love between a man and a man.

Also the way spartans were homosexual is not liked by you, so they are not gay, because being gay automatically means it must fit into your narrow definition of it? Procrustean bed, you are doing it.



This is all irrelevant blather, pointing out the inadequacies of Roman perspectives does not require our society to be better by comparison.

No it does not, but from the way you said it it sounded like you were assuming that our society had a healthier relationship to sex than Roman society. If I was mistaken I am sorry.


And besides, if you wanted to use the Roman view of homosexuality as part of an argument (where it also was not legal for a citizen to be the bottom), then you should realize that it's the same logic that they used to justify abusive paedophilic relationships to boy slaves, who were often castrated to keep their pre-pubescent characteristics a bit longer. There was nothing dishonest, or out of left field in my inclusion of it, because pedophilia and sexism were both parts of the penetrator/penetratee perspective on sexuality used by the Romans.

Were are you getting your facts from?

It was perfectly legal for a citizen to be bottom, it was just frowned upon and considered effeminate. By often castrated also you must mean a few rare cases, namely Nero. following your logic it was common for roman sons to kill their mothers too, because Nero did it. One swallow does not make spring. Pedophile was illegal, and like I said before slaves were property and so not subject to roman law, a man could kill his slave and that would be legal, and following your logic you would say that in Roman society it was normal to kill your slaves. You are usually a logical guy, but with this your making huge leaps without reason or rhyme.



Why do you think you have the right to redefine the ties that bring a community together? Especially when you seem to have little knowledge about the subject.

Like I said before, I am not redefining anything I am merely presenting a view which to me makes more sense. Would you have me tried for blasphemy for saying that which you do not agree with?

[cacian]

Interesting that any conversation geared towards a sexual nature turns physical in details.

[Alexander III]

Interesting that any conversation geared towards a sexual nature turns physical in details.

About as interesting as the fact that any conversation geared towards greed shall turn into a discussion pertaining money.

[cacian]

About as interesting as the fact that any conversation geared towards greed shall turn into a discussion pertaining money.

Ah but that is not the same , greed is beyond money, it is an obsessive URGE to own everything and anything. It is not about the money but it is all about a the power kick the adrelanine junky kick, the mental state that you want more then you can chew and you won't stop until the first damage is done. Money is just a bonus, a feeble icing melting on the cake that keeps you going. Greed is an addiction and is only cured when the outcome of its downfall takes over the greed.
Sexuality is a physical and mental act and yes it can borderline on the physical bit glaring on minus details and going over the obvious but ignoring important bits and that is the psychology behind the drives that make the sexual act itself.

[miyako73]

I've sensed too many poor analogies in this forum. We need to put some thoughts when we compare things.

[OrphanPip]

1) Most straight guys often use women as masturbatory aids, that does not mean they are gay.

Sure, but that just confirms my point that someone does not have to be attracted to a person they use as an object for sex.



2) you did not bother to reply to the whole crux of my argument, which is how would you explain that throughout history there have been various societies were the majority of men indulged in homosexual behavior?

There's no need to explain it, people engage in a variety of sexual behaviours on the basis of social expectation. Even so, it is a far stretch to suggest that the majority of men engaged in homosexual behaviour in those societies. While some Greek pederastic relationships were sexualized, most were probably not. And even so this represents a small portion of the population of those societies.



It's reflective of how I feel about my sexuality. It's reflective about how my university companions feel about their sexuality. And are we really going to discuss how most people feel about their sexuality? Most people think that being attracted to another man is against the law of God and effeminate. Does this in anyway reflect reality?

When a viewpoint seems poorly thought out, reductive, and not readily reflective of the experiences of large groups of people, it should probably be questioned unless there is a very persuasive reason to believe it



I never said it was flawless, but gay/straight is just as flawed.

"just as flawed" would be a bit of stretch though.



This could be said about anyone though. You can use these questions to make two straight men seem utterly different. For instance take straight guy A, the scion of a wealthy family. And straight guy B, the 6th son of a poor family in the gettho. They are both 100% straight. Do they date the same kinds of people? No. Do they hang out in the same kind of places? No. Do they watch the same kind of porn. Actually probably yes. But still you see how the questions you ask are influenced by a myriad of variables and thus kind of useless.

They aren't useless though, because if you took two people who were culturally, ethnically, and economically identical except for sexuality you'd see where the fundamental source of difference lies. Especially when you're looking at something like sexual identity. Certainly the questions would not be useful for distinguishing between straight people, but that would just tell you that sexual expression even amongst straight people is more diverse than the penetrator/penetratee dichotomy can address usefully.



I was affirming a viewpoint, not all of them. Are you in disagreement on this, do you believe that doing another guy is effeminate?

No, but I'm certainly in disagreement that it reflects any sort of vibrant masculinity.



So you don't agree with me, ergo I must be wrong?

No, but to contextualize the previous post it was important to understand that your analogy was not appropriate because my use of the dichotomy later in that post was based on the assumption of the fallibility of the system, thus the fact that it was inconsistent was part of the critique of it.



Tell me what a gay chinese man and a gay canadian man have in common? They are gay. Nothing else. You are making being gay out to be a culture, almost sect like. I fail to see how being attracted to other men means that automatically you belong to something greater. Once again you and a straight canadian will have far more in common that you and a gay American.

You don't automatically belong to anything "greater" but you are shaped by cultural understandings of sexuality, not just homo or hetero, but how it relates to romance and life.

Moreover, I don't deny the existence of overlapping identity categories, it's hardly like you stop being part of Black culture by being Black and Gay. The point is that gay people in China and gay people in Canada share many of the same formative experiences, even if I'd be hesitant to stretch Western Gay cultural influence that far.

Nor am I speaking of a monumental gay culture that all people who are gay become a part of, like the established scenes in major cities. But in general of a larger history of Western thought on sexuality that permeates every aspect of our upbringing and affects people who are gay from similar cultures in similar ways.



1) did not invent anything, merely re appropriated a definition which was used for almost a thousand years...

2) You are right we have no connection to the gay community. But that would mean that unlike people who define themselves as part of the gay community - we can think about our sexual interests both homo and hetero sexual in a much less biased way, as we merely use what attracts us, not what society thinks of us, not what we are told we should be like, neither what we would like to be like, we just use of simple method, does that turn me on? yes or no.

Oh yes, clearly you and your friends stand above society and have no biases at all. A question itself is not an identity. You're just hand waving and acting detached from sexuality, it's a position of privilege. Because many people do not have the luxury of being able to be indifferent about what turns them on. You're just flirting with a cliche soft sexual libertinism that is not really representative of many people. Moreover, I've given a number of reasons why I think it shouldn't be thought of as a representative way to think of sexuality.




Also the way spartans were homosexual is not liked by you, so they are not gay, because being gay automatically means it must fit into your narrow definition of it? Procrustean bed, you are doing it.

They are not gay because gay is a product of modernity, it's about the individual's relationship to sexual attraction, not about the existence of the attraction in and of itself. And what is understood as gay sexual identity today did not exist in Ancient Greece. It's not about my definitions, it's just a fact. You need a cultural reference to define "gay" before someone can understand themselves as such.




It was perfectly legal for a citizen to be bottom, it was just frowned upon and considered effeminate.

Depending on the period, the penalty for same-sex relations in the military was death, and the "Lex Scantinia" law implies that infamia was a possible punishment for a citizen seen to be too feminize by passive homosexual sex, along with outlawing sex with a minor citizen.



By often castrated also you must mean a few rare cases, namely Nero. following your logic it was common for roman sons to kill their mothers too, because Nero did it. One swallow does not make spring. Pedophile was illegal, and like I said before slaves were property and so not subject to roman law, a man could kill his slave and that would be legal, and following your logic you would say that in Roman society it was normal to kill your slaves. You are usually a logical guy, but with this your making huge leaps without reason or rhyme.

I didn't say it was normal, but that they justified it, and they allowed it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've sensed too many poor analogies in this forum. We need to put some thoughts when we compare things.

How so?

[miyako73]

example: eating chitlins and getting shot

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Uh, humor maybe?

[crusoe]

In Layman's terms: As long as I don't have to watch it, I don't care what anybody does behind the velvet curtains of suburbia...serious.

[Monamy]

The ones I've talked to are definitely not. They're dead serious--gay culture is being constantly shoved in their faces.

What? Why such inferior beings alive at this time and age? :confused5:


And I find this whole idea of doing a guy, being the penetrator, pretty strange. I guess I feel I must say this as a precursor to what I'm about to say--I'm pro gay marriage, pro gay rights, all that. I think a gay couple should be just as free to make out in public as a starlight couple is (I find both equally annoying). Having said that, the thought of having sex with another man just completely grosses me out (and, honestly, anal sex with a woman seems kinda gross, though I wouldnt be above trying it if she wanted to). I don't think it would be possible for me because I don't think I'd be able to get aroused (and I don't plan on testing that theory). Maybe it's because I'm American and the culture around me has influenced me so much no matter why I believe, but to think a group of random guys would all be into having sex with another dude seems not only weird, but quite unlikely. Maube it's an Italian thing.

Here's something weird, though. While I think it extremely unlikely that a bunch of guys would never want to have sex with another guy, I don't think the same way when it comes to women. Maybe it's because of how "girlfriends" act around each other, being much willing to hug and what-not (though, the "bro-hug" is becoming more and more popular). And I'm sure my own fantasies probably have something to with my thinking.

Well, it does come mainly from one's own preferences. And women are simply open and free with one another. But men are mostly defensive and need to feel strong in the presence of just about anyone, same gender or not.

... methinks.

[Shea]

Sorry Alex and Orphan I skipped over most of your discussion.

I'm straight. I have a friend who is bi-sexual. I happen to disagree with the gay lifestyle. That doesn't mean I treat her any differently than any other friend, gay or straight. I disagree with my dad self medicating with marijuana to treat his bipolar state. It doesn't mean I love him less.

I don't believe that the gay culture is being shoved down my throat because I might see a gay couple holding hands or a gay centered TV show comes on the screen. I truely don't care about that.

What I feel is the deeper problem is when people start "shoving" with words, gay or straight.

My publisher dosn't accept gay fiction. Someone saw that and called us a bunch of bigots. Seriously!? In the words of one of my colleagues, you don't go into a pie shop and demand that they start selling cake. A bigot is an irrational hater of people. I don't hate people who are gay. But I don't like being called a bigot just because I write for a publisher who doesn't accept gay fiction.<<<THIS is what I feel is being shoved down my throat.

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

[Monamy]

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

So true. Thumbs up to you.

[OrphanPip]

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

Some opinions don't deserve respect.

[Shea]

Some opinions don't deserve respect.

If my opinion was that it's perfectly fine to shoot up a movie theatre, then yeah, I'll agree with your statement.

But if you think I'm a bigot because I won't write gay fiction, well then, you can just shoot me, Diana Moon Glampers.

[Scheherazade]

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

[Shea]

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

I agree. I would not be able to frequent a restaurant which discriminates in such a way. But by the same token, (if I were a drinker) I probably wouldn't frequent a gay bar. Not because I'm a bigoted against the patrons in it, but because it's not my thing. Bars really aren't my thing at all anyway.

Just because my publisher dosen't publish gay fiction dosen't mean that a gay person isn't welcome to read the books. She also wouldn't publish anything like 50 Shades of Grey either.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

I'm guessing no Chick-fil-A for you then?

[Shea]

I'm guessing no Chick-fil-A for you then?

Chick-Fil-A doesn't discriminate anyone. As far as I've been able to tell, the owner simply stated their opinion on what defines marriage. I haven't found anything hateful in their statements. I've seen more hate coming from the gay supporters. If I've missed something, please show me an article (I am a busy mom of 2 boys after all :D )

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't think gays have the right to marry, and espouses this belief. What more is there to say? He doesn't want gays to have rights and has said so. It's a discrimaging opinion. I won't be eating there. I think it's really stupid for a company to express any political/religious opinion, and if they do and I find it abhorrent, as I do the mindset that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I won't be eating there.

Also, what is it about the "gay lifestyle" that you "disagree" with? And what does that even mean?

[tonywalt]

The CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't think gays have the right to marry, and espouses this belief. What more is there to say? He doesn't want gays to have rights and has said so. It's a discrimaging opinion. I won't be eating there. I think it's really stupid for a company to express any political/religious opinion, and if they do and I find it abhorrent, as I do the mindset that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I won't be eating there.

I'm not sure if gays are big market for Chick-fil -A. :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

True, but I'm not gay and they're going to lose my business (not sure if they would've had it in the first place, but they assured my non-business with their statements), along with others I know, gay and straight. Still, they may gain some business, too, from like minded conservatives--that fat moron Mike Huckabee is even organizing a .Support Chick-fil-A Day" on August first (obviously a good use of his influence). It probably evens out in the end.

[Shea]

The CEO of Chick-fil-A doesn't think gays have the right to marry, and espouses this belief. What more is there to say? He doesn't want gays to have rights and has said so. It's a discrimaging opinion. I won't be eating there. I think it's really stupid for a company to express any political/religious opinion, and if they do and I find it abhorrent, as I do the mindset that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I won't be eating there.

Also, what is it about the "gay lifestyle" that you "disagree" with? And what does that even mean?

Still doesn't mean he won't allow someone who is gay to eat at his restaurants. It's a christian company which takes the view that being gay is not in line with their christian beliefs. If you disagree, then you don't have to eat there. Just like I choose not to go to gay bars.

I know that someone is going to smack me for saying this, but I believe that "being gay" is a choice. People choose to give into urges everyday. That's why people have sex before and outside of marriage and will take the stance that they were only doing what they felt to be "natural". I disagree with it. They choose to give into sexual urges. This is why I hate being labled a bigot. No one chooses to be born with light or dark skin. Bigots will hate someone because of the color of their skin. Granted they will also hate someone because of their "sexual orientation". I will reiterate, I don't hate someone because of their "sexual orientation".

If you are friendly to me, I'll be friendly to you. Plain and simple.

I hope that answers your question. Both my boys are now awake, so I hope I make sense too. :)


that fat moron Mike Huckabee is even organizing a .Support Chick-fil-A Day" on August first

Isn't that a double standard?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, you make a conscious decision not to be gay?

And what's a double standard?

[Shea]

So, you make a conscious decision not to be gay?

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.


And what's a double standard?

People support "Gay Day". What's wrong with supporting "Chick-fil-A Day"

Like I said, two-way street...

[Alexander III]

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.



People support "Gay Day". What's wrong with supporting "Chick-fil-A Day"

Like I said, two-way street...

Yea I know, damn double standards, every year there is a holocaust memorial day, but where is the Nazi Pride day? Society is a btch like that.

Also this is why I hate it when people say that being gay means that you are part of a culture. Loving musicals, wearing strange clothes, acting in an effete manner, and all those other stereotypes (which have some truth to them) that is all choice.


Being attracted to other guys, is not a choice, that is just genetics.


Also are you anti-gay because of religious reasons? Because it says so in the bible? Because there is also a passage in the Bible which mentions that if a man rapes a virgin he by law must marry her. Why is no one fighting for a law to force rapists to marry their victims? So double standards...

(Yes I do watch the daily show)

[Shea]

Yea I know, damn double standards, every year there is a holocaust memorial day, but where is the Nazi Pride day? Society is a btch like that.

Uh, no. Chick-Fil-A hasn't murdered millions of people. Your comparison dosen't work.


Loving musicals, wearing strange clothes, acting in an effete manner, and all those other stereotypes (which have some truth to them) that is all choice.

I agree and people are entitle to their opinions


Being attracted to other guys, is not a choice, that is just genetics.

I need unbiased proof for that one.


Also are you anti-gay because of religious reasons? Because it says so in the bible? Because there is also a passage in the Bible which mentions that if a man rapes a virgin he by law must marry her. Why is no one fighting for a law to force rapists to marry their victims? So double standards...

(Yes I do watch the daily show)

First of all I'm not "anti-gay", I think I've made my stance on this quite plain.

Secondly, your biblical comparison doesn't work either. Its from the "Old Law" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died (Galatians 3:15-25) Incidentally, this is why it bugs me when people push the 10 commandments.

Oh, and I meant to add (sorry, having a massive headache right now), that, yes, it does say so in the Bible. It also talks against drunkeness, rage, discord, hatred, and envy in the same context. (I really don't like things taken out of context) I have trouble with rage and envy sometimes. It's a struggle, and I fail sometimes. But I'm always trying to fix it in my own character.

This is also why it REALLY bugs me when other "Christians" are very hypocritical on this topic. They start attacking people who say they are gay, and forget that they are guilty of the very sins listed in the same verse of the Bible.

[Alexander III]

Uh, no. Chick-Fil-A hasn't murdered millions of people. Your comparison dosen't work.


Because being gay in the last 1000 years has not got anyone killed right ?

So are you trying to use the logic that, if millions are killed because of an ideology it is wrong to support, but if it is only thousands which were killed because of an ideology, that is quite fine?


I agree and people are entitle to their opinions

Entitled to their opinions yes, entitled to act upon those opinions no.

Case in point:

Bin Laden say's "America is evil" - socially and morally acceptable.

Bin Lade bombs the twin towers killing civilians - socially and morally unacceptable


Persona A saying: I do not approve of homosexuality - socially and morally acceptable

Person A legally preventing homosexual couples to get married (which is a basic human right so long as marriage comes with tax privileges, tutelage of one spouse if the other is to die, and medical regulations allowing visits, not to mention the adoption of children and raising them as non-bastards)- socially and morally unacceptable



I need unbiased proof for that one.

Try having sex with a member of the same sex, see how much of a choice it is in determining whom you are attracted to.




First of all I'm not "anti-gay", I think I've made my stance on this quite plain.


Denying human beings their basic rights, because of the manner in which they were born? Im' not racist or anything, I just think mixed racial marriages should be illegal. That does not make me racist, just not pro-black.




Secondly, your biblical comparison doesn't work either. Its from the "Old Law" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died (Galatians 3:15-25) Incidentally, this is why it bugs me when people push the 10 commandments.

So Jews don't count? By not forcing rapists to marry their victims you are infringing upon the freedom of an entire religion.

That is not my logic by the by, that is just standard christian logic when it comes to gay marriage.



I detest thing kind of religious hypocrisy because I come from the land where a prime-minister hosts orgies and solicits sex from underage girls, and that is seen as bad behavior and a regrettable vice. But if he were to mention the topic of gay-marridge, that would make him an ally of satan.

[Shea]

Alex, I'm obviously not going to convince you to agree with me, and I really don't care. You ARE entitled to your beliefs and opinions. I'm okay with that.

But this is what bothers me:


I detest thing kind of religious hypocrisy because I come from the land where a prime-minister hosts orgies and solicits sex from underage girls, and that is seen as bad behavior and a regrettable vice. But if he were to mention the topic of gay-marridge, that would make him an ally of satan.

I REALLY do not like being held to the same standard because of my personal opinions and beliefs. And I LOATHE being called a bigot because of people that. I'm not your prime-minister. This is not a black and white issue. I really hurts ME when people behave like that because people jump all over me before I get a chance to explain myself.

[tonywalt]

Many people for religious reasons will often make the following statement: "I don't hate gays but we (strongly) dislike their lifestyle".

That is tantamount to saying you don't hate black people, but dislike their blackness". It's sort of absurd.

[Shea]

Many people for religious reasons will often make the following statement: "I don't hate gays but we (strongly) dislike their lifestyle".

That is tantamount to saying you don't hate black people, but dislike their blackness". It's sort of absurd.

I'm not even going to bother with this one. I'll just be repeating myself.

I think my earlier Diana Moon Glampers reference was too subtle. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an excellent example of why people don't think, feel, act, etc., in exactly the same way.

[miyako73]

"Hate the sin not the sinner", to me, does not make sense. Indeed, it is an excuse to stay judgmental without judging. How can one not hate the rapist but his act of raping? Semantics abounds in fundamentalist religiosity.

[Shea]

"Hate the sin not the sinner", to me, does not make sense. Indeed, it is an excuse to stay judgmental without judging. How can one not hate the rapist but his act of raping? Semantics abounds in fundamentalist religiosity.

That's what forgiveness is for. For many people it may take years to forgive. For example, look at Craig Scott, one of the survivors of the Columbine shooting.

"Hate the sin and not the sinner" seems incredible, but it is most certainly possible.

[cacian]

That's what forgiveness is for. For many people it may take years to forgive. For example, look at Craig Scott, one of the survivors of the Columbine shooting.

Hate the sin and not the sinner" seems incredible, but it is most certainly possible.
I am not sure I agree with this because the underlaying message of this is to hate still and that for me is wrong.
No hatred whatsover regardless is what it's at.

[Shea]

I am not sure I agree with this because the underlaying message of this is to hate still and that for me is wrong.
No hatred whatsover regardless is what it's at.

Phrase is actually one of those "bibleisms" and it's really not in there. But the idea is kind of there and you make a good point. We need less ideas of hate in our lives. I would amend the phrase to say, "Do not love the sin, but love the sinner."

[OrphanPip]

I need unbiased proof for that one.


The question is a bit of a red herring, but there is overwhelming evidence of hormonal, genetic, and environmental contributing factors and little to no scientific evidence that it is a "choice," which is itself usually a poorly defined parameter by those who use the word. What constitutes a choice?

It is the official stance of the APA and the AAP, the two largest American scientific/medical associations that address issues of sexuality, that sexuality is not a choice.

Both organizations also hold that "conversion therapy" doesn't work. So, there is also no evidence that one can reliably change sexual orientation, something which one would expect if it were readily a choice.

Also, this does not mean that sexuality cannot be malleable, people can change how they relate to their sexuality. However, just as someone's favourite flavour of ice cream can change from vanilla to chocolate over a lifetime, it doesn't mean people make conscious choices about their palette.

[Paulclem]

This issue is going to pull the Anglican chruch apart as they struggle with the evolved worldview of those who accept homosexuality within the church, and those traditionalists who do not. (In the UK)

I think the problems arise when a religion is tied to what they regard as the holy book and therefore sacrosanct. It has driven some to the catholic church already.

Now they are fighting the idea of gay marriage because they know that denying the right to a marriage in a church will then constitute a breach of a couple's human rights.

The claim of the church over the word marriage is interesting too as they are trying to define it in terms of the church's view on it - it being in their view a sacrament.

[Scheherazade]

I am still not sure what "gay lifestyle" means.

Can anyone offer an explanation?

[OrphanPip]

This issue is going to pull the Anglican chruch apart as they struggle with the evolved worldview of those who accept homosexuality within the church, and those traditionalists who do not. (In the UK)

I think the problems arise when a religion is tied to what they regard as the holy book and therefore sacrosanct. It has driven some to the catholic church already.

Now they are fighting the idea of gay marriage because they know that denying the right to a marriage in a church will then constitute a breach of a couple's human rights.

The claim of the church over the word marriage is interesting too as they are trying to define it in terms of the church's view on it - it being in their view a sacrament.

The Canadian branch is already out of communion with some of the African ones over issues of gay marriage. Although, they eventually decided on only blessing unions and allowing openly gay clergy, instead of full on marriage in order to prevent a schism with England.

We actually had an openly gay Catholic priest as an MP in Montreal, but he was eventually forced to resign his seat to remain a priest. I think the churches will always reflect the societies they find themselves in, the Catholic Church will come to the left in Quebec simply to stop itself from being completely abandoned.


I am still not sure what "gay lifestyle" means.

Can anyone offer an explanation?

An American term they seem to use to emphasize that gay people choose to be gay.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.



But if homosexuality is a choice, and one is judging homosexuals because they've made the choice to love someone of the same sex, how can one claim they don't have those urges? If you don't have those urges, you didn't have to make a choice in the first place. Why would some have to make a choice and why would others, like you, not have to? It would seem to me that the whole "it's a choice" accusation is dependent upon, you know, people actually having to make a choice. That some do and that some don't, as you concede (even if flimsily so), would seem to support that it is indeed out of an individual's control. If it wasn't, we would all be on an equal playing field, each of us having urges for both sexes, and each of us choosing the sexuality we want to practice. I'm betting homosexuals feel pretty much the same way about being in a heterosexual relationship as you feel about being in a homosexual one.

Also, if it is a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? Why choose to put yourself in a position of otherness, and lead yourself to possible prejudice and persecution? What, gays just want to be different, like the kids who has his face pierced up and dresses all in black?

And you never answered what exactly you disagreed with when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle.

[Scheherazade]

Just did a quick search on Chick-fil-A... Luckily, I don't like chicken. When I go to Nando's, I order the only non-chicken items available on their menu: Steak sandwich and Mediterranean salad.

;)

[Shea]

*sigh* this is getting harder to explain because "the church" takes such a political stance on this issue, and I'm not part of "the church." I guess when someone brings up religion (which wasn't me in this conversation), it's inevitable that I'm going to get grouped in with it.

Maybe it will help if I explain it this way:

I make the choice not to get drunk. I've zero desire to get drunk and I never have. Getting drunk happens to be a popular and accepted activity but I don't agree with that lifestyle. But I also don't go shoving my Bible under people's noses and say "You shouldn't get drunk."

I'm also wondering if you guys think that I'm completely anti-gay marriage? Honestly, I really don't care if it's accepted in this country or not. I don't fight for it, and I don't fight against it. People can do what they want. Just DON'T call me a bigot! :lol:

[miyako73]

But if homosexuality is a choice, and one is judging homosexuals because they've made the choice to love someone of the same sex, how can one claim they don't have those urges? If you don't have those urges, you didn't have to make a choice in the first place. Why would some have to make a choice and why would others, like you, not have to? It would seem to me that the whole "it's a choice" accusation is dependent upon, you know, people actually having to make a choice. That some do and that some don't, as you concede (even if flimsily so), would seem to support that it is indeed out of an individual's control. If it wasn't, we would all be on an equal playing field, each of us having urges for both sexes, and each of us choosing the sexuality we want to practice. I'm betting homosexuals feel pretty much the same way about being in a heterosexual relationship as you feel about being in a homosexual one.

Also, if it is a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? Why choose to put yourself in a position of otherness, and lead yourself to possible prejudice and persecution? What, gays just want to be different, like the kids who has his face pierced up and dresses all in black?

And you never answered what exactly you disagreed with when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle.

Right. LGBT people have moments when they ask themselves why they are what they are. If you think gay men are happy with their gayness, you don't really know their suffering. Too many of them have been duped by therapies because of their desire to change but have failed. Also, too many of them have succumbed to suicide and intentional HIV infection for eventual death because of too much suffering. If what they are is a choice, who, in their right minds, will choose death over life or suffering over stability and comfort?

[tonywalt]

*sigh* this is getting harder to explain because "the church" takes such a political stance on this issue, and I'm not part of "the church." I guess when someone brings up religion (which wasn't me in this conversation), it's inevitable that I'm going to get grouped in with it.

Maybe it will help if I explain it this way:

I make the choice not to get drunk. I've zero desire to get drunk and I never have. Getting drunk happens to be a popular and accepted activity but I don't agree with that lifestyle. But I also don't go shoving my Bible under people's noses and say "You shouldn't get drunk."

I'm also wondering if you guys think that I'm completely anti-gay marriage? Honestly, I really don't care if it's accepted in this country or not. I don't fight for it, and I don't fight against it. People can do what they want. Just DON'T call me a bigot! :lol:

Believe me, if it were a choice - hell, I'd be happy enough to be gay for a bunch of superficial reasons. I have never had a choice, as I've had heterosexual feelings even during my prepubescent stage. And that is true of virtually everyone here - just think about your first feelings of sexuality.

[Paulclem]

Right. LGBT people have moments when they ask themselves why they are what they are. If you think gay men are happy with their gayness, you don't really know their suffering. Too many of them have been duped by therapies because of their desire to change but have failed. Also, too many of them have succumbed to suicide and intentional HIV infection for eventual death because of too much suffering. If what they are is a choice, who, in their right minds, will choose death over life or suffering over stability and comfort?

This vid is from 1979. It made an impression on me when I saw it in the early eighties. It clarified the situation for gay people for me in a way I had never considered before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLc-bh_DrKw

[Paulclem]

The Canadian branch is already out of communion with some of the African ones over issues of gay marriage. Although, they eventually decided on only blessing unions and allowing openly gay clergy, instead of full on marriage in order to prevent a schism with England.

We actually had an openly gay Catholic priest as an MP in Montreal, but he was eventually forced to resign his seat to remain a priest. I think the churches will always reflect the societies they find themselves in, the Catholic Church will come to the left in Quebec simply to stop itself from being completely abandoned.



Yes - I think the African church has a powerful impact upon Anglicanism - in the UK anyway.

[OrphanPip]

Right. LGBT people have moments when they ask themselves why they are what they are. If you think gay men are happy with their gayness, you don't really know their suffering. Too many of them have been duped by therapies because of their desire to change but have failed. Also, too many of them have succumbed to suicide and intentional HIV infection for eventual death because of too much suffering. If what they are is a choice, who, in their right minds, will choose death over life or suffering over stability and comfort?

No need to be so dire though, plenty of LGBT people have been and are happy with themselves.

[miyako73]

I don't agree with that. I still have to meet a transsexual who is happy with herself. I'm accepting of what I am, so I'll survive. I force myself to be happy, so sadness won't drag me to the gallows. My happiness is forced and shallow.

[OrphanPip]

I don't agree with that. I still have to meet a transsexual who is happy with herself. I'm accepting of what I am, so I'll survive. I force myself to be happy, so sadness won't drag me to the gallows. My happiness is forced and shallow.

Well then maybe you are projecting and should worry more about working out your own issues.

[miyako73]

All you have to do is read transsexual memoirs. When your transsexual friends disappear one by one by death, murder, suicide, drugs, AIDS, or despair, you can't really say that they live happy lives.

[tonywalt]

Yes - I think the African church has a powerful impact upon Anglicanism - in the UK anyway.

The West Indian Anglicans and Episcopalians and the other churches in Grand Cayman were/are the driving engine behind embarrassing protests against gay cruises - namely the large Atlantis cruise(s).

As a Caymanian this sort of bigotry was embarrassing for myself and diminished the integrity of the island.

http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=10384177

Here is a pic with the waterfront church in the background and protesters shouting insults as the passengers disembarked.
http://www.bugbitten.com/photos/North_America/Mary/Cayman_Islands_2006/34379-2180-1194114.html

And that's why the church receives well earned criticism.

[JuniperWoolf]

I REALLY do not like being held to the same standard because of my personal opinions and beliefs. And I LOATHE being called a bigot because of people that. I'm not your prime-minister. This is not a black and white issue. I really hurts ME when people behave like that because people jump all over me before I get a chance to explain myself.

But it's my "opinion" that what you've said in this thread has reflected that you are bigoted, and that in fact you're regurgitating flimsy faux-lighthearted Fox News rhetoric which everyone here has heard a million times and which is universally gagged over and/or mocked in every developed nation which isn't the United States to cover up what you know is nothing more than plain old hateful intolerance. I also "believe" that if you vote to restrict the legal rights of other citizens based on their sexual orientation you're committing a human rights violation which will be abhored by your descendants, in the same way that people today are ashamed of their ancestors who voted against the civil rights of non-whites and women, because in voting (if you do) you're actively taking part in their oppression. Even if you don't vote, you're still going along with a modern social movement which restricts human freedom for your own personal religious reasons, which is deplorable.

Oh sorry, you said that hurts you? But it's my opinion, I just really disagree with your lifestyle.

[OrphanPip]

All you have to do is read transsexual memoirs. When your transsexual friends disappear one by one by death, murder, suicide, drugs, AIDS, or despair, you can't really say that they live happy lives.

I won't dispute that the trans community has high rates of depression, which itself is connected to the complicated issues that surround gender identity. Even so, it's ridiculous to say that all trans people are unhappy, or even more ridiculous to imply all LGBT people are unhappy. I know a FtM transsexual who is quite happily married, is a university professor, and has a young child. He seems happy to me.

[Shea]

But in my "opinion," that what you've said in this has reflected that you are bigoted, and that in fact you're regurgitating flimsy faux-lighthearted Fox News rhetoric which everyone here has heard a million times and which is universally gagged over and/or mocked in every developed nation which isn't the United States to cover up what you know is nothing more than plain old hateful intolerance. I also "believe" that if you vote to restrict the legal rights of other citizens based on their sexual orientation you're committing a human rights violation which will be abhored by your descendants, in the same way that people today are ashamed of their ancestors who voted against the civil rights of non-whites and women, because in voting (if you do) you're actively taking part in their oppression. Even if you don't vote, you're still going along with a modern social movement which restricts human freedom for your own personal religious reasons, which is deplorable.

Oh sorry, you said that hurts you? But it's my opinion, I just really disagree with your lifestyle.

You obviously skipped over many of my other comments.

First of all, I DON'T watch Fox news. I have no interest in opinion media and will certainly not let it dictate what I should think.

Secondly, as I said before, I DON'T CARE if gay marriage is accepted in this country one day. I hope this isn't too political a statement, but as you're the one that brought it up, if I agree with with a politician on everything but he/she supports gay marriage, I'm not going to vote (and I do vote) for the other candidate on that reason alone. I do my very best not to let my religious veiws sway my politcal ones. (I know, what a radical concept!)

I believe in the teachings of the Bible and I don't let someone just tell me what the Bible says. I study it for myself to the best of my abilities. Therefore, I would be a hypocrite to say that I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. But I also earlier admitted to having trouble with sins of my own so I'm certainly not going to be the one to "cast the first stone". The people that form the hateful pick lines are the bigots. You'll never see me among them.

Oh, and Juniper, if that's your opinion, then fine, you are entitled to it. But you don't seem to be respectful of mine. Yes, it does hurt that I'm being stereotyped into a group of people with which I don't belong. Therefore, in my opinion, you are no better than the hateful picketers.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If one doesn't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else--i.e., getting married--just because of their sexuality, then yes, I do believe that person is a bigot. Look the word up in a dictionary. The definition is apt.

What I always find frustrating about people with Shea's mindset is their absolute refusal to give any actual reasons as to why they find a gay "lifestyle" (a near-bigoted term itself, as Pip pointed out) so disagreeable, beyond that the Bible says it's wrong and it just "isn't natural."

[Shea]

Believe me, if it were a choice - hell, I'd be happy enough to be gay for a bunch of superficial reasons. I have never had a choice, as I've had heterosexual feelings even during my prepubescent stage. And that is true of virtually everyone here - just think about your first feelings of sexuality.

If you read my recent post on my biblical view, you see why I really am sad you have to go through all the hostility against being gay. You probably don't agree with my biblical view, and that's okay. I just really want you and other gay people to know that I don't hate you or want to "deny rights" to you just because you choose to be gay.


If one doesn't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else--i.e., getting married--just because of their sexuality, then yes, I do believe that person is a bigot. Look the word up in a dictionary. The definition is apt.


I'm really getting tired of repeating myself...:mad2:

I DON'T CARE IF GAY MARRIAGE IS ACCEPTED IN THIS COUNTRY. I DON'T LET MY RELIGIOUS VIEWS SWAY MY VOTING.


What I always find frustrating about people with Shea's mindset is their absolute refusal to give any actual reasons as to why they find a gay "lifestyle" (a near-bigoted term itself, as Pip pointed out) so disagreeable, beyond that the Bible says it's wrong and it just "isn't natural."

My conviction is for the Bible. You don't like that, fine. You don't have to. But if I believe in EVERYTHING else the Bible says, but don't believe that homosexuality is a sin because not "popular" to believe that way, well then, I'd be just as much a hypocrite as the gay bashing bigots.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I purposely said "If ONE doesn't want gay people . . . " because I knew your stance. I wasn't calling you a bigot. I was purposely not doing so, actually. I was just stating my view of what constitutes bigotry. It seemed earlier that you were suggesting not wanting gays to marry was not a bigoted mindset (even if you don't think so yourself).

And thanks for answering. But you don't believe in everything the bible says, right? As you admitted earlier? The bible says all kinds of crazy things.

Also, I'm 99.9% sure Tony isn't gay. :lol:

[Shea]

I purposely said "If ONE doesn't want gay people . . . " because I knew your stance. I wasn't calling you a bigot. I was purposely not doing so, actually. I was just stating my view of what constitutes bigotry.

OH! sorry :blush5: I guess I was on the defensive because of what Juniper said.


It seemed earlier that you were suggesting not wanting gays to marry was not a bigoted mindset (even if you don't think so yourself).

I'm sorry if you guys got that impression of me. I was earlier refereeing a 2 and 4 year old while trying to come up with responses in this thread; maybe I misworded a few things. Several years ago, a woman asked me to play harp for her ceremony. But she said it was for her and her lesbian partner. Because of my religious views, I couldn't agree to play for it. But I didn't tell her she shouldn't have a ceremony. I don't tell people how to live their lives because I don't want anyone telling me how to live mine.


And thanks for answering. But you don't believe in everything the bible says, right? As you admitted earlier? The bible says all kinds of crazy things.

I'm not sure what you are referring to about what I "admitted earlier." The Bible does say all kinds of crazy things when they are taken out of context. When I first joined this forum waaay back in 2003 :D, I was fairly active in the religious text section. But I found that I just simply didn't have enough time in my life to devote to defending it all. So I really don't want to bring all that up here. I didn't want to bring religion up at all really. Someone else asked me my religious views directly.


Also, I'm 99.9% sure Tony isn't gay. :lol:

:lol: Sorry Tony. I've just recently returned to the forums and am not familiar with you yet. :D When you said "I'd be happy enough to be gay for a bunch of superficial reasons" I misunderstood that to mean you were gay. It changes the meaning of the rest of your post. It's unclear now what your point really was because I can't see what you were responding to when I scroll down. It dosen't help that it's after midnight and I'm ready to crash... :lol:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I get ya, Shea. And don't let Juniper put you off. She's brash with everyone. Anyways, we need a replacement for Bien around here, even if you're not as hardcore as him. :D

[Shea]

I get ya, Shea. And don't let Juniper put you off. She's brash with everyone. Anyways, we need a replacement for Bien around here, even if you're not as hardcore as him. :D

:D Thanks Mutatis. I'm not sure who Bien was, but I hope I suffice :lol:

[Paulclem]

The West Indian Anglicans and Episcopalians and the other churches in Grand Cayman were/are the driving engine behind embarrassing protests against gay cruises - namely the large Atlantis cruise(s).

As a Caymanian this sort of bigotry was embarrassing for myself and diminished the integrity of the island.

http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=10384177

Here is a pic with the waterfront church in the background and protesters shouting insults as the passengers disembarked.
http://www.bugbitten.com/photos/North_America/Mary/Cayman_Islands_2006/34379-2180-1194114.html

And that's why the church receives well earned criticism.

Did the business they bring help? If there's one thing that sorts people's minds out it's money. :D

[Alexander III]

:D Thanks Mutatis. I'm not sure who Bien was, but I hope I suffice :lol:

Just to clarify what I said to you before I said under the impression that you were against gay marriage, I apologize if I mistook what you said. Look, if you believe being gay is a sin, that is your belief, but then again drinking and gambling and divorce are pretty big sins too from the biblical perspective; alcohol gambling and divorce are all legal though, so I fail to see from a religious perspective how gay marriage somehow would undermine the morality of the state. Furthermore the majority of western nations are all secular states and as such law and religion should not mix. Until drinking and gambling and divorce are made illegal I fail to see how using the law to prevent gay marriage is an un-hypocritical stance.

[cacian]

To be honest I think the Bible has issue with everthing that is not single minded.
It has issues with people liking each other regardless of gender race and sexuality.
I think that it is devisive and influences people to think and act differently from others who are bound to be different.
I am pretty sure the Bible is not so much about who is gay or not but it is about the underlaying ideology that all are to comply to one thing and one thing only. It is a pretty devisive power trip.
I believe it uses homsexuality as a base to divide people's ideas opinions . It does not allow room for one to reflect and think without being influenced by this terrifying god it makes out to be and brings in concepts of hell and heaven to keep people influenced and scared.
I do not believe that God is that terrifying or indeed punishing I would say it is the total opposite.
Had the Bible not been I am pretty sure would have totally accepted and lived side to side with other people with different aspirations and sexual orientations without a single issue.
I think the Bible uses God as a tool , a punisher, in order to ensure that people who think may be different would comply a guilt trip it imposes and it does work but not all the times.
This is my honest opinion and is not meant to offend any Bilble believers.

[Shea]

Just to clarify what I said to you before I said under the impression that you were against gay marriage, I apologize if I mistook what you said.

No worries, Alex. The veiw I take on the matter isn't a common one. I can see how I had been misunderstood.


Look, if you believe being gay is a sin, that is your belief, but then again drinking and gambling and divorce are pretty big sins too from the biblical perspective;

I just want to say here, that drinking is not a sin, drunkenness is. As far as I can tell, gambling is not specifically a sin either, but the Bible teaches Christians to be responsible with finances. And the only biblical grounds for divorce is marital unfaithfulness.

To sum that up, everything in moderation. :D


alcohol gambling and divorce are all legal though, so I fail to see from a religious perspective how gay marriage somehow would undermine the morality of the state. Furthermore the majority of western nations are all secular states and as such law and religion should not mix. Until drinking and gambling and divorce are made illegal I fail to see how using the law to prevent gay marriage is an un-hypocritical stance.

But that's just it, I'm not using the law to prevent gay marriage. If a politician I like (how can you really wholly agree with any of them :rolleyes: ) wants to make gay marriage legal, I'll still vote for him/her. If the issue of gay marriage is on the ballot by itself, I'll probably skip over it for the same reason I wouldn't play my harp for the lesbian ceremony.

I think this where I'd gotten misunderstood: when the head of Chick-Fil-A said that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, I didn't see that as a political statement against gay marriage. I saw it as him stating his personal beliefs which happen to fall in line with mine and I know that it's a "Christian company". If he did actually make a political statement against gay marriage, then I missed it, sorry. But even if he did, I'm not going to boycott his restaurant for it. If I started boycotting companies because they support gay marriage, then I might as well go join the Amish. :D


This is my honest opinion and is not meant to offend any Bilble believers.

I can see and respect your opinion. But I'm curious, do you believe this way because that's what you read in the Bible (because I can think of passages that actually are the opposite of some of the things you say), or is it because you've come across too many "Bible thumpers"? I only ask, because I've come across a miriad of people, "Bible thumpers" and "quiet quoters" alike, who will completely take verses out of context to fit their own adjenda. So I can see how so many people come up with your conclusions.

I'll never forget the time I was talking to a coworker and she was telling me about how interracial marriage is a sin.:yikes: After I picked up my slacked jaw, I asked her where it says that. She quoted 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked." She apparently was not a good speller. She explained to me that we shouldn't be mixing our "eggs" with other races. I tried to explain to her that first of all, the "yoke" in that passage is talking about a yoke of oxen, not egg yolks.:smilielol5: And secondly, the context of the passage is Paul warning the Christians in Corinth to not accept idolaters into Christ's assembly and has nothing to do with race.

Her adjenda was a racist one, so that was how she was going to read and teach that passage. I've heard similar things come from other people depending on their adjenda.

[tonywalt]

Did the business they bring help? If there's one thing that sorts people's minds out it's money. :D

Paulclem, I wish it would have changed their views. One has to consider their ignorance being stemmed from a lack of application to ample educational opportunity along (and more importantly) with the dangerous religious dogma they happily subscribe to without critical thought.

Their views were brought over and passed on from their distant forefathers whose sub-saharan point of origin still retains those views-to point of systemic violence. It is embedded in that culture, which is not my own.


I purposely said "If ONE doesn't want gay people . . . " because I knew your stance. I wasn't calling you a bigot. I was purposely not doing so, actually. I was just stating my view of what constitutes bigotry. It seemed earlier that you were suggesting not wanting gays to marry was not a bigoted mindset (even if you don't think so yourself).

And thanks for answering. But you don't believe in everything the bible says, right? As you admitted earlier? The bible says all kinds of crazy things.

Also, I'm 99.9% sure Tony isn't gay. :lol:

Thank you Mutatis. I was trying to say that gays always seem to have a good time - it's hard to deny - and I'm not a little bit envious.

[Paulclem]

Paulclem, I wish it would have changed their views. One has to consider their ignorance being stemmed from a lack of application to ample educational opportunity along (and more importantly) with the dangerous religious dogma they happily subscribe to without critical thought.

Their views were brought over and passed on from their distant forefathers whose sub-saharan point of origin still retains those views-to point of systemic violence. It is embedded in that culture, which is not my own.



A difficult situaton. In the UK, those old attitudes are embodied into modern mind sets at least. It must be more difficult in societies like yours.

[JuniperWoolf]

First of all, I DON'T watch Fox news. I have no interest in opinion media and will certainly not let it dictate what I should think.

Oh please, you articulate the lingo like it was your college major. "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle" - do you realize that that sentence doesn't make sense, and that no one outside of the American opinion media uses it? What you've brought to the table so far has really just been very typical religious right rhetoric. That's not necessarily a bad thing, we really do need a replacement for Bien.


I hope this isn't too political a statement, but as you're the one that brought it up, if I agree with with a politician on everything but he/she supports gay marriage, I'm not going to vote (and I do vote) for the other candidate on that reason alone. I do my very best not to let my religious veiws sway my politcal ones. (I know, what a radical concept!).

I did say:


I also "believe" that if (bolded word: if) you vote to restrict the legal rights of other citizens based on their sexual orientation you're committing a human rights violation which will be abhored by your descendants, in the same way that people today are ashamed of their ancestors who voted against the civil rights of non-whites and women, because in voting [clarification: against gay marriage] (if you do) you're actively taking part in their oppression.

And then I further elaborated:


Even if you don't vote [clarification: against gay marriage], you're still going along with a modern social movement which restricts human freedom for your own personal religious reasons.

See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.


Oh, and Juniper, if that's your opinion, then fine, you are entitled to it. But you don't seem to be respectful of mine.

Why should I be? You value a few passages in an obviously convoluted old book more than you do the physical and mental health of your fellow human beings (and just so that we don't have to waste a few posts clearing up this particular subtext: the belief that homosexuals are at the very least "unclean" or "abominations" and at worst will literally burn for all eternity because of the way they are, and the casual malice inherent in and violence inspired by that belief, obviously causes very much suffering). And for what reason? where is the logic behind being anti-homosexual (or, if you want the faux-lighthearted rhetoric, "against the homosexual lifestyle")? They're not hurting anyone. Also, why is it immoral for me to vocalize my strong disagreement? How much harm does opposing homophobia cause? No where near as much as your "belief" which I'm supposed to respect without question for some reason. You did choose this belief you know, and so I hold you accountable for it.

[Babyguile]

Shea, so in other words, you disagree with homosexuality but keep your opinions to yourself? You would for instance abstain from voting on a ballot specifically addressing gay marriage in your home state?

While that's good news for your country, as a science-minded person, I do have a problem with you stating it has not been proven that homosexuality is genetic. The problem here is you are claiming your beliefs subscribe to the scientific method, but of course your opinions, as you have made clear, are gathered from a book. In other words, you get to the conclusion first, then try and find justifications for it. This is where your ignorance shows, both in the above example, and also in your use of the term 'gay lifestyle' (you haven't explained what you mean by that).

Would you re-think your opinion of homosexuals if, somehow, scientfic evidence provides proof that homosexuality is not a choice?

It's a false dichotomy anyway, but it's your fault that we are being made to go down this route. People do indeed choose who they want to partner and can indulge in sexual curiosity as they like, as long as it is with consenting adults, and that for me is completely fine.

[cacian]

Well being gay is clearly natural because it is not a belief like we believe in religions.
It is a not choice or a trend it is a fact of life.
I think that people who have issue with someone different from them have issue with god too.

[JuniperWoolf]

Would you re-think your opinion of homosexuals if, somehow, scientfic evidence provides proof that homosexuality is not a choice?

It'll never be "unbiased" enough (because whenever science doesn't corroborate your opinion, it's biased).

[Shea]

I really want to respond to everything here, but I'm very busy today.

But I just wanted to say, Juniper, I think I know why you believe I watch Fox news (when seriously, I really don't). My parents do. Everytime we go to visit them (which is maybe once or twice a year), it's on ALL the time. I disagree with A LOT of what my parents believe religiously and politically, but not everything, and maybe I've "picked up" a few phrases that flagged me as a Fox news viewer without realizing it.

Honestly, the channel that's mostly on our TV, is Disney Jr.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Can I also just mention that not all Christians agree on the 'cause' of homosexuality or exactly what the Bible says about it.

[cacian]

Can I also just mention that not all Christians agree on the 'cause' of homosexuality or exactly what the Bible says about it.

so what is their thoughts on this if they do not agree with the Bible?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

so what is their thoughts on this if they do not agree with the Bible?

Many Christians don't see the Bible as a literal history book, but a book of stories and metaphors and use it as guide for life rather than a dictum to be blindly followed.

[Shea]

Okay, so I'm sorry that suddenly my life is very full at the moment. As much as I want to respond to everyone, I simply don't have time right now and probably won't be on much at all the next couple of weeks.

So I'm going to generalize my answers.

Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.

That said, I'm going to give you my bottom line.

I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE. Therefore, I appreciate NOT being called a bigot because I won't write gay fiction and I choose to publish with a company that doesn't accept gay fiction. I actually chose them because they don't publish anything that has harsh language or "pink parts" in them. I like that I can pick any of their books to read and not be made to feel uncomfortable. I'd much rather be called a prude than a bigot.

[Charles Darnay]

Okay, so I'm sorry that suddenly my life is very full at the moment. As much as I want to respond to everyone, I simply don't have time right now and probably won't be on much at all the next couple of weeks.

So I'm going to generalize my answers.

Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.

That said, I'm going to give you my bottom line.

I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE. Therefore, I appreciate NOT being called a bigot because I won't write gay fiction and I choose to publish with a company that doesn't accept gay fiction. I actually chose them because they don't publish anything that has harsh language or "pink parts" in them. I like that I can pick any of their books to read and not be made to feel uncomfortable. I'd much rather be called a prude than a bigot.

In one sense I can respect you for not forcing your beliefs on other people, or as you put it: "not tell[ing] anyone how to live their life." But there is a mixed message in your post here.

I don't think people should be condemned for not supporting something. I do not understand why people are so offended by the notion of gay marriage: I know all the biblical logic and it still baffles my mind. But if you don't agree with something you don't agree with something - beliefs are not in of themselves logical. So you don't agree with homosexuality - fine.

But not agreeing with something and calling it a sin are two separate things. Saying you don't agree with something can at least acknowledge that the opposing view has some legitimacy, but you will not partake in it. Labeling it a "sin" is judging it from a superior position and condemning someone as inferior - and this is where, as Juniper alluded to, the line of promoting hate comes from. I don't know if you are very vocal about the matter or not, that is irrelevant. If you want to stay completely out of the matter at least accept that you are just following your own belief and don't judge those who don't share your belief. Part of the right-wing conservative hate stems from the fact that people don't realize the impact of their words, how even just the word sin carries with it a connotation that they may not mean.

The pastor who said that homosexuality is a sin and all "them gays" should be put in a fenced area until they die off - in this case, he meant that homosexuality is a sin. He put himself as a superior power talking about inferior beings. You may not wish to kill every homosexual in the world (I would guess you probably don't) but by recognizing it is "sin" you are participating in the same dogma.

Let it be known that I am not attacking you or your beliefs and I stated, I can respect your disagreement with homosexuality (even if I don't understand it) - I'm just questioning your language.

[Shea]

Let it be known that I am not attacking you or your beliefs and I stated, I can respect your disagreement with homosexuality (even if I don't understand it) - I'm just questioning your language.

No, I get what your saying. I guess the issue here is, I'm not vocal about it. But the minute I say that I believe it's a sin, I'm suddenly lumped in with bigots, which is why I posted here in the first place. I actually have to disagree with your explaination of "sin". You're describing what a right-wing preacher would do. Jesus ate and kept company with "tax-collectors and sinners". He didn't behave in the way you're suggesting. My bi-sexual friend knows what I believe. But she also knows I'm not going to shove my beliefs down her throat because I feel she needs to be a "better person." She IS a good person and we have fun on our "Mommy-day-outs." If she one day comes to agree with me biblically, then that's great. If not, that's her choice, and she won't be any less my friend for it.

[Revolte]

Yes. But personally, I don't have those urges.



Wait, what? I think if you think you can choose to be gay, then you're in the closet. No offense though, I just think that's the logical application for that statement.

[Charles Darnay]

No, I get what your saying. I guess the issue here is, I'm not vocal about it. But the minute I say that I believe it's a sin, I'm suddenly lumped in with bigots, which is why I posted here in the first place. I actually have to disagree with your explaination of "sin". You're describing what a right-wing preacher would do. Jesus ate and kept company with "tax-collectors and sinners". He didn't behave in the way you're suggesting. My bi-sexual friend knows what I believe. But she also knows I'm not going to shove my beliefs down her throat because I feel she needs to be a "better person." She IS a good person and we have fun on our "Mommy-day-outs." If she one day comes to agree with me biblically, then that's great. If not, that's her choice, and she won't be any less my friend for it.

So sinners can be good people? Why label them at all. No, I'm not suggesting you use the word to the same extent that a bigot preacher does, but there is a moral judgement in the word, whether you accept it or not. We alone cannot choose the societal connotations of our words

[Darcy88]

You obviously skipped over many of my other comments.

First of all, I DON'T watch Fox news. I have no interest in opinion media and will certainly not let it dictate what I should think.

Secondly, as I said before, I DON'T CARE if gay marriage is accepted in this country one day. I hope this isn't too political a statement, but as you're the one that brought it up, if I agree with with a politician on everything but he/she supports gay marriage, I'm not going to vote (and I do vote) for the other candidate on that reason alone. I do my very best not to let my religious veiws sway my politcal ones. (I know, what a radical concept!)

I believe in the teachings of the Bible and I don't let someone just tell me what the Bible says. I study it for myself to the best of my abilities. Therefore, I would be a hypocrite to say that I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. But I also earlier admitted to having trouble with sins of my own so I'm certainly not going to be the one to "cast the first stone". The people that form the hateful pick lines are the bigots. You'll never see me among them.

Oh, and Juniper, if that's your opinion, then fine, you are entitled to it. But you don't seem to be respectful of mine. Yes, it does hurt that I'm being stereotyped into a group of people with which I don't belong. Therefore, in my opinion, you are no better than the hateful picketers.

The part of the bible which calls homosexuality an abomination was written at a time when the bisexual Hellenistic culture was competing with the Jewish one and young men were going to gymnasiums to work out nude instead of going to Temple to study the Torah. So the priests tried to demonize the Greeks and Macedonians, a great way of doing that being to demonize them for their bisexuality.

It was simple propaganda. The bible has to be open to interpretation. A too literal reading and you can justify any kind of discrimination.

The message of love was far more hammered-home in the gospels than that of discrimination. I doubt if Jesus were ministering today he'd be wasting his time trying to deny a group of people the right to marry. I'm sure he would be working on world hunger and ending war and overpopulation and economic trouble and a million other causes before the issue of gay marriage even entered his mind.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The message of love was far more hammered-home in the gospels than that of discrimination. I doubt if Jesus were ministering today he'd be wasting his time trying to deny a group of people the right to marry. I'm sure he would be working on world hunger and ending war and overpopulation and economic trouble and a million other causes before the issue of gay marriage even entered his mind.

Word.

[tonywalt]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1158076]The part of the bible which calls homosexuality an abomination was written at a time when the bisexual Hellenistic culture was competing with the Jewish one and young men were going to gymnasiums to work out nude instead of going to Temple to study the Torah.

Damn, should I stop working out nude?

[the facade]

Word.

Double Word.

[cacian]

The part of the bible which calls homosexuality an abomination was written at a time when the bisexual Hellenistic culture was competing with the Jewish one and young men were going to gymnasiums to work out nude instead of going to Temple to study the Torah. So the priests tried to demonize the Greeks and Macedonians, a great way of doing that being to demonize them for their bisexuality.

It was simple propaganda. The bible has to be open to interpretation. A too literal reading and you can justify any kind of discrimination.

The message of love was far more hammered-home in the gospels than that of discrimination. I doubt if Jesus were ministering today he'd be wasting his time trying to deny a group of people the right to marry. I'm sure he would be working on world hunger and ending war and overpopulation and economic trouble and a million other causes before the issue of gay marriage even entered his mind.

I doubt marriage was even on the agenda at the time I am sure marriage is fairly newish concept and was not during Jesus time.
Marriage came about with the birth of cathedrals and church buildings and as far as now these buildings were not about when Jesus was around.
Notice the manger being the place of birth of Jesus.
Oh manger is French means ''to eat'' used with reference to people.


The part of the bible which calls homosexuality an abomination was written at a time when the bisexual Hellenistic culture was competing with the Jewish one and young men were going to gymnasiums to work out nude instead of going to Temple to study the Torah. So the priests tried to demonize the Greeks and Macedonians, a great way of doing that being to demonize them for their bisexuality.

It was simple propaganda. The bible has to be open to interpretation. A too literal reading and you can justify any kind of discrimination.

The message of love was far more hammered-home in the gospels than that of discrimination. I doubt if Jesus were ministering today he'd be wasting his time trying to deny a group of people the right to marry. I'm sure he would be working on world hunger and ending war and overpopulation and economic trouble and a million other causes before the issue of gay marriage even entered his mind.

It goes to show how civilisation such as the greeks who exceeded in art and architect and yet manage to drop a bomb on their own cultured self by running aroung naked in arenas without a care in the world. So much knowledge and wealth and nothing to show for it or at leat in the clothing department. One would feel for very sorry for those fashionistas who would have spend hours on end trying to execute artistic designs to impress their rulers only to find out it was wasted on these nude wannabe fit.

[Darcy88]

I doubt marriage was even on the agenda at the time I am sure marriage is fairly newish concept and was not during Jesus time.
Marriage came about with the birth of cathedrals and church buildings and as far as now these buildings were not about when Jesus was around.
Notice the manger being the place of birth of Jesus.
Oh manger is French means ''to eat'' used with reference to people.

No, just no. The peoples of the mediterranean and beyond were marrying centuries and probably thousands of years before Jesus. I don't know where you got this idea from but marriage was an institution established LONG before Christ.

You have a God who came to the earth and made the sermon on the mount. You read the sermon on the mount and then ask yourself whether a one so wise as that would really be taking the trouble today to deny rights to a long-despised group of people. It can easily be argued that the message of the gospels is positive towards homosexuals. For a long time in the western world homosexuals were stupidly hated and to a large degree this bigotry still exists. Christ was about promoting the welfare and pride of the weakest - of the poor, the ill, the despised, the righteous.

If people want an excuse to discriminate against gays.....the bible is hardly the place to go to find justification. The origin of their hatred lies only in their own hearts and any scriptural corroboration is mere projection, the result of confirmation bias and simple ignorant misreading.

[Alexander III]

I doubt marriage was even on the agenda at the time I am sure marriage is fairly newish concept and was not during Jesus time.
Marriage came about with the birth of cathedrals and church buildings and as far as now these buildings were not about when Jesus was around.
Notice the manger being the place of birth of Jesus.
Oh manger is French means ''to eat'' used with reference to people.

Call me crazy but I am quite sure the Greeks and Romans had marriage, and even then no one thought of it as a novel concept but a rather old one.

[Charles Darnay]

Call me crazy but I am quite sure the Greeks and Romans had marriage, and even then no one thought of it as a novel concept but a rather old one.

You're crazy! Jesus came down to earth and clearly sad:

"Look guys, I know you have been around for thousands of years, and i've been watching you. I even hid out in that bush you set on fire a while back....but seriously, this massive orgy thing has to stop. That is why I have invented this thing called marriage: it's when you pick one partner and stay with them (until you get bored or find some seriously flaw and then do everything you can to get rid of that person. ) This will solve all our problems."

Unfortunately this part was taken out of the Sermon.

[Bluehound]

Apparently the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history. But if it was all recorded, I bet there would be examples of same sex marriages and poly marriages as the norm in some cultures or groups especially before the ceremony got so tangled up with religion.

I for one think that it is far more important for people to be happy, than to be forced to live a lie.

Would anyone want to be married to someone who was actually gay , just because in their developmental years , parents, teachers and peers forced them to hide their true selves and act straight ?
It is better for everyone if we are all aloud to express ourselves truthfully, that way less people will get hurt.

In my own experience I knew I was Bi from a very early age, I was attracted to both sexes before I even understood what attraction was, so there is no doubt in my mind that it is something you are born with and fighting it just makes everyone unhappy.

As for the bible view of things I have to agree that it was written at a very different time to our own, the bible that we read today is only a very small part of what was written anyway , there were probably loads of bits taken out that said love who you want and women are not the inferior sex.
Plus I am sure that there were political reasons for wanting other nations to believe you were a large force of fertile men with loads of offspring ready to take up arms when they grew up.

And Jesus seems like a pretty cool guy to me, he wouldn't be encouraging us to hate people for any reason let alone something that is not their fault.

[Helga]

I for one think that it is far more important for people to be happy, than to be forced to live a lie.

Would anyone want to be married to someone who was actually gay , just because in their developmental years , parents, teachers and peers forced them to hide their true selves and act straight ?
It is better for everyone if we are all aloud to express ourselves truthfully, that way less people will get hurt.

As for the bible view of things I have to agree that it was written at a very different time to our own, the bible that we read today is only a very small part of what was written anyway
.


We on the ice are very liberal and I said before that we allow everyone to get married (in the church too). But there is a group here called 'the cross' (there are probably groups like that all over the world) they think they can make you stop being gay. This was a big issue here a while back, mainly because it's a small country and almost everything becomes a big issue.

Oh and about the bible, what about that missing part they found in 'Red Dwarf' that explains a lot.

[cacian]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1158134]No, just no. The peoples of the mediterranean and beyond were marrying centuries and probably thousands of years before Jesus. I don't know where you got this idea from but marriage was an institution established LONG before Christ.
Ok. Prove it.


You have a God who came to the earth and made the sermon on the mount. You read the sermon on the mount and then ask yourself whether a one so wise as that would really be taking the trouble today to deny rights to a long-despised group of people. It can easily be argued that the message of the gospels is positive towards homosexuals. For a long time in the western world homosexuals were stupidly hated and to a large degree this bigotry still exists. Christ was about promoting the welfare and pride of the weakest - of the poor, the ill, the despised, the righteous.
One of the reasons why marriage came about was because homosexuality was feared to become the norm. In order to single out those who do not conform to
a) religion-
b) straight sex
is then punished using marriage as a sacrilege only to those who obey god and are straight.


If people want an excuse to discriminate against gays.....the bible is hardly the place to go to find justification. The origin of their hatred lies only in their own hearts and any scriptural corroboration is mere projection, the result of confirmation bias and simple ignorant misreading.
People do not need excuses because the religion does it for them.


Call me crazy but I am quite sure the Greeks and Romans had marriage, and even then no one thought of it as a novel concept but a rather old one.

there are no records of marriage certificates but there are thousands of books and literary material dating back to the pharoahs even.

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE]
Ok. Prove it.




EVERY GREEK AND ROMAN PRIMARY SOURCE, PREDATING CHRIST BY CENTURIES, SPEAKS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, OFTEN IN GREAT DETAIL.

Proved. Next!

[Charles Darnay]

Ok. Prove it.

Plato (almost 400 years before Jesus) makes numerous references to marriage and marriage laws in The Republic. He also reportedly died at a weeding feast.

Hammurabi's Code (long before Jesus) references marriage laws and the rights of women after marriage many times.

The law of marriage has nothing to do with laws of homosexuality. The idea of homosexual acts and marriage are two separate matters in the ancient world. The purpose of marriage was strictly business. A man married a woman so he could take possession of her (and then have kids to take possession of them). A man would not marry another man because a man would never take possession of a man who he respected, only slaves.

[stlukesguild]

Hell... I though Odysseus was married to Penelope... or were they just shacking up?:brow:

Of course they are fictive characters, but one would assume that they are based upon reality.

There are also any number of references to marriage, husbands and wives in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) that predates Christ by quite some time in many instances.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It goes to show how civilisation such as the greeks who exceeded in art and architect and yet manage to drop a bomb on their own cultured self by running aroung naked in arenas without a care in the world. So much knowledge and wealth and nothing to show for it or at leat in the clothing department. One would feel for very sorry for those fashionistas who would have spend hours on end trying to execute artistic designs to impress their rulers only to find out it was wasted on these nude wannabe fit.
This all quite confusing, but hilariously so.

there are no records of marriage certificates but there are thousands of books and literary material dating back to the pharoahs even.
So, is marriage a "fairly newish" concept or not? At one point you say it wasn't around until after Christ, and now you're saying it existed during the existence of the Pharoahs. Which is it?

[Scheherazade]

He also reportedly died at a weeding feast.
*utterly shocked*

Not at a weeding feast! I wonder what Paul's neighbourly allotment group would say about that...

[Darcy88]

It goes to show how civilisation such as the greeks who exceeded in art and architect and yet manage to drop a bomb on their own cultured self by running aroung naked in arenas without a care in the world. So much knowledge and wealth and nothing to show for it or at leat in the clothing department. One would feel for very sorry for those fashionistas who would have spend hours on end trying to execute artistic designs to impress their rulers only to find out it was wasted on these nude wannabe fit.

What does this mean? What were you attempting to convey here?

The Greeks dominated much of the mediterranean world, conquering the greatest empire of antiquity - the persian. They left a literature that baffles in all areas - drama, philosophy, history, poetry. Their culture was in many ways picked up and expanded upon by the Romans. The Greeks formed many of the central pillars of Western culture, without that land's existence and action throughout history our culture would be unrecognizable. They took beauty and knowledge and war-making and showed that part of the world how they were done.

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

[Revolte]

[QUOTE]

Damn, should I stop working out nude?

That is not a trend I would want to suffer myself, so no.



So, is marriage a "fairly newish" concept or not? At one point you say it wasn't around until after Christ, and now you're saying it existed during the existence of the Pharoahs. Which is it?

The concept of marriage has morphed throughout history. Today Christianity still reigns as the supreme religion in popular/political culture. So in the context of today's structure and system of marriage then yes it wasn't around until after the church.

Remember Jesus did not construct christian marriage, nor did Jesus really do much of anything other then radical and less radical political and social demonstrations. With of course a little bit of religion thrown into the mix.

But as it appears in text, Jesus is more or less a knock off of Horas.

I don't think Jesus's name should be brought up into the concept of Marriage anyhow, as it was the people who structured, maintained and created the religiously imposed law. The church has always had a great deal of say in cultural rule sets. Just as it does today with religion being implemented into election propaganda.

However, that isn't to say that before Christianity was a full on religion, that there weren't other forms of marriage.

Religion is only one aspect of influence on marriage. Without political worth, there would be no such thing.

With that being said the assumption that marriage has a universal set of rules is inaccurate. As other cultures, other religions and of course politics have decide relative generalized morality and importance of marriage and similar relationships throughout the ages.

[JuniperWoolf]

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

I don't think she was insulting them, it seems that she was saying that to be a nude bisexual doesn't preclude being brilliant. Just saying that a culture has a tendancy towards nudity and bisexuality isn't an insult.

She's incorrect about marriage though, of course it's been around since before the new testament. Actually the new testament barely mentions marriage in any form, nothing about it's "sanctity" or anything of the sort, the only place where it's talked about is when Jesus turned water into wine during a wedding feast (seriously, that's it). It does call homosexuals "unclean" and "abominations" though.

[Alexander III]

The other day I was casually strolling around wikipedia and discovered something that would be of interest to the thread. In ancient Rome, starting during the late republic and lasting until the majority rise of christianity, gay male couples would get married. This was a marriage which from a religious perspective was deemed recognizable but from a legal perspective was not recognized. This is because roman culture was uber-patrirchal, yet this sexual stoicness was severely undermined by the conquest of greece which brought along with art and culture many other tendencies of the greeks. So male roman couples could get married with all the religious rites and priests, but under roman law they would not be married because a true roman would never take it up the ***.

[Bluehound]

Oh and about the bible, what about that missing part they found in 'Red Dwarf' that explains a lot.


Hahaha I blummin love Red Dwarf and this is one of my favorite bits.

There is a new series coming soon, can't wait :)

[cacian]

This all quite confusing, but hilariously so.
glad you found a glimer of hilariousness in it we can't be bearing seriousness all the time.

So, is marriage a "fairly newish" concept or not? At one point you say it wasn't around until after Christ, and now you're saying it existed during the existence of the Pharoahs. Which is it?
I said that marriage to me must be a fairly newish concept only established itself with the coming of the bible. Christianity and Islam introduced marriage as a sacrilege act in the sight of god because it meant it would
be the ticket to entering heaven. Marriage is one the pillar of Islam. Before these two main religions there was no concept of heaven and hell but there was, as in the time of the Pharoahs ,the concept of the afterlife which did not demand marriage to achieve it. As we have seen it the Pharoahs had instead with their burials offerings and the idea of gifts to the Gods meant that they would reach the afterlife after they had passed away.
For this very reason I do not believe marriage was around before that.
You do not have to believe it but this is my own interpretation of an institution such as marriage


What does this mean? What were you attempting to convey here?

The Greeks dominated much of the mediterranean world, conquering the greatest empire of antiquity - the persian. They left a literature that baffles in all areas - drama, philosophy, history, poetry. Their culture was in many ways picked up and expanded upon by the Romans. The Greeks formed many of the central pillars of Western culture, without that land's existence and action throughout history our culture would be unrecognizable. They took beauty and knowledge and war-making and showed that part of the world how they were done.

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

Ah. I never said bisexuals I said ''wannabe fit'' sexuality has nothing to do with it. I am not trying to convey anything. I am stating something I feel need to be said. If someone going to expose themselves in this way then there will be comments made by others who view this kind of behaviour as unacceptable.
Running naked is normally an act of maddness and as far as I know that's what mad people do. I speak from experience I have come close a couple of people who went unfortunatly mad and in their first sign of maddness they had taken to the street naked . That is the truth and such a shocking one I could never forget it.

[Alexander III]

glad you found a glimer of hilariousness in it we can't be bearing seriousness all the time.

I said that marriage to me must be a fairly newish concept only established itself with the coming of the bible.Christianity and Islam introduced marriage as a sacrilege act in the sight of god because it meant it would
be the ticket to enter heaven. Marriage is one the pillar in Islam. Before these two main religions there was no such a concept as heaven or hell but there was as in the time of the Pharoahs the concept of the afterlife which did not demand marriage to ener it.
For this very reason I do not believe marriage was around before that.



Ah. I never said bisexuals I said ''wannabe fit'' sexuality has nothing to do with it. I am not trying to convey anything. I am stating something I feel need to be said. If someone going to expose themselves in this way then there will be comments made by others who view this kind of behaviour as unacceptable.
Running naked is normally an act of maddness and as far as I know that's what mad people do. I speak from experience I have come close a couple of people who went unfortunatly mad and in their first sign of maddness they had taken to the street naked . That is the truth and such a shocking one I could never forget it.


Sure, why not, I agree with everything you said.

[Darcy88]

glad you found a glimer of hilariousness in it we can't be bearing seriousness all the time.

I said that marriage to me must be a fairly newish concept only established itself with the coming of the bible. Christianity and Islam introduced marriage as a sacrilege act in the sight of god because it meant it would
be the ticket to entering heaven. Marriage is one the pillar of Islam. Before these two main religions there was no concept of heaven and hell but there was, as in the time of the Pharoahs ,the concept of the afterlife which did not demand marriage to achieve it. As we have seen it the Pharoahs had instead with their burials offerings and the idea of gifts to the Gods meant that they would reach the afterlife after they had passed away.
For this very reason I do not believe marriage was around before that.
You do not have to believe it but this is my own interpretation of an institution such as marriage



Ah. I never said bisexuals I said ''wannabe fit'' sexuality has nothing to do with it. I am not trying to convey anything. I am stating something I feel need to be said. If someone going to expose themselves in this way then there will be comments made by others who view this kind of behaviour as unacceptable.
Running naked is normally an act of maddness and as far as I know that's what mad people do. I speak from experience I have come close a couple of people who went unfortunatly mad and in their first sign of maddness they had taken to the street naked . That is the truth and such a shocking one I could never forget it.

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3974&d=1324510645

[Alexander III]

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3974&d=1324510645

Oh come on Scher, why does he get to post his funny picture and I don't?

[cacian]

Sure, why not, I agree with everything you said.

Agree? who asked you to agree this is an open forum I am merely adding my views on the topic agreeing or not is not the point.
Freedom and speech and all that.


http://www.spacetimestudios.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3974&d=1324510645

:D LOL I give you that this is too funny :smash:

[TurquoiseSunset]

Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.

Since I was very small I was taught (not by my parents though) that heteros = good (heaven) and homos = bad (hell). I became friends at school with people who were homosexual and I felt very conflicted about the whole business at times. Here I had some awesome friends, who are good people, but the only thing was, that they were gay, which was obviously wrong.

It was a process… First I thought that, fine, homosexuality is a sin, but I’m also a sinner, so I can’t judge. They are not actually hurting anyone and their life choices are theirs to makes, etc etc.

Then after a time I started believing that they were all borne that way. In the beginning this was difficult for me, because I was taught homosexuality was a sin, so why would God create homosexuals? I’ve known some of my gay friends since we were little. You could tell even then, even when none of us knew about sexuality of any sort. They have all said that they’ve always been like that…ever since they can remember. I truly believe that. I saw it.

So if they were borne that way I was presented with a different problem. God created them that way. Now, some people I know have argued that people can become gay because of satanic or demonic influences they were exposed to as babies, in the mother’s womb (because of Free Masonry in the family and all that or other similar jazz) and so on. I don’t have evidence to prove otherwise but I honestly disagree with that notion. I couldn’t see any more bad in my friends than I did in myself.

So basically I felt that if God created them and they were most probably NOT possessed, then maybe he made them homosexual because that is part of their set of challenges they get in life. Mine’s just different.

Then I started doing research about the passages that reference homosexuality. I also looked at the Greek and Hebrew meanings and structure of the words as well as the historical context (like some have mentioned) as well as other people’s opinions (lay and ‘expert’) on the subject. Turns out all of those passages can be and have been interpreted in all kinds of ways. My point is all the interpretations are a bit fuzzy and none of us can really be sure about the original meaning of those passages or words. You chose to believe something and I chose to believe something different.

So, to get back to your comments, I don’t personally disagree with the Bible, I disagree with the interpretation of it, or parts of it. I don’t have an agenda other than wanting to know all the facts, so to speak. I 'believe' in the Bible as much as you…just not in the same way.

You do get people who obviously misquote or twist the interpretation to suit them, but I just want you to understand that not everyone who disagrees with certain interpretations have those intentions. So some of us who challenge or disagree with your beliefs don't necessarily try to change the Bible to fit our beliefs, but some of us also try to fit ourselves to the Bible (to use your words).

[cacian]

What does this mean? What were you attempting to convey here?

The Greeks dominated much of the mediterranean world, conquering the greatest empire of antiquity - the persian. They left a literature that baffles in all areas - drama, philosophy, history, poetry. Their culture was in many ways picked up and expanded upon by the Romans. The Greeks formed many of the central pillars of Western culture, without that land's existence and action throughout history our culture would be unrecognizable. They took beauty and knowledge and war-making and showed that part of the world how they were done.

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

Can I just politely add this for another piece of information regarding the Greeks made to gymnast in the nude.
Just so you now that these greek ''bisexuals' with all due respects to them, were made to gymnast/exrcise in the nude. They did not have a choice over the matter.
It is a bit like the nazis with the Jews there was forced nudity in the camps.
The same recurrant awful treatment.

[OrphanPip]

Please don't equate culturally appropriate nudity in a gymnasium with forced nudity in a concentration camp.

[Darcy88]

Can I just politely add this for another piece of information regarding the Greeks made to gymnast in the nude.
Just so you now that these greek ''bisexuals' with all due respects to them, were made to gymnast/exrcise in the nude. They did not have a choice over the matter.
Let's say it is a bit like the nazis with the Jews.
The jews were made to strip naked ( in the nude) whilst in the concentration camps.
The same idea the same attitude.
One is Greek and another is a nazi.
A bit like one is a roman and another is a Greek.

^ This isn't Sparta. This is MADNESS!

[cacian]

Please don't equate culturally appropriate nudity in a gymnasium with forced nudity in a concentration camp.

Please do not misread heavily into what I wrote.
Nudity in a gymnasium is nothing to do with Culture.
It is quite dangerous and might get everyone involded very hurt.
Running nude and exercising is against health and safety hence sporst wear and gears to protect from possible dangers.
An example to explain what I mean is the gladiatores. They were slaves then forced to prepare for gladiatory life and thrown into the arenas with animals.
A gladiatory life was not a choice but a forced upon way of life for the romans ruling class to entertain their hunger for blood and sacrifices.
The same applies to the gymnasts who were made to train and exercise in the nude whilst the rulingclass sat and watched as an entertainment, to pass the time, and then often got engaged in other degrading activities afterwards with the gymnasts if these lattest did not perform to their best.


^ This isn't Sparta. This is MADNESS!

Spartacus from Sparta and mad from madness? Two very different things?

[OrphanPip]

The same applies to the gymansts who were made to train and exercise in the nude whilst the ruling class sat watch and often engaged in other degrading activities afterwards. It was a kind of entertainment by the ruling class for the ruling clasee.

No, in Ancient Greece only those in the privileged ruling class had access to the gymnasiums, they were a public space supported by the government usually (like a park would be today). Sport is a leisure activity, poor people didn't get to throw balls around and wrestle to pass away the day.

The Academy, where Plato taught philosophy, was a gymnasium.

[Alexander III]

A gladiatory life was not a choice but a forced upon way of life for the romans ruling class to entertain their hunger for blood and sacrifices.



Actually just to clarify, this is a common misconception. The gladiatorial games were mainly an event for the plebeians, the masses, the people. Not to say the aristocracy did not enjoy them, well at least some of them enjoyed it, most of the senators with their philosophy and literature and morals and education did not like it, but tolerated it for one simple reason; to wit, the masses loved the games. Whenever in Rome a war was going badly or the economy was failing, badabing badaboom huge games were held. They would distract the people and keep them happy, it would make the masses docile and bade off unrest.

Think of it like this, imagine if Mitt Romney happened to own the Yankees, or if David Cameron owned Chelsea; that would do wonders for them with the people, and in fact the shrewd populist Berlusconi knew this very well and made constant references to his owning and loving A.C Milan during all his elections. And it undoubtedly swayed the Italian masses to elect a pedophile and sexual maniac on a neronian scale to the highest office of power in Italy.


Augustus, the first real roman emperor realized this very well. Rome had just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, and he knew the senatorial aristocracy would not tolerate to live under a tyrant after a long tradition of freedom. But what Augustus did know and learn from Caesar; is that as long as a man had the support and love of the masses the aristocracy could do little to harm him. What was one of the first things he did when Emperor? He hosted a massive celebration with gladiatorial games and ensured that the stadium would be filled with the common men, ensuring the poor were all given free tickets. He won their simple-minded love and gained enough time due to the bulwark he had created with the common man, to win over the aristocracy to his side and ensure the cementation of his power.

In short, no the gladiatorial games were not to entertain the elite, they mainly existed because the masses loved their blood and violence and the aristocracy realized how useful the games were to manipulate and control them.


Also while most Gladiators were indeed slaves, many which reached a certain level of fame would earn their freedom and become wealthy men, The son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus famously was the first and last emperor to take part himself in the games as a gladiator. Slavery in Ancient Rome is a very hard thing to define for a modern reader, one must always remember that slaves were on one had often killed if they displeased their owner and on the other hand that Terence and Trimalchio were both ex-slaves. So very complicated and not that relatable to the more recent forms of slavery such as seen in the 19th century in North America with their African slaves.


Just wanted to clarify that historical mistake.


Spartacus from Sparta and mad from madness? Two very different things?

Actually Spartacus was a Thracian. And currently I am as stoned as a Scythian, so sorry if my previous post was a bit illegible.

[cacian]

Actually just to clarify, this is a common misconception. The gladiatorial games were mainly an event for the plebeians, the masses, the people. Not to say the aristocracy did not enjoy them, well at least some of them enjoyed it, most of the senators with their philosophy and literature and morals and education did not like it, but tolerated it for one simple reason; to wit, the masses loved the games. Whenever in Rome a war was going badly or the economy was failing, badabing badaboom huge games were held. They would distract the people and keep them happy, it would make the masses docile and bade off unrest.

Think of it like this, imagine if Mitt Romney happened to own the Yankees, or if David Cameron owned Chelsea; that would do wonders for them with the people, and in fact the shrewd populist Berlusconi knew this very well and made constant references to his owning and loving A.C Milan during all his elections. And it undoubtedly swayed the Italian masses to elect a pedophile and sexual maniac on a neronian scale to the highest office of power in Italy.


Augustus, the first real roman emperor realized this very well. Rome had just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, and he knew the senatorial aristocracy would not tolerate to live under a tyrant after a long tradition of freedom. But what Augustus did know and learn from Caesar; is that as long as a man had the support and love of the masses the aristocracy could do little to harm him. What was one of the first things he did when Emperor? He hosted a massive celebration with gladiatorial games and ensured that the stadium would be filled with the common men, ensuring the poor were all given free tickets. He won their simple-minded love and gained enough time due to the bulwark he had created with the common man, to win over the aristocracy to his side and ensure the cementation of his power.

In short, no the gladiatorial games were not to entertain the elite, they mainly existed because the masses loved their blood and violence and the aristocracy realized how useful the games were to manipulate and control them.


Also while most Gladiators were indeed slaves, many which reached a certain level of fame would earn their freedom and become wealthy men, The son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus famously was the first and last emperor to take part himself in the games as a gladiator. Slavery in Ancient Rome is a very hard thing to define for a modern reader, one must always remember that slaves were on one had often killed if they displeased their owner and on the other hand that Terence and Trimalchio were both ex-slaves. So very complicated and not that relatable to the more recent forms of slavery such as seen in the 19th century in North America with their African slaves.


Just wanted to clarify that historical mistake.


ActuallySpartacus was a Thracian. And currently I am as stoned as a Scythian, so sorry if my previous post was a bit illegible.

I see that is all interesting. I Never heard of Thracia until now.
I suppose I just went with the movie.

About Scythia I found this I quote:

''In a broader sense, the name "Scythian" has also been used to refer to various peoples seen as similar to the Scythians, or who lived anywhere in the area known as Scythia''

Is this suggesting that Scythians from Scythia are not Scythian?!!:confused:

[Revolte]

You guys and your mythology era. Regardless of what was mainstream acceptable. I can bet you they had just as much homosexuality in "both" sexes as we do now.

The same way women had to hide their sexual activities through little clubs and other behind the scenes secret sex societies.

Sex is a funny thing, there are no real rules for it. And the stranger the sex (as long as it is not violating) the better the sex. It's not a new concept, it's just a bit more open now. But even today we have people being killed for being gay, and some of them are just suspected of being gay.

^ Just wait until the Call of Duty kids grow up, yikes.

[Paulclem]

My wife came across a satirical rebuttal of biblical condemnation of homosexuality which she laughed at and shared with me.

It's well worth a look.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%20and%20Humor/OpenLetterToDrLaura.html

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Awesome, Paul. Going on FB.

[cacian]

Awesome, Paul. Going on FB.

Oops I nearly read that as FBI. I was wondering where the I got to. :smilewinkgrin:

[Monamy]

You guys and your mythology era. Regardless of what was mainstream acceptable. I can bet you they had just as much homosexuality in "both" sexes as we do now.

The same way women had to hide their sexual activities through little clubs and other behind the scenes secret sex societies.

Sex is a funny thing, there are no real rules for it. And the stranger the sex (as long as it is not violating) the better the sex. It's not a new concept, it's just a bit more open now. But even today we have people being killed for being gay, and some of them are just suspected of being gay.

^ Just wait until the Call of Duty kids grow up, yikes.

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

[cacian]

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

Hi Monamy I guess it all depends onwhat would one define pleasure.
I am guessing those who cannot, for reasons other then theirs, comprehend or realise/achieve pleasure as a result condem and abuse.
There is french saying Moliere in fact
''qui se send morveux se mouche''
What I mean is when one does not comprehend then one condemns. Anger which manifests itself in overpowering others is often mislead for strength when it is in fact the complete lack of it all.
The less one have from what others naturally have the more one want to curse and accuse.

[Paulclem]

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

What do you mean by most? It may be interesting to look at which societies look at it this way, and which don't, and then look at the cultural basis for this.

their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure

The problem with this is that it is not the experience of humans that it is merely a reproductive act.

[Shea]

Okay, I still don't have time to respond to everything (it doesn't help that I was "glutened" a few days ago). I just wanted to say Turquoise, I agree with you that not everyone has an adjenda and I apologize if I sounded "all or nothing."

My bottom line is, I'm not a biggot because I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. If I was biggoted against sinners, then I'd probably commit suicide because I'm a sinner too. I don't get angry if people don't share my opinions, but I don't like when people put words in my mouth because I believe a certain way. I'm not out to take rights away from anyone.

I do want to address this statement though:

Wait, what? I think if you think you can choose to be gay, then you're in the closet. No offense though, I just think that's the logical application for that statement.

If you'd notice, I also said that I don't have the urge to get drunk. I have about as much chance of being gay as I do of being an alcoholic.

[Phocion]

It is a form of love like any other, and for that reason alone deserves to be respected.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r


Homosexuality, a term that usually stirs things up quite a bit. I personally think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. I think it to be as normal as heterosexuality. Someone doesn't choose the gender one is attracted to. I know a lot of people have different opinion about this and I know that even within Western Civilization it is quite a difficult topic.

In The Netherlands we have had gay marriage since 2001 and were one of the first in the world to legalize that and I think it's ridiculous that there are countries that don't allow gay couples to get married. They are just two people in love, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.

I was raised to be very accepting of homosexuality which has led to my current views. I have first hand experience with homosexuality because my grandma is lesbian and has been since a few years before I was born. She was previously married to my grandpa (obviously) but after the divorce she had several relationships with women. And right now she's been married for about six years if I'm correct.

So, what this all comes down to. I am very accepting of homosexuality and think that it shouldn't even be a point of discussion wether they should be able to get married. And I think it's horrible that there are openly gay people everywhere that are mistreated because of their sexuality. How do you guys feel about homosexuality and gay marriage?

Off-topic posts have been and will be removed without further notice.

[Shea]

Okay, so as to not go off topic in the alcohol thread, I want to address this here.

Juniper has been accusing me of not answering her questions. So, here we go…


where is the logic behind being anti-homosexual (or, if you want the faux-lighthearted rhetoric, "against the homosexual lifestyle")?

Here are a few things I said throughout the thread…


I don't hate people who are gay.

I've seen more hate coming from the gay supporters.

I will reiterate, I don't hate someone because of their "sexual orientation"

First of all I'm not "anti-gay", I think I've made my stance on this quite plain.

And since you brought up the “lifestyle” issue too…


I make the choice not to get drunk. I've zero desire to get drunk and I never have. Getting drunk happens to be a popular and accepted activity but I don't agree with that lifestyle. But I also don't go shoving my Bible under people's noses and say "You shouldn't get drunk."

I'm also wondering if you guys think that I'm completely anti-gay marriage? Honestly, I really don't care if it's accepted in this country or not. I don't fight for it, and I don't fight against it. People can do what they want. Just DON'T call me a bigot!


I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE.

After quoting all that, how can I answer your question if it doesn’t apply to me?

You also said…


They're not hurting anyone.

I agree, which is why I said I will not tell anyone how to live their life.

You also said…


Also, why is it immoral for me to vocalize my strong disagreement?

I never said it was immoral for you to vocalize your disagreement, but you don’t seem to get where I’m coming from. You are extremely presumptive and are borderline bigoted yourself (I’m thinking of your inaccurate and persistent accusation of me being a Fox News viewer). I honestly gave up because I was getting tired of repeating myself.


How much harm does opposing homophobia cause? No where near as much as your "belief" which I'm supposed to respect without question for some reason. You did choose this belief you know, and so I hold you accountable for it.

Again, this doesn’t apply to me, because I’m not homophobic.

I’m a busy stay-at-home mother. Can you maybe now see why I didn’t want to bother if you were just going to ignore what I said anyway?

[JuniperWoolf]

You're really good at avoiding the primary issue and grinding on selfish defensive details that no one cares about. Address this, if you please:


You value a few passages in an obviously convoluted old book more than you do the physical and mental health of your fellow human beings (and just so that we don't have to waste a few posts clearing up this particular subtext: the belief that homosexuals are at the very least "unclean" or "abominations" and at worst will literally burn for all eternity because of the way they are, and the casual malice inherent in and violence inspired by that belief, obviously causes very much suffering).


But not agreeing with something and calling it a sin are two separate things. Saying you don't agree with something can at least acknowledge that the opposing view has some legitimacy, but you will not partake in it. Labeling it a "sin" is judging it from a superior position and condemning someone as inferior - and this is where, as Juniper alluded to, the line of promoting hate comes from. I don't know if you are very vocal about the matter or not, that is irrelevant. If you want to stay completely out of the matter at least accept that you are just following your own belief and don't judge those who don't share your belief. Part of the right-wing conservative hate stems from the fact that people don't realize the impact of their words, how even just the word sin carries with it a connotation that they may not mean.

In saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (which you did and there's no denying that, so this definately applies to you) you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect. Discuss.

[Shea]

You're really good at avoiding the primary issue and grinding on pointless details.

Actually, I'd have to say the same about you.

I will be happy to dissect your quotes. But if that's what you want, you'll have to be patient. Tony is first in line after my kids. :)

[JuniperWoolf]

Sure. Stay on topic this time though, we're all aware that you don't want to be labeled a "bigot" and that you were simply raised by Fox news viewers and that you don't tell anyone how to live their lives. See? I'm re-iterating, I read your posts thoroughly, so you don't have to repeat these details for a fouth time. Let's move forward with the conversation. Once more, the topic is:


In saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (which you did and there's no denying that, so this definately applies to you) you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect. Discuss.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I don't think that's really the topic at hand as specified by the OP.

In all fairness, I don't think a belief that homosexuality alone contributes to their oppression. I have plenty of beliefs about things that I keep to myself . . . okay, maybe that's not true, but I know other people do. A belief is only dangerous when it brings about some sort of action, and is Shea is telling the truth (and, really, we have no grounds to believe otherwise), this is what she does. She has said she thinks being gay is a sin, but doesn't admonish people for being gay, vote based on issues of homosexuality, etc.

So I'm going to say no, she does not contribute to the oppression, violent or otherwise, of gay people. I kind of think Shea is being lambasted here. She's been nothing but friendly, and you're making some pretty heavy accusations--inciting murder, depression, self-loathing, and suicide? Come on. I don't care what people believe. It's how they express their beliefs that's the problem. It doesn't sound like Shea is being hateful.

[Darcy88]

I think calling homosexuality a sin can contribute to depression and suicide. I am a Christian. If I were gay and told that this made me sinful the amount of self-loathing I would experience would be immense. When I sin I really regret it and pray for forgiveness. For someone's sexual orientation to be regarded as something worth asking God for forgiveness for....that is an incredibly negative, self-esteem-damaging thing. Gay people get enough hate from the non-religious world that religion would be a good place for them to turn to for support and guidance, but then the religious leaders, the people who should be showing them love and support, instead cast aspersions upon them, calling them sinful. I think the real reason many religious people fight against same-sex marriage is because if the homosexual love act were committed between two married persons then it would no longer be lust, as lust is often defined as sex outside marriage. I think there are a lot of bisexual or homosexual Christians who have wives and families who are able to keep down their same sex desire by calling it mere lust.

[cacian]

I personally think that religion should have never got involved in pointing the fingers at anyone. Religion should have remained neutral and kept to itself the way it keeps priest hibernating in celibacy behind closed doors.
Had it kept words such as sin and homosxuality out of its texts the world would have paid a bit more attention to what it is that it preaches.
I do not think it is anyone's fault to feel that something is a sin if religion had it not been clearly hammerd in as the word of sanctity. For a god to feel so much hatred remains to be proven.
At the end of the day naming and shaming individuals in this way is almost like saying religons were solely designed to target certain individuals rather preach stability and harmony.
I cannot make sense of any religion that harbors hatred and discrimination towards anyone.
Now modernisation of religion is duly required and so it should live up to antidiscrimination acts and politically correct itself if wants to survive.
Everyone else's has to abide by the rules of free speech/free information act political correction discrimination and democracy socially politically and in the work place.
Religion is no different.
Should Brussels press on with it too?
I should think so.
Case closed.

[MarkBastable]

Forgive me if I've brought this up before....

There seems to be a big argument in the States about whether homosexuality is a) in-born, genetic or b) an option and ultimately a choice. The pro-gay lobby tends to say it's (a) and the anti-gay lobby tend to say it's (b).

But I don't see why it matters.


Question to those whose who are are anti-gay and believe homosexuality's a choice: So what if it's a choice? Why is it not one that people should be permitted to make?

Question to those who are pro-gay and believe homosexuality's genetic: So what if it's genetic? Just because a behaviour is genetically imprinted, doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

The point, though, is not to elicit answers to those questions. It's more to suggest that, surely, why people are gay is completely irrelevant to the question of their rights to be so. In order to inhibit those rights, you'd have to come up wirth some objection to the effect of doing it, not the cause of doing it.

[Charles Darnay]

Well, I don't think that's really the topic at hand as specified by the OP.

In all fairness, I don't think a belief that homosexuality alone contributes to their oppression. I have plenty of beliefs about things that I keep to myself . . . okay, maybe that's not true, but I know other people do. A belief is only dangerous when it brings about some sort of action, and is Shea is telling the truth (and, really, we have no grounds to believe otherwise), this is what she does. She has said she thinks being gay is a sin, but doesn't admonish people for being gay, vote based on issues of homosexuality, etc.

So I'm going to say no, she does not contribute to the oppression, violent or otherwise, of gay people. I kind of think Shea is being lambasted here. She's been nothing but friendly, and you're making some pretty heavy accusations--inciting murder, depression, self-loathing, and suicide? Come on. I don't care what people believe. It's how they express their beliefs that's the problem. It doesn't sound like Shea is being hateful.

If we're talking about good and bad intentions here, I 100% agree. The truth is, if I wanted to, I could find solid reason to despise almost anyone I know people have views that I disagree with.....that's diverse societies for you. As far as I know (the extent of these boards) Shea is a wonderful person, and the fat that I have ideological differences does not change that.

However, I stand by my claim that the link between homosexuality and "sin" needs to be severed: because as good intentions and accepting as someone may claim to be, this notion contributes to a world of hate, particularly for children.

If someone today told me I was a sinner and I'm going to hell, I would say "cool" and then start quoting Milton.

Growing up, I was told (in so many words) that I was useless and would amount to nothing (for entirely separate reasons): I equate this with the secular version of "you're going to Hell." This had a very harmful impact.

So even if you claim that you are accepting, you promote the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and you allow this idea to spread, one day your kid tells another kid he is going to hell because he is gay, or that gays all go to hell, that kid commits suicide.....I no longer care about your intentions.

[mona amon]

Ok, I do not have any problem with homosexuality, but censorship and curtailing the freedom of speech do bother me. If someone thinks something is a sin, why can't they say so? Why are they not allowed to express their opinion like anyone else? I do not understand this at all. :nonod:

[Shea]

and that you were simply raised by Fox news viewers

Okay I just gotta stop and address this really quick. Juniper, I wish you would stop being so presumptive. You don't know me. Your statement makes it sound as if I were a teenager. I'm in my 30's. Fox News didn't get started until 1996.


And thank you for some of the later comments about me guys. I'm glad to know that even if you don't agree with me, you can still understand that I respect your opinion too.:hurray:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Forgive me if I've brought this up before....

There seems to be a big argument in the States about whether homosexuality is a) in-born, genetic or b) an option and ultimately a choice. The pro-gay lobby tends to say it's (a) and the anti-gay lobby tend to say it's (b).

But I don't see why it matters.


Question to those whose who are are anti-gay and believe homosexuality's a choice: So what if it's a choice? Why is it not one that people should be permitted to make?

Question to those who are pro-gay and believe homosexuality's genetic: So what if it's genetic? Just because a behaviour is genetically imprinted, doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

The point, though, is not to elicit answers to those questions. It's more to suggest that, surely, why people are gay is completely irrelevant to the question of their rights to be so. In order to inhibit those rights, you'd have to come up wirth some objection to the effect of doing it, not the cause of doing it.

I completely agree that whether or not it's a choose should be irrelevant. The problem is that the anti-gay crowd uses their "it's a choice" rhetoric to try and inforce a right/wrong binary on to the issue. If homosexuality is a choice, it's much easier for them to condemn it--he's choosing to be gay, he's choosing to be a sinner, etc. If it isn't a choice (which it isn't), this complicates things for the anti-gay crowd, because then they are blatantly oppressing a people who can't live any other way . . . which is exactly what the anti-gay crowd is doing. It shouldn't matter. People should be able to live any way they want if it isn't harmful to others. Try explaining that to them, though.

Ok, I do not have any problem with homosexuality, but censorship and curtailing the freedom of speech do bother me. If someone thinks something is a sin, why can't they say so? Why are they not allowed to express their opinion like anyone else? I do not understand this at all. :nonod:

Quite honestly, when I defended Shea above, I was playing a bit of devil's advocate. While I believe she has every right to think the way she does, I also think its near impossible to let that belief not influence her actions in some way, conscious or unconscious. She has the right to say she thinks being gay is a sin just as much as I have right to say that such thinking is a complete and utter disgrace, after all. I wouldn't go so far as to say she contributes to the suicide and murder of gays, though she isn't making things better, either.

[JuniperWoolf]

Okay I just gotta stop and address this really quick. Juniper, I wish you would stop being so presumptive. You don't know me. Your statement makes it sound as if I were a teenager. I'm in my 30's. Fox News didn't get started until 1996.

That whooshing sound you just heard was the point going over your head (:p I've used that several times in real life, always gets a laugh). The entire purpose of my post was to say "please stop talking about yourself and rather continue with the conversation at hand, I don't care about your minor personal details and would like to stop talking about them now as they are meaningless and derail the thread." I don't know how I could have made that any clearer.


Well, I don't think that's really the topic at hand as specified by the OP.

No, the OP was quite vague and eleven pages ago, but the quotes I specified above from myself and Charles were were the points which I mentioned as having been ignored, which of course is where we currently are in the thread. This is also the point in terms of the modern American subject of homosexuality which I feel is most important, because whenever people are honestly in physical or severe psychological danger, it automatically gets to move to the top of the list. Priorities.


So even if you claim that you are accepting, you promote the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and you allow this idea to spread, one day your kid tells another kid he is going to hell because he is gay, or that gays all go to hell, that kid commits suicide.....I no longer care about your intentions.

Bingo. Who cares if one is polite while promoting hate? Are manners worth more than the well-being of other people?


Ok, I do not have any problem with homosexuality, but censorship and curtailing the freedom of speech do bother me. If someone thinks something is a sin, why can't they say so? Why are they not allowed to express their opinion like anyone else? I do not understand this at all. :nonod:

Oh, she does have the right to say that homosexuality is a sin. Likewise, I not only have the right but feel an honest sense of responsibility to counter by vocalizing my own opinions as to why such a view is wrong. Everyone must be able to speak plainly, but if what they're saying strikes you as morally wrong it's your obligation to challenge them. Honest and unhindered debate is how a good society reaches sound decisions.


Forgive me if I've brought this up before....

There seems to be a big argument in the States about whether homosexuality is a) in-born, genetic or b) an option and ultimately a choice. The pro-gay lobby tends to say it's (a) and the anti-gay lobby tend to say it's (b).

But I don't see why it matters.


Question to those whose who are are anti-gay and believe homosexuality's a choice: So what if it's a choice? Why is it not one that people should be permitted to make?

Question to those who are pro-gay and believe homosexuality's genetic: So what if it's genetic? Just because a behaviour is genetically imprinted, doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

The point, though, is not to elicit answers to those questions. It's more to suggest that, surely, why people are gay is completely irrelevant to the question of their rights to be so. In order to inhibit those rights, you'd have to come up wirth some objection to the effect of doing it, not the cause of doing it.

Yeah, agreed. Once a guy got seriously angry at me for saying that we don't know whether homosexuality or indeed any behaviour is genetic or not so it's dishonest and rather unscientific making such solid decisions about it, and plus it doesn't matter anyway. If the opposite side says it does matter, don't play into that by making a strong and equally unfounded claim to the opposite, that's not helping. He got all huffy and wouldn't talk to me.

[Bluehound]

"For something as complex as sexual orientation, it's no surprise that everything from genes to gender to environment may play a role in ultimately determining your perfect partner."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html

[Bluehound]

"The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

[JuniperWoolf]

Finger ratio also has a correlation. Weird, but cool.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200506/sexuality-your-telltale-fingertips

[Bluehound]

Oh apparently I have a masculine finger ratio,lesbian hands.
Well it is half right as I am Bi , guess the other hand must be the straight one :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think it's rather silly to think its a choice for several reasons. First, like I said, if it is a choice, then we've all had to make the conscious decision to either be gay or not be gay. It's always fun asking a "it's a choice" person, "Okay. So. When did you decide to be straight?" Their bafflement is amusing.

Second, WHY would anyone choose to be gay? They will have no answer for this,





So even if you claim that you are accepting, you promote the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and you allow this idea to spread, one day your kid tells another kid he is going to hell because he is gay, or that gays all go to hell, that kid commits suicide.....I no longer care about your intentions.

You have no idea what she tells her kids. You don't know if she tells them homosexuality is a sin or if she just tells them something like, "Some people think its wrong, others don't; you'll have to decide for yourself."

[Delta40]

Finger ratio also has a correlation. Weird, but cool.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200506/sexuality-your-telltale-fingertips

Oh wow that's amazing. Both my ring fingers are longer! I'm gonna be looking at everyone's ring fingers when I go to work tomorrow... :rofl:

[Charles Darnay]

Second, WHY would anyone choose to be gay? They will have no answer for this,


All I can think of is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY)




You have no idea what she tells her kids. You don't know if she tells them homosexuality is a sin or if she just tells them something like, "Some people think its wrong, others don't; you'll have to decide for yourself."

I was speaking hypothetically: this is why English needs the personal/impersonal you (such as French and German)

However, based on good evidence, in religious society, such "morals" are quite often passed down in such fashion.

[JuniperWoolf]

Second, WHY would anyone choose to be gay?

Enjoyment?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There's a difference between being homosexual and fooling around with someone of the same sex for the fun of it, at least to my eyes.

[Shea]

Okay, Juniper. Your turn. :)


You're really good at avoiding the primary issue and grinding on selfish defensive details that no one cares about. Address this, if you please:

You value a few passages in an obviously convoluted old book more than you do the physical and mental health of your fellow human beings (and just so that we don't have to waste a few posts clearing up this particular subtext: the belief that homosexuals are at the very least "unclean" or "abominations" and at worst will literally burn for all eternity because of the way they are, and the casual malice inherent in and violence inspired by that belief, obviously causes very much suffering).


If you believe that the Bible is a convoluted old book, that in all honesty is your own issue. I never said that I didn’t value the physical and mental health of my fellow human beings. Just because I believe that it teaches that homosexual acts are a sin doesn’t mean that the lives of people who are gay are less valuable than mine. We’re all born to have trouble with sin. You could say that I’m genetically predisposed to have trouble with fits of rage and envy. An alcoholic is predisposed to have trouble with drunkenness. Have I shown any malice in what I've said? This is not the two-sided issue you seem to think it is, being that of pro-gay and anti-gay. I’m neither of those things. If someone chooses to have a problem with the fact that the Bible calls homosexual acts a sin, then their issue is not with me, it’s with the Bible. So, please don’t attack me for aligning my opinions with a “convoluted old book” that too many anti-gays unfortunately use as a weapon.


But not agreeing with something and calling it a sin are two separate things. Saying you don't agree with something can at least acknowledge that the opposing view has some legitimacy, but you will not partake in it. Labeling it a "sin" is judging it from a superior position and condemning someone as inferior - and this is where, as Juniper alluded to, the line of promoting hate comes from. I don't know if you are very vocal about the matter or not, that is irrelevant. If you want to stay completely out of the matter at least accept that you are just following your own belief and don't judge those who don't share your belief. Part of the right-wing conservative hate stems from the fact that people don't realize the impact of their words, how even just the word sin carries with it a connotation that they may not mean.

Here again, I didn’t label it a sin, the Bible did. If someone has a problem with the word “sin”, please don’t attack me for it. I’m not trying to judge anyone, that’s God’s job. If someone doesn’t share my belief then, that’s okay. Really. I come from a Catholic background, where I was pretty much told by other people what I should “believe.” I enjoy now being able to think for myself, so the last thing I’m going to do is to tell someone else how they should “believe.” Honestly, I probably would never have commented in this thread at all if it weren’t for the fact that I was falsely accused of being a bigot.


In saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (which you did and there's no denying that, so this definately applies to you) you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect. Discuss.

I think my above words cover this. And I still had to reiterate a lot, but you know, whatever.


That whooshing sound you just heard was the point going over your head ( I've used that several times in real life, always gets a laugh). The entire purpose of my post was to say "please stop talking about yourself and rather continue with the conversation at hand, I don't care about your minor personal details and would like to stop talking about them now as they are meaningless and derail the thread." I don't know how I could have made that any clearer.

If you didn’t want me to talk about it, you shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place:


But it's my "opinion" that what you've said in this thread has reflected that you are bigoted, and that in fact you're regurgitating flimsy faux-lighthearted Fox News rhetoric which everyone here has heard a million times and which is universally gagged over and/or mocked in every developed nation which isn't the United States to cover up what you know is nothing more than plain old hateful intolerance. I also "believe" that if you vote to restrict the legal rights of other citizens based on their sexual orientation you're committing a human rights violation which will be abhored by your descendants, in the same way that people today are ashamed of their ancestors who voted against the civil rights of non-whites and women, because in voting (if you do) you're actively taking part in their oppression. Even if you don't vote, you're still going along with a modern social movement which restricts human freedom for your own personal religious reasons, which is deplorable.

You’re entire summary of me here is completely false, so you can’t expect me to ignore it. I might be more inclined to ignore your snarky remarks if you say something like, “Well, yeah, I don’t really know you, so I guess it wasn’t right for me to make false assumptions.”


You have no idea what she tells her kids. You don't know if she tells them homosexuality is a sin or if she just tells them something like, "Some people think its wrong, others don't; you'll have to decide for yourself."

I understand that Darnay was speaking hypothetically, but you're relatively accurate in your latter quotation of me Mutatis. However, my oldest is only 4, so it’s not really applicable at the moment. :D But most importantly, I want to teach my kids to believe in the Bible, but not use it as a weapon. They need to be courteous of others no matter what differences they might have.

BTW, I found the finger ratio thing to be quite amusing, because (can you guess?)...

v

v

v

v

v

v

mine is masculine! :smilielol5:

[cacian]

Oh apparently I have a masculine finger ratio,lesbian hands.
Well it is half right as I am Bi , guess the other hand must be the straight one :)

Bluehound do you really believe that physical features tell of sexuality?

[cacian]

Enjoyment?

Hmm I doubt it I think it is not a choice but more of compulsive act in this very case. Nothing to do with chosing or being curious.
Actually I do not quite get the concept of curiousity in sex.
Like bi-curious for example but then I never come across gay-curious however it seems quite complex.

[mona amon]

While I believe she has every right to think the way she does, I also think its near impossible to let that belief not influence her actions in some way, conscious or unconscious. ~ Mutatis

Oh come on, beyond putting on a disapproving expression, maybe, or doing an irritating impression of the self righteous pharisee of Luke 18:9-14 at most, I don't see why someone's belief that homosexuality is a sin would influence their actions towards others. There are so many things that some people believe to be a sin - atheism, belonging to different religion to their own, adultery, watching porn - I mean, who cares if they think we'll burn in hell for something, as long as we don't believe in it ourselves?



In saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (which you did and there's no denying that, so this definately applies to you) you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect. Discuss. ~ Juniper

If you are saying that merely saying that homosexuality is a sin incites beatings, murder, suicide etc, then you are basically accusing Shea of hate speech. ("hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group" ~ Wikipedia )


Oh, she does have the right to say that homosexuality is a sin. Likewise, I not only have the right but feel an honest sense of responsibility to counter by vocalizing my own opinions as to why such a view is wrong. Everyone must be able to speak plainly, but if what they're saying strikes you as morally wrong it's your obligation to challenge them. Honest and unhindered debate is how a good society reaches sound decisions. ~ Juniper

Debate is good, but it's not debating when you label someone's opinion as hate speech, without showing why it is hate speech. Hate speech is outside the limits of free speech, and is not allowed for obvious reasons. So if you call someone's opinions hate speech, you're denying them the right to express those opinions.

[Bluehound]

Bluehound do you really believe that physical features tell of sexuality?


I was mostly just joking :biggrin5:

but I do find the science behind the differences between straight and gay brains very compelling and there does seem to be some kind of link to development in the womb , so why wouldn't that include physical differences?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I never said it would influence her actions in an extreme manner.

[Charles Darnay]

I did. You have to admit that, albeit not in this case, there is hate speech that serves as a performative utterance with dangerous consequences. So the line becomes: does promoting the perpetual existence of this speech contribute to hate speech.The logical answer is no, but it is still unsettling nonetheless. Hatred and subsequent acts stem from somewhere, don't they. Why do we have to allow hateful rhetoric.

Free speech is touted in nations' constitutions in order to give the people an outlet to speak out against oppression. Unfortunately, this opens the door for the oppressor's themselves. Am I being oppressive for desiring the curtail of free speech in this instance? Possibly.

[cacian]

I was mostly just joking :biggrin5:

but I do find the science behind the differences between straight and gay brains very compelling and there does seem to be some kind of link to development in the womb , so why wouldn't that include physical differences?

Hi Bluehound I think you do bring out a good point here.
I personally do not believe that science could ever explain properly and punctually what goes on someone's mind let alone establishing differences in the brain about a straight person to non.

Science as a rule ot thumb sets out to lable things into tags and boxes to justify itself as going beyond's god's creations and unfortunately with humans it is a tad bit more complicated then that.

Science feels that it could only cope with a human that is not straight if it finds a concrete reason, a biological reason, in order to justify its own lack of comprehension and grap on what people are about.

Once science has convinced itself that there is a mistake an error with a gay person say then it sets out to create a kind of an antidote ( and make lots of money) in order to cure what it thinks is a an error.

There is no cure and there is no mistake and there is no differences within the human biological system only maybe one and that is DNA.
The mistake is science because it refuses to face its own prejudices and relentless searching for the unsearchable to justify its awkward existence.

The role of science is to constantly find faults in everything and everyone and then try to get rid of it. If it does not like what it sees then it sets out to desicate it under the microscope turns it into a biological piece of meat and when it has convinced itself that it has found the fault then moves on to create the cure for it like the side effect to try and eliminate it.

I mean to think that sexuality, gay sexuality, is being made to sound like a medical condition is very worrying and frankly extremely short sighted.
What a ridiculous statement.

I consider science's mind extremely weak and intolerant of anything it cannot comprehend people nature and space. People are always going to be different no matter what we do say or think. It is a fact of life.


I think in this instance what people really need is a massive intellectual challenge a huge boost of new brain cells to get them to think clearly and realise that people are always going to be different.

I do not need science to tell me what I already know and that is most times then none the answer is staring right in the face and yet some chose to go around in circles and lands nowhere.

So to answer your question no I do not believe physical features contribute anything towards how a person feels thinks or behaves.

Bluehound this just me ranting haha sorry if came across as rude it is not towards you.:aureola::p

[Charles Darnay]

science is not a sentient being.

[cacian]

science is not a sentient being.

Science is an establishement like religion and politics. It has followers and in big numbers and so yes it is not a sentient being but a group of beings.

[Charles Darnay]

Science is also not an establishment, and neither is religion for that matter. There are religious establishments (such as churches &c.) and there are scientific establishments (communities, universities &c.) be they are not all-encompassing.

For example, when people say "homosexuality is against religion" - no, it is against certain establishments. There are religions that support it. Likewise, your attributions to "science" above are a) overly generalized and b) somewhat muddled.

[Shea]

Here again, I didn’t label it a sin, the Bible did. If someone has a problem with the word “sin”, please don’t attack me for it. I’m not trying to judge anyone, that’s God’s job.

I was thinking about this statement this morning and thought that maybe I needed to make a clarification. Just because the Bible lists something as a sin, doesn’t mean it’s a green light for attacking people. We have to be careful to separate what is actually stated in the Bible and our own personal experiences. There are no examples of the mean spirited haters, such as one would see from gay-bashers, among true Christians found in the Bible (if there are, I've yet to see them). The gay-bashers have taken rather plain and simple statement of who will not get into heaven and (with full hypocrisy) turned it into a weapon. It was never meant to be a weapon. It was meant to be a warning. No person can force another person to willingly heed a warning and trying to force it causes more harm in my opinion.


Honest and unhindered debate is how a good society reaches sound decisions.

My hubby, who is rather interested in a good debate, suggested that I bring this up to you. If you really want to have an honest and unhindered debate, it may help to familiarize yourself with the rules and etiquette (though this really depends too on what kind of debate you’re engaging in). Here’s a site that I found, http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html. And though I’m not at all an experienced debater, I can confidently point out that according to this website, you are committing the fallacy of the straw man argument with regards to your comments to me.

[cacian]

Hi shea can I ask you and this out of context for a minute what doe your signature say?
I can't read it.
Thanks!


Science is also not an establishment, and neither is religion for that matter. There are religious establishments (such as churches &c.) and there are scientific establishments (communities, universities &c.) be they are not all-encompassing.

For example, when people say "homosexuality is against religion" - no, it is against certain establishments. There are religions that support it. Likewise, your attributions to "science" above are a) overly generalized and b) somewhat muddled.

Hi Charles how do you mean by "homosexuality is against religion''?
I thought it was the other way around.

[Bluehound]

Hi Bluehound I think you do bring out a good point here.

Science feels that it could only cope with a human that is not straight if it finds a concrete reason, a biological reason, in order to justify its own lack of comprehension and grap on what people are about.

Once science has convinced itself that there is a mistake an error with a gay person say then it sets out to create a kind of an antidote ( and make lots of money) in order to cure what it thinks is a an error.

There is no cure and there is no mistake and there is no differences within the human biological system only maybe one and that is DNA.
The mistake is science because it refuses to face its own prejudices and relentless searching for the unsearchable to justify its awkward existence.


I mean to think that sexuality, gay sexuality, is being made to sound like a medical condition is very worrying and frankly extremely short sighted.
What a ridiculous statement.







I must admit I had not thought of these studies as being some sort of crusade to find a cure.
In fact I imagined quite the opposite, that genuinely interested scientist (some of whom may well be gay themselves) were seeking to show that being gay is not some made up airy fairy excuse to live a hedonistic life (as some people seem to think) but a genuine difference which we are born with and have no control over - ie proving their is no point trying to cure it or fight it, just let people love who they want to love.

I have always fancied both sexes , since before I knew what that really meant and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's because my brain is wired a little differently.

[Shea]

Hi shea can I ask you and this out of context for a minute what doe your signature say?
I can't read it.
Thanks!

Sure :) It's the first 11 lines of Beowulf. I learned to pronounce them in Old English when I was in college and set them to music with my harp for a class project.

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!

[cacian]

Sure :) It's the first 11 lines of Beowulf. I learned to pronounce them in Old English when I was in college and set them to music with my harp for a class project.

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!

Hey Shea this is great thank you so much and what a brilliant idea to turn a piece such as this into a musical piece!! :thumbs_up

[Charles Darnay]

Hi Charles how do you mean by "homosexuality is against religion''?
I thought it was the other way around.

yes, yes it is. That was a typo.

[JuniperWoolf]

I never said that I didn’t value the physical and mental health of my fellow human beings.

You didn't have to say it. This is going nowhere. Here, this will help things along - pick one, if you please:

Possibility one: you are unaware of the extent of suffering caused by adherance to the three biblical passages which might be interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a sin.

If this is you, click this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth).

Possibility two: you are aware that this suffering exists, but do not believe that it is serious to any extent.

If this is you, click this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth).

Possibility three: you are aware that your interpretation of the bible adds to a culture (http://www.queeried.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/anti-gay-protest-signs2.jpg)* which causes much suffering to other people, especially young people who have Christian family ties. Still, you value your interpretation of the bible more than you do the well-being of those people.

*You add to this culture (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/22/xin_271101220919056286565.jpg) by spreading a hate-insighting belief. All we can know for certain is that you shared it here on this forum, so given that information I doubt very much that you're completely silent and impartial when the subject comes up in real life (although from what I've witnessed of you thus far, you might very well insist that you do just that). Even if this is the first time in your whole life that you've ever discussed your "disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle," that's the view which you represent in this thread since that's what you've brought to the table. So, continuing on...


If someone chooses to have a problem with the fact that the Bible calls homosexual acts a sin, then their issue is not with me, it’s with the Bible.

It's with your interpretation of the bible, which has already been said in this thread by another Christian. The preacher in the pink church on the corner from my house is gay, your view on this matter doesn't reflect that of the majority of Christians, especially internationally. You’ve chosen to “disagree with the homosexual lifestyle,” don’t try to pass all responsibility away from you. The new testament only mentions what we today would consider homosexual behaviour at most three times.

Romans 1:26-27 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

That is it, that is everything it says. Do you really think that those three passages, compared to the multitudes of passages promoting love and acceptance and concern for your fellow-man, are worth going along with something which causes so much pain? The scarcity of references to homosexuality in the New Testament suggests that it was not a matter of major concern either for Jesus or for the early Christian movement, so why is so in the United States today?

Also, minor point: you said that you do not believe that homosexuals are "inferior," but if it is as you claim and you take every word in the bible literally and are unflinching about it's points , then you believe that they are "lawless," "rebellious," "ungodly," "sinners," "unholy," "profane," "immoral," "wrongdoers," and "shameful." You can't say that you agree with all of that and then say that you don’t consider yourself above them, the book that you apparently take for the literal truth (enough to speak up in a public forum to defend that belief) equates homosexuals with murderers and kidnappers.


I’m not trying to judge anyone, that’s God’s job.

Well then why do you “disagree with the gay lifestyle,” or rather why do you have any opinion on it at all? Shouldn't you not give it any thought and focus on the good parts of the bible rather than those which cause suffering and hate? Yet here you are, you came into the thread with that opinion.


There's a difference between being homosexual and fooling around with someone of the same sex for the fun of it, at least to my eyes.

:rolleyes5: Don't try to get personal, it's dull. I mean it's what makes them happy. I'm saying, maybe it's not such a depraved life as you make it out to be, that of the wretched LGBT. The whole "why would anyone choose to be homosexual?" stance just sounds wrong, don't you think? I hear that all the time among liberals. Imagine someone saying "why would anyone choose to be black?" or "why would anyone choose to me a woman?" Hearing that as a woman, or as a black person: kind of depressing, don't you think? Being LGBT doesn't mean your whole life sucks forever. The primary problem is as Charles said: growing up, teenagers being raised by these people or being forced to go to school with children who are raised by them (which includes the majority of American kids), who might get beaten, possibly to death, or who might actually not know any better than to take what these bloody people have to say seriously. Statistically, this problem applies strongly to teen and young adult suicide, beatings, and depression. BUT: there’s still light at the end of the tunnel (not exclusively of course, but still - no need to add to the doom and gloom, eh?).

http://www.itgetsbetter.org/


If you are saying that merely saying that homosexuality is a sin incites beatings, murder, suicide etc, then you are basically accusing Shea of hate speech.

If you want my line of reasoning, it’s here:


See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.

Contributing to a culture of hate and self-loathing (do you deny that this culture (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_xGVvsv8x64/TxJ65w_e76I/AAAAAAAAAJk/sfq9srVQQcY/s1600/no+pride.jpg) exists?), and the reason for doing to just isn’t good enough. The reason is: the bible says so in three passages, three passages which are difficult to translate into modern English in the first place as modern homosexuality doesn’t have an ancient equivalent, socially, culturally or otherwise, and so anyone reading the passages in English isn’t getting the full breadth of what it says in the first place anyway. Can you not see how the justification for the belief is pathetic when we consider the impact of the belief?


Free speech is touted in nations' constitutions in order to give the people an outlet to speak out against oppression. Unfortunately, this opens the door for the oppressor's themselves. Am I being oppressive for desiring the curtail of free speech in this instance? Possibly.

For me, I wouldn’t want to curtail anyone freedom of speech; you just have to try to change their minds.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I wasn't getting personal, per se, but when you answer that question with "enjoyment," it implied to me that you were suggesting a bit of frivolity. That it corresponds with you was coincidental.

But, yeah, it's so absurd to ask why someone would want to place themselves in a lower societal position. I know when someone asks "why would you want to be disabled" I get really offended. And I know what you're thinking, that the example isn't analogous. Bull****. Gay people, black people, even women are all further down in the hierarchal chain than the traditional white man. If we all got to choose our fate, it would be stupid to choose to be anything but. It is depressing. It's depressing being disabled, and I know it can be depressing being gay. So, what? Just because it's depressing to point out the truth one shouldn't? You're just contributing to the problem in a whole different way. It can be depressing being gay. If it wasn't there wouldn't be much of a problem, would there?

[Shea]

For me, I wouldn’t want to curtail anyone freedom of speech; you just have to try to change their minds.

*Sigh* you have expressed the desire for an “honest and unhindered debate,” but are not willing to play by the rules, so there is no point in arguing with you anymore because you still don’t get it. You’re still using the straw-man fallacy (among others) and don’t seem to have any plans of changing that tactic. I’ve more important things to do with my life than to argue in circles with someone who is as prejudice and filled with hate as the people they think they are fighting against.

Word of advice: you might want to open your mind to other “possibilities” because none of the ones you provided fit me at all. You might be surprised to find that you probably wouldn't want to "change their minds."


Hey Shea this is great thank you so much and what a brilliant idea to turn a piece such as this into a musical piece!! :thumbs_up

Thanks Cacian! :D

[mona amon]

I did. You have to admit that, albeit not in this case, there is hate speech that serves as a performative utterance with dangerous consequences. So the line becomes: does promoting the perpetual existence of this speech contribute to hate speech.The logical answer is no, but it is still unsettling nonetheless. Hatred and subsequent acts stem from somewhere, don't they. Why do we have to allow hateful rhetoric.

Free speech is touted in nations' constitutions in order to give the people an outlet to speak out against oppression. Unfortunately, this opens the door for the oppressor's themselves. Am I being oppressive for desiring the curtail of free speech in this instance? Possibly.

Every major social problem must have a million trillion small causes which eventually converge and cluster together to form the big issue. To identify and stop every small cause of hatred will be impossible and might even do more harm than good. It's easier to dam a powerful river than to try and block every little brook and spring that feeds it.

It's better to risk a bit of 'incitement' than to be too ready to muffle free speech, even when you don't like what you are hearing. Of course, I don't mean that the right to speak should be absolutely unrestricted. There are limits on free speech, and with good reason.

I do not have a problem with people calling something a sin, as long as they

1. Do not try to take the law into their own hands and 'punish the sinner'.

2. Do not incite others to do so.

As long as they're willing to let God take care of it, it's OK with me.


If you want my line of reasoning, it’s here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.

Contributing to a culture of hate and self-loathing (do you deny that this culture exists?), and the reason for doing to just isn’t good enough. The reason is: the bible says so in three passages, three passages which are difficult to translate into modern English in the first place as modern homosexuality doesn’t have an ancient equivalent, socially, culturally or otherwise, and so anyone reading the passages in English isn’t getting the full breadth of what it says in the first place anyway. Can you not see how the justification for the belief is pathetic when we consider the impact of the belief? ~ Juniper

But what 'homophobic stance'? As far as I remember, she's not shown the least bit of hatred, open or concealed, in any of her posts. Believing homosexuality (or anything else) is a sin does not necessarily involve hatred. Where did that come from?

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." ~ Coretta Scott King

Merely waving your Bible at your gay friend (just giving an imaginary example here) and telling her that her lifestyle is sinful doesn't involve denying her humanity, dignity and personhood.

[cacian]

I think the bottom line is not to wave the bible or text at anyone in order to accuse or demune.
An opinion is better valued when it comes from the induvidual themselves and not on what others say write or preach.

[Charles Darnay]

Every major social problem must have a million trillion small causes which eventually converge and cluster together to form the big issue. To identify and stop every small cause of hatred will be impossible and might even do more harm than good. It's easier to dam a powerful river than to try and block every little brook and spring that feeds it.


Doesn't mean I can't try. I would actually reverse your metaphor: it is not about damming the river, but breaking the dam apart. You could explode it, and have all the run-off consequences, or you can remove it log by log,

[BienvenuJDC]

I have seen very few conversations as one sided as this one. But since it is such an emotionally charged topic, each person are going to believe what they want to anyway. Is homosexuality natural? I guess one would have to define natural. The majority of the contributors here believe that everything came about by accident instead of design. That is a factor in this discussion.

Is homosexuality right or wrong? That can't be decided in this forum.

[cacian]

I have seen very few conversations as one sided as this one. But since it is such an emotionally charged topic, each person are going to believe what they want to anyway. Is homosexuality natural? I guess one would have to define natural. The majority of the contributors here believe that everything came about by accident instead of design. That is a factor in this discussion.

Is homosexuality right or wrong? That can't be decided in this forum.

Well it depends what you mean by natural.
Does natural mean spontaneous unplanned afeeling or a desire?
If natural tick all the boxes of positive mutual thinking then it is by definition natural.
What is not however natural is to negate others dictate or poke fun or get involved in other people's affairs wiht those doing something they feel very natural about.
It is not natural to tell others it is not natural what they are happily doing.

[BienvenuJDC]

Bullying comes natural to some.

I do not, nor ever have condoned any type of bullying. Just because someone feels that something is natural to them, it doesn't make it acceptable behavior.

I happily believe in God. Is that natural? Because I am often told on this site that my belief is illogical, or even stupid.

[cacian]

Bullying comes natural to some.

I do not, nor ever have condoned any type of bullying. Just because someone feels that something is natural to them, it doesn't make it acceptable behavior.

That is where I do not understand where you come in in terms of them.
If they are doing something they feel passionate about why then should you interfer?
They are not invading your territory dictating how you should behave and yet you think you can put a stigma on the way they are.
I have not got it in me to interfer in people's lives let alone their private lives and yet you feel you have a say on their lives.
Explain how a gay person if affecting your immediat happiness future and life?
God is somwhere and is in no way involved in this because he does not live amongst us.

[Shea]

I think the bottom line is not to wave the bible or text at anyone in order to accuse or demune.

I really hope you’re not lumping me in with this statement. I try not use the Bible to accuse or demean (I think is the word you meant). If I seem to, it’s unintentional and is usually a person’s reaction to the verse itself (and likely aided by experience with religious denominations). Please be careful to not confuse me with others who do attack just because we quote from the same Book. There are a relatively small number of Christians in this world who do not engage in such abhorrent behavior, but most never hear of us probably because we don’t have a “headquarters” (for biblical reasons). I also think no one hears of us because we don't attack.


Bullying comes natural to some.

I do not, nor ever have condoned any type of bullying. Just because someone feels that something is natural to them, it doesn't make it acceptable behavior.


This is an excellent analogy. I am naturally prone to fits of rage and envy, and I do my best to curtail that part of my personality. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say that someone who is gay engages in unacceptable behavior unless they profess to be a true Christian.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have seen very few conversations as one sided as this one. But since it is such an emotionally charged topic, each person are going to believe what they want to anyway. Is homosexuality natural? I guess one would have to define natural. The majority of the contributors here believe that everything came about by accident instead of design. That is a factor in this discussion.

Is homosexuality right or wrong? That can't be decided in this forum.

So it shouldn't be discussed, then?



I happily believe in God. Is that natural? Because I am often told on this site that my belief is illogical, or even stupid.
Just as with the word "natural," I guess one would have to define the word "often," no?

[cacian]

I really hope you’re not lumping me in with this statement. I try not use the Bible to accuse or demean (I think is the word you meant). If I seem to, it’s unintentional and is usually a person’s reaction to the verse itself (and likely aided by experience with religious denominations). Please be careful to not confuse me with others who do attack just because we quote from the same Book. There are a relatively small number of Christians in this world who do not engage in such abhorrent behavior, but most never hear of us probably because we don’t have a “headquarters” (for biblical reasons). I also think no one hears of us because we don't attack.

Hi Shea absolutely nothing against you at all. That was as a response to Charles.
You are as much entitled to your feelings then I am to mine.
This does not mean we are to stand against each other as enemies because we happen to feel or think differently. One thing neither of us must not forget whilst we set out to talk and discuss our differences in any topic it does not make immune from it.
Who is to say that tomorrow you and I have children or grand children who grow up to be gay. One must never loose touch with reality. It is fine to have different views but it is not fine to impose those views on those who do not share them.
At the end of the day our differences mustnot drive us to ruin because we are all humans and hurt in very similar regardless of what we think.

[JuniperWoolf]

*You’re still using the straw-man fallacy (among others) and don’t seem to have any plans of changing that tactic.

Try not to use phrases that you don't understand, especially ones as overused and hackneyed as that one. You're not going to address a single thing, are you? Avoidance. You've got nothing to respond with, so your choices are that you can either say "meh, what's a few extra hundred youth suicides?" or you can avoid the issue and pretend that you still have the moral highground. You've clearly made your decision (and that would be the cowardly one you've chosen there, to each their own), so I'm going to axe this whole headache. But hey, at least you were polite throughout, that's VERY important.

*walkingawaymumblebloodywasteoftimemumblemumble*


Merely waving your Bible at your gay friend (just giving an imaginary example here) and telling her that her lifestyle is sinful doesn't involve denying her humanity, dignity and personhood.

Um, yes it does, when the passage you're waving at them is "law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." That's anti-homosexual, I can't understand how you can say otherwise. Also, I doubt he'd be your "gay friend" for much longer...

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not discuss each other but the topic at hand.

Off-topic and/or personalised posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm pretty sure Shea explained her mindset quite thoroughly. I think it's time to leave her alone, because any answer she gives won't be good enough, either because you perceive her to not answer you in full, or because you dislike the answer. Hell, you'd probably be angry if she gave you the exact answer you wanted, because then you wouldn't have an excuse to be so combative. It's getting old, honestly.

Plus, you can't just bash her for avoiding a question. We all do that. You've done in it this thread, Juniper.

[Shea]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not discuss each other but the topic at hand.

Off-topic and/or personalised posts will be removed without further notice.

~

Thank you Scher! :hurray:


Try not to use phrases that you don't understand

Okay then, enlighten me.


especially ones as overused and hackneyed as that one.

That doesn’t make it untrue.


You're not going to address a single thing, are you? Avoidance. You've got nothing to respond with

I’ve got plenty to respond with, but would just be copying and pasting things I’ve already said and I’m done with that.


so you choices are that you can either say "meh, what's a few extra hundred youth suicides?" or you can avoid the issue and pretend that you still have the moral highground.

Argumentum ad hominem, Argumentum ad nauseam, Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Dicto simpliciter, and straw-man


I'm pretty sure Shea explained her mindset quite thoroughly. I think it's time to leave her alone, because any answer she gives won't be good enough, either because you perceive her to not answer you in full, or because you dislike the answer. Hell, you'd probably be angry if she gave you the exact answer you wanted, because then you wouldn't have an excuse to be so combative. It's getting old, honestly.

Plus, you can't just bash her for avoiding a question. We all do that. You've done in it this thread, Juniper.

Thanks Mutatis :thumbs_up

[tonywalt]

Shea. I am happy that there is a "kinder and gentler" strain of Christianity, but I would be surprised if 99% describe themselves as anything other than kinder and gentler.

I would ask Shea what she would do if one of her kids was gay - besides praying real hard? Hhhm, I would say there would be a bit more finesse of The Situation -a bit more pro-active effort.

- Would you send the child to the minister so the minister could calmly and nicely explain the wonders of being staight and God's design etc...on and on?

- Would you discourage the gay feelings? (I just want to squash that standard new Christian argument that you "can have these feelings, but dont act on them". Sheeeeet, we all act on our sexual feelings as hard as we can, it's the most powerful drive beyond hunger and water. Hell, I would go without Shelter for a good $()@&:aureola:

- When they begin dating same sex people(and they would) - will you accept them in your home? If not, the estrangement will be pronounced and painful for all.

My feeling is that you wouldn't go as far as trying to "convert" them to be heterosexual through direct measures-like those gay conversion people. I think you understand the damage of such actions.

So - what would you do besides the 'power of prayer'?


Thanks Mutatis :thumbs_up

I agree Mutatis. I only saw your post after i posted.

[JuniperWoolf]

Okay then, enlighten me.

A straw-man is a fallacy set up to be defeated. Get it? Like, say I wanted you to decide that medicare was useless. I'd say something like "well, the waitlists are shorter if a country adopts medicare." That's the straw man, see? You're supposed to be contrary, say "actually no they aren't." Bingo bango, you've alligned yourself with the side I wanted you to, by attacking the straw man (ie. false target meant to be easily defeated) which I set out for you. In other words, you're using the phrase incorrectly.


I'm pretty sure Shea explained her mindset quite thoroughly. I think it's time to leave her alone, because any answer she gives won't be good enough, either because you perceive her to not answer you in full, or because you dislike the answer. Hell, you'd probably be angry if she gave you the exact answer you wanted, because then you wouldn't have an excuse to be so combative. It's getting old, honestly.

Plus, you can't just bash her for avoiding a question. We all do that. You've done in it this thread, Juniper.

Nice white hat, sucker. I can't believe you swallow the sentence "oh please respect my right to disagree with the gay lifestyle?" because she used the words "please" and "respect" and wraped it all up in sophistry. What an easy mark, you are.

She didn't answer a single thing that wasn't about her. I asked three questions repeatedly, in various ways, and made them as simple as possible.

1. What does "sin" portend?
2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed?
3. How do you justify that?

If you can find an answer to any of those questions in her posts, or any reference to suicide at all, I'll give you a sweet tart (spoiler: you can't - this thread is dead because we've not only gone off topic, we've avoided it like the bubonic plague). That's why I'm frustrated, because this has all been a waste of time, for weeks. It's not her opinion, I grew up with people who hate "fags" and "niggers" and all, but at least they're straight about it and don't drive me up the wall dancing around the issue (mixed metaphor? *sigh*).

[Charles Darnay]

I love the straw man; it has won me many a wager (albeit these primary occurred in establishments of inebriation, so you could imagine the quality of debate.)

[JuniperWoolf]

I love the straw man; it has won me many a wager (albeit these primary occurred in establishments of inebriation, so you could imagine the quality of debate.)

I used to fall for it like a bowling pin. You'd read these articles in psychology, and the first half would seem to be trying to convince you that your behavioural traits are primarily dependant on your parents. About halfway through the article you're thinking "Wow, that's so true! It's all about the parents! I am in full agreement with this article!" Then WAM!!! They hit you with the second half of the article, where they go through each point in the first half one at a time and tear them apart one by one, giving you a dose of deconstructive logic and that heady sense of disillusionment. Of course! It's not about the parents at all! I feel so enlightened!

Oh, and someday I might tell you about the fun we had with false memory implants. Jerk psychology professors, brains aren't gameboys.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nice white hat, sucker. I can't believe you swallow the sentence "oh please respect my right to disagree with the gay lifestyle?" because she used the words "please" and "respect" and wraped it all up in sophistry. What an easy mark, you are.

She didn't answer a single thing that wasn't about her. I asked three questions repeatedly, in various ways, and made them as simple as possible.

1. What does "sin" portend?
2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed?
3. How do you justify that?

If you can find an answer to any of those questions in her posts, or any reference to suicide at all, I'll give you a sweet tart (spoiler: you can't - this thread is dead because we've not only gone off topic, we've avoided it like the bubonic plague). That's why I'm frustrated, because this has all been a waste of time, for weeks. It's not her opinion, I grew up with people who hate "fags" and "niggers" and all, but at least they're straight about it and don't drive me up the wall dancing around the issue (mixed metaphor? *sigh*).
The thread was actually quite interesting until it became "let's all gang up on Shea."

And I didn't swallow anything. I've stated several times in this thread that I think her belief is a backwards one, but I still believe she has the right to think whatever she wants, and, yes, I do respect that. I've come to think there's something to be said for having civil, respectful conversation. Just look at your first post in this thread--you're combative and rude from the very start when no one else was. She's not beholden to you to answer every question you come up with, no matter how much you try to bully her into doing so. And, frankly, why should she?

And, incidentally, I question if you truly know what a straw man is. It's simply a misrepresentation of one's position in order to tear it down. If anyone is committing that fallacy, it's you. Shea says she believes homosexuality is a sin, but keeps that thought internal, not openly condemning anyone, not even voting on the issue. Note we have no reason to not believe her. From her statements, you accuse her of contributing to the murder and suicide of homosexuals. Yeah, no misrepresentation there. :rolleyes:

[Shea]

Tony, I promise I will answer your questions. Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to ask them. But I want to take a little more time, when I'm not surrounded by my family or very late into to the night, to formulate a proper answer. I have thought about it and respect the gravity of such a situation.

The following was easier and quicker respond to however:

This is the definition of a Straw man, as listed on the site I suggested for you, Juniper. The page is a resource provided by Glen Whitman who was the coach of the New York University Debaters' Union, and a Trustee of the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA):


Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.


Look specifically at the first paragraph and you’ll notice how your argument is exactly as described. You claim that I incite hate by calling homosexual acts a sin. You put words in my mouth. I’ve never been hateful in my stance on this issue. Unless you include the fact that I despise the attitudes of the hypocritical gay-bashers.


She didn't answer a single thing that wasn't about her. I asked three questions repeatedly, in various ways, and made them as simple as possible.

1. What does "sin" portend?
2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed?
3. How do you justify that?


Yes, I did answer these questions, but as Mutatis pointed out, I probably didn’t give you the “right” answer, so instead you’ve chosen to ignore my valid statements. Hmmm, you also admitted that you pick and choose "acceptable" Bible verses too. What gives you that authority? What makes you the expert on which verses are “more correct” than others?


thread is dead because we've not only gone off topic, we've avoided it like the bubonic plague

Seriously?!


How do you guys feel about homosexuality and gay marriage?

Just because you can’t seem to understand how I feel on this issue doesn’t mean it’s off topic. So rest assured that your precious time has only been wasted in Argumentum ad hominem.

[Charles Darnay]

What this thread is lacking is, actually, an opposing side. Bien had it right - it is very one-sided - Shea included. You (Shea) are not actually arguing the opposing view to Juniper (or anyone) which is why it has created this silly back and forth.

I looked over the thread quickly, and I have to side with Juniper on avoiding questions - not for any malicious reasons, but once again, because you have no intention on taking up the debate.

When I questioned your use of the word "sin", your response:



The minute I say that I believe it's a sin, I'm suddenly lumped in with bigots, which is why I posted here in the first place. I actually have to disagree with your explaination of "sin". You're describing what a right-wing preacher would do. Jesus ate and kept company with "tax-collectors and sinners". He didn't behave in the way you're suggesting.

I am still unclear on your definition of sin.....unimportant as this may seem to some.

When Juniper questioned about the harm of homophobic acts you replied with (paraphrase) "it doesn't apply to me"

This is where some of the frustration is coming from.......but, for my part at least, it's not a matter of your position, it's the way this "debate" has turned: in which there is no real question here being debated because no one has picked up on the other side.

This is also why it has devolved into rhetoric criticisms and arbitrary slinging of Latin phrases.

I think (unless I have a need to defend myself) this will be my final two-cents (with a load of inflation) on the thread.

[mona amon]

When Juniper questioned about the harm of homophobic acts you replied with (paraphrase) "it doesn't apply to me" ~ Charles

What else can she reply if it happens to be true?

Let's get this straight - believing something is a sin does not involve hatred for the sinner.

Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not mean the believer is homophobic. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily equate the two. Since when did merely disapproving of something (for whatever reason) automatically make you into a member of a hate group?



2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed? ~ Juniper

This is where I completely disagree with you, and what made me jump into this debate. And you've never explained the process by which silent disapproval contributes to the killing and suicide of others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Merely waving your Bible at your gay friend (just giving an imaginary example here) and telling her that her lifestyle is sinful doesn't involve denying her humanity, dignity and personhood.

Reply by Juniper ~
Um, yes it does, when the passage you're waving at them is "law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." That's anti-homosexual, I can't understand how you can say otherwise. Also, I doubt he'd be your "gay friend" for much longer...

Of course the passage you quoted is anti homosexual as it clearly implies that a homosexual person is not a righteous person (I might as well add here that I totally disagree with such a point of view), but in what way does a belief in this deny the homosexual person their humanity, dignity and personhood?

By the way, I'm only agreeing that the passage is 'anti homosexual', and in the sense that it's disapproving of homosexuality. I do not agree that it is homophobic in any way.

[Shea]

Charles, because you’re unfortunately now sounding much like Juniper (I know, I should ignore her, but its people like her that compelled me to join this conversation), it may help to think of it this way:

This is not a two-sided issue.

Not for me. I’m not pro-gay, but I’m not (in the popular sense) anti-gay either. I vehemently disagree with the attitudes and tactics of the anti-gay haters, so when I say that I believe that homosexual acts are a sin, I appreciate not being put into that group. As Mona pointed out,


Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not mean the believer is homophobic. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily equate the two. Since when did merely disapproving of something (for whatever reason) automatically make you into a member of a hate group?



I am still unclear on your definition of sin.....unimportant as this may seem to some.


Dictionary.com says:

1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

To put it simply, if God (through the Bible) says don't do it, well then, don't do it.

[MarkBastable]

I think this needs to be cut up a bit. And for a start, we need to figure out what we think is the effect of calling something 'a sin'.

If you think something's a sin, you're saying, actually, that you think it's ethically or morally 'wrong'. Not 'wrong' in the sense of 'mistaken' ("...I believe the Earth is flat...") or wrong in the sense of 'outside the generally-accepted convention' ("...I drink soup from the bowl...") but wrong in the sense of 'contrary to the laws of God or nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'.

Juniper believes that homosexuality isn't at all wrong in that sense, so it's not as if she and Shea are ever going to agree. But Juniper also believes that even to express the view that homosexuality is a sin is a contributory factor in the persecution of gay people. I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.

I, for instance, think that Catholicism is 'contrary to the laws of God and nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'. And I don't say that because I'm an atheist - but because I think that the precepts of Catholicism are intrinsically messed up. What's more, I'm prepared to express that view at the drop of a wafer. However, I don't think that my expressing it is a contributory factor to the persecution of Catholics. Dammit, I'm married to one - so it would appear I can separate the sin of Catholicism from the sinner who's alongside me bringing up the kids.

On the other hand, if I lived in a society in which Catholics had been hounded, prosecuted and outcast for centuries, and in which the rights of Catholics to be openly Catholic had been hard-won and established pretty recently, an expression that I thought Catholicism was intrinsically wrong might be a little more, umm, inflammatory, and could well be taken as contributory to toxic practices that society as a whole was doing its best to eradicate.

Could it be taken that way by any reasonable person? Well - yeah. Juniper is a reasonable person, and she's taken it exactly that way.

So the effect of the expression of that belief is a) contextual to the time and place (what isn't?) and b) dependent upon the listener (what isn't?).

It's difficult to see a way out of that. Shea obviously has a right to say what she sincerely believes. And Juniper obviously has a right to say she's sincerely outraged by it.

But I do think it's a bit disingenuous of Shea to suggest that her expression of the idea that homosexuality is sin is not part of a continuum of religiously-derived anti-gay viewpoints that have often been expressed rather more forcibly than by posting on internet forums. It's absolutely part of that continuum, and it cites the same authority.

But I also think that it's a bit unrealistic of Juniper to suggest that the mere expression of such a view is in practice a contribution to anti-gay hate crime. It's not - no more than my distaste for Catholicism is a contribution to the murder of missionary nuns in Africa.

[cacian]

Dictionary.com says:

1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

To put it simply, if God (through the Bible) says don't do it, well then, don't do it.


Hi Shea can I ask you something and this is nothing against you or your beliefs which I believe you are entitled to and respect.

If God had not been there and the Bible had did not existed, this is only because there is always an IF, would you feel the same way?

[mona amon]

Good balanced post, MarkBastable! I hope it clears things up a bit.

[Charles Darnay]

But Juniper also believes that even to express the view that homosexuality is a sin is a contributory factor in the persecution of gay people. I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.



I do want to touch on this one point because it is what drew me into the conversation in the first place.

If we take the definitions that Shea provided, we can say see that a sin is a divine law....which seems to be abstract unless you are in the realm of "divinity" or under the rule of a religious establishment. Fine. However....

A good many countries in our world have it in their legal system that gay marriage is illegal. The only basis for this law seem to come from the religious history of that particular land. In this case, a sin has transformed into a law whose only design is to persecute a group of people.

So yes, the fact that homosexuality is labeled a sin has a real affect on people, and their persecution.

[MarkBastable]

I do want to touch on this one point because it is what drew me into the conversation in the first place.

If we take the definitions that Shea provided, we can say see that a sin is a divine law....which seems to be abstract unless you are in the realm of "divinity" or under the rule of a religious establishment. Fine. However....

A good many countries in our world have it in their legal system that gay marriage is illegal. The only basis for this law seem to come from the religious history of that particular land. In this case, a sin has transformed into a law whose only design is to persecute a group of people.

So yes, the fact that homosexuality is labeled a sin has a real affect on people, and their persecution.

Hence 'necessarily'.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think this needs to be cut up a bit. And for a start, we need to figure out what we think is the effect of calling something 'a sin'.

If you think something's a sin, you're saying, actually, that you think it's ethically or morally 'wrong'. Not 'wrong' in the sense of 'mistaken' ("...I believe the Earth is flat...") or wrong in the sense of 'outside the generally-accepted convention' ("...I drink soup from the bowl...") but wrong in the sense of 'contrary to the laws of God or nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'.

Juniper believes that homosexuality isn't at all wrong in that sense, so it's not as if she and Shea are ever going to agree. But Juniper also believes that even to express the view that homosexuality is a sin is a contributory factor in the persecution of gay people. I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.

I, for instance, think that Catholicism is 'contrary to the laws of God and nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'. And I don't say that because I'm an atheist - but because I think that the precepts of Catholicism are intrinsically messed up. What's more, I'm prepared to express that view at the drop of a wafer. However, I don't think that my expressing it is a contributory factor to the persecution of Catholics. Dammit, I'm married to one - so it would appear I can separate the sin of Catholicism from the sinner who's alongside me bringing up the kids.

On the other hand, if I lived in a society in which Catholics had been hounded, prosecuted and outcast for centuries, and in which the rights of Catholics to be openly Catholic had been hard-won and established pretty recently, an expression that I thought Catholicism was intrinsically wrong might be a little more, umm, inflammatory, and could well be taken as contributory to toxic practices that society as a whole was doing its best to eradicate.

Could it be taken that way by any reasonable person? Well - yeah. Juniper is a reasonable person, and she's taken it exactly that way.

So the effect of the expression of that belief is a) contextual to the time and place (what isn't?) and b) dependent upon the listener (what isn't?).

It's difficult to see a way out of that. Shea obviously has a right to say what she sincerely believes. And Juniper obviously has a right to say she's sincerely outraged by it.

But I do think it's a bit disingenuous of Shea to suggest that her expression of the idea that homosexuality is sin is not part of a continuum of religiously-derived anti-gay viewpoints that have often been expressed rather more forcibly than by posting on internet forums. It's absolutely part of that continuum, and it cites the same authority.

But I also think that it's a bit unrealistic of Juniper to suggest that the mere expression of such a view is in practice a contribution to anti-gay hate crime. It's not - no more than my distaste for Catholicism is a contribution to the murder of missionary nuns in Africa.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Well said.

[Shea]

I would ask Shea what she would do if one of her kids was gay - besides praying real hard? Hhhm, I would say there would be a bit more finesse of The Situation -a bit more pro-active effort.

- Would you send the child to the minister so the minister could calmly and nicely explain the wonders of being staight and God's design etc...on and on?

- Would you discourage the gay feelings? (I just want to squash that standard new Christian argument that you "can have these feelings, but dont act on them". Sheeeeet, we all act on our sexual feelings as hard as we can, it's the most powerful drive beyond hunger and water. Hell, I would go without Shelter for a good $()@&:aureola:

- When they begin dating same sex people(and they would) - will you accept them in your home? If not, the estrangement will be pronounced and painful for all.

My feeling is that you wouldn't go as far as trying to "convert" them to be heterosexual through direct measures-like those gay conversion people. I think you understand the damage of such actions.

So - what would you do besides the 'power of prayer'?


First off in answering these questions, I’m doing it without having discussed it with my husband, which I would have preferred to do to provide a better answer on how we would handle our children. If such a situation ever arose, I most definitely would discuss it with him. But at the moment he is feeling burned out at work, and doesn’t have much patience for discussing this topic anymore. He supports my stance, but would have given up on Juniper a long time ago.

I can also give a generalized “scene” of how it might play out, but nothing in life happens exactly the way we think it would, so I can’t say everything would be as I describe if it ever happens. Not to mention that this is only my input, when there would be several people involved. But for the sake of the topic at hand…

First of all if one of my sons were to come to me and say that he was gay, I would not blow up and say “You can’t live like that! It’s unnatural and wrong!” I would instead ask him what his personal feelings were on why he says that he’s gay. I feel that it would be crucial for him to be able to express what he is going through. The rest of the scenario would really depend upon the answers he provides.

But in general, we probably would have a family meeting along with the elders of our congregation to discuss how to effectively handle the situation. I can’t put words into their mouths, but I’d imagine that we would all do some Bible study together on the topic, to make absolutely certain that he understands God’s view on the matter. It would incur a lot more than “pray the gay away” though prayer would definitely play a part.

I do understand that there is significant damage done by some of the “gay conversion” people, but I don’t know how they went about their methods, so how am I to know they weren’t as bad as the gay-bashers? Honestly, we would probably look into it, but I doubt we’d try it.

It would really come down to my son’s personal choice to sin or not. If he understands the gravity of sin and makes his own conscious decision to request help for suppressing the feelings, then of course I would support him and help in any way he is comfortable with. If he decides the sin doesn’t matter, as sad as that would make me personally, I would still respect his choice, and not push the issue. He and even his partner would always be welcome in our family, but not our worship service.

Incidentally, the above scenario would also apply if he were straight and decided he wanted to live with his girlfriend and not be/get married. But both situations are at the moment relatively moot points as our oldest son is only 4. :p

Mark, I agree and/or accept pretty much all of what you said. But I do have a little issue with:


But I do think it's a bit disingenuous of Shea to suggest that her expression of the idea that homosexuality is sin is not part of a continuum of religiously-derived anti-gay viewpoints that have often been expressed rather more forcibly than by posting on internet forums. It's absolutely part of that continuum, and it cites the same authority.

I have before articulated that I think it’s horrible how the anti-gay viewpoints have been expressed by the haters and I have not expressed any of the hate that they have, though we “cite the same authority.” I believe that the Bible states it as a sin for the purpose of providing a warning, not for providing ammunition as a weapon. Something as benign as a ballpoint pen can be used as a weapon. As much as I would love to, how am I to control how they present the facts? I can’t very well deny that it’s a sin if that’s what I believe, just because they say similar things.


If God had not been there and the Bible had did not existed, this is only because there is always an IF, would you feel the same way?

No, I would not. Though it goes against everything inside me to think of a world without God, if we were in some kind of alternate reality, and there really was no God, then I wouldn’t have a problem with homosexuality. Socially speaking, it doesn’t hurt anyone. Though I may find it a bit odd only because it’s not an effective way of procreating.:p


If we take the definitions that Shea provided, we can say see that a sin is a divine law....which seems to be abstract unless you are in the realm of "divinity" or under the rule of a religious establishment.

May I remind you, it’s a divine law that I subject myself to. Unlike the haters, I don’t expect others to subject themselves if they are not willing to do so. This is why I don’t base my voting on my religious beliefs. I wouldn’t want a law passed that says every church is required to provide instrumental music because there are quite a number of churches in this country who's members in fact believe that instruments are neccessary to their worship services. We’d have to meet secretly in our homes for fear of being thrown in jail.

This falls under the same premise as the bigotry issue. Just because I believe it’s a sin doesn’t make me a hater. By the same token, just because I’m religious, doesn’t mean that I desire to set up religion inspired laws.

[MarkBastable]

I have before articulated that I think it’s horrible how the anti-gay viewpoints have been expressed by the haters and I have not expressed any of the hate that they have, though we “cite the same authority.” I believe that the Bible states it as a sin for the purpose of providing a warning, not for providing ammunition as a weapon. Something as benign as a ballpoint pen can be used as a weapon. As much as I would love to, how am I to control how they present the facts? I can’t very well deny that it’s a sin if that’s what I believe, just because they say similar things.

Indeed. I agree there's nothing you can do about what those people say or how they act. I was simply saying that what you believe about homosexuality is what they believe about homosexuality, because you all believe it for the same reason. So you are absolutely part of the same belief system as the gay-bashers, although you're not part of their activist approach.

It's not your fault, and I - unlike Juniper - don't think that makes you an accomplice to their crimes. But, however much you and God might disapprove, the violent or legislative or even just vocal anti-gay extremists would say you were on their side.

[Shea]

But, however much you and God might disapprove, the violent or legislative or even just vocal anti-gay extremists would say you were on their side.

Thank you for the clarification. And as far as this ^ statement goes, I would sadly agree with you there.


First of all if one of my sons were to come to me and say that he was gay, I would not blow up and say “You can’t live like that! It’s unnatural and wrong!” I would instead ask him what his personal feelings were on why he says that he’s gay. I feel that it would be crucial for him to be able to express what he is going through. The rest of the scenario would really depend upon the answers he provides.

But in general, we probably would have a family meeting along with the elders of our congregation to discuss how to effectively handle the situation. I can’t put words into their mouths, but I’d imagine that we would all do some Bible study together on the topic, to make absolutely certain that he understands God’s view on the matter. It would incur a lot more than “pray the gay away” though prayer would definitely play a part.

I do understand that there is significant damage done by some of the “gay conversion” people, but I don’t know how they went about their methods, so how am I to know they weren’t as bad as the gay-bashers? Honestly, we would probably look into it, but I doubt we’d try it.

It would really come down to my son’s personal choice to sin or not. If he understands the gravity of sin and makes his own conscious decision to request help for suppressing the feelings, then of course I would support him and help in any way he is comfortable with. If he decides the sin doesn’t matter, as sad as that would make me personally, I would still respect his choice, and not push the issue. He and even his partner would always be welcome in our family, but not our worship service.

Incidentally, the above scenario would also apply if he were straight and decided he wanted to live with his girlfriend and not be/get married. But both situations are at the moment relatively moot points as our oldest son is only 4. :p


Okay, seriously, this is just for a laugh because of this part ^ of my post today:

Tonight, when I curled up next to my 4-year-old to read him a bedtime story (and I was literally trying to curl up because my belly still hurts from my last "glutening"), I didn't realize that the neckline to my shirt fell open and my cleavage was showing. My son pointed at my breasts and said, "I like those, Mommy. They're beautiful." :smilielol5:

[Calidore]

Okay, seriously, this is just for a laugh because of this part ^ of my post today:

Tonight, when I curled up next to my 4-year-old to read him a bedtime story (and I was literally trying to curl up because my belly still hurts from my last "glutening"), I didn't realize that the neckline to my shirt fell open and my cleavage was showing. My son pointed at my breasts and said, "I like those, Mommy. They're beautiful." :smilielol5:

Ha! Good man! :hurray::cheers2:

Though what happens if when he's older he decides that he really wants his own pair? :devil:

[Shea]

Though what happens if when he's older he decides that he really wants his own pair? :devil:

:lol:I don’t mean to “prematurely” say that my son could not possibly be gay, because I would never know that till he's much older. But, at the risk of being stereotypical, this kid is all boy. He loves trains, trucks (particularly monster trucks), and all things about firefighters (among other typical “boy” interests). But he does like to look at pretty things (what straight guy doesn't like to see a pretty girl :p) and when he gives out hugs, he gravitates toward the ladies. But he does give other males hugs too because, after all, he hugs Daddy and brother every day. :D

I really hope one of my boys takes an interest in baseball. Growing up, I always wanted to play, but my dad wouldn’t let me.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I could never have my own pair. I'd never get anything done.

[Shea]

I could never have my own pair. I'd never get anything done.

:lol:

[MarkBastable]

Tonight, when I curled up next to my 4-year-old to read him a bedtime story (and I was literally trying to curl up because my belly still hurts from my last "glutening"), I didn't realize that the neckline to my shirt fell open and my cleavage was showing. My son pointed at my breasts and said, "I like those, Mommy. They're beautiful." :smilielol5:

Ah, the first glimmerings of an ambition to be a fashion designer.

[Darcy88]

So much judgement and hate going on in the culture. Heterosexuals divorce half the time but its the small number of potential gay couples who are going to harm the sanctity of marriage? People are dying everywhere from hunger and violence and disease but some people think the gays present a threat to society? Its ludicrous, positively ludicrous. Its petty as well, since the gays are so small in number they are really easy to pick on. Christian homophobes need to re-read their bibles with fresh eyes and see that judgement and hate and exclusion are not what our saviour demands of us.

[Shea]

So much judgement and hate going on in the culture. Heterosexuals divorce half the time but its the small number of potential gay couples who are going to harm the sanctity of marriage? People are dying everywhere from hunger and violence and disease but some people think the gays present a threat to society? Its ludicrous, positively ludicrous. Its petty as well, since the gays are so small in number they are really easy to pick on. Christian homophobes need to re-read their bibles with fresh eyes and see that judgement and hate and exclusion are not what our saviour demands of us.

:iagree:

What the Bible in fact teaches is that we are not to accept sinners, who have no desire to correct their sin, within the worship of God. This passage from 1 Corinthians 5, (where Paul is speaking to the actual members of the church) is what I mean (I’ve underlined key phrases):

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

The haters like to ignore the parts that I’ve underlined, and it puts a horrible stain on God’s Word. :frown5:

[cacian]

Interesting quotes there Shea which brings me to think about what sexually immoral mean because morality is about respect and tolerance.
Immoral is hurting others physically or mentally.
Sexually immoral is rape mollestation unconscented sex and physically injuries through the act of sex.

[Shea]

Interesting quotes there Shea which brings me to think about what sexually immoral mean because morality is about respect and tolerance.
Immoral is hurting others physically or mentally.
Sexually immoral is rape mollestation unconscented sex and physically injuries through the act of sex.

I can see where you’re coming from but there is also a need to explain that there is a difference between social morality and Biblical morality. While homosexuality maybe socially acceptable, it’s not Biblically acceptable. It’s the same thing with drunkenness. Purposely getting drunk may be socially acceptable, but it’s not Biblically acceptable. Here again, the same applies to sex outside of marriage.

But the bottom line for this topic too is that it is also Biblically immoral to cast hate and judgment on someone who does not subject themselves to Biblical authority. Too many people unfortunately miss that.

[OrphanPip]

:lol:I don’t mean to “prematurely” say that my son could not possibly be gay, because I would never know that till he's much older. But, at the risk of being stereotypical, this kid is all boy. He loves trains, trucks (particularly monster trucks), and all things about firefighters (among other typical “boy” interests). But he does like to look at pretty things (what straight guy doesn't like to see a pretty girl :p) and when he gives out hugs, he gravitates toward the ladies. But he does give other males hugs too because, after all, he hugs Daddy and brother every day. :D

I really hope one of my boys takes an interest in baseball. Growing up, I always wanted to play, but my dad wouldn’t let me.

That doesn't mean much, I liked trucks and trains too, and played sports. Most boys, even gay ones, have typical boy interests.

[Charles Darnay]

What the Bible in fact teaches is that we are not to accept sinners, who have no desire to correct their sin, within the worship of God. This passage from 1 Corinthians 5, (where Paul is speaking to the actual members of the church) is what I mean (I’ve underlined key phrases):

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

The haters like to ignore the parts that I’ve underlined, and it puts a horrible stain on God’s Word. :frown5:

This is an often overlooked passage for those who try to force their beliefs on ohters, but I do have one qualm with it: it is a bit outdated.

When written, the Church was a voluntary institution for mature, educated men. Therefore, before you entered, you knew the laws, you knew what you were getting into. If you were gay and someone asked you to enter the Christian church, you would probably just say no. "Alright then, enjoy your life of sin, see ya." "Bye" - case closed.

After the Edict of Milan (316AD?) the process of indoctrination began, because Christianity was now the official religion. So no longer did you have the choice to be in or or out of the church, which nullifies the above passage.

I truly believe that Christianity (or all religion in general) would do better to go back to the old ways. Allow children to discover religion when they are ready, not when you are ready. This way, you don't have homosexual Christian children trapped in the church in which their parents are within their divine rights to judge them, and haters in their divine rights to torment them.

But that's just my opinion on the matter.

[Shea]

That doesn't mean much, I liked trucks and trains too, and played sports. Most boys, even gay ones, have typical boy interests.

I know. That’s why I said that I wasn’t trying to prematurely identify his sexual orientation. I was, in all honesty trying to lighten the mood a bit. It was really difficult (albeit necessary) for me to think about the possibility of one of my boys one day turning away from God’s teaching. His out-of-the-blue statement came at the perfect time to strike me as funny.


After the Edict of Milan (316AD?) the process of indoctrination began, because Christianity was now the official religion. So no longer did you have the choice to be in or or out of the church, which nullifies the above passage.

I truly believe that Christianity (or all religion in general) would do better to go back to the old ways. Allow children to discover religion when they are ready, not when you are ready.

I agree with all you’ve said here ^ and I’m not under the Edict of Milan. The group I worship with have gone “back to the old ways.” The Bible is our only authority. We do our best to worship as the 1st century Christian would have. Therefore, the passage I’ve quoted is not nullified for us.

We also do not “baptize” babies. When a child is old enough to make their own conscious and informed decisions, they make the decision whether they want to be baptized. The Bible says repent, believe, and be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38 and 41, 8:12 and a bunch more). How is a baby supposed to repent and believe? There are no examples of infant baptisms in the Bible, and frankly, such a practice is more for the parents “peace of mind” than the child.

BTW, I think the 1st century Christians would be more sensitive than to say, “Enjoy your life of sin.” ;)

[BienvenuJDC]

I’m not under the Edict of Milan. The group I worship with have gone “back to the old ways.” The Bible is our only authority. We do our best to worship as the 1st century Christian would have. Therefore, the passage I’ve quoted is not nullified for us.

We also do not “baptize” babies. When a child is old enough to make their own conscious and informed decisions, they make the decision whether they want to be baptized. The Bible says repent, believe, and be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38 and 41, 8:12 and a bunch more). How is a baby supposed to repent and believe? There are no examples of infant baptisms in the Bible, and frankly, such a practice is more for the parents “peace of mind” than the child.

BTW, I think the 1st century Christians would be more sensitive than to say, “Enjoy your life of sin.” ;)

I agree 100%.

[cacian]

I can see where you’re coming from but there is also a need to explain that there is a difference between social morality and Biblical morality. While homosexuality maybe socially acceptable, it’s not Biblically acceptable. It’s the same thing with drunkenness. Purposely getting drunk may be socially acceptable, but it’s not Biblically acceptable. Here again, the same applies to sex outside of marriage.

But the bottom line for this topic too is that it is also Biblically immoral to cast hate and judgment on someone who does not subject themselves to Biblical authority. Too many people unfortunately miss that.

I see.
How about gay women do they count as morally sinful too?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why wouldn't they?

[cacian]

Why wouldn't they?

I am not sure but I think the word 'homosexual' only applies to men.
I might be wrong.

[Shea]

I am not sure but I think the word 'homosexual' only applies to men.
I might be wrong.

Cacian, it does apply to women. Here is Dictionary.com's definition of homosexual:

1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

— adj
2. of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
3. of or relating to the same sex

[Charles Darnay]

Why wouldn't they?

Because these laws were created by straight men and when it comes to two women....well you know.

At least in modern western society - conservative men tend to look at female homosexuality with less disgust than male.

[MarkBastable]

I am not sure but I think the word 'homosexual' only applies to men.
I might be wrong.


'Homo' in homosexual is from the Greek, meaning 'the same' (Homonym, homogenised), not from the Latin meaning 'man' (Homo sapiens, homicide).

[tonywalt]

'Homo' in homosexual is from the Greek, meaning 'the same' (Homonym, homogenised), not from the Latin meaning 'man' (Homo sapiens, homicide).

Oh Damn - so when people say "hey homo" to me they do not mean "Hey man" but something a bit different. I am crestfallen.

[Darcy88]

I don't think I can call myself Christian anymore. If God will not save those who merely love members of their own sex then I don't know if God is all I think He is. If He really cares about that then he is not the great God of wisdom and love that I take him to be. This discussion is really depressing to me. My faith is helping me so much but I can't imagine the gay people I know not being allowed into heaven just because they are gay. I simply cannot imagine it. I would rather go to hell or into oblivion with them than tell them they are somehow impure or lesser than me.

[cacian]

'Homo' in homosexual is from the Greek, meaning 'the same' (Homonym, homogenised), not from the Latin meaning 'man' (Homo sapiens, homicide).

Thanks. I thought ''Homo'' as in French 'Homme' which means men.
Women in French is Femme.
I naturally understood it to be men only.

I have a question:

Isn't the word 'homesexual' in today's society understood to be derogatory for men?
And lesbian only women?

[billl]

"lesbian" refers only to homosexual women.

"gay" generally refers to homosexual men--but it will sometimes be used to refer to homosexual women as well. Most of the time, though, it'll just be used for men.

"homosexual" just means "same sex". Could be talking about homosexual men or homosexual women.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think I can call myself Christian anymore. If God will not save those who merely love members of their own sex then I don't know if God is all I think He is. If He really cares about that then he is not the great God of wisdom and love that I take him to be. This discussion is really depressing to me. My faith is helping me so much but I can't imagine the gay people I know not being allowed into heaven just because they are gay. I simply cannot imagine it. I would rather go to hell or into oblivion with them than tell them they are somehow impure or lesser than me.

Don't let the religious screw religion up for you. People here are quoting a centuries old book written by MEN, not God, to support whatever backwards ideology they may have.

What you outline above is one of the main problems I have with most religions--the idea that if one lives a good life but doesn't follow the silly rules written in some book (going to confession, going to church, getting baptized, praying, etc.) that that person is going to hell. I've said it before: if God does exist, and He's really that big of a dick, I'd rather not go to His heaven.

So, you'll just have to decide how much you want the dictums and people of your chosen religion to affect you. You mentioned you chose to follow Catholicism, if I'm not mistaken, and if one form of Christianity is pretty clear on their feelings towards homosexuals, it's them. Maybe a different sect of Christianity is better for you, or maybe you just want to be your own Christian and not label yourself and strictly follow the teachings and philosophies of Christ . . . something I've found most Christian churches don't do in a lot of ways.

[Delta40]

Oh Damn - so when people say "hey homo" to me they do not mean "Hey man" but something a bit different. I am crestfallen.

So when your buddy says 'hey hommie', they could be implying a whole lot more....:devil: