Looks like a new semi-documentary at the Cannes film festival entitled Zoo "depicts
the men [who have sex with horses] in a sympathetic light, one that
tries to push the viewers to understanding their sexual perversion." It has surprisingly good reviews from the MSM (56% at rotten tomatoes), but should I be surprised? No.
Now, I don’t blame gays for this slide down the slippery slope of public morality, but the same logic that says "how can
you judge gays?" gets applied here to bestialists. Why judge if the horses don’t
mind? The fact is, we can reason our way to the immorality of both,
because both are against our physical design, i.e. against nature.
Just because the doorknob turns me on doesn’t mean that’s normal and healthy. Really.
Note the sexy naked man in the eye of the horse. How romantic, maybe my wife and I should see this on date night for a little stimulation. As Jim Carey would say, "YUMmy"
This post is obviously meant only to provoke people for no reason. It seems Seeker gets himself off at making others angry. I suggest everyone ignore this. It does not deserve attention. You are a sicko, Seeker. You have no decency.
Yes, stinker should take his wife to see it, as it’s probably the only way he could get it up.
I admit, I do like to provoke, but this is significant because it shows what could be the beginning of mainstreaming and destigmatizing yet another sexual sin. This movie seems basically to be the Brokeback Mountain of the beastialist, trying to get us to empathize with them (read “accept their dysfunction as normative”) by allowing us to see their humanity.
I also like to reiterate these important observations for discussion, not just to irritate:
(1) the logic for trying to legitimize hx also applies to other types of non-hetero unions
(2) there may be a slippery slope here, esp. since the logic applies to these other unions
(3) I think people who want to say that hx is ok but despise other types of unions are being hypocritical
I completely agree with your analysis, seeker. When right and wrong is decided based on nothing more than feelings, which always have and always will be mutable, virtually anything can be made “acceptable.” The line can always be pushed further and further back.
You have a rotten soul.
btw: I would also like to point out that the above illustrates just how seriously christianism can distort the human being. And, how impossible christianists themselves have made it for gay people to take their ideology seriously or as nothing less that a vicious threat.
I wouldn’t say that pro-gay apologists are making moral decisions based on feelings, but rather, on a faulty logic that denies the obvious argument from nature, not to mention the gobs of epidemiologic, sociologic, and childhood development evidence. And based on their own inner experience.
“Gobs of evidence” produced by gay-haters and bigots who manufacture false studies based on obvious political/religious bias. Plus, there is no argument from nature as nature doesn’t produce arguments, it simply is. People who deduce arguments from it are simply displaying their own prejudices for all to see. stinker’s comparison of gay human love to human/animal liaisons is ample proof that he is incapable of rational thought on the matter. And it is yet another argument for decent human beings to avoid the evils of religion.
I wonder just how low christianists will stoop next. In Iran they hang gay teenagers, in Afghanistan they used to crush gays under walls. In fairly recent times, christianist cultures inflicted punishments which varied from imprisonment to torture to burning at the stake. The best protection gay people have from religionist hate-mongers is the secular humanist culture the West has so arduously put together. It has been asked whether christianism has been bad for the world. I would answer without the slightest hesitation, yes.
This is kind of stupid, Seeker. And you’re aware of all the reasons why, but you choose not to mention them, which leads me to believe that you really are just being a horse’s ass. (If you think that’s an insult, you’re being speciesist! How dare you?!)
If the horse really doesn’t mind, then I agree. Crimes without victims don’t exist. This movie is specifically about Kenneth Pinyan, who died while having sex with a horse. In his case, since he was the one being penetrated, it’s difficult to imagine that the horse had been coerced in any way. In fact, according to one source:
In other words, the horse was a willing participant in this act. So apart from the fact that this man died, there’s nothing to lament about these encounters. If we’re to take the position that bestiality is wrong simply because it’s dangerous, then we must also logically oppose extreme sports, boxing, and even car driving. None of those things are particularly “natural” either.
If a dog starts humping your leg, and you don’t stop him, I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s not a large leap from there to active participation in the process. I understand that it bothers some people, but I don’t see that as a compelling reason for anyone to avoid such behavior if they don’t want to. The only reason that I do find compelling is that the animal (typically not something as powerful as a horse) could very well be coerced. In other words, bestiality doesn’t bother me, but rape does.
Of course, it would be enormously hypocritical for the average American to oppose animal-rape, since they have absolutely no qualms about animal-torture, animal-murder, and animal-consumption. They will even happily wear dead animals on their bodies, and apholster their cars and couches with dead animals skin. Even though most people claim to oppose the mistreatment of animals, virtually all the meat, leather, fur, dairy, and egg products in this country are taken from mistreated animals. Frankly, you have to be obtuse not to read between the lines. Where the mistreatment is not visible, it has no effect on consumer purchasing habits. It’s sort of strange to me, then, that people like yourself would mind much if a handful of people started having consensual sex with animals, let alone raping them.
In short, the only reason this bothers you is because you believe that an invisible man in the sky finds it distasteful. Since I don’t believe in that invisible man, or in metaphysical nonsense like “physical design”, I have no problem with a guy who wants to have sex with a horse. I would caution him, of course, but Kenneth Pinyan was well-aware of the dangers, and he chose to do it anyway. What can you do?
I have no problem with a guy who wants to have sex with a horse.
I rest my case. And you have no problem with a man having sex with a man. Ergo, in your eyes, there is no moral difference.
And neither in mine. Both are perversion, no matter what kind. I mean, bestiality may be more heinous, but that's not so important.
My argument from design is not metaphysical, but epidemiological and physiologic – homosexuality is associated with higher incidences of mental illness, and homosexual sex is associated with higher disease rates and early death – and NO two men having sex can have a baby (if otherwise normally healthy) – we have to remember that lust and compensating emotional/physical behaviors like overeating or homosexuality may feel good, but that does not mean they are not a perversion of something healthy.
I don't find that a bigoted position at all, though I understand how it could be seen as such. I see it as plainly evident.
In other words, the horse was a willing participant in this act.
Umm. Yes, I am sure the horse was talking dirty to him and begging for it.
I am sorry but that is just stupid. Actually one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Sorry. Normally you are pretty smart, and post thoughtful posts, imo. Perhaps you have been watching too much reality tv? Mr. Ed was not reality tv…
I guess you think riding a horse (in the normal, not disgusting way) is a form of torture and the horse a victim of abuse, since they usually are NOT a willing participant in that situation.
Btw, children are almost always "willing participants" when they are being sexually molested.
So, the next logical step in your viewpoint is the acceptance of pedophilia.
You really are proving seeker's point big time.
Although I am sure those who are normally against him on this subject (sex) will not say so. Because then they would have to admit to the existence of that slippery slope they so adamantly protest is not there in our oh-so-into-sex-however-it-appears culture!!!
What a couple of idiots!
I don't find that a bigoted position at all, though I understand how it could be seen as such.
Well, duh! I guess so. Bigots never think they're bigoted, just like psychopaths don't think they're psychopaths (little difference in your case). The very mental defect that feeds their distorted view of life keeps them from realizing the evil they promote.
Lawanda, your point is not made any stronger by calling me stupid, or calling my post one of the stupidest things you've ever read. I find that attitude to be about the furthest thing from useful conversation.
Mocking me, also, is not an effective way to make a point. Your argument has essentially been that I am a moron who can't tell the difference between reality and TV Land.
I have no idea why you would think that. That seems largely untrue to me, although I certainly haven't interviewed many molested children. Most people would probably agree that any kind of sex, whether willing or not, is harmful to children. That seems reasonable to me, because it's backed up by evidence. You can't really make that claim about adult animals, though, since they have sex all the time with no negative psychological or physiological effects. To argue that any interspecies sex is necessarily harmful is simply wrong, then.
The example of the dog is, I think, quite instructive. When a dog is interested in mating, he will hump anything. If a dog is humping your leg, it's somewhat counter-intuitive to argue that he isn't doing it willingly, or that you are raping him. If a person were inclined to engage such a dog, allowing it to penetrate them, that could hardly be called rape. Whether you or I find this distasteful is entirely irrelevent. In the case of the horse, there's every reason to believe that similar events occurred. The man video-taped his encounters with the horse. He didn't force it to have sex with him. The horse penetrated him.
I'm appalled that some people do, in fact, rape animals. I'm also appalled that people cage, murder, eat, and wear animals. I choose to do none of these things, but what can I say? If you think that enslaving and eating animals is ok, but that having consensual sex with them isn't, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I think your priorities are entirely upside-down.
I actually agree with you about using words like stupid.
However, I did not call you stupid. As a matter of fact I stated that you are smart, imo. I did say that your post was one of the stupidest things I had ever heard, and I still haven't changed my mind. Sorry about that. Perhaps it doesn't strengthen my argument, but it sure did relate my feelings on the matter.
Anyway, you called seeker's post stupid, too. So I'd say we are even footing there.
You really need to read up on the problem of sexual molestation of children and think through your argument. You need to apply logic across the board, and not only when it happens to support your feelings that people should be able to have sex with anything that walks.
My point about animals was that they are not able to tell humans they want sex, unless you think animals can speak. So how exactly are they willing participants?? And also, how do you know it is not harmful to animals??
Eating chocolate is harmful to dogs, but I know dogs will literally beg for it. Think about what that means.
If it was natural (instinctive or what have you) for animals to mate with other species, then I think we'd see a lot more of it going on. Animals do not have sex for pleasure. That is purely human.
Oh, another thing you will find out if you look into child molestation is that many adults actually claim that the children came on to them. Think about that also.
My priorities in "enslaving animals and eating them" are purely to live.
I don't happen to have a lot of money to spend on food that other people have produced for me, as a matter of fact.
And I notice that you do not tell Louis that if calls us idiots that it is the furthest thing from useful conversation.
I agree with you about Louis's comments, but I have largely given up on him. His comments are almost never useful. I think he comes here because he wants to feel victimized by Seeker. I can't otherwise understand his constant, complaining posts.
Consider veganism, then. My wife and I, and millions of others, are very healthy, very happy, and we don't pay people to kill animals for us. If you send me your address, to the email listed above, I will happily purchase and mail you a book about the topic.
I expect that that's true, but that doesn't mean we should belive them. I doubt you would, either. It wouldn't surprise me if a child molester actually believed that his victim wanted it, but I doubt the child would see it that way. Regardless, I don't find this analogy very useful.
You've never had a dog jump up on your leg? Please, Lawanda. I'm not suggesting that many animals would prefer to have sex with members of another species, any more than many humans would prefer to have sex with members of another species. To deny that it happens, though, or to believe that no animal would ever attempt to copulate with a member of another species is, frankly, unfounded.
That's almost funny, but you could not be more wrong. Are you suggesting that animals do not enjoy having sex? They're animals, not dispassionate puritans? Have you never seen a chimpazee, or an aroused housecat? Or is your premise that every time they mount one another, non-human animals are only interested in "making babies". I think you should reconsider some of your beliefs about animal behavior.
It means that dogs (like humans) find chocolate to be delicious, but that they aren't smart enough to know that, as a powerful stimulant, it can cause cardiac arrest. What else would it mean? I fail to see the connection to animal sex, here.
On the whole, I'm inclined not to have sex with non-human animals. (1) Because I don't find it appealing, and (2) because I would not presume to force myself on an animal. But there are some times where an animal would be the initiator and so (2) is not always applicable (e.g. the dog humping your leg). For someone where (1) did not apply, what would be the big deal?
Again, if you're so worried about the animal's welfare, then maybe you should stop paying people to kill them for you. I don't know; it's just a thought. I doubt very much that the amount of dairy/eggs/meat that you (or the average American, for that matter) eats is necessary, or even recommended, for your survival. Putting avocado and hummus on your sandwich, instead of chicken and mayo, seems a lot more humane that worrying about whether a small handful of fetishists are being kind to the horses who are sodomizing them. Over a billion animals are killed for food every year, and they're raised in tiny, confined spaces. How many horses do you think are having sex with people? A hundred? I doubt it's nearly that high.
Let's have some perspective.
Sorry Lawanda, I forgot to include that email address: It’s:
stewart.ulm[at]gmail[dot]com
Please let me send you an interesting book about how you can really make a difference in animals’ lives. I extend the offer to Aaron, Seeker, and Cineaste as well. At the very least, you might find some of it interesting. If not, you can just throw it away or give it to somebody else.
Consider veganism, then. My wife and I, and millions of others, are very healthy, very happy, and we don't pay people to kill animals for us. If you send me your address, to the email listed above, I will happily purchase and mail you a book about the topic.
I grow my own veggies too ;) They make up a large part of our diet. However, I think you would agree that if people in general were not omnivores, then some of the animal population would destroy the rest of our food sources (veggies)…
Take for instance the deer population in my area. My veggies (and yours, I would say) would not grow too well if we let the deer breed out of proportion.
Just something to think about on that.
I would prefer you not purchase anything for me. But I will email you and get the name of the book and perhaps borrow it from the library or something. :)
I expect that that's true, but that doesn't mean we should belive them. I doubt you would, either. It wouldn't surprise me if a child molester actually believed that his victim wanted it, but I doubt the child would see it that way. Regardless, I don't find this analogy very useful.
Have you not seen the NBC Dateline series on internet "predators" ??? Believe me, children are being sexualized early nowadays. It is no stretch of the imagination that they "ask" for it. As a matter of fact it is a symptom of the problem, causing it to become an even bigger problem.
Read This article. Although it is a lot to do with laws, it also covers some effects of molestation. It is more common than you think, and as this article says:
A recent report suggested that about a third of children who have been sexually abused subsequently manifest this symptom [sexualized behavior].
I'm not suggesting that many animals would prefer to have sex with members of another species, any more than many humans would prefer to have sex with members of another species.
See you think animals prefer something with regard to sex. How do you come to this conclusion?
every time they mount one another, non-human animals are only interested in "making babies".
I did not say that animals do not get pleasure from mating. Honestly, I cannot really think you mean to suggest that animals are having "consensual sex". If an animal is "in heat" does that make them a nymphomaniac at that time?
t means that dogs (like humans) find chocolate to be delicious, but that they aren't smart enough to know that, as a powerful stimulant, it can cause cardiac arrest. What else would it mean? I fail to see the connection to animal sex, here.
It means that humans take animals into their homes to care for them. Dogs could take care of themselves, if humans would leave them alone. But humans have seen fit to take dogs as "pets" or for company. For the mutual benefit of each. But the dogs are not the ones caring for the humans. Because they are dogs. They cannot "decide" anything with regard to what they will eat, unless they are allowed to follow their instinct and hunt other animals. They most definitely do not "decide" (consent) to have sex with a person. Although they would most likely willingly participate, if they trust the human.
On the whole, I'm inclined not to have sex with non-human animals. (1) Because I don't find it appealing, and (2) because I would not presume to force myself on an animal. But there are some times where an animal would be the initiator and so (2) is not always applicable (e.g. the dog humping your leg). For someone where (1) did not apply, what would be the big deal?
You assume that the dog humping your leg is an invitation to have sex with it? It is an instinctual action on the dog's part. The dog is not asking you to gratify it sexually. Dogs do not initiate sex with people. Dogs do that because they have a biological instinct to mate. They will hump a couch.
I have never studied animal psychology, but there is no way that you could EVER consider a dog to be having "consensual sex" with a couch.
How many horses do you think are having sex with people?
None. The people are having sex with the horses.
And it is sick. And you are debating that.
Which really does prove seeker's point that logically if this is ok, then so is pedophilia…. and… Where will it stop?
Our culture is very sexualized already. It is an ugly cycle too. Even though according to most of you it is not harmful at all. I definitely disagree.
True, the couch cannot possibly consent.
In a manner of speaking, yes. When a dog humps your leg, the dog is trying to have sex with you. Admittedly, this usually doesn't last very long, because most people push the dog away. But from the dog's point of view, this is an attempt to have sex. The fact that it's a leg, and not another dog, is only a matter of inconvenience for the dog.
No, I don't watch trashy, pseudo-news programs. The idea that children are being 'sexualized' early, today, is ridiculous. Humans reach sexual maturity far, far earlier than our society would like to believe. Historically, people are becoming sexually active much later than ever before. Regardless, I'm not really interested in discussing pedophilia or ebophilia with you, as I feel it is a distraction from the conversation at hand.
You're basically arguing that animals can't consent to sex. Obviously they can't verbally do so (maybe a parrot could?), but you are even saying that they can't give implicit consent either. I disagree. You seem to base your argument on the fact that humans, in a position to understand the dangers, have a responsibility to take care of animals by not having sex with them. Again, I disagree.
If a horse, a half-ton powerhouse, willingly penetrates a human man or woman, I don't see what harm has befallen that horse. Similarly, if a dog is humping someone's leg, and that person masturbates the dog, I fail to see how the dog has been harmed by the interaction. The dog got what he wanted, which was to ejaculate. And the person presumably got whatever he wanted out of the process too. I don't think it's appealing, but I also don't think that either the dog or the person — both happy participants in the activity — could possibly be traumatized by it.
Now, if you're worried about people raping dogs, sheep, pigs, and whatnot, then I share your concern. Rape is a frightening concern. But it's a concern because of it's nature, not because of the animals or people involved.
Instead you should be asking "Where will it start?" since bestiality is a considerably minor fetish. I mean, I seriously can't believe that it's even being discussed here, because it's just not a legitimate concern. Again, if you're worried about animal welfare, I can give you a laundry list of better subjects to concern yourself with. Instead, I would suggest that nobody here is legitimately concerned with animal welfare, in regards to bestiality. Rather, it seems obvious to me that this "concern" is related to a feared loss of moral control over society.
Not worrying about bestiality does not increase the rate at which children are molested, any more than the rate of child molestation has an effect on bestiality. Similarly, homosexuality has no relation to these things either. For those of us who are not Christian moralists, the only thing we care about is "Was anybody hurt?". If not, then there's nothing to see here; move along. Crimes without victims don't exist, and overbearing paternalism (i.e. We're going to stop you from hurting yourself, because we know better) has no place in a free society.
For those of us who are not Christian moralists, the only thing we care about is "Was anybody hurt?"
From the reaction of the non-christian non-moralists, I'd say that is not true. Even they thought it was sick.
Instead you should be asking "Where will it start?" since bestiality is a considerably minor fetish.
And so who considers this a minor fetish then? I'd say that in our society previously homosexuality was considered a fetish too, and look at us now. I think it is logical to assume that if we keep sliding down the slippery slope, we will get to the point of people wanting to marry their animals.
And while that may be fine with you, it makes me shake my head at how far some people will push for their sexual desires.
Not worrying about bestiality does not increase the rate at which children are molested, any more than the rate of child molestation has an effect on bestiality.
My original (actually my addendum) to you said:
Btw, children are almost always "willing participants" when they are being sexually molested.
So, the next logical step in your viewpoint is the acceptance of pedophilia.
You do not refute this in any way, yet you do not want to discuss pedophilia.
Did you even read the article?
you are even saying that they can't give implicit consent either
Date rape. Statutory rape. Out-cold-drunk-but-previously-flirting-like-crazy rape. You are trying to say this is OK?
I would suggest that nobody here is legitimately concerned with animal welfare, in regards to bestiality. Rather, it seems obvious to me that this "concern" is related to a feared loss of moral control over society.
I am concerned with animal welfare, because it has been shown over and over that the way we treat animals can be precursor to the way we treat other humans.
Therefore the animals' welfare does concern me. Because for a person to have sex with an animal that cannot in any way have EVER asked for it, WHY is it so hard to imagine him forcing himself on a person??
And YES there is definitely loss of moral control, but not OVER society, just IN society.
I don't want to control people. I want them to control THEMSELVES.
You have to agree that people HAVE to control themselves.
I think you just feel that objecting to this "fetish" could result in a logical objection to other sexual "orientations" and you do not like it.
What a strange conversation. Really, this is such a minor matter that I wonder that people can get so het up about it. Has anyone here even seen this film, or read a detailed review of it? No, it is just condemned wholesale as yet another violation of conventional morality. It's just a very small, independent film exploring this minuscule niche of human experience. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? And why is pedophilia always dragged into any conversation about sex? Yet more scare tactics to silence discussion.
Lawanda, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never even implied that date rape or sex with an unconscious person should be tolerated Why would you even think that?
It's a minor fetish, because virtually no one practices bestiality. It's almost unheard of. I doubt that more than one person in ten thousand could reasonably be categorized as a zoophile. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is orders of magnitude more common. And despite what you may believe, there is no evidence that homosexual attraction has seen any increase. Certainly it is more visible, with our more accepting culture, but I (along with tens of millions of others) believe that's a positive thing.
What bizarre universe do you live in, where people get married to satisfy their sexual desires? If I didn't know better, I would think you were making a joke. Clearly the people who want to have sex with animals, or members of the opposite sex for that matter, are not affected by their ability or lack thereof to be supported by the government. Moreover, in my home state of Massachusetts, there's absolutely no indication that the legalization of same-sex marriage has caused any increase in the amount of homosexual sex. Or anything else, actually, apart from same-sex marriages. Things are basically the same as they ever were, except a large number of couples now receive greater protection under the law. OMG, No! We should be so ashamed!
No, in fact, I don't. I find the entire premise of people controlling themselves to be absurd and metaphysical. You want people to control themselves in the way that you think is appropriate. What, exactly, is there difference? I guess you don't have to hold the leash in your version.
I don't want to discuss pedophilia, because I refuse to ever entertain your argument that raping a child is the same as letting a horse sodomize you. Apart from the sexual nature of each, I fail to see the connection.
Good point! That explains why so many people are eating others, and apholstering their couches in human flesh. No one who eats animals, who pays other people to cage and murder them, or who wears their flesh as a fashion accessory can claim moral high ground on animal welfare issues. I have no patience for that kind of dissonance.
Additionally, your comment above only goes to show that, ultimately, you don't care about animal welfare. You've just explicitly said that the only reason you give a crap about non-humans is because you think their mistreatment doesn't bode well for humans. Re-read your statement, and tell me how I could interpret that any other way.
I have never even implied that date rape or sex with an unconscious person should be tolerated Why would you even think that?
You said: you are even saying that they [animals] can't give implicit consent either.
Implicit = implied, rather than expressly stated
Date rape is a fine example of implied consent. So is sex with an unconscious person who was flirting with one hours before.
If you condone sex with animals, then you are condoning both of the above.
And you are correct that I care about animals because the way you treat animals is the way you treat people. Look up the history of serial killers. Many mistreated animals (and sexually mistreated them as well, btw) before they started in on humans.
Pedophilia has a LOT to do with every sexual problem in America. Read the article. Really.
I could not disagree more. In date rape, a person explicitly withdraws their consent at some point during the encounter, and this is ignored by the rapist. There's nothing implied about it. The consent doesn't exist.
Again, I can't disagree more strongly. First, even a conscious person who is flirting is not giving implied consent. Why would you believe that flirtation is an open invitation to have sex? That's just weird. And second, an unconscious person cannot imply anything. They are unconscious. Even if implied consent existed prior to the loss of consciousness, it certainly doesn't exist afterwards. "Consent" is not a physical thing. It's an action or behavior on the part of an individual which expresses willingness to be a party to something. Unconscious people cannot do that.
Obviously not, for the reasons I just stated. Frankly, it's an insulting assumption for you to make, compounded by your repeated assertion that it was true without really asking me about it. Claiming that someone is an advocate of rape when they are not is unquestionably an insult. In the future, consider asking people to clarify their beliefs about something before you slander them in a public forum.
Lawanda, I am not at all concerned about serial killers, primarily because their existence is an absurdly rare occurance. On the other hand, I am very much concerned with the confinement and murder of one billion animals every year. This is something which clearly doesn't bother you much, and I find that sad. Your interest in animals is a purely selfish one, insofar as you're worried about yourself and people like yourself, and not about the animals at all. It's also an unfounded one. As I implied above, if the way people treated animals really reflected how they treated other people, then you would see billions of people caged, killed, and eaten every year. People would be kept as pets. People would scalp other people to make attractive hats.
This is silly, of course, because the truth is that serial killers aren't caused by the abuse of animals. It just happens that people who thoughtlessly abuse animals also tend to have little regard for people as well. They are correlative, not causative. So you have nothing to worry about. All those caged animals, on the other hand, don't have it so nice.
So please, spare me the arguments about whether this is rape of animals or not. You obviously don't care much about the actual welfare of animals. To you, this is about religious morality, and about protecting people. I want to protect people, too, but I'm equally interested in protecting animals. As someone who, quite clearly, has much more legitimate concern for non-human animals than you do, I don't see what your big problem is with a guy who has sex with a horse.
Do you feel bad for the horse? You haven't protested the fact that they're forced from childhood to wear saddles, have metal bits shoved into their mouths, and are kicked when they don't do what their owners want. Also, people ride them for pleasure, keep them in stalls, and nail metal plates to their feet. But yeah, we should really stop the few dozens guys who let horses have sex with them. That's the problem.
If you think that enslaving and eating animals is ok, but that having consensual sex with them isn't, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I think your priorities are entirely upside-down.
Stewart, I respect your decision to not be cruel to animals in any way, but the reason I can not accept sex with animals has nothing to do with cruelty, but with abuse of a person's body.
Animal cruelty is another matter. I used to be a vegetarian for moral and health reasons, so I understand that position, I think. However, I just want to point out that you can be against bestiality for reasons other than cruelty.
Again, if you're worried about animal welfare, I can give you a laundry list of better subjects to concern yourself with. Instead, I would suggest that nobody here is legitimately concerned with animal welfare, in regards to bestiality. Rather, it seems obvious to me that this "concern" is related to a feared loss of moral control over society.
You are right, this is about the mainstreaming of immorality, the normalizing of perversion. And the reason it is important is because when we start accepting such perversions, which usually lead to sickness (physical or mental) and early death, we begin to putrefy our children by teaching acceptance of such things in their schools, and we undermine the hetero famly unit, which is nature's preferred setup for mankind. It's about public and societal health.
Not worrying about bestiality does not increase the rate at which children are molested, any more than the rate of child molestation has an effect on bestiality. Similarly, homosexuality has no relation to these things either. For those of us who are not Christian moralists, the only thing we care about is "Was anybody hurt?".
But accepting it as normative is the issue. Rather than asking only the shortsighted "Was anybody hurt" in isolated interactions, we should be asking, "is anyone hurt by teaching acceptance and approval of this behavior." The answer to that question, for both hx and bx, are YES.
No one who eats animals, who pays other people to cage and murder them, or who wears their flesh as a fashion accessory can claim moral high ground on animal welfare issues. I have no patience for that kind of dissonance.
You might be interested in my post on Finding purpose in life, in which I discussed the morality of vegetarianism (point 2).
That was my point, that you and Lawanda are opposed to it for reasons which are not at all related to the welfare of the animal involved, and thus her arguments about consent and abuse were without merit. The reasons which you do cite, and which I believe are behind your condemnation, are metaphysical.
The reasons you give are not very persuasive to someone who doesn't believe in God, and who finds "natural law" to be a unhelpful social construct.
I read it, but all of the reasons you give for not being a vegetarian are based on your beliefs about humans in a hierarchy, and their likeness to God himself. Clearly that doesn't do much to persuade me, however I appreciate that you believe my veganism is "noble and pleasing to God", even if I don't.
Let's take one arguement from your list: beastiality is not normative.
Okay, then by the rules of evolution there is a small but finite probability that the desire to have an extra-special affair will occur. Also, by the rules of genetics, it is highly unlikely for this pairing to result in offspring. Therefore, abnormalities such as homosexuality and beastiality should remain at a fairly low concentration.
Also, because people in homosexual or beastial relationships tend to not have offspring, you're attempts to normalize them and force them into hetro relationships will actually increase the occurance of the related genes. In short, letting these people behave as they like decreases their concentration in society in the long haul. Trying to 'cure' them compounds the problem.
I don't really see too much wrong with this from a purely moral standpoint. I'm fine with exploiting animals for medical, nutritional, and material gains. So if somebody wants to use them for sexual purposes, not my thing but go ahead. On a personal level, I'm pretty repulsed due to the years of evolution against cross species sexual activity. In the end as long as they aren't hurting a person then it really isn't my business.
That was my point, that you and Lawanda are opposed to it for reasons which are not at all related to the welfare of the animal involved, and thus her arguments about consent and abuse were without merit. The reasons which you do cite, and which I believe are behind your condemnation, are metaphysical.
Yes and no. While we may be influenced by the bible (which says less about bestiality than homosexuality), we argue from a physiologic and epidemiological perspective – such things are bad for humans.
, and who finds "natural law" to be a unhelpful social construct.
I guess such a person would also have a problem with "we hold these truths to be self-evident…that all men are created equal." With such men, it may be fruitless to argue.
but all of the reasons you give for not being a vegetarian are based on your beliefs about humans in a hierarchy, and their likeness to God himself.
Yes, but they were mainly making a biblical argument as well. While I am opposed to animal cruelty and irresponsible animal use, those who value human and animal life the same are just not thinking straight. I suppose I could learn to argue with them, but why? Vegetarianism is fine, but as a Christian, I don't find it essential to the spiritual life, because humans, with eternal souls, are what is worth fighting for.
I appreciate that you believe my veganism is "noble and pleasing to God", even if I don't.
As I said, it's all about motive.
Therefore, abnormalities such as homosexuality and beastiality should remain at a fairly low concentration.
Um first of all, I see that your scientific AND moral framework is evolution, which of course, I find dubious.
But here's your first mistake – thinking that they are genetic in origin. I would say that they are primarily of environmental origin. But either way, the reason they persist is not for evolutionary reason, e.g. they have some evolutionary purpose – they persist because man is fallen and in a fallen world. Hurt people turn to all kinds of perversions to make themselves not feel pain, and to feel better.
In fact, I would suspect that in certain environments, hx and bx would both exceed normal amounts due to the environment.
also, because people in homosexual or beastial relationships tend to not have offspring, you're attempts to normalize them and force them into hetro relationships will actually increase the occurance of the related genes.
First, and again, your whole premise is that these perversions are primarily genetic. I don't. Second, I am not trying to force them into hetero relationships. The key is healing and transformation and repentance, not force.
In short, letting these people behave as they like decreases their concentration in society in the long haul. Trying to 'cure' them compounds the problem.
Again, this argument might make some sense if such abberations were normal and genetic. However, since I believe that healing for such conditions exists, I'd say that getting them into hetero relationships would be best for them AND the gene pool.
I'm pretty repulsed due to the years of evolution against cross species sexual activity. In the end as long as they aren't hurting a person then it really isn't my business.
Again, what people do in their own homes is fine. But to try to make it an accepted norm through showing "compassion for the devil," as it were, is harmful to society. I'm sorry that people are hurt enough to be stuck in such awful self-concepts and coping mechanisms, but accepting such illnesses as a cultural norm IS harmful to others.
Yes, it's a metaphysical statement. Not only that, but Jefferson explicitly refuses to defend the argument. Consider how ridiculous it is, in a persuasive essay, to write "I think my point is obvious, so I won't give any explanation for it."
Regardless, all men (and women, children, dogs, cats, ficus trees, etc) are not created equal. They are all empirically, provably different. You can argue that they are all valued equally. But this is clearly not true, either. As a rule, people value others differently. Your wife is plainly more important to you than my wife is, and everyone is sort of ok with that. You could argue, instead, that they all ought to be valued equally, even if in practice they are not. But this explanation is dubious. As "self-evident" as he claimed it was, even the original author didn't believe it should be applied to women, non-white men, or anyone didn't own land.
So it's not that I disagree with the statement, it's that I find it entirely meaningless, and reject it as nothing more than a platitude.
You're saying that a 1,000 pound horse, who is penetrating a man, is being raped by him. It's not even relevant to you whether the horse was actually interested in the act, because you have declared it rape soley by virtue of its inability to speak. You don't care at all about the specifics of any given case, because you are only interested in the trend. And, of course, the trend is practically non-existent. Again, I would be surprised if more than one person in ten thousand could legitimately be called a zoophile.
Throughout, you've lectured me about date rape, and child abuse, none of which I find at all relevant. Mostly I just think you're lecturing me about things which I don't need to be lectured on. I perfectly understand the importance of consent and the dangers of sexual abuse. I just don't find your analogies persuasive at all.
Yep, that's religion speaking alright: control. And the genius of religion is that it forces people to control themselves by brainwashing them with such concepts as sin, hell, heaven, guilt, an avenging invisible cop, etc. And the evil part of it is that the demands made by religion are impossible for the human to always and everywhere maintain, as they are arbitrary and unrelated to real human nature. Therefore, it gives itself the right to control them, as we have seen over and over throughout history, either directly or through alliances with gov't. Thus, Lawanda feels justified in demanding that other people control themselves according to her standards, feeling justified by her arbitrary religious superstitions rather than any outside reality. One of the purposes of art is to break through this blatant solipsism, which of course is why it is constantly under fire by religionists like seeker and Lawanda.
It's not even relevant to you whether the horse was actually interested in the act, because you have declared it rape soley by virtue of its inability to speak.
Yes exactly.
Throughout, you've lectured me about date rape, and child abuse, none of which I find at all relevant. Mostly I just think you're lecturing me about things which I don't need to be lectured on. I perfectly understand the importance of consent and the dangers of sexual abuse. I just don't find your analogies persuasive at all.
If a 30 year old man has sex with a 10 year old, it is rape. By virtue of the fact that a 10 year old is a 10 year old. It does not matter if the 10 year old enjoys sex or not.
And you know, a 10 year old can actually verbally consent to have sex. A 10 year old can even be the initiator of sex, verbally asking for it.
Unlike an animal who cannot ever ask for it.
It is morally wrong for a person to have sex with a 10 year old. It is wrong for a person to have sex with an animal.
Call it my "arbitrary religious superstitions" if you like. Or call it reality.
Another addendum post, sorry!
….
It is also sometimes morally wrong for "consenting adults" to have sex with each other. And that is very contrary to popular viewpoint.
The problem is that people do not want to set any standards any more, because it is unpopular.
My standards are not only founded on my religious principles, but also on my views of how people can "get along" better.
Speciesism: a beastly concept (Why it is morally right to use animals to our ends.)
Regardless, all men (and women, children, dogs, cats, ficus trees, etc) are not created equal. They are all empirically, provably different.
The document that mentions their equality also defines it as their rights under God and government. It has naught to do with their physical, financial, mental, or racial prowess.
As a rule, people value others differently. Your wife is plainly more important to you than my wife is, and everyone is sort of ok with that.
This phrase is not about individual evaluations, but of the state's view of people. The state does not value my wife above yours, nor should it.
As "self-evident" as he claimed it was, even the original author didn't believe it should be applied to women, non-white men, or anyone didn't own land.
Perhaps not, but the truth they espoused said what it was supposed to. They got lucky ;)
Consider how ridiculous it is, in a persuasive essay, to write "I think my point is obvious, so I won't give any explanation for it."
I understand how that could seem ridiculous, but I do not find it so. But this is why a faithless secular government can not succeed – because it is incapable of and unwilling to understand and consider the metaphysical necessities of life. I guess this is why I am willing to be guilty of special pleading when it comes to Christianity and such metaphysical statements – because I find them to be true, even if secularists lack the resolve or will to measure such things.
So it's not that I disagree with the statement, it's that I find it entirely meaningless, and reject it as nothing more than a platitude.
I understand how a pure secularist must come to this conclusion. It is too bad, though, that seuclarism is unable to recognize such self-evident moral, metaphysical truths. It is one of the sad limitations of a pure secularist viewpoint.
And animals CANNOT consent to sex. Except to imply they want it, according to you.
You know what? While I am against cruelty to animals, the Christian moral stand against bestiality has NOTHING to do with cruelty to animals, and everything to do with the perversion of the human spirit, soul, and body that occurs when such unnatural sexual actions are performed. So I would say that, if you want to explore the whole consensual thing, go ahead, but from a xian POV, it's a waste of time.
Very interesting article Cin.
There is a billboard on our main street that says something to the effect of "Animal testing saves animals too."
You know what? While I am against cruelty to animals, the Christian moral stand against bestiality has NOTHING to do with cruelty to animals, and everything to do with the perversion of the human spirit, soul, and body that occurs when such unnatural sexual actions are performed.
I agree, mostly.
I said: "Yes, I do feel bad for the horse who is raped by a human. But more for the human's sake than the horse's, true.
It shows that the human needs help."
The problem is that people do not want to set any standards any more, because it is unpopular.
This is just plain nonsense. The fact is, that many people are setting standards different from yours and they (we) don't care what you think. That's what bothers you. Why do you think I argue so vehemently for gay marriage? Isn't it obvious that I have standards too? Or does the fact that I'm an unashamed, open, and unintimidated queer disqualify me?
My standards are not only founded on my religious principles, but also on my views of how people can "get along" better.
Fine. Good for you. Live your life accordingly. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose your standards and your views on the rest of us. And, from my vantage, that's exactly what religionists are intent on doing.
Hi Louis:
you know, one of the failings of us Christians too often is that we fail to practice what Jesus commanded when he said that we should take care of the giant log in our own eye before we worry about the tiny splinters in our brother's eye. I fail to practice this when I get furious at Bush/Cheney and I imagine I am morally superior to them and in my opinion my judgmentalism contributes to the amount of judgmentalism there is, and this comes back to pound you. High moral standards? Good idea; we Christians can start with ourselves.
Sorry.
your Friend
Keith
Very true Keith. Nobody is perfect, and don't I know it. I live with 5 very imperfect people! haha And they, poor things, have to put up with living with imperfect me!! ;)
But we do have to keep reminding ourselves how to have high moral standards You know, with that lovely tool we call preaching. Or we will just keep not having them…
Fine. Good for you. Live your life accordingly. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose your standards and your views on the rest of us. And, from my vantage, that's exactly what religionists are intent on doing.
Louis, so who exactly has the right to impose their standards on others, anyway? And if the answer is no one, then we are back to what I said. No standards.
I don't see the difference between you imposing your standard of legal gay marriage on me, and me imposing my standard of no legal gay marriage on you.
I personally think my way makes more sense, obviously…
I also think it should be SO DIFFICULT to get a divorce that nobody would try. Just like it used to be.
So see, I am an equal opportunity "religionist"… although I think if you are going to call me a religionist, maybe you could add an "a" and call me a Religionista. Sounds cooler ;)
Hi Lawanda:
you wrote: Louis, so who exactly has the right to impose their standards on others, anyway? And if the answer is no one, then we are back to what I said. No standards.
I don't agree. We can govern our own lives by (what we believe to be) God's standards. What standards others live by is between them and God.
your friend
Keith
Keith, have you ever read any Louis L'Amour?
Just asking.
We can govern our own lives by (what we believe to be) God's standards. What standards others live by is between them and God.
Yes that is right. Inevitably what we do is between ourselves and God.
However, in the mean time, we should want other people to behave nicely for safety and other reasons. Imposing standards on others is called lawmaking or ruling. Any group of people will have rules which someone has come up with which they impose on the entire group.
A group of people that make up a family for instance, must have rules: If the mom and dad do not have rules for the children to live by, then the kids will end up either hurting themselves or hurting each other, or both. If the mom and dad do not have rules for each other to live by, they may hurt each other as well.
The children will most likely not have much say in those rules; not being the leaders but the followers by reason of their youth. Especially when they are 2 years old. But still when they are 16, they should respect their parent's rules, simply because they should be grateful to their parents for making and enforcing the rules that kept them alive from toddlerhood!! :)
I don't see the difference between you imposing your standard of legal gay marriage on me, and me imposing my standard of no legal gay marriage on you.
The answer is quite obvious. Establishing legal gay marriage has no effect on you, except to offend your religious and moralistic sensibilities. And, to that I say: so what. In a secular & pluralistic society, we all have to put up with things that we don't particularly like (I have to put up with christianists). Just because you don't like gay people or gay equality, doesn't mean you get to veto us. On the other hand, your religious standards have a direct negative impact on my life: I am directly harmed by your prejudice. It is your standards which are harming me. And before you claim that gay marriage will have a negative impact on society, consider the example of Massachusetts: gay marriage has been legal for over one year without any negative effects on the society or straight marriage. Nor has it had any bad effects in any of the countries (ie, Canada, the Netherlands) where gay marriage has been established. There is no evidence that equality for gays harms anything but religionists' prejudices. There is no imposition at all, except to deny religionists their desire for dictatorship – a good thing.
Lawanda, you wrote: "I also think it should be SO DIFFICULT to get a divorce that nobody would try. Just like it used to be."
I understand your position here, and I think it's a perfect example of what you want, and why I would generally prefer it if you didn't have your way. Here you are asking for the government to use force (i.e. courts, and ultimately police) to prevent people from exerting control over their own relationships. Essentially you are saying that, on the whole, you would rather state forced people to stay together.
I feel confident in speaking for Louis, Cineaste, and millions of others, religious and secular alike, when I say "No thank you". Keep your authoritarian policies to yourself.
Here you are asking for the government to use force (i.e. courts, and ultimately police) to prevent people from exerting control over their own relationships. Essentially you are saying that, on the whole, you would rather state forced people to stay together.
No, if you will notice previously I stated: I don't want to control people. I want them to control THEMSELVES.
You have to agree that people HAVE to control themselves.
But you do not agree that people have to control themselves or that anyone else should control them either.
Are you saying there should be no rules? Or just no enforcement of rules?
I am sure people who desire another man's radio will be happy to hear that he should be able to just act on that desire and take the radio and listen to it. Even if it is only for a little while. (That btw is called stealing another man's radio!)
I don't see them as any different than desiring another man's wife. Taking her for a little while to have sex with. Why is that SO different?
We are (now) talking about legal marriage. I said it should be hard for people to get a divorce.
Do you realize that legal marriage is a contract? Basically you are saying to the government: This is the one I chose to have sex with for the rest of my life. I will take care of any offspring that comes our way because of that.
When a man steals another man's wife, and she gets pregnant by the thief, he has no legal obligation to care for the child, and neither does the husband of the wife.
What a mess.
One reason we have legal contracts is to avoid messes like that!
I merely think that once a person has legally said they are going to be married to someone it ought to be a bit harder to get out of that than to just say
"Oh, I don't love him anymore." And/or "That guy over there turns me on more"
That you and millions of others do not agree is PAINFULLY obvious.
Fine. Then your millions live according to your standards and our millions will live according to our standards. Just do not presume to try to enact your standards into law, thus forcing them on us. If you don't want to get a divorce, don't; if you don't want to have a same-sex marriage, don't; if you don't want an abortion, don't; if you don't want to look at porn, don't; if you don't want to go to "adult" films, don't; if you don't want to visit "adult" web-sites, don't; if you don't want liberty and freedom of conscience from gov't interference, don't. Just don't force me to conform to your "don'ts." I don't want your totalitarianism.
Just do not presume to try to enact your standards into law, thus forcing them on us.
Is that not exactly what you want to do?? You have to ENACT a law that says two men can marry just like a man and woman by law already can.
If the majority decides to enact such a law, then I am forced to recognize a "marriage" legally that I cannot recognize morally.
Fine. I will. But I will still use my freedom of speech and say that it is not right just because lots of people are doing it.
If people see wisdom in what I say, good. If not, then so be it.
If you don't want to get a divorce, don't; if you don't want to have a same-sex marriage, don't; if you don't want an abortion, don't; if you don't want to look at porn, don't; if you don't want to go to "adult" films, don't; if you don't want to visit "adult" web-sites, don't; if you don't want liberty and freedom of conscience from gov't interference, don't
Thanks for your permission. I won't do those things, because those are all selfish indulgences that produce no good outcome. Not to say that I haven't wanted to do some of those things just as much as the people who are doing them. But I won't. Because I see the harm in them.
And I will also exercise my freedom of speech to tell others (and keep reminding myself as well) that they should not either; for their own, and for our society's good, as well.
What exactly do you mean by liberty and freedom of conscience from gov't interference?
If a person takes a car from a car lot without paying for it, should she have freedom of conscience?
Why not?
What is the difference if she takes another woman's husband?
She should have freedom of conscience in that situation?
Lawanda, you are seriously confused. Sex, marriage, and children are entirely separate things. By marrying my wife, I have made no claims to the government about who I will or will not have sex with, and neither has she. Those decisions are between my wife and I, and are no one else's business at all, least of all the government's. Additionally, my legal responsibility to my offspring is entirely unrelated to whether or not I am married to their mother.
Again, this has nothing to do with whether I am married. I am legally bound to my own children, whether I am married to their mother or not. And unless I adopt them, I am not legally bound to anyone else's children. Is that why you think people get married? As insurance against cuckoldry?
Also, I think your use of the word "thief" here is plainly disgusting. My wife does not belong to me. She cannot be "stolen". I hope that she does not decide to have sex with another person, but that is entirely her choice. I do not need or want the government to force her to stay with me. Marriage is a contract, but like any contract its one which is entirely voluntary. If she wants to dissolve it, she's perfectly capable of doing so.
This is precisely the kind of involvement in my life which I do not wish the government to have. If that's what marriage would become, I would divorce my wife right now, simply on the principle of keeping the state out of my personal life. What you're describing is grotesque, puritanical authoritarianism.
I have tried to post three different times. I had to retype it all out all three times. If three different but similar posts show up, please forgive me!
Lawanda, you are seriously confused.
I don't think I am, but you can try to set me straight on what marriage actually is if I have it all wrong.
By marrying my wife, I have made no claims to the government about who I will or will not have sex with, and neither has she. Those decisions are between my wife and I, and are no one else's business at all, least of all the government's.
Then I take it you made no vows to each other in front of witnesses, and did not get a license from the government?
I do not need or want the government to force her to stay with me. Marriage is a contract, but like any contract its one which is entirely voluntary. If she wants to dissolve it, she's perfectly capable of doing so.
If she wants to dissolve the marriage legally, she must do so through the government. In court.
How are you missing the government involvement here?
Sex, marriage, and children are entirely separate things.
Actually, as Al Mohler has discussed, this is the PROBLEM with modern society. It has separated the sex act from marriage, and separated children from both sex and marriage.
Rather than seeing sex as a holy thing meant to unite two people in lifelong love, we separated it from the normal results (children) and made it into a mere pleasure commodity. And despite the fact that studies show that a stable, loving hetero marriage is what is developmentally best for kids, we are having kids out of wedlock, or to gay parents, or to single parents who don't want to marry!
But the whole gay marriage thing comes down to one issue for me – not the rights of the couple, who could get power of attorney rights and wills if they really need legal protections. The one issue is that legal recognition of such illness mainstreams it as normal, and by law, would have to be taught to our kids in schools, thereby polluting the future generations.
My wife does not belong to me. She cannot be "stolen".
LOL. I think that "wife stealling" is just a common vernacular phrase, not really meant to imply ownership.
Our marriage license says nothing about who we have sex with, whether we'll have kids, or what our responsibilities to each other entail. The idea that it would is frightening to me. And marriage vows are ceremonial in nature. As far as my marriage is concerned, they have no legal bearing. They were not even recorded. Even if they were, I doubt that there is any legal meaning behind phrases like "to have and to hold".
Yes, and it's not terribly difficult or complicated, so long as both of us agree to the dissolution, and we have no contested property. You've suggested that divorce should be harder than that, and I have rightfully labeled such a suggestion as authoritarian and puritanical.
I'm not, but why do you imagine that the government could stop two people from entering and exiting a marriage at the time of their own choosing? Honestly, the idea is ridiculous. Is this the 16th century?
Hi Lawanda:
You wrote:
Yes that is right. Inevitably what we do is between ourselves and God.
However, in the mean time, we should want other people to behave nicely for safety and other reasons. Imposing standards on others is called lawmaking or ruling. Any group of people will have rules which someone has come up with which they impose on the entire group.
For the purpose of this discussion, let's take as a given that there is such a thing as a victimless crime, that is, some things are immoral but doing them doesn't hurt anybody else. Even if you were to deny this supposition, you could still think there exist some immoral acts that would "cost" society too much to prohibit and enforce the prohibitions.
Given that premise, there is a subtle difference between society enforcing morality and society creating rules for the practical purpose of protecting society at large. Enforcing rules against victimless offenses doesn't have any practical benefit and society could sensibly leave that between a person and God. I think that's the kind of thing most atheists are talking about when they complain about Christians trying to force our standards on other; keep your morality to yourself they say. They don't generally object to society creating rules that protect society.
For the Christian, there is an additional danger to "forcing our morality" on others. It plays into our sinful tendency to imagine while we aren't perfect we are at least better than those [gays, liberals, atheists, adulterers, liars, thieves or whatever other subgroup of humanity you might list]. This is exactly the sin Jesus wanted us about when he said that the same measure we judge others with will be used to judge us. A Christian once told me he'd be glad to be judged by the same standard as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, not being a cannibal and all. But that's not the measure my Christian friend was using. My friend's measure was "that guy's worse than me". God can use the very same measure: Keith, he can tell me, you are worse than Me". I don't want that standard applied to me, so I ought not apply it to my brothers.
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker;
The Apostle Paul separated sex from procreation when he said it's OK for Christians to be married in order to avoid fornication. Having children isn't required.
your Friend
keith
but why do you imagine that the government could stop two people from entering and exiting a marriage at the time of their own choosing?
The government already does stop some people from entering or exiting marriages at the time of their own choosing.
For instance, those who are already married to someone else. The government will stop them from legally marrying again.
In order to get married in Connecticut, you have to have a Premarital Certificate. The certificate has to be signed by a doctor and the applicants in the presence of the doctor.
The Connecticut government stops you from getting married if you do not have one.
Isn’t it ridiculous?! We are so medieval in our concepts of legal marriage! ;)
When I said it should be harder to get a divorce I meant that stuff like this type of thing made it too easy to break a legal contract.
You don’t need a lawyer, you won’t have any fees. You don’t have to do anything except easily get out of the promise you made.
Oh, and…
Read About Our Monthly Customer Sweepstakes. Our service is about saving you money. We help you eliminate legal fees and we are also awarding one customer per month with $1,000!
It doesn’t surprise me, really that we have offers like this in America. It is easy to see that we are not keen on living up to our financial contracts either:
Filing Bankruptcy
Although it seems you have to have a lawyer and plenty of legal fees for that one!
We have tried to provide you with general information on bankruptcy, but please note that no information on this site is intended to replace the advice of a qualified legal professional….if you need legal advice, we strongly suggest you seek legal counsel.
Hi Keith :)
Given that premise, there is a subtle difference between society enforcing morality and society creating rules for the practical purpose of protecting society at large.
I agree. It is very subtle.
For the Christian, there is an additional danger to "forcing our morality" on others. It plays into our sinful tendency to imagine while we aren't perfect we are at least better than those [gays, liberals, atheists, adulterers, liars, thieves or whatever other subgroup of humanity you might list].
And "such were some you" should bring us to remember that we are not perfect.
But, just because we may be guilty of something does not mean we cannot still say it is wrong. It may be hypocritical, but that does not change the fact that something is wrong.
Anyway, when any law is made by the government a standard is imposed upon the people it is governing.
So someone's morality is going to be forced on people, regardless! That is, if you have laws.
I don't want a gov't based on christianist doctrine. I don't want crypto-theocracy. I don't want christianists telling me what to do or how to live! Can't you people get that through your thick skulls?
Lawanda can say something is "wrong" until the sun expands and fries this sorry planet (ie, 5 billion years) and it won't mean as much as a cockroach's fart. All it signifies is her rather typical christianist arrogance and ignorance. Every step of human progress out of ignorance and slavery to religion has been impeded by religionists trying to force their own particular brand of superstition on everyone around them. Fortunately, they have failed. They will fail here as well.
Hi Lawanda:
Wrong is wrong, you are right about that. But for us Christians, it is wrong to worry about the tiny splinter in our brother's eye before we take care of the giant log in our own. That's what the Lord said. IMO we should avoid those attitudes that make following this mandate more difficult than it already is.
your friend
Keith
Lawanda, if you don't like the fact that there are lots of divorces, speak out against divorce. Don't ask the government to use the threat of violence (i.e. the law) to enforce your personal beliefs about the moral decline of America. Please.
Also, since you asked, yes I believe that requiring a doctor's note (or blood test, or whatever) to get married is essentially nonsense, and a waste of time and tax dollars.
I don't want a gov't based on christianist doctrine.
Well, since christianist doctrine is, in a lot of ways, basic human rights that is probably not realistic.
Lawanda can say something is "wrong" until the sun expands and fries this sorry planet (ie, 5 billion years) and it won't mean as much as a cockroach's fart.
True. Well, I mean I can't literally, but I know what you mean, and I agree.
All it signifies is her rather typical christianist arrogance and ignorance. Every step of human progress out of ignorance and slavery to religion has been impeded by religionists trying to force their own particular brand of superstition on everyone around them.
Oh, yes of course. Everything bad is done by christians. Christians are all arrogant and ignorant and only want to force their beliefs on everyone around them.
All of the christians, including my grandma and my parents. I know all those times when my grandma gave money and made quilts and gave food or even a HOUSE to women who needed help because they got pregnant and their "lover" left them high and dry… Those times just prove how arrogant and ignorant and impeding she is as a christian.
All those people my parents have helped out of difficulties, like when they took care of some kids whose mom had left their dad and them in order to live with another woman…
Oh yes. ALL christians are the cause of all the evil in the world.
————————
But for us Christians, it is wrong to worry about the tiny splinter in our brother's eye before we take care of the giant log in our own.
Well, we definitely cannot see the splinter clearly with the log in our own eye! But like I said, that doesn't mean the splinter is not there. ;)
Certainly if we are having a homosexual relationship, we better straighten ourselves up before we attempt to condemn other homosexual relationships.
———————-
Lawanda, if you don't like the fact that there are lots of divorces, speak out against divorce. Don't ask the government to use the threat of violence (i.e. the law) to enforce your personal beliefs about the moral decline of America. Please.
I think that is exactly what I have been doing here. And I do not ask that the government use the law to enforce my beliefs about the moral decline of America.
I hope that by typing my personal beliefs about the decline of America (which are based on logical and reasonable conclusions and plenty of unavoidable evidence) I can convince people to take a look at themselves and their lives, and try to control themselves when it comes to sex.
yes I believe that requiring a doctor's note (or blood test, or whatever) to get married is essentially nonsense, and a waste of time and tax dollars.
Well, I think it is personal dollars, not tax dollars. But I am not sure.
I personally think the speed limit and seat belt laws are a ridiculous waste of time. But, I don't mind that I am policed while driving. I know it is a privilege to be able to drive, and not a right. Just like sex!
Pointless.
Hi Lawanda:
You wrote:
Well, we definitely cannot see the splinter clearly with the log in our own eye! But like I said, that doesn't mean the splinter is not there. ;)
Certainly if we are having a homosexual relationship, we better straighten ourselves up before we attempt to condemn other homosexual relationships.
And if we aren't gay? We still have a whole lot to straighten out before we worry about somebody else's sexual behavior with consenting adults.
your friend
keith
And if we aren't gay? We still have a whole lot to straighten out before we worry about somebody else's sexual behavior with consenting adults.
So are you saying we should be fighting against no fault divorce?
The reason that hx is all the rage is not because Christians are focusing on the sins of others instead of their own, but because pro-gay lobbyists are actively pushing for legislative changes.
If adulterers or bestialists or polyamorists were pushing for legal recognition (and the latter are, on the coattails of hx), we would be focusing on them too.
So are you saying we should be fighting against no fault divorce?
If you are asking me…
Yes, I think people should be fighting their tendency to leave a marriage when things get rough. People who live together will not always get along. They just won't. They won't always like each other, not to mention be "in love" with each other!
As my preacher likes to say: There are times when those vows you made will make you MISERABLE. Because the person you are marrying is HUMAN, and so are YOU!
And if we aren't gay? We still have a whole lot to straighten out before we worry about somebody else's sexual behavior with consenting adults.
Dear Keith, if people could not preach against anything because they are a sinner themselves, there would be NO PREACHING.
Do you not believe in preaching against wrong doing?
And btw, people "consent" to do wrong things all the time….
Hi Seeker:
From before:
And if we aren't gay? We still have a whole lot to straighten out before we worry about somebody else's sexual behavior with consenting adults.
So are you saying we should be fighting against no fault divorce?
Not even. I am saying we have our own sins to straighten out and that trying to fix the sins of the non-Christian world instead of fixing our own is one of the reasons so many people can't stand us.
your friend
keith
Maybe the reason so many people can't stand you is that you are mired in ignorance of other peoples' lives, that you espouse a legalistic and inhuman ideology, that you project a smug and self-righteous demeanor, and that, ignoring modern knowledge of the world and human nature, you stubbornly cling to and attempt to inflict upon others, a bronze-age cult replete with superstition and cruelty. And no amount of argument or pleading will change your minds. No wonder many of us 21st-century humans regard your religion as a dangerous throwback.
Stewart, I thought this was interesting, considering our discussion:
Groom With TB Under Federal Quarantine
I am saying we have our own sins to straighten out and that trying to fix the sins of the non-Christian world instead of fixing our own is one of the reasons so many people can't stand us.
While I agree with that on a personal level, I don' think that rule applies on a public policy level. Due to the aggressive pro-gay push in western culture, I think it is appropriate as preachers and those involved in public life to declare the whole counsel of God, rather than just limit our preaching to sins we personally struggle with.
But just curious Keith, do you think that the bible teaches that homosexuality or bestiality are sins?
stinker, as usual, provides abundant proof of my position.
Hi Louis:
Regarding your comments:
Maybe the reason so many people can’t stand you is that you are mired in ignorance of other peoples’ lives,…
It’s part of the human condition, we are necessarily too ignorant of other people’s lives to be competent to judge them. IMO that’s why jesus said NOT to.
…that you espouse a legalistic and inhuman ideology,…
Inasmuch as a Christian expouses a legalistic inhuman ideology he is NOT proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, which is the opposite of inhuman legalism.
…that you project a smug and self-righteous demeanor,…
Smug self-righteousness is also the human condition–atheist, Christians, Buddhists, Republicans, all of us fall to that temptation. Christ taught the opposite and we Christians fail to be Christ-like when we display such. I do know quite a few Christians who are NOT smug nor self-righteous. I hope to follow their example from time to time.
…and that, ignoring modern knowledge of the world and human nature, you stubbornly cling to and attempt to inflict upon others, a bronze-age cult replete with superstition and cruelty. And no amount of argument or pleading will change your minds. No wonder many of us 21st-century humans regard your religion as a dangerous throwback.
Too often what “won’t listen to reason” means is “refuses to agree with me”. The idea that modern knowledge of the world is inconsistent with the Gospel of Christ is itself a superstition, one that no amount of argument can dislodge from the closed minds of some.
your Friend
keith
Hi Seeker 3
While I agree with that on a personal level, I don’ think that rule applies on a public policy level. Due to the aggressive pro-gay push in western culture, I think it is appropriate as preachers and those involved in public life to declare the whole counsel of God, rather than just limit our preaching to sins we personally struggle with.
I’m not sure what you,mean by “aggressive pro-gay push”. Even for those who believe homosexuality is an offense to God, there is no reason to oppose the gay rights agenda. There is no reason to oppose gay adoption any more than there is to oppose Buddhist adoption. There is no reason to oppose gay civil marriage. It’s not our job to use government power to prevent sin.
But just curious Keith, do you think that the bible teaches that homosexuality or bestiality are sins?
Beastiality? Sure and one can oppose beastiality on non-biblical grounds as well. Homosexuality? I doubt that the Bible was referring to covenantal, monogamous gay relationships when it referred to those things translated to English as “homosexual”.
Your Friend
Keith
Hi Cin:
I won’t speculate why any person in particular might mistakenly believe an argument is circular. But it’s a fact that no modus ponens argument is circular. This is because modus ponens doesn’t assume the truth of the conclusion. Any argument that does assume the truth of its conclusion isn’t modus ponens.
Now I have a guess as to why a person might see circularity in the Bible argument you and Lawanda were talking about. Consider the argument:
1. If the Bible claims to be reliable then it is reliable.
2. The Bible claims to be reliable.
3. Therefore the Bible is reliable
Hurley asked this question in his article: why think that premise 1 is true. My suspicion is that those who see circularity in the argument believe that the reason the theistic-arguer believes his premise 1 is that he already believes the Bible is reliable. So you see his argument as having an unstated premise:
0. The Bible is reliable
1. If the Bible claims to be reliable then it is reliable [this follows from premise 0].
2. The Bible claims to be reliable.
3. Therefore the Bible is reliable
That argument is circular because its first (but unstated) premise is the same as the conclusion. But without premise 0, the argument isn’t circular. the only problem is that it is based on a premise that hasn’t been verified. You seem to claim that it is possible to create an argument based only on premises that have been verified and that one can verify a premise with evidence without having to rely on either (a) an unverified premise or (b) brute assertion that the premise is true. This is the crux of our disagreement, not what label we ought to apply to an argument. That’s just semantics.
Keith has already ruled out anything natural as “sufficient cause” leaving only the “supernatural.” A “natural” first cause argument is implicitly “unintelligent” or “unguided.” Keith’s “supernatural” first cause argument is implicitly “intelligent” or “guided.” If it’s otherwise, please provide an example of an “unintelligent” “unguided” supernatural event.
A couple of points:
1. After Stewart pointed it out, I agreed that a natural cause could be a sufficient cause of another natural event. This doesn’t conflict with my first premise since my first premise is that every physical cause has a sufficient cause. It doesn’t claim the cause can’t be a physical cause.
2. The above premise doesn’t imply the existence of supernature since it is consistent with there being an infinite chain of natural causes. Still my first premise doesn’t presuppose the existence of supernature.
3. The other premise of my argument doesn’t imply the existence of supernature either. The other premise was that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. this premise could be true without supernature if it is possible that not every natural cause has a natural cause (thus allowing the first cause to be natural).
4. Therefore neither premise assumes the existence of supernature.
The proper response for you would be to challenge the premises of my argument, not to label them. Say you don’t believe them, ask me to provide support for them, that’s all legitimate. But labelling them and insisting that I must agree with your label otherwise the discussion stops seems silly.
You wrote also this:
I honestly think I can meet [keith’s] challenge but this discussion came first. The challenge was your addition. And yes, I also think we can resolve the original argument if we are both rational. I just feel you are ignoring both me and the article I cited.
I’m not sure the present discussion is going to advance past the semantics stage. I believe I have addressed Hurley’s points, I know I have tried to address your points as well as Hurley’s I’m not ignoring anything. But suppose we just agree that I am somehow unable to see that your labeling is correct. So let’s move on to my challenge. Pick a scientific claim, state the facts you count as evidence and explain how they actually support the scientific claim.
your friend
Keith
I have a question for Keith: what is “the Gospel of Christ”? Gospel is supposed to mean “good news.” Well, I can tell you that Christianity has meant nothing but bad news for gay people throughout its vicious history.
There is no reason to oppose gay adoption any more than there is to oppose Buddhist adoption.
How about what’s best for the children? Admittedly, a loving gay home is better than a hateful hetero home, but science consistently shows that a loving hetero home is what is best for childhood development.
There is no reason to oppose gay civil marriage. It’s not our job to use government power to prevent sin.
I disagree with your first point, and partially agree with your second. When you SANCTION gay marriages by giving them legal status, you then MUST also teach that lifestyle as acceptable to children in the public schools. If you really believe that hx is a sin (do you?), do you think it’s ok to teach promiscuity or homosexuality as normative to our kids? Esp. knowing that both behaviors are associated with higher rates of depression, disease, and suicide? So, there is a reason to oppose the government sanction of gay marriage.
As I have argued, we may want to allow gays and any other types of couples to have “civil unions,” but giving them the same status as hetero couples, which are the biological and sociological building block of a healthy society, will result in the norming of these sinful behaviors.
But there are more than two opposing choices (ban or sanction). Government can remain neutral, giving neither sanction, nor criminalizing hx unions. I think that’s the right position.
Christianity has meant nothing but bad news for gay people throughout its vicious history.
Despite the Church’s checkered history, the gospel is not good news to those who fail to recognize and repent of sin. To those who are not ready to repent and believe, and to those who are self righteous, the gospel is not good news at all.
“But to those who are being saved, it is the power of God.”
…both behaviors are associated with higher rates of depression, disease, and suicide.
Gee, I wonder why? seeker, based on everything he has written here, should just look in a mirror. Vicious bastard.
Hi Seeker:
from before:
There is no reason to oppose gay adoption any more than there is to oppose Buddhist adoption.
How about what’s best for the children? Admittedly, a loving gay home is better than a hateful hetero home, but science consistently shows that a loving hetero home is what is best for childhood development.
What’s best for the children is the only criterion that should be applied. But I would question your claim that science consistently shows that straight is a better environment than gay for raising children. Here is a link to a USA today article I found on the subject:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-03-09-gay-parents_x.htm
There is no reason to oppose gay civil marriage. It’s not our job to use government power to prevent sin.
I disagree with your first point, and partially agree with your second. When you SANCTION gay marriages by giving them legal status, you then MUST also teach that lifestyle as acceptable to children in the public schools.
I don’t think you’d have to teach any such thing. What should be taught is that it is wrong to hurt people with words or deeds regardless of their sexual orientation.
If you really believe that hx is a sin (do you?),
I thought I already said this: I am skeptical that what the Bible translates as ‘homosexual’ refers to covenantal, monogamous gay sexual relationships; if not the the Bible doesn’t declare homosexual sex per se sinful. But there is a lot of potential for sin in the vicinity of sexuality and both homosexuals and heterosexuals fall into that sin.
do you think it’s ok to teach promiscuity or homosexuality as normative to our kids? Esp. knowing that both behaviors are associated with higher rates of depression, disease, and suicide? So, there is a reason to oppose the government sanction of gay marriage.
IMO promiscuity ought not be taught as being appropriate. But IMO we should teach our kids that homosexuality is just how God made some people and that their loving relationships are no less valid that our own. I am not sure you can sustain the claim that homosexual behavior is associated with depression and suicide, but you might be able show that those who are suffering by the bigotry of our society against homosexuality tend to feel pretty awful.
As I have argued, we may want to allow gays and any other types of couples to have “civil unions,” but giving them the same status as hetero couples, which are the biological and sociological building block of a healthy society, will result in the norming of these sinful behaviors.
There is no danger that heterosexual marriage will suffer if we allow homosexual marriage. But if you accept civil unions, that’s good enough in my opinion. Government should get out of the marriage business entirely—it should only issue civil unions. Marriage should be a religious (in the broadest possible sense) matter.
But there are more than two opposing choices (ban or sanction). Government can remain neutral, giving neither sanction, nor criminalizing hx unions. I think that’s the right position
IMO that’s a pretty good position; it seems to me that a lot of conservative Christians don’t share it though..
Lewis wrote: Christianity has meant nothing but bad news for gay people throughout its vicious history.
Despite the Church’s checkered history, the gospel is not good news to those who fail to recognize and repent of sin. To those who are not ready to repent and believe, and to those who are self righteous, the gospel is not good news at all.
“But to those who are being saved, it is the power of God.”
The idea that God has provided an escape from sin seems like good news for everyone, at least it seems that way to me, so I don’t see your dichotomy.
your friend
Keith
What should be taught is that it is wrong to hurt people with words or deeds regardless of their sexual orientation.
You are going to hurt people’s feelings if you tell them they are wrong.
When I have done something wrong, it may hurt to hear that I have; but if I don’t hear it, then I won’t care that I am doing something wrong.
You just cannot back off and say the Bible says homosexuality is ok, just because it may hurt people’s feelings to hear that. It does not say homosexuality is ok.
I am skeptical that what the Bible translates as ‘homosexual’ refers to covenantal, monogamous gay sexual relationships
Homosexual means that if you are a man you have sex with a man and lust after men. And if you are a woman you lust after women and have sexual relations with women.
Since most people “discover” their homosexuality years after becoming sexually active, they have not really been monogamous, have they?
The contrast to monogamous is promiscuous.
promiscuity ought not be taught as being appropriate. But IMO we should teach our kids that homosexuality is just how God made some people and that their loving relationships are no less valid that our own.
We need to teach our kids that they may get thoughts in their heads that they do not need to act upon.
We need to remember that as adults as well.
I agree with you. But I also emphatically agree with Keith, when he says "Government should get out of the marriage business entirely". In other words, what you've written above should apply to heterosexual relationships as well. I can't see any compelling reasons for the government to play a role in people's long-term relationships. It's paternalistic.
The reasons most commonly cited, such as hospital visitation rights, or social security benefits, do not require marriage, or even civil-unions, to sort out. They only require common sense and respect for people's personal choices, instead of what the state thinks is best for them. For example, I personally don't spend much time at all with most of my family. But the state says that (in some cases) only they will be allowed to see me in the hospital. My best friend in the world can be denied access to me, regardless of my wishes. And while I'm allowed to will my estate to anyone I choose, I have no control at all over my social security benefits.
"Government should get out of the marriage business entirely".
I can definitely see your point in this.
Hi Lawanda:
From before:
What should be taught is that it is wrong to hurt people with words or deeds regardless of their sexual orientation.
You are going to hurt people's feelings if you tell them they are wrong.
When I have done something wrong, it may hurt to hear that I have; but if I don't hear it, then I won't care that I am doing something wrong.
All that proves is that moral decisions cannot be so mechanized so that I can perfect express what's right with a 15 word sentence:-). What I was specifically talking about was insulting people, or harrassing them or verbally abusing them because of their sexual orientation. I wasn't referring to watching a person's back morally so as to help him avoid sin. Assuming that one's comments actually helps the person, that'd be fine even if it hurt his feelings. So the issue becomes what kinds of comments actually help, and what is our motivation for offering those comments. I am not sure that it helps when Christians tell non-Christians they are sinning by doing X.
You just cannot back off and say the Bible says homosexuality is ok, just because it may hurt people's feelings to hear that. It does not say homosexuality is ok.
It would dishonest to say the Bible says X when it is clear that the Bible says Y. This doesn't mean you have to say anything at all, of course–if not mentioning Y is sometimes the best way to get Y, then that's what we ought to do.
Homosexual means that if you are a man you have sex with a man and lust after men. And if you are a woman you lust after women and have sexual relations with women.
I think you oversimplify here. If my only experience of a pizza, for example, is one that has pineapple on it, when I use the word "pizza" I'll be referring to a pineapple pizza. I can condemn pizza for tasting horrible, all the while really only condemning pineapple pizza. If someone exposed me to pepperoni pizza, I would retract my original blanket condemnation. Unless you can show the Bible was including covenantal gay marriage like relationships when it referred to "homosexuality" you can't really show that those verses are properly applied to the gay marriage issue.
Since most people "discover" their homosexuality years after becoming sexually active, they have not really been monogamous, have they?
I'm not sure you are right about when most people discover their homosexual orientation. I expect they recognize the were sexually attracted to their own gender prior to having sex with someone of that gender.
The contrast to monogamous is promiscuous.
I will agree with that. And I expect I share your belief that monogamy is better.
promiscuity ought not be taught as being appropriate. But IMO we should teach our kids that homosexuality is just how God made some people and that their loving relationships are no less valid that our own.
We need to teach our kids that they may get thoughts in their heads that they do not need to act upon.
That's true. And cooking; we need to teach kids how to cook. There's a lot we need to teach kids.
your Friend
keith
I think you oversimplify here.
Lawanda is not oversimplifying at all. She is faithfully quoting Romans 1 on the subject. Homosexuality is not only clearly against nature (can't reproduce), it is also clearly condemned, without all of the fancy modifiers or exclusions, in scripture. Such sophistry is merely an attempt to excuse homosexuality.
And IMO, the most rediculous argument is the whole "Paul didn't undertand the modern concept of homosexual orientation" ruse, to which I have replied, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY YOU ARE GAY, both inward and outward manifestations are a sickness and a sin.
I recommend Does Romans 1 Condemn Homosexuality?
I am not sure that it helps when Christians tell non-Christians they are sinning by doing X.
Well, I tell christians they are sinning when they are. If the shoe fits for non-christians, and they are paying attention, then so be it. I expect to be told if I say or do something in conflict with the Bible (sin).
what I was specifically talking about was insulting people, or harrassing them or verbally abusing them because of their sexual orientation.
I do not try to insult people or harrass them or verbally abuse them. Can you point to something I have said in that manner? Because it was not my intent. And I really truly do appreciate when people let me know if I am getting out of hand. I do have a tendency to be mouthy, and you know what that leads to… :)
But if I am saying what the Bible says, then you will have to take up your argument with God…
And now:
Unless you can show the Bible was including covenantal gay marriage like relationships when it referred to "homosexuality" you can't really show that those verses are properly applied to the gay marriage issue.
In part of the passage seeker refers to it says:
Romans 1:26-27 (English Standard Version)
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
I think if you look at this in Matthew 19:
[Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Jesus was talking about marriage to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into saying divorce was ok because Moses allowed it.
It seems that in every instance he talked about a marriage, that circumstance (where a man left his mom and dad to live with a woman) is what he is referring to.
Unless you can show me in the Bible where he says that a man can marry a man so that he doesn't lust after him anymore…
That's true. And cooking; we need to teach kids how to cook. There's a lot we need to teach kids.
Yes, cooking is very important, although not as morally significant as teaching them not to act on their every thought! ;)
Reading the above, I'm not sure whether to laugh or get mad (a little both, I guess). Here's a gaggle of straights pontificating about gay people and gay rights. Ignorance writ large. Who are you people to dictate to us what we are, what our motivations are, and how we should live our lives? What a boatload of gall! The colossal arrogance (mixed with huge dollops of ignorance) demonstrated here only adds to that I encounter on almost a daily basis (either in person or in the media) just makes me want to blow a gigantic raspberry in your fatuous faces (sorry, but I include Keith here)!
And another newsflash to you all: non-Christians don't give a damn about what Christians think about gay people. This debate you're having above looks like pure fantasy to me (why not discuss the angels on the head of a pin issue next?). Really, it's irrelevant to reality in America today. And that's because we are not a xian theocracy. So, who cares what xians think or their "holy" book says (it says lots of laughable, tedious, and horrendous crud). The fact is that you guys don't get to dictate to the rest of us your religious prejudices and superstitions. Recommending gov't. policy based on xian theocratic notions went out with the rack, the iron maiden, and the stake.
Christianity is, and always has been, viciously anti-gay. Yes, there are some who are trying to change this and update their woefully out-of-date cult – I say, more power to them! However, as it stands with its irrational prejudice, it's still the enemy of gay people (just witness stinker's evil). And, as such, should be disqualified from any voice in our lives.
Louis is somewhat right, we can't oppose homosexuality just because our book clearly condemns it. But we should oppose cultural acceptance of it as normal because it is unhealthy, against nature, and against a healthy family structure, which is the foundation of society.
While gays ought to not be discriminated against in such things as housing and employment, there is no need to give them official sanction via legislation that would force us to accept and teach such behaviors to our children as normative. Sickness is not an althernate health. And homosexuality is just that – a coping mechanism, a sickness and a sin.
And any rational observant person not only knows this, but has the right to say it even if not gay – just like they can say that adultery or stealing or bestiality is not healthy or right. These truths are self-evident.
Hi Lawanda:
I am not sure that it helps when Christians tell non-Christians they are sinning by doing X
Well, I tell christians they are sinning when they are. If the shoe fits for non-christians, and they are paying attention, then so be it. I expect to be told if I say or do something in conflict with the Bible (sin).
Yuo can say whatever you want to say of course; that’s within your power. But the only justification for telling a person they are sinning is if your telling them will help them stop sinning. If it has the opposite effect then it’d be better if you didn’t. If some Christian person doesn’t care about that, said Christian is failing Christ’s mandate to love.
what I was specifically talking about was insulting people, or harrassing them or verbally abusing them because of their sexual orientation.
I do not try to insult people or harrass them or verbally abuse them. Can you point to something I have said in that manner? Because it was not my intent.
No no no! I didn’t mean that at all. I was talking about what’s all too common in public schools: people calling some kid a homo, picking on that kid, using the expression “that’s so gay” as a general insult. We should teach kids not to do that kind of thing. Schools ought not tolerate it.
And I really truly do appreciate when people let me know if I am getting out of hand. I do have a tendency to be mouthy, and you know what that leads to… :)
I disagree with you on this issue and maybe lots of other ones too (I’ll bet you aren’t a pacifist, democratic socialist moderate, for example:-) but IMO you have been completely civil in expressing your opinions.
But if I am saying what the Bible says, then you will have to take up your argument with God…
It’s always the case that if I disagree with what it turns out God wanted then that’s on me. Well, I believe it’s on Christ, nailed there on Calvary.
And now:
Unless you can show the Bible was including covenantal gay marriage like relationships when it referred to “homosexuality” you can’t really show that those verses are properly applied to the gay marriage issue.
In part of the passage seeker refers to it says:
Romans 1:26-27 (English Standard Version)
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
I think if you look at this in Matthew 19:
[Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus was talking about marriage to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into saying divorce was ok because Moses allowed it.
It seems that in every instance he talked about a marriage, that circumstance (where a man left his mom and dad to live with a woman) is what he is referring to.
Unless you can show me in the Bible where he says that a man can marry a man so that he doesn’t lust after him anymore…
If I could show you that last thing I would have direct biblical support for gay marriage. I don’t claim that. My claim is that it’s not clear the Bible condemns covenantal gay marriage like relationships because it’s not clear the bible even considered them. I’m not convinced by Paul’s letter to the Romans for a couple of reasons:
1. My argument here needs a little unpacking, so here I go. Paul objects to unnatural behavior, but if sin is our nature then sining is perfectly natural for us–behaving naturally is the whole problem for fallen humanity. So Paul must mean something else by unnatural. But he can’t be just mean that homosexuality is biologically unnatural because whatever can be done by a biological entity is by definition biologically natural–it’s not supernatural by definition. You assume that the problem Paul saw in homosexuality was the mere fact that men were having sex with men and women were having sex with women, but maybe what he saw was a kind of out of control hedonism where people just used their sexuality for cheap sensation instead of as an expression of committed marriage-like love. Maybe, given no examples of covenantal gay relationships, Paul saw the homosexual acts he knew of as the paradigmatic case of replacing the “natural” use of sexuality–to seal the covenantal marriage-like bond–with the “unnatural”. The thing is, Paul’s point in Romans wasn’t that homosexuality is a sin, it was that idolotry is why there is sin.
2. On the other hand, there is no particular reason to think that Paul’s argument here isn’t just Paul’s mistake. Possibly, Paul is right about the cause of sin and the cure for sin, but wrong that homosexuality in general is wrong. Even on biblical inerrancy that is possible since the point being made isn’t about homosexuality it’s about idolotry. The passage could just be taking it for granted that only perverted homosexuality exists, ignoring the possibility of God-blessed homosexuality.
your friend
keith
Hi Lawanda:
I am not sure that it helps when Christians tell non-Christians they are sinning by doing X
Well, I tell christians they are sinning when they are. If the shoe fits for non-christians, and they are paying attention, then so be it. I expect to be told if I say or do something in conflict with the Bible (sin).
Yuo can say whatever you want to say of course; that’s within your power. But the only justification for telling a person they are sinning is if your telling them will help them stop sinning. If it has the opposite effect then it’d be better if you didn’t. If some Christian person doesn’t care about that, said Christian is failing Christ’s mandate to love.
what I was specifically talking about was insulting people, or harrassing them or verbally abusing them because of their sexual orientation.
I do not try to insult people or harrass them or verbally abuse them. Can you point to something I have said in that manner? Because it was not my intent.
No no no! I didn’t mean that at all. I was talking about what’s all too common in public schools: people calling some kid a homo, picking on that kid, using the expression “that’s so gay” as a general insult. We should teach kids not to do that kind of thing. Schools ought not tolerate it.
And I really truly do appreciate when people let me know if I am getting out of hand. I do have a tendency to be mouthy, and you know what that leads to… :)
I disagree with you on this issue and maybe lots of other ones too (I’ll bet you aren’t a pacifist, democratic socialist moderate, for example:-) but IMO you have been completely civil in expressing your opinions.
But if I am saying what the Bible says, then you will have to take up your argument with God…
It’s always the case that if I disagree with what it turns out God wanted then that’s on me. Well, I believe it’s on Christ, nailed there on Calvary.
And now:
Unless you can show the Bible was including covenantal gay marriage like relationships when it referred to “homosexuality” you can’t really show that those verses are properly applied to the gay marriage issue.
In part of the passage seeker refers to it says:
Romans 1:26-27 (English Standard Version)
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
I think if you look at this in Matthew 19:
[Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus was talking about marriage to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into saying divorce was ok because Moses allowed it.
It seems that in every instance he talked about a marriage, that circumstance (where a man left his mom and dad to live with a woman) is what he is referring to.
Unless you can show me in the Bible where he says that a man can marry a man so that he doesn’t lust after him anymore…
If I could show you that last thing I would have direct biblical support for gay marriage. I don’t claim that. My claim is that it’s not clear the Bible condemns covenantal gay marriage like relationships because it’s not clear the bible even considered them. I’m not convinced by Paul’s letter to the Romans for a couple of reasons:
1. My argument here needs a little unpacking, so here I go. Paul objects to unnatural behavior, but if sin is our nature then sining is perfectly natural for us–behaving naturally is the whole problem for fallen humanity. So Paul must mean something else by unnatural.
But he can’t be just mean that homosexuality is biologically unnatural because whatever can be done by a biological entity is by definition biologically natural–it’s not supernatural by definition. You assume that the problem Paul saw in homosexuality was the mere fact that men were having sex with men and women were having sex with women, but maybe what he saw was a kind of out of control hedonism where people just used their sexuality for cheap sensation instead of as an expression of committed marriage-like love. Maybe, given no examples of covenantal gay relationships, Paul saw the homosexual acts he knew of as the paradigmatic case of replacing the “natural” use of sexuality–to seal the covenantal marriage-like bond–with the “unnatural”. The thing is, Paul’s point in Romans wasn’t that homosexuality is a sin, it was that idolotry is why there is sin.
2. On the other hand, there is no particular reason to think that Paul’s argument here isn’t just Paul’s mistake. Possibly, Paul is right about the cause of sin and the cure for sin, but wrong that homosexuality in general is wrong. Even on biblical inerrancy that is possible since the point being made isn’t about homosexuality it’s about idolotry. The passage could just be taking it for granted that only perverted homosexuality exists, ignoring the possibility of God-blessed homosexuality.
your friend
keith
Hi Louis:
I think you are way off base here. You wrote:
Reading the above, I'm not sure whether to laugh or get mad (a little both, I guess). Here's a gaggle of straights pontificating about gay people and gay rights. Ignorance writ large. Who are you people to dictate to us what we are, what our motivations are, and how we should live our lives? What a boatload of gall! The colossal arrogance (mixed with huge dollops of ignorance) demonstrated here only adds to that I encounter on almost a daily basis (either in person or in the media) just makes me want to blow a gigantic raspberry in your fatuous faces (sorry, but I include Keith here)!
Come on Louis, It can't be that the members of group A get to decide what rights they have. If that were the case then it'd be just fine when homophobes decide they have the right to kick the c**p out of gays!. But as a matter of fact, no one has the right to do that. Whatever rights you have you have regardless of who is pontificating, even if we are totally ignorant (in my case that's certainly true, there is so much I don't know and among those things is what it's like to be gay in a homophobic world).
But if we are truly ignorant then how are we responsible for mistreating gays? You don't blame a blind man for bumping into you on the street and according to you we are blind. The discussion Lawanda and I are having isn't about gay rights, it's about biblical interpretation. But if we were talking about gay rights, what I would have said is that it is immoral to condemn two men or two women who love each other for expressing that love. My comments are based on ignorance–not being gay how can I reall know how much homophobia hurts. But my comments are also based on love and if that's the kind of thing that makes you sick or makes you laugh, I'm sorry.
And another newsflash to you all: non-Christians don't give a damn about what Christians think about gay people. This debate you're having above looks like pure fantasy to me (why not discuss the angels on the head of a pin issue next?). Really, it's irrelevant to reality in America today.
You seem like you care, based on your responses to this thread–even the fact that you responded at all gives the appearance that you care what Christians think. You consider this debate about how to read the Bible to be fantasy, but if you didn't care it seems to me you'd have left us to our imaginations.
Christianity is, and always has been, viciously anti-gay. Yes, there are some who are trying to change this and update their woefully out-of-date cult – I say, more power to them! However, as it stands with its irrational prejudice, it's still the enemy of gay people (just witness stinker's evil). And, as such, should be disqualified from any voice in our lives.
If you define Christianity as the message Christ taught, then there is nothing anti-gay about it. if you define Christianity as what present day Christians believe there isn't a single position on homosexuality, so not all Christianity's are the enemy of gay people.
your Friend
keith
Paul objects to unnatural behavior
And he defines that behavior as well – men lusting for other men, and abandoning sex with women. No mention of promiscuity, or abuse, or temple worship, nada. The act is unnatural in any context. It is against nature because it is against the nature's design for physical intimacy.
But he can't be just mean that homosexuality is biologically unnatural because whatever can be done by a biological entity is by definition biologically natural
That's your assumption, but I doubt that's Paul's. Paul clearly describes what is unnatural – men LEAVING sexual desire for women and HAVING sexual desire for men. It's as plain as day.
<i.You assume that the problem Paul saw in homosexuality was the mere fact that men were having sex with men and women were having sex with women, but maybe what he saw was a kind of out of control hedonism where people just used their sexuality for cheap sensation instead of as an expression of committed marriage-like love.
Again, that is the clearest and most logical reading of the passage. There is no mention of these other edge cases, and in some sense, no need because Paul also knew that hx was clearly condemned in the OT. The moral law has not changed.
The thing is, Paul's point in Romans wasn't that homosexuality is a sin, it was that idolotry is why there is sin.
True, but I think in this case, he is using hx as an example of the depths of depravity that one falls into when involved in idolatry – and not merely hedonous gay sex, but homosexuality itself. There is no mention of sex for pleasure – his description of "LEAVING" the natural desire for women and taking on the desire for men – spells it out – THAT is the sin.
Paul is right about the cause of sin and the cure for sin, but wrong that homosexuality in general is wrong.
Again, that controverts the OT, not to mention Paul's letters to Timothy in which he also condemns homosexuality.
If you define Christianity as the message Christ taught, then there is nothing anti-gay about it.
Christ affirmed the OT law, and in so doing, the condemnation of homosexuality. And Christianity does not just consist of the gospels, but also of the teachings of the disciples and Paul, the latter of which did condemn it. If you want to discount the writings of Paul, you don't have Christianity, except in a non-orthodox way.
But the only justification for telling a person they are sinning is if your telling them will help them stop sinning. If it has the opposite effect then it'd be better if you didn't.
But that is just the thing, isn't it?
How are you to know whether or not your telling them would make them think about it. They cannot stop if they have no reason to believe it is not ok.
And I know that by you telling someone they are sinning, they could possibly return with a vengeance to that behavior out of spite or any other reason… But that is on them.
Their reaction to the truth is not something you can presume to think you know! Jesus said it: Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world. Mark 16:15
The good news is that they can be free from the hindrances of this world because of what Jesus did for them. Romans 6:19-21
My claim is that it's not clear the Bible condemns covenantal gay marriage like relationships because it's not clear the bible even considered them. I'm not convinced by Paul's letter to the Romans for a couple of reasons
I am very interested in this argument! I will have to come back to it later though, as some little people are wanting my attention ;)
But the only justification for telling a person they are sinning is if your telling them will help them stop sinning. If it has the opposite effect then it'd be better if you didn't.
There is a point to be made, as I made in my sermon Do Not Judge, that just going about condemning people is not right. However, sometimes the truth DOES offend people, and if we have done other things right (allowed truth to apply deeply to our own lives, and developed a genuine care for those we speak to), we may speak it even if they are outwardly offended.
When Jesus told his disciples to go an preach the KOG, he told them "if anyone does NOT recieve you or your message" (i.e. they are offended or disinterested), "wipe off your feet and move on!" We all need to hear the law regularly in order to check ourselves – not to live under it, but to make sure that we are not blindly sinning. And somone needs to preach that law to us. And then, also, the gospel. You might also like Stick or Carrot in Gospel Preaching?
Sickness is not an althernate [sic] health. And homosexuality is just that – a coping mechanism, a sickness and a sin.
And any rational observant person not only knows this, but has the right to say it even if not gay – just like they can say that adultery or stealing or bestiality is not healthy or right. These truths are self-evident.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
"Self-evident"?! Merely asserting unsupported myth as fact does not make it a self-evident truth. Show us your proof for your claims, if you can. You are either demented or stupid, stinker.
Keith: I stick around for fun and the vague, distant hope that it'll make a difference. Also, because bigot christianists infect gay blogs and websites: tit-for-tat.
If you define Christianity as the message Christ taught, then there is nothing anti-gay about it. if you define Christianity as what present day Christians believe there isn't a single position on homosexuality, so not all Christianity's are the enemy of gay people.
Christianity, historically, is anti-gay. I, myself, have a theory wherein xianity is not anti-gay, but it is so radical that it involves a revolution in xian thinking. But I'm sure xianity is not ready for that.
Show us your proof for your claims, if you can.
I can't show any more than I have shown – inability to conceive under any circumstances, higher incidence of disease, mental illness, and early death. And besides, it's disgusting (I have yet to finish my article on the science of disgust). If that's not enough, nothing every will be.
Hi Seeker:
You wrote:
I can't show any more than I have shown – inability to conceive under any circumstances, higher incidence of disease, mental illness, and early death.
I am a heterosexual man, married, and unable to conceive since I had my vasectomy. I would strongly disagree that this is a reason to call my sex life sick. And there is every reason to believe that the cause of any psychological problems associated with homosexuality is the oppression inflicted by a society that calls gay sex disgusting as you do below. Medical problems? I would challenge you to provide evidence that covenantal gay marriage like relationships lead to more medical problems than hetero ones. Stuff from Paul Cameron doesn't count as evidence BTW
And besides, it's disgusting (I have yet to finish my article on the science of disgust). If that's not enough, nothing every will be.
The science of disgust? Hmmm. All I can say is that gay sex doesn't seem more disgusting that my parents having sex if I really think about those things (and I don't).
your friend
keith
Thus, seeker admits he cannot provide any evidence to back up his fantastical claims re: hx. All he is left with is his personal "disgust" – ie, his irrational prejudice (sort of on the par with his evidence for his religious beliefs). So much for his arguments. So much for his credibility. I dismiss him.
I would strongly disagree that this is a reason to call my sex life sick.
This is a typical canard – under normal healthy circumstances, men and women of child-bearing age can conceive. When they can not, we call that an abnormality, or a defect. You have used technology to block nature. Gays NEVER at ANY TIME have the ability to conceive. QED.
And there is every reason to believe that the cause of any psychological problems associated with homosexuality is the oppression inflicted by a society that calls gay sex disgusting as you do below.
Actually, studies indicate that even when you control for the disapproval factor, gays still suffer an inordinate amount of mental illness and higher mortality, mostly due to rampant promiscuity (among men).
I would challenge you to provide evidence that covenantal gay marriage like relationships lead to more medical problems than hetero ones.
It's hard to get data on that, since there are so few of these in reality that last more than 5 years.
Hi Seeker:
I would strongly disagree that this is a reason to call my sex life sick.
This is a typical canard – under normal healthy circumstances, men and women of child-bearing age can conceive. When they can not, we call that an abnormality, or a defect. You have used technology to block nature. Gays NEVER at ANY TIME have the ability to conceive. QED.
I don’t agree it’s a canard. As support for the idea that gay sex was wrong you offered the fact that gay sex cannot lead to procreation. The apparent principle is: whatever sex cannot lead to procreation is wrong. By that principle, Keith-sex is wrong. That I can be classified in a group that CAN procreate isn’t relevant, since the same can be said of gays. A gay American is a member of the group “Americans”. Americans can generally procreate so if membership in a procreating group exempts a person from the “must be able to procreate” rule, then gay Americans are exempt from the rule. The point is: the rule itself is nonsense. Being able to procreate is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual act is good or bad.
And there is every reason to believe that the cause of any psychological problems associated with homosexuality is the oppression inflicted by a society that calls gay sex disgusting as you do below.
Actually, studies indicate that even when you control for the disapproval factor, gays still suffer an inordinate amount of mental illness and higher mortality, mostly due to rampant promiscuity (among men).
I would really question how one could control for disapproval, what with homophobia being utterly pervasive.
Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships –not outside pressures from society.
That sure seems like an oversimplification. THE reason for a suicide? You don’t think that people who kill themselves have a whole collection of issues that led to their tragic decision?
Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself.
Inability to accept oneself? You don’t think that has anything to do with the way society treats homosexuality? That seems completely naive to me.
…
In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries – i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems.
Here there are a lot of issues–methodological and otherwise. One wonders how they measure hostility. Maybe the Netherlands measures less hostile that the US because they don’t murder as many gays as we do. But still there might be a significant amount of social aversion to homosexuals. Maybe gays in the Netherlands are still afraid they’ll be rejected by their friends and family if they come out–maybe they are rejected by them. Maybe there is enough hostility in the socially liberal countries to produce those ill effects, and that the extra anti-gay piling on we do here doesn’t add that much to the problem. There’s a lot of possibilities. Another that would surely anger Louis when I bring it up: maybe the biological cause of homosexual orientation happens to be linked to a tendency for depression (something like the tendency for very intelligent creative scientists and artists toward depression), so that there’d be a higher percentage of depression related mental illnesses than in the population at large. If that were the case, then the maladies you cited would not be evidence that homosexuality was sick, no more than it would be evidence that mathematics was sick.
I would challenge you to provide evidence that covenantal gay marriage like relationships lead to more medical problems than hetero ones.
It’s hard to get data on that, since there are so few of these in reality that last more than 5 years.
Studies reported by Bell and Weinberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of gay men they surveyed had had fewer than 10 “lifetime” sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either “monogamous” or even “semi-monogamous.” Even “monogamy” seems to lack traditional meaning in gay male circles. Studies have indicated that “monogamy” for gay men tends to last from between 9 and 60 months.[ Gebhard, P.H. and Johnson, A.B., The Kinsey Data (Sanders, 1979); Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference]
My point exactly: there is no data that reflects badly on gay marriage. So even if the studies you are right, since they can’t separate out the truly monogamous from the promiscuous or very short term seria monogamous they don’t count against gay marriage. …
In The Male Couple, by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, the authors-a gay couple themselves- could find no gay relationship in which fidelity was maintained more than five years. In fact, the authors tell us, “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together.”
Well, that is one very specific study, on a very specific topic. But one wonders how things would be if our culture honored gay marriage.
I would also note that the study was male only. Female homosexual relationships aren’t addressed here.
your friend
keith
Hi Keith :)
My claim is that it's not clear the Bible condemns covenantal gay marriage like relationships because it's not clear the bible even considered them.
I think the Bible considered any sexual action ever possible in words like: fornication, lasciviousness, adultery
Fornication: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other Matthew 15:19-20 (KJV today)
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man…
Two people who are not married to each other would be any man and any other man, by Jesus very own words in Matthew 19:4-6.
lasciviousness: arousing sexual desire Ephesians 4:17-20
…being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
This describes most of us today, actually. We are pretty greedy when it comes to being sexually aroused… Just cannot get enough, can we? And this is something most people are proud of. And that is why they do not want to hear that they are wrong.
adultery: consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That who ever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and who ever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.
——————
1. My argument here needs a little unpacking, so here I go. Paul objects to unnatural behavior, but if sin is our nature then sining is perfectly natural for us–behaving naturally is the whole problem for fallen humanity. So Paul must mean something else by unnatural.
I think it is obvious he means the "natural" sexual use of a woman's body in that passage. I believe the context bears that out.
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another
You assume that the problem Paul saw in homosexuality was the mere fact that men were having sex with men and women were having sex with women
I assume this because he is speaking of lust, which logically precludes consensual sexual intercourse… yes. :)
The thing is, Paul's point in Romans wasn't that homosexuality is a sin, it was that idolotry is why there is sin.
Just because they were doing it in an idolatrous circumstance does not take away the words "vile affections". It is apparent that we are idolatrous, too. We modern people (gay people in America included) put people and their opinions of us WAY above God's opinion of us.
2. On the other hand, there is no particular reason to think that Paul's argument here isn't just Paul's mistake.
Or any other of Paul's arguments…unless you believe the Bible is God's word, in which case you will not think any such thing about Paul's words.
I like to think we have it all in there (the Bible) for a reason… And that is not to ignore it or put our own modern ends in it.
Even on biblical inerrancy that is possible since the point being made isn't about homosexuality it's about idolotry.
Even though the passage is talking about idolatry, it is obvious that lusting after a man if you are a man, is considered evil. And the same for women lusting after women.
The point is: the rule itself is nonsense. Being able to procreate is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual act is good or bad.
You misread it. Being unable to procreate under normal conditions for procreation (of child bearing age) is considered a DEFECT, even among heteros. The fact that gays can NEVER procreate shows that their condition is a SEVERE DEFECT, enough to be called unnatural.
And what makes the difference between a hetero that can not procreate or is sterilized is that the gay person, who in general has working sexual organs, is unable to procreate, not because of a physical defect, but a psychological defect. And of course, transgender folks are even more disordered than that.
But one wonders how things would be if our culture honored gay marriage.
Probably even worse than it is now, in many respects. More social acceptance and government approval of mental disorders as normal means more people will inadvertently fall into a lifestyle that, in general, is unhealthy compared to the hetero counterpart.
And you can "question" studies all day long, but the fact is, you will never entirely remove the social stigma of hx because it is patently and obviously against nature, and morally questionable at best.
I could cite studies till the cows come home, and you would defend hx as long as there was 1% doubt. This is why sometimes we must merely proclaim the self-evident nature of obvious things like the unnatural and perverse nature of homosexuality.
it is obvious that lusting after a man if you are a man, is considered evil. And the same for women lusting after women.
And I want to point out that it is not the LUSTING, in this case, that is the sin. Paul is saying that all SSA is LUST, and can not be love because it is perverted by its very nature – that is, it is trying to meet a legitimate need illegitimately. It's like saying "I committed adultery becasue I loved the other person." While that may sound OK to our minds, in God's mind, justifying sin with our feelings of love are really just eros, not agape.
So when Paul says "leaving the natural use of the woman" for "lust for men", he is not saying leaving "lust" for a woman, he is saying that sexual attraction to the opposite sex is the norm, and SSA is LUST by definition.
I'm SURE that some would argue that point, but there it is. Can SS partners "love" one another? Sure, they can have a genuine care for another person, just like a hetero. Does it feel good? Sure. But deep down, they are using that as a panacea to cover their wounds, their deep sexual and gender brokenness. It's more like codependence than healthy love, even if some aspects of healthy love are present. Heteros can do the same thing in their relationships, but the difference is, God engineered hetero relationships to be healing, whereas SS relationships will rarely if ever be able to heal the gender brokenness of the confused homosexual.
Blood boiling yet? That's not my intention, but I'm sure truth like this stirs up anger.
Yes, an anti-gay propaganda group. What a surprise!
You always pull this ruse out of your pocket. I go there because they have the best collection of relevant scientific studies on homosexuality. They don't produce their own science, they list relevant articles from scientific journals and comment on them.
So your complaint is really moot – ad hominem attacks sure beat dealing with the science that they are discussing.
I've also noticed that straights act out just as badly as some gays.
I agree, promiscuity is particularly prevalent among males, both hetero and homo. However, male homosexuals are 2-3 times more promiscuous than hetero males. I mean, that's why AIDS has spread like wildfire through the gay community – DUH!
Not only that, gays are more likely to cheat on their "monogamous" partners:
People like seeker, Aaron, and Lawanda are really reactionaries and exclusivists who like to condemn (on religious and fake sociological grounds) and scapegoat those they don't understand and don't want to understand.
Louis. I don't like to condemn, or BE condemned. The fact is, when I read the Bible, I see things I have to change too. I may not appreciate it at the time I am sinning, but when I straighten myself up, I always see the wisdom.
Just because I am not being a homosexual, does not mean I do not understand being a homosexual.
Believe me. I understand. I understand why you hate me for saying what I say. I understand where you are coming from.
But, it does not change the fact that we disagree.
And if you wanted to come to church with me, I'd be happy as could be. Unless you came to scream at people. Not that you would… but the fact is, you'd hear things you would not like.
Just like if I went to a Democratic convention.
And if you wanted to, you'd have every right to rent or buy a place to stand up on a tall stage and speak out against all the things you find wrong in the world too!
Their "holy" book actually harms people, but they don't care.
Well, some people think Harry Potter books harm people too. I think they are silly. I think you are being just as silly.
It is not the book. It is the people who do not care what the book says, but want to do what they want to do.
If a whole new awful cult started from the HP books, I would still not say they were harmful, because I have read them, and I know better.
I would say that the people who formed the cult got their own ideas in their head and basically used HP for their own ends.
Hi Seeker:
from before:
The point is: the rule itself is nonsense. Being able to procreate is irrelevant to whether or not a sexual act is good or bad.
You misread it. Being unable to procreate under normal conditions for procreation (of child bearing age) is considered a DEFECT, even among heteros. The fact that gays can NEVER procreate shows that their condition is a SEVERE DEFECT, enough to be called unnatural.
Calling something a defect presupposes a purpose for the something–the thing is defective inasmuch as it doesn't satisfy the purpose. But clearly when people who don't plan to reproduce sexually have sex our purpose isn't sexual reproduction. Using the term defect is inserting your own value judgment into things, it's not an objective fact about sex. A real scientist studying human sexuality wouldn't pretend that the word "defect" is a scientifically proper way to refer to homosexual orientation.
But one wonders how things would be if our culture honored gay marriage.
Probably even worse than it is now, in many respects. More social acceptance and government approval of mental disorders as normal means more people will inadvertently fall into a lifestyle that, in general, is unhealthy compared to the hetero counterpart.
Ihave to agree with Louis here: you are imagining that it's an objective fact that homosexuality is a mental disorder as opposed to simply a different order. This is not a scientific statement at all, but rather reflects your own bias.
And you can "question" studies all day long, but the fact is, you will never entirely remove the social stigma of hx because it is patently and obviously against nature, and morally questionable at best.
Your sense of what is obvious doesn't really count as objective argument, you realize that don't you. I do not find it so obvious that homosexuality is against nature–in fact I think the whole concept of something being against nature is nonsense. And it seems to me more obvious that the "feeling" that homosexuality is obviously immoral comes from prejudice and bigotry, not from God.
I could cite studies till the cows come home, and you would defend hx as long as there was 1% doubt. This is why sometimes we must merely proclaim the self-evident nature of obvious things like the unnatural and perverse nature of homosexuality.
The studies you cited seemed to have obvious methodological problems, I'd say there is considerably greater than 1% doubt that the conclusions you've drawn from their studies is true.
your friend
Keith
<i.This is not a scientific statement at all, but rather reflects your own bias.</i>
I disagree. The fact that it is associated with other mental disorders and higher morbidity and mortality, and the fact that gays can not produce offspring under any normal circumstances points to the fact that is a disorder.
I mean, how do we define disorders anyway? Is infertility ever considered a disorder? I think my case, though not airtight, is compelling. I am not making value judgments, just scientific ones.
But I can make value judgments if you like.
Lawanda, this is at least the second time that you have defended the Bible against criticism, and claimed that anyone could use any other book to commit similar atrocities. This is pure nonsense. Harry Potter, the absurd example you give over and over, does not explicitly command its readers to kill other people for dozens of differerent "offenses". Harry Potter does not make heroes out of genocidal armies. Harry Potter does not condemn millions of people as abominations. Comparing the Bible to any similar sized book, or book of comparable popularity, is pointless unless that book is also a religious text which strongly prescribes behavior of its followers. Compare it to the Koran, compare it to the Book of Mormon. Do not compare it to Harry Potter, because they have nothing in common. While it's plausible for a murderous cult to arise out of Hogwart's Fan Fiction, it's entirely unrealistic. On the other hand, we can easily point to millions of deaths that have been caused in the name of Jesus. I'm not saying that all of these deaths were justified by the Bible itself, but there is absolutely no parallel in Harry Potter, or any other novel. Be realistic.
seeker's manifold studies come from the same sources: people who want to, somehow, portray gays in a bad light in order to demonize us. this isn't ad hominem at all, but a simple statement of fact. The vast majority of the scientific establishment, the professional medical groups, and individual scientists have consistently stated that hx is NOT a mental disorder or perversion. It is only the die-hard anti-gay element that tries again and again to prove us evil. This is just stupid. I dismiss him.
Just because I am not being a homosexual, does not mean I do not understand being a homosexual.
That's precisely what it means. And you also illustrate what I meant when I portrayed conservative xians as smug and ignorant. It really puts xianity in a bad light, reading you people. I dismiss Lawanda.
On the other hand, we can easily point to millions of deaths that have been caused in the name of Jesus. I’m not saying that all of these deaths were justified by the Bible itself, but there is absolutely no parallel in Harry Potter, or any other novel. Be realistic.
You are right, because I do realize that the Bible is a more important book (and can be mis-used for more horrible things) on account of it’s content being the word of God (or the supposed word of God, in your opinion). But there is a parallel to any book, in that the Bible is a book. Not to be too cliche, but: Books do not harm people. People harm people.
—————
I dismiss Lawanda.
Ok. Just because you dismiss me, however, doesn’t mean I do not make valid points. It also does not mean I do not understand being a homosexual.
If you believe that, it means you are an idiot.
It also does not mean I do not understand being a homosexual.
Unless you are something there is no way you can understand what it is like to be something.
The analogy I would put forward for you Lawanda is that you cannot possibly know what it is like to have Bubonic Plague without having the said disease. You might be able to sympathize with the victims, but you cannot understand or empathize with them.
The only way you can understand what it is like is to become one. I don't suppose you want to try some Bubonic Plague? I think not.
It is just like I would be safe to assume that based upon your stated positions in your posts that you would not be willing to try the homosexual lifestyle to understand what it is like to be gay.
-s
Unless you are something there is no way you can understand what it is like to be something.
I think we are being too black and white here. While no one can COMPLETELY empathize with another, this does not mean that PARTIAL empathy is not possible.
So while I may not know entirely what it feels like, similar experiences, plus a compassionate and active imagination can allow me to partially, perhaps even largely empathize and understand.
I expect that what Lawanda is referring to is the latter, which is entirely valid. I mean, to turn this useless "you don't understand" rhetoric around, why do you judge me for judging you? You have NO idea what it's like to be a believer in Christ and see SIN as I do!
Now in Louis' case, perhaps he has tried that route. But I could argue that his experience was not genuine enough, just like he would argue that my experience with gender identity healing was not homosexual enough, or that my ex-gay friends don't know what they are talking about. So be it. Partial empathy is possible, but perhaps we should listen to those who have gone through such things and emerged on the other side, since they can totally understand – both ex-gays and ex-ex-gays, both xians and x-xians ;)
First, I would like to say that I am not entirely correct about my "books don't harm people, people do" quote up there ^ Because I think that twisting some good books can harm people, but I also think there are some books that are actually harmful…..
t is just like I would be safe to assume that based upon your stated positions in your posts that you would not be willing to try the homosexual lifestyle to understand what it is like to be gay.
And how do you know I haven't tried it????
Perhaps I am a reformed homosexual. Either way, I agree with seeker that I can empathize regardless if I have never been in that position.
Actually I view all sexual activity as very similar. Whether it is with a man or a woman, whether you are a man or a woman. If you're first care is having sex, then you are going to have a troubled life!
For someone to say "You can't understand" is very immature. So should we also try to understand when a man cheats on his wife with another woman? I am sure many of us can totally understand without doing it ourselves!
Hi All:
I would agree with seeker that it is possible for a heterosexual to empathize with a homosexual. But part of this empathy ought to include the humble recognition that we don't "know what it's like" to be gay in the homophobic society that is ours. Surely if we reflect deeply we can understand why Louis would be so offended when we straights say "we know what it's like to live your life". We can know what it feels like to feel hurt by the way we are treated by others, and we can extrapolate crudely to know that our gay neighbors feel bad when our society pounds them so much. But that's as far as we on the outside can go, IMO. Sadly, I'm afraid not enough of us are willing to go even that far.
your Friend
keith
Hi Seeker:
You wrote:
I agree, promiscuity is particularly prevalent among males, both hetero and homo. However, male homosexuals are 2-3 times more promiscuous than hetero males. I mean, that's why AIDS has spread like wildfire through the gay community – DUH!
let's analyze that statement a bit. If males on average are more promiscuous than females, then one brake on heterosexual male promiscuity is that they have to depend on the cooperation of the less promiscuous female. This braking mechanism doesn't apply if both partners are male, hence you'd expect more promiscuity. This wouldn't be a homosexual thing, it'd be a "guys are pigs" thing.
I disagree. The fact that it is associated with other mental disorders and higher morbidity and mortality, and the fact that gays can not produce offspring under any normal circumstances points to the fact that is a disorder.
I suppose we needn't get into an "is so, is not…" on the matter of reproduction. But IMO your claim that a higher incidence of mental illness points homosexuality being a disorder is wrong on several fronts. Here's one such front. Higher rates of Sickle Cell Anemia is associated with being black. By your reasoning this points to being black as a disorder. That is very troubling reasoning, and if there were some way to "cure" the blackness of a person who had the sickle cell trait–what an offensive concept btw–this would not cure the their sickle cell.
I mean, how do we define disorders anyway? Is infertility ever considered a disorder? I think my case, though not airtight, is compelling. I am not making value judgments, just scientific ones.
Infertility is only a disorder if the infertile person wants to sexually reproduce. Otherwise it is just a different ordering. Calling infertility a disorder presupposes that the person ought to be fertile–the terminology itself reflects a value judgment, not a sober scientific observation.
yuor friend
keith
<i.Sadly, I'm afraid not enough of us are willing to go even that far.</i>
don't be so hard on yourself keith, I'm sure you'll learn to empathize one day ;)
There is absolutely no way you people can understand what it is like to be queer in America, particularly for someone of my generation. And I don't mean this as some kind of excuse for bad behavior. It is simply a fact, something you people can't or won't acknowledge. I only brought it up because it illustrates just how corrosive the xian hetero-supremacist agenda has been, and to show just how wrong and cruel seeker's pogrom is. But, of course, you cannot concede this, because it would destroy your religionist agenda. When I hear religionists pontificate about gay people, I want to puke. How is it possible for human beings to walk and talk and get around in society and be so stupid and uninformed? You'd think they'd be running into walls all the time. I guess the built-in self-righteousness of xianity has shielded them from reality. After all, if you live 24/7 in a fantasy world you needn't consider the real-world results of your actions (case in point: Bush/Iraq).
I'm still trying to decide whether Hitch is right when he states the religion poisons everything. It certainly looks like it here.
Louis,
There is absolutely no way you people can understand what it is like to be queer in America, particularly for someone of my generation.
I am in agreement with you here, which is the point I was trying to make tactfully (an attempt) with Lawanda.
-s
Thanks, Silver. Unfortunately, the time for tact has passed. They claim to “empathize” with my experience, but it is abundantly clear that they do not. They just refuse to listen, or they cannot hear me. It’s weird.
Hi Louis:
Sorry Louis, but there is no such thing as a Christian hetero-supremacist agenda. Hetero-supremacy is an abomination to be sure, but it's not a function of Christ's teachings. IMO too many Christians misuse the Bible to justify homophobic attitudes, similarly to how the slave holders of the antebellum south misused the bible to justify chattel slavery (and how Hitler and Herbert Spencer used Darwin's ideas to justify cruel social systems). There is no built-in self-righteousness in Christianity–inasmuch as a Christian is self-righteous he is anti-christ. You are undoubtedly correct that a lot of people use their religious beliefs as weapons against those they consider to be "wicked", but doing so they ignore the clear teachings of Christ.
About Bush and Iraq; you aren't buying into the fantasy that Bush's militaristic aggression is a function of his religion are you? The powers that be have used militarism for centuries to accomplish their goals; religion has nothing to do with it. The dangerous belief isn't that God exists, it's that violence is a proper way to bring about justice. That's the lie that causes so much harm.
your friend
Keith
Hetero-supremacy is an abomination to be sure, but it's not a function of Christ's teachings.
This may be true, but the rest of the Bible is completely hetero-centric. From Genesis through Paul, the Bible just assumes that man/female is the only possible configuration. The only allusion to gay relationships is condemnatory at best, homicidal at worst. Maybe if you take Jesus out of context, a case could be made, but even He didn't mention gay people, and an argument from silence isn't very convincing. Ask seeker to fill in the blanks.
Self-righteousness may be anti-Christ, but it's the bread and butter of xianism. The problem is that xianity provides ample basis for this perversion of humanity.
Lawanda,
For someone to say "You can't understand" is very immature. So should we also try to understand when a man cheats on his wife with another woman?
On the contrary it is mature. There is no name calling going on here. That would be immature. Rather, it is a mere statement of fact that from a gay person's perspective or a person with the plague that one that is not in that situation cannot possibly understand what it is truly like. I know you disagree, but I will just leave it at that.
So should we also try to understand when a man cheats on his wife with another woman? I am sure many of us can totally understand without doing it ourselves!
Again, this is a false analogy and example particularly as it relates to homosexual relationships. You are coming at this from the perspective of being in a heterosexual relationship and projecting what it would be like for a another person in said heterosexual relationship to go through adultery. While you could argue that a similar situation might be the same in a homosexual relationship, that in no way means that you know, can know, or understand what it is to be gay.
-s
Hi []
You wrote:
This may be true, but the rest of the Bible is completely hetero-centric. From Genesis through Paul, the Bible just assumes that man/female is the only possible configuration.
The only allusion to gay relationships is condemnatory at best, homicidal at worst. Maybe if you take Jesus out of context, a case could be made, but even He didn't mention gay people, and an argument from silence isn't very convincing. Ask seeker to fill in the blanks.
I think your claim is questionable. Specifically, I question whether any of the bible passages that are translated in English to refer to homosexuals address the kind of gay relationships that would be marriages if gay marriage were legal.
And about the strength of an argument from silence: an argument from silence can be strong if there is a reason to think that Jesus would have said something about gay relationships if he considered them inherently sinful.
I should also note: one can be a Christian without thinking the Bible is the somehow word for word dictation of God. If so one could think that the Bible was inspired by God, but that the inspiration was filtered through fallible human beings. Thus it could be that the Bible presupposes some of the prejudices and limited world view of the human authors; those things could be part of the "vocabulary" God used to communicate the spiritual truths he wanted to communicate. If so, then Jesus' message of love (and the Apostles message of love and grace) would be normative, while the presupposed "sinfulness" of homosexuality in general was based on a narrow view of homosexuality and human nature.
Self-righteousness may be anti-Christ, but it's the bread and butter of xianism. The problem is that xianity provides ample basis for this perversion of humanity.
I think your broad brush smear is, well, far too broad. There are no doubt ample examples of organized Christian churches exhibiting self-righteousness, but there are also many examples of organized Christian churches displaying humility and compassion and non-judgmental, radical love. And there is nothing in the biblical message to justify self-righteousness. Any christian self-righteousness goes absolutely against the explicit teachings of the bible.
your friend
keith
One thing I do not understand:
WHY is it so offensive for me to disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle?
I also disapprove of the "shacking up" lifestyle.
And the alcoholic lifestyle.
And the public school lifestyle. (And two of my kids are in public school.)
I think homosexuals get special "you've offended me" privileges in our "America today".
Louis obviously disapproves of the Christian lifestyle, even though "christians in America today" have not hurt any gay people especially on large scale (Louis likes to bring up how gay people have been tortured through history…)
And I don't see how it is harder for a homosexual in America than a stay at home mom.
Silver, Louis – show me how it is harder to be queer in America today than to stay at home with your kids in America today.
I guess I do tend to not feel sorry for people in America who are not having some kind of real tragedy. As far as I can tell Louis is free to do whatever he likes. And I am free to disapprove, even outright and out loud.
Basically what you are trying to say is that I am hurting Louis in some way because I disapprove.
I am not infringing on any of Louis's rights by disapproving. I may hurt his feelings… but hey, I get my feelings hurt sometimes too. And even by Louis, if you can beleive that! ;)
It's offensive, Lawanda, because you are telling people that there is something wrong with them. You would probably find it offensive if I told you that you were a misfit; or that your everyday activities were particularly disgusting, not just to myself, but to God in particular; that you were especially damaged; that the love you felt for other people was sinful; etc.
Is this a whose-life-is-harder competition? Give us a break. Nobody is telling you that there's anything wrong with being a stay-at-home mother, whereas you and Seeker and Aaron are claiming that there is something inherently wrong with being anything but heterosexual.
Neither Louis or I care much about what you, as an individual, say. But don't imagine that your explicit condemnation of gay people doesn't have a real effect on (1) what many other people think, (2) what many other people do, and (3) the policy decisions of the state regarding homosexuality. Until very recently, it was illegal for same-sex relations to even take place in many states. The fact that such laws were in-place for so long is a direct result of people, like yourself, who publicly express their derision for things which have absolutely nothing to do with them, and which are none of their business.
You're free to disapprove of us, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it stops there. You're not just neutrally expressing your opinion. You are having a real, negative effect on the way that gay people are treated in this country. Even if you, yourself, are not personally treating gay people badly, your public criticism of a personal matter is encouragement and support for others who may.
I was going to respond to you directly Lawanda, but after reading Stewart's response above, I think he really captures the essense of what anyone of us would have said in response.
The only color I could add to this would be from a "Hetero" perspective that thinks passing judgement on other lifestyles from which you cannot have any real understanding is just wrong.
If you like, I can go into that, but that is (at this point) a tangent from where this thread has gone.
-s
I wonder, Stewart, if it's of any value to try to educate people like Lawanda. She seems completely satisfied with her ignorance. And, of course, there's her resentment getting in the way, as well. Generally, I'm not for playing the victim, but sometimes there is real victimization going on. It also makes me gag when Christians put on this act of being the victims of some kind of campaign of persecution, as if they weren't the vast majority and in control of all aspects of our gov't. (especially the Supreme Court). I really wish Christians like Lawanda had the ability or the will to walk in someone's else's shoes for a while, they might not be so high and mighty.
Another thought:
Lawanda wrote,
As far as I can tell Louis is free to do whatever he likes.
This is demonstrably not true: I cannot get married.
That depends entirely on what sort of person you happen to think Lawanda is.
If you believe that, then you are having as much difficulty walking in her shoes as you claim she is having, walking in yours. Lawanda honestly believes that rampant sexuality is dissolving the moral coherence of this country. I consider this belief to be purely emotional, unevidenced, and metaphysical, but she sees it as an intuitive truth. What can I say?
In light of my feelings, obviously I wish that Lawanda et al. would tone down their speech about the 'sinfulness' and 'disgusting' nature of homosexuality, and their negative feelings about overt sexuality in general. I understand that they feel very strongly about these things; I'm merely asking that they keep in mind that their speech has a real, negative effect on people's lives. Not just in the way it makes us feel (which they are not particularly concerned with), but also in how other people treat us. Despite our ever-lightening attitudes, crime and discrimination against homosexuals is still a serious issue in this country. Even if a person does not actively attack a gay person, their explicit, powerful condemnation of homosexuality is a tacit encouragement for others to do so in their place.
In spite of Seeker's claims to the contrary, you cannot love someone, and simultaneously call their behavior disgusting, unnatural, and perverse. You can't love someone, and then tell people that it should be ok to legally discriminate against them. You can't love someone, and tell them that their own ability to love is damaged, or a product of Satan. These things are contradictions.
"Love the sinner; Hate the sin" is just a plattitude. People who say it inevitably direct some of their manufactured hatred towards the people who they're supposedly loving. How about we just drop the hate entirely? The world has enough of it, already; we don't need any more hatred. Love people, regardless of what they do, and leave the hating for people who don't know any better.
Hi Lawanda:
You wrote: Silver, Louis – show me how it is harder to be queer in America today than to stay at home with your kids in America today.
I'm not silver nor louis, but I don't know of anyone who has been beat up at school or at coffee houses for being a stay at home mom. I don't know anyone who has been beat to death or battered and left to die on a barbed wire fence for being a stay at home mom. I mean no offense Lawanda, but I have to wonder what world you are living in to imagine that it is harder to be a stay at home mom in American than to be gay in America. Seriously. Leaving aside the question of whether or not your right about the moral question, it is obviously the case that gays are treated with much more viciousness that stay at home moms.
your friend
Keith
It’s offensive, Lawanda, because you are telling people that there is something wrong with them.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with homosexuals, except that they are sinning. I have also said over and over that I sin as well.
Louis disagrees with me on that (well about HIS sinning, anyway). You disagree with me. Fine. You don’t offend me because you disagree with me!! In fact I think disagreement is good, as long as it is civil. It makes you think harder about your own thoughts and positions!
You would probably find it offensive if I told you that you were a misfit;
My point about stay at home moms was just that. Do you think there is no pressure to put one’s children in day care in order to “live the American dream”? Do you think that a stay at home mom is never berated for doing her thing?? Do you think a stay at home mom is not a target of bigotry? Stay at home mom’s are considered misfits by many many people.
or that your everyday activities were particularly disgusting, not just to myself, but to God in particular;
AHH! You see, if you told me that my everyday activities were disgusting to God, I would CHANGE them. Because I personally care what God thinks. Louis does not, you do not. And so my perplexity as to why it is SO OFFENSIVE to Louis and you to hear that I disapprove of his lifestyle because I think God does, when it is well known I am a christian.
Louis disapproves of my christianity as much, if not more, than I do of his homosexuality. He tries to lump all evil done to homosexuals into a “done by christians” category, when that is not true.
Christians do disapprove of homosexuality. But that does not mean we hate homosexuals.
that you were especially damaged;
It is my opinion that we are all “damaged” after we hit puberty. Lost innocence and all that, you know.
that the love you felt for other people was sinful; etc.
Love is not sinful, but sometimes sex can be…
Neither Louis or I care much about what you, as an individual, say.
Well, you seem to care what I say, and think it is hate-filled, although it is not hate to disapprove of someone’s actions. You don’t like the “common” parts of what I say, and you don’t listen to the “individual” parts of what I say.
But don’t imagine that your explicit condemnation of gay people doesn’t have a real effect on (1) what many other people think, (2) what many other people do, and (3) the policy decisions of the state regarding homosexuality.
I do hope it has an affect. I hope it lets people know that they do not have to act on their every thought, which looks to your points 1 and 2. And as for 3, if I am not to vote my conscience, then what am I to vote? Louis’s? Yours?
You are having a real, negative effect on the way that gay people are treated in this country. Even if you, yourself, are not personally treating gay people badly, your public criticism of a personal matter is encouragement and support for others who may.
My public criticism of a personal matter? Sex is not personal when you wear it as a badge, imo. I am not the one who is making gay people a loud political minority group. They are doing that. That part is not a personal matter, really. And I think the whole publicity part is affecting negatively our entire culture.
——————————–
I said: As far as I can tell Louis is free to do whatever he likes.
Louis said: This is demonstrably not true: I cannot get married.
But it is very true. Louis could marry any unmarried woman he wanted to. He just does not want to.
It is the same as saying: Lawanda is free to do whatever she likes. She could marry any unmarried man she wants to.
If Lawanda wants to marry a man who is already married she cannot do so legally, however.
Just because we are at liberty to do some things, doesn’t mean we get to do every thing we think will make us happy. We are not necessarily given the right to happiness. But we are given the right to pursue it.
Some people are “happy” on drugs. Drugs should not be made legal however, because the effect of drugs on society is negative. Although the people who want drugs to be legal do not agree with that.
Many people see that the effect on our society of gay marriage is/would be negative as well. Of course those who want it do not agree.
The only color I could add to this would be from a “Hetero” perspective that thinks passing judgement on other lifestyles from which you cannot have any real understanding is just wrong.
Are you wealthy? Do you know any wealthy people who try to understand how it feels to be poor? Most politicians are wealthy. Yet they try to understand the poor person’s perspective all the time.
I agree that it is hard for them. They do get it wrong a lot. But I think it is possible for them to understand the poor person’s position, and empathize.
Can a modern caucasian American empathize with a modern African American?
Why is it so different to see that a “hetero” person can empathize with a “homo” person?
————————————
Dear Keith,
You said: Leaving aside the question of whether or not your right about the moral question, it is obviously the case that gays are treated with much more viciousness that stay at home moms.
Perhaps there are instances in America where a gay person is attacked and physically harmed because he/she is gay. There are also instances of other people in modern America being attacked and physically harmed or killed as well.
Stewart thinks we shouldn't hate. However, I find it impossible not to hate people like Lawanda and seeker. I, for one, don't turn the other cheek when I'm slapped. I hate bigots.
Lawanda, your comments are far too long and meandering for me to adequately respond. They are heavy on arrogance, and light on sympathy. Your opinions are unevidenced and unkind. I don't think you're really open to a discussion about these things, though, so I'll leave it at that.
And Louis, man… maybe you should go read (or re-read) some of those Thich Nhat Hahn books :) You seem like a really angry guy, and even if your opinions are less invasive than someone like Seeker's, they still might cause yourself or others a lot of pain.
Hi Lawanda:
You are right; there is far too much violence is the world. And on this we can surely agree: we Christians ought to be a part of the cure not the disease. That's what Christ taught anyway.
yuor friend
Keith
Hi Stewart:
Thich Nhat Hahn !!! One of my favorites.
your friend
Keith
I get angry when confronted with injustice and evil. And I just can't pretend and put on a beatific mask of peace and serenity. Buddhism isn't about such masks or the platitudes of best-selling authors; it is about the struggle within oneself to recognize and grapple with reality without illusions. It provides the tools for such a struggle, that's all. When anger spurs one to action against injustice, it is a holy passion.
Hi Louis:
I cannot criticize you for your perfectly understandable anger. Gay men and women continue to be violently attacked–physically, socially, emotionally–by us heteros. But I would take issue with your dismissive stance toward Thich Nhat Hahn. He doesn't propose illusions, he proposes a thorough mindfulness of reality, and he offers simple methods to help people learn such mindfulness. Anger is not without illusion. When you are angry at a person you are unable to imagine yourself as that person, in the moment of anger you don't see the real person, you see your caricature of the person.
Now IMO anger taints any action it motivates. This comes from my Christian beliefs and I know you don't share those beliefs, and I am not going to try to convince you of it. Given the kind of c**p we non-gays have inflicted on you, well, I sheepishly ask forgiveness for any part I might play in such. But I do have to defend Thich Nhat Hahn's way of looking at the world. You might disagree with him, but it is quite unfair to dismiss him by comparing him to the Leo Buscalias of the world.
your friend
Keith
Oh Keith, you keep giving me more reasons to like you.
Louis, apart from the bits about Christianity, I exactly agree with Keith. Your anger is based on frustration and an inability to see the world the way people like Lawanda and Seeker do. They are just as obviously unable to see the world as you do, which is the source of your frustration. By dismissing them as bigots, you're closing off your ability to understand the cause of their beliefs, and you're setting yourself up to mistreat them in kind (or worse).
Surely the hostility you're feeling isn't the best way of getting what you want. It is, of course, possibile that you'll never get what you want here. But if that's true, would it really be a consolation to know the bulk of your words served only to insult or embarrass the people you disagreed with? I bet that doesn't concern you much, personally, and that's part of the issue. You believe that, based on their negative treatment of you, people like Seeker and Lawanda are implicitly less deserving of positive treatment in their own lives. And it's that mistaken belief that one is fundamentally different than another which teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh do such a wonderful job explaining.
Earlier in this thread I offered to buy Cineaste, Lawanda, or Keith copies of one of my favorite books about Veganism (That offer still stands, guys!). I'll extend the same offer to you, Louis, but for a Thich Nhat Hanh book. If you're interested, send me your address (stewart.ulm[at]gmail[dot]com).
I have to side with Louis a bit on this, and pass up the patronizing buddy-buddy talk of both Keith and Stewart (of course, in their eyes, I side with Louis because I am just as "angry and hateful" as Louis.).
While TNH is an icredible person and author, and has much good to say on anger, he is not the only source of truth here. Scripture says there IS a reason to be angry, and that we are to be angry and NOT sin. If you listen to some, they would have you think that all anger is sinful.
I think that in principle, Louis is right that we should be angry at injustice, and use that anger to stamp it out. Not with vigilante force, per se, but still, even the scriptures say that injustice angers GOD.
But God is not only angry at our justifications for our injustices, but our condoning of sinful behaviors that hurt ourselves and others. While Louis may have a good case for being angry about how he has been treated, he has no case, in the eyes of the bible's God, for defending his same sex attraction. It is something he must shed if he wants to be a person of grace (love) AND truth (purity).
As I say in my latest sermon, failure to recognize or declare sin, or justfying sins as OK, is one of the signs of false prophets.
Hi Seeker:
Regarding anger, I'll quote an important Christian voice:
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:21-22)
God's anger can be righteous, but of course he isn't vulnerable to the illusion that we are when we are angry with our neighbors. Being angry about injustice is one thing, but being angry with people ensures that we are hypocrites. of course we are going to be angry and we are going to be hypocrites.
God's anger is righteous of course because he isn't vulnerable to the illusions anger causes. For us, being angry with our brothers IMO makes us blind.
Oh yeah. I'll bet Thich Naht Hahn agrees he isn't the only source for truth.
your friend
Keith
"Patronizing." The exact word.
They are heavy on arrogance, and light on sympathy.
I disagree, of course. How am I arrogant and unsympathetic?
It cannot be that I feel no sympathy for people who need it, because I do. I have much sympathy for anyone who is hurt out of hate, be they gay or straight, black or white, man or woman, christian or not!
And I feel very little sympathy toward people who are glorified in the MSM (ty seeker ;) ) as very cool/hip/wonderful people, such as lots and LOTS of gay people and people who have been married 2 or 3 (or more!) times are?
And because I can see that gay people in America do not need "sympathy" from me, because they have every right I have? Or sometimes because I can see them getting special rights because they are gay, and I see a danger light in that? (You would too, I think, if you weren't overcome with the rhetoric)
Everyone who suffers tragedy is worthy of my sympathy, and I would argue with people who were not sympathetic to victims of cruelty!
If you do not care that the Bible is God's word, I really don't know why you even bother to challenge an opinion that states "A group of people are not doing what the Bible says is right when they are gay."
Louis and the gay minority are out to change the laws of the land to suit them.
You are always saying how dangerous some of my positions are (like when I say there are leaders and followers), yet you think this is a good thing…
You (and lots of others) do not want to see gay marriage for what it is (changing a well-founded principle=dangerous) because you are emotionally invested in the whole argument. You do not want your privileges taken away by a "puritan" society.
You think I am arrogant because I have a different opinion than yours, and I am not afraid to say it.
If certain people wanted to change the law that says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" to include in "speech" other actions which "communicate", such as shooting a gun … That would not be ok. People who did not want others to communicate with their guns would be upset!
That may a bit far-reaching, but not really if you are open minded about it.
Hi Lawanda:
You wrote:
And because I can see that gay people in America do not need "sympathy" from me, because they have every right I have? Or sometimes because I can see them getting special rights because they are gay, and I see a danger light in that? (You would too, I think, if you weren't overcome with the rhetoric)
Seriously Lawanda: what special rights do gays have in America?
your friend
Keith
Keith, in my experience christianists, right-wingers, pro-family wingnuts, and the general anti-gay contingent always bring up this phrase – special rights – when they want to attack gay equality. Essentially, it is a fiction, a method to ridicule and delegitimize the aspirations of gay people while maintaining a civilized and supposedly non-hateful veneer.
But what is a special right, anyway? Is Lawanda implying that I somehow want to be superior to straights, or to obtain undeserved special treatment? Let's look at some of the so-called special rights we demand that Lawanda and her ilk oppose:
* As young people,
-the right to be free from harassment, ridicule, and intimidation at home and school;
-the right to feel secure at home without the fear of being rejected and thrown out onto the street;
-the right to learn, at home and at school, that our desires and needs are a normal variation of human sexuality.
* As adults,
-the right to be secure in our persons from intimidation and violence;
-the right to be free from ridicule, harassment, and intimidation at work and in society at large;
– the right not to be fired simply because of our sexuality;
-the right to be secure in our homes (ie, to be free of the fear of being evicted);
-the right to serve in the armed forces;
-the right to see ourselves depicted in the media as we really are and not some distorted image straight people need to see;
-the right to be free from religionists and their virulent hatred of hx;
-the essential right to join in marriage with the person we love and honor, and to enjoy marriage's protections our families need and deserve;
-most importantly, perhaps, the right to be open and treated like every other human being, without the need for special protections.
I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, but it hits the main points. I really don't see how these rights are "special" at all; rather, that they are the rights everyone deserves as human beings. In fact, straights just assume they have these rights. And it's telling that people like Lawanda think that, when applied to gay people, these are "special" rights. Somehow, she thinks we already enjoy these rights everywhere in this country, and that we don't need legal protections. She displays an ignorance about our history in America, and our present situation. Above all, she is resentful that her heterosexual privilege is being challenged by people she "disapproves" of. Well, here's a newsflash, Lawanda: your disapproval is irrelevant, and is no justification for keeping us down. We won't stand for it. And we will fight you, to the death if need be!
Seriously Lawanda: what special rights do gays have in America?
In some instances gay people do get special rights. I think you guys like to be blind to stuff like this, because the gay rights is such a big and popular political movement.
Fiction indeed? Fact: In my town some of the streets were closed down to be used for a gay rally/convention thing. The same request was refused for a 4-H function.
I am not saying this is happening all over America, or anything…
But it would be a federal granting of special rights, imo, if legalizing gay marriage legislation were to pass.
Louis you make a good point: In fact, straights just assume they have these rights.
I really think many people think/assume they have "rights" when they really have "privileges."
And, btw, I don't think I have ever treated Louis "negatively".
I disagree with a choice he makes.
I do understand why he takes it so personally.
But I try to treat everyone with respect. I have been known to get exasperated, and I apologize for when I do say something out of line.
Yes, that's right, and your privileges are being threatened. Who will you scapegoat if gays are off-limits?
And, since when is it a "special right" to marry the person you love and honor? This is a fundamental human right and not a privilege.
Your answers and your stance reveal a small-minded, fearful, and resentful person. You are so parochial that you think your way is the only way, and anyone who doesn't conform to your desires and values should suffer. Maybe you should try educating yourself about other people, and about the fundamental constitutional guarantees that all citizens enjoy, not just those in your little circle.
Hi Lawanda:
You wrote:
In some instances gay people do get special rights. I think you guys like to be blind to stuff like this, because the gay rights is such a big and popular political movement.
Quibbling has just become a necessity. Your explanation for why I like to be "blind to stuff like this" is not accurate because (a) I don't like to be blind to stuff like [the below] and (b) I am not blind to stuff like that:-). I know that there are anecdotes like the below all the time, although I wonder how many of them are legitimate and how many are urban legend. But let's consider the specific case you are referring to:
Fiction indeed? Fact: In my town some of the streets were closed down to be used for a gay rally/convention thing. The same request was refused for a 4-H function.
I am not saying this is happening all over America, or anything…
I do wonder about the specifics. I don't suspect the 4H club was denied the right to close down certain streets because of a bias against the Department of Agriculture (the agency that administers 4H). Maybe the city didn't believe there'd be enough attendance for the 4H thing to warrant closing down streets, and maybe the city expected a bigger turn out for the other event. Cities do close down streets when that's necessary to protect the visitors to an event. Is your gripe that the city allowed the gay events but disallowed the 4H one? If so, I doubt that many homosexuals would have objected to the 4H getting the necessary permit and it seems a little unfair to count the city's foolishness against gay rights.
The bottom line is: there is certainly less systematic discrimination–both public and private–against gays for being gay than against straights for being straight, or against religious people for being religious, or against atheists for being atheist etc.
But it would be a federal granting of special rights, imo, if legalizing gay marriage legislation were to pass.
How would that be a special right? Is it a special right for straight marriage?
Louis you make a good point: In fact, straights just assume they have these rights.
I really think many people think/assume they have "rights" when they really have "privileges
Not really what you are saying here, are you saying rights don't exist or that some things people think are rights really are only privileges?
your friend
Keith
Some things people think are rights are privileges. We are a privileged people. We are actually a spoiled rotten people. I am sure you have noticed the ever increasing civil law suits… I believe the 4H is going to take their concern to court. I do not know the details. But I guess they think it was discrimination.
Legalizing gay marriage would be a special right. Look at my example. If certain people wanted to change the law that says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" to include in "speech" other actions which "communicate", such as shooting a gun … That would not be ok. People who did not want others to communicate with their guns would be upset!
That may seem silly to you, but I know for a fact that 75 years ago "gay marriage" seemed just as ridiculous to people as "gun communication" seems to you and me.
Gay people have every right (and privilege) in this country to work, play, eat, assemble, have friends, be happy *if they can*. Just like me. They have the right not to be beaten. If they are beaten, their persecutors are chased down and put in jail just like any other criminal.
Straight people cannot marry just anyone either. They have to marry out of a certain section of the population. The unmarried section.
If I felt I was in "love" with a married man, I could not go and marry him legally. It doen't matter if our love was real, genuine, good, whatever.
I could live with him. He could will all his stuff to me legally, rather than his wife.
I have seen it done. I have also seen gay couples who made their wills accordingly, etc.
What is the difference? If you can justify gay marriage, then you can justify any other "kind" of marriage.
Hi Lawanda:
Since you know I don't agree with you about the legitimacy of gay marriage, I won't try to defend the idea to you. But the question of "special rights" is a different issue entirely. You wrote:
Legalizing gay marriage would be a special right. Look at my example. If certain people wanted to change the law that says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" to include in "speech" other actions which "communicate", such as shooting a gun … That would not be ok. People who did not want others to communicate with their guns would be upset!
That may seem silly to you, but I know for a fact that 75 years ago "gay marriage" seemed just as ridiculous to people as "gun communication" seems to you and me.
I agree with you 100% that we ought not permit people to engage in gun communication; if they were to argue that they had a 1st amendment right to free "speech by gunfire", I would agree with you that their argument was silly. But I wouldn't claim they were seeking "special rights"–I would argue that shooting people isn't an acceptable way to communicate. I would argue they didn't have the right they claimed– I would meet their argument head on.
But it seems to me the "special rights" claim is a dishonest rhetorical device. I don't mean to say that the people who use it are arguing in bad faith; all of us who get involved in arguing fall into the temptation to create rhetorical slam dunks that will enable us to "win" the debate. Unfortunately this kind of arguing doesn't advance our undestanding of the issues.
But IMO here is where the dishonesty lies: the special rights arguer knows Americans in general accept the "mind your own business" principle but would see it as unfair if one group tried to claim "rights" that were denied to the rest. So when they say gays want "special rights" they are claiming that gays want rights that straights don't have, claiming that gays are being unfair by asking for those "special rights". The arguer really has a different objection to gay liberation, but uses an inaccurate strawman to gain persuasive power. Now I'm not accusing anyone of any kind machiavelian (sp?) maneuvers, but in fact the argument they use does just what I have pointed out. In my opinion.
your friend
keith
I would argue that shooting people isn't an acceptable way to communicate. I would argue they didn't have the right they claimed
You already are being a "bigot" and accusing them of wanting to shoot people with their guns! Just because it is not the way YOU choose to communicate makes it unacceptable?! You just cannot understand their point of view at all!
Perhaps they were shooting messages into tin walls. Or shooting three times to let you know they were coming over for a game of ball…. Perhaps they would say it was totally harmless! They would not be harming those involved at all! They might perhaps ignore the fact that their flippant attitude toward "gun-fire" might in fact bring harm to others!!
Which you can see plainly, because you've perhaps seen how even innocent "gun fire" can influence others to use guns in a not so innocent way…
I still say that they would be asking for "special" rights in which the proper (basic human) rights of free speech/communication were being abused or taken too far.
It is not a straw man if it is a valid point. And if you cannot see the validity of it, then we are going to have to keep disagreeing.
Lawanda's favorite rhetorical tactic is argument by analogy. As any student of rhetoric can tell you, argument by analogy is the weakest form of argument: this is because it is not a precise nor logical form of persuasion. The analogy can never do anything but illustrate a point the person wants to make; it carries no logical or persuasive power. It also tempts one to a "false" analogy – one which doesn't apply in any case (cf, the gun-shooter analogy above), but can be employed to Machiavellian effect. Lawanda is so wed to her "special rights" theory that she can't seem to see how absurd it is, and has presented no real argument for it. It all seems to boil down to one simple thought: gays have always been considered perverts and sinners , and therefore inferior to straights, so they should always be considered perverts and sinners, and inferior to straights (and any effort on their part to defy this injustice is to be decried as demanding special rights).
Let's present this "argument" in ways it was used in the recent past:
Women have always been subservient to men, so they should remain so in the future (therefore, Lawanda should just shut up).
Blacks have always been inferior to whites and, therefore, their slaves, so they should remain so in the future.
Kings have always enjoyed a divine right, therefore they should remain head of state in the future.
One could also claim the "God said so" argument here with as much (or little) efficacy:
God meant women to be subservient to men – it says so in the Bible – so Lawanda should just shut up.
God says gays are abominations and perverts – it says so in the Bible – so Louis should just shut up.
These fallacious arguments have finally fallen to the wayside, but only after centuries of effort, suffering, and blood. So, too, will Lawanda's "special rights" nonsense. Of course, there are always die-hards who refuse to listen to reason or have the humility and simple human decency to admit they are wrong. They should just be ignored or ridiculed.
As any student of rhetoric can tell you, argument by analogy is the weakest form of argument: this is because it is not a precise nor logical form of persuasion. The analogy can never do anything but illustrate a point the person wants to make; it carries no logical or persuasive power.
I largely agree, but I would not say that it has NO persuasive power. If the similarities are compelling, so are the conclusions.
And while some of the arguments you debunk are certainly poor ones (argument from tradition, appeal to authority), that does not remove the medical (disease), biological (procreation and design) and sociologic (child development, nuclear family as social building block) arguments.
Hi Lawanda:
Well, I did presuppose the exact thing you suggest; maybe it does reflect some kind of bigotry. But it's not anti-gun shooter bigotry. I am a Quaker pacifist, but I know plenty of people who shoot guns and I have also shot guns from time to time. I'd shoot one right now if I had one, had bullets and had a safe place to shoot bottles from point blank range:-)
But anyway, about the whole special rights thing:
I still say that they would be asking for "special" rights in which the proper (basic human) rights of free speech/communication were being abused or taken too far.
I don't see that the phrase "special rights" is appropriate for your objection, and I still think that it misleads by giving the impression that gays are asking for something "extra", which distracts from the real claim that they are asking for something illegitimate.
I suppose we will continue to disagree, hopefully as friends:-)
your Friend
keith
Yes, as friends. :)
Of course I am not even worth your time, as my arguments are all the wrong kind and useless…. (Haven't made anyone think at all, have I?)
But really. Ask anyone over age 70 or so if the idea of gay marriage was not ridiculous in their day. Ask some gay 75 year olds, if you can find them.
Special can mean: different from what is ordinary or usual. The gay political people are trying to make marriage different from what it is. They are asking for special rights.
As for guns, I think they are terrible. But I think people have the right to bear arms, because that is in the constitution. And I can understand why and empathize with those who want to bear them. Believe it or not!! Me empathizing with people who have guns, even though I don't do guns! The idea! :-p
But really. Ask anyone over age 70 or so if the idea of gay marriage was not ridiculous in their day. Ask some gay 75 year olds, if you can find them.
The only answer to this I can think of is, so what? I'm sure if you asked those 75 and above (I've heard it enough from my 91 year old father), they would come up with all kinds of stuff now regarded as anathema to fair-minded people (institutional racism, sexism, etc.). Once, slavery was considered ordinary and usual. Should we now defend it based on that? Should we have told African-Americans that they were just seeking "special rights" and thus dismiss them? I say that, when an injustice is identified, it should be opposed and eliminated, no matter what the majority thinks.
As to seeker's categories: we've been over this time and again, and I don't see any reason to dredge up the arguments yet once more (especially since they have no effect upon xian fanatics). Suffice it to say, the vast majority of the scientific establishment does not agree. But then we all know seeker's opinion of scientific evidence.
But really. Ask anyone over age 70 or so if the idea of gay marriage was not ridiculous in their day. Ask some gay 75 year olds, if you can find them.
Sure, I can find them. I think my 95 year old father counts within your supposition Lawanda. This came up as a topic of conversation when I saw him a couple of weeks ago. In his day and even when looking at the situation today, Gay Marriage was not ridiculous.
Frankly, he looks at the whole opposition to granting Homosexuals the same legal rights under the law as granted to heterosexual couples ridiculous. To him, that sort of discrimination is no different than the racial segregation laws, forced internment of the japanese and the germans, etc…they are morally wrong. And the sick twist to that position, he is a devout Roman Catholic.
Mind you those are not my words, but his. I think that you will find that opinion more prevalent within the older generation with higher education that spent the bulk of their lives working in major cities. That is if you can find people within your sphere of social/family circles that map to that criteria.
-s
As for guns, I think they are terrible. But I think people have the right to bear arms, because that is in the constitution. And I can understand why and empathize with those who want to bear them. Believe it or not!! Me empathizing with people who have guns, even though I don't do guns! The idea!
From a strict-constructionist perspective, the right to bear arms as described in the Constitution is restricted to the formation of civilian militias for the national defense. The interpretation of that right to mean a universal and unabridged right to own a gun (any gun, including semi-automatic weapon) is that of the pro-gun lobby. It is nowhere to be found in the constitution.
We can go more into that one I suppose, but we all dove head first into that conversation when the VA Tech shootings happened. I would go look there before we open that can of worms again.
-s
"The interpretation of that right to mean a universal and unabridged right to [marry whom you will] (any [person], including [one of the same-sex]) is that of the pro-[gay marriage] lobby. It is nowhere to be found in the constitution."
I think that you will find that opinion more prevalent within the older generation with higher education that spent the bulk of their lives working in major cities. That is if you can find people within your sphere of social/family circles that map to that criteria.
I think that opinion is more prevalent in any generation of more urban people with "higher" education, actually.
But the prevailing opinion (even among the higher educated) was not "open" to gay marriage a generation or two ago. Which is why it never came up until these past few years.
Lawanda,
"The interpretation of that right to mean a universal and unabridged right to [marry whom you will] (any [person], including [one of the same-sex]) is that of the pro-[gay marriage] lobby. It is nowhere to be found in the constitution."
While you are good at swapping terms around, the difference between the right to bare arms and the right to marry are two different things. Indeed, show me where in the constitution there is an explicit clause for the right to marry anyone (same sex or opposite sex). The truth is there is no such right. The closest you come to is the freedom of association. Contrast that with the right to bare arms, whereby it is mentioned in the Constitution, albeit in limited fashion.
Perhaps with your fast and loose use of my own words as an example to prove a false point you have just crystallized my opinion on the matter of marriage in the eyes of the law.
Since marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, there is no legal right to marry for anyone within this country. Since that is the case from a strict constructionist perspective, perhaps you should refund your tax deduction for being married back to the Federal Government. That would be legally fair.
Indeed, what we are actually talking about here when it comes to gay marriage is equal protection under the law. Without any abridgment of rights, privileges, or the ability to cohabitate, or have immediate succession rights of assets under the law. All of that is being discriminated against gays in the United States.
Your opposition to gay marriage fundamentally ignores if not outright displays your bigotry towards a group that is indeed being discriminated against along the lines I have outlined above…all from a legal standpoint.
Perhaps we should then rescind the right for women to vote in this country, or perhaps re-institute segregation?
All of that would sound silly now, but going back to the days when all this was in debate, the very same reasons you cite for opposing legal rights for gays as embodied in legal –NOT religious– marriage were the same.
We have all gone up and down this road with you multiple times. This is nothing new. There is a difference between marriage under God and the right to marry as embodied with the legal rights granted to a couple in the eyes of the state. The latter is what is the main issue here and is what you along with many gay marriage opponents are ultimately railing against.
That is discrimination no matter how you slice your moral or religious beliefs. That cannot stand.
-s
Thanks, s., you've put it succinctly. The anti-gay argument holds no water when examined in secular terms (ie, as a civil matter). Their position boils down to either religious prohibitions (irrelevant) or personal prejudice (pathological and therefore also irrelevant). seeker's objections based on sociological arguments have been exploded many times. I see no alternative but to legalize gay marriage forthwith.
The result of Lawanda and seeker's ideology.
Hi Louis:
Another alternative to gay marriage: get government out of the marriage game altogether. Government would recognize civil unions between consenting adults, period. Marriage would be left as a religious matter so that those who believe God doesn't approve of a particular marriage wouldn't have to recognize it, same-sex, interracial, interfaith, whatever..
your friend
keith
keith
Keith,
Another alternative to gay marriage: get government out of the marriage game altogether. Government would recognize civil unions between consenting adults, period. Marriage would be left as a religious matter
That very notion is something that I have put forward on this blog in the past. Ultimately, the very use of "marriage" for a legal agreement for couple as well as a religious based relationship is a problem of terminilogy (just flip through the older posts).
However, what you will find is that many folks on the anti-gay movement cannot or will not separate the two. As the conversation goes forward (I have had the same conversation with Lawanda in the past), there is the latent inability to intellectually separate the two in a conversation…it is one in the same to them.
I am agreement with you that from a legal stand point marriage in the eyes of a state is basically the entering into a legal contract with your partner and codifying certain legal rights and tax benefits that otherwise would not exist. That is not a marriage, at least not a marriage in terms of what the Bible describes (going back to my religious upbringing)
-s
Since marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, there is no legal right to marry for anyone within this country. Since that is the case from a strict constructionist perspective, perhaps you should refund your tax deduction for being married back to the Federal Government. That would be legally fair.
There is no mention of an IRS in the constitution either! ;)
Indeed, show me where in the constitution there is an explicit clause for the right to marry anyone (same sex or opposite sex). The truth is there is no such right.
I think you might find This article on Liberty interesting. Look at the one on common law, too! Very interesting…
Because humans were endowed with free will, they were afforded certain freedoms naturally. It is important to note, however, that most theorists did not fully explain which liberties were taken from nature. This theory held that once people entered into a contract to create a government, only those liberties surrendered for the creation of the society were lost; all other freedoms remained.
English and colonial writers warned that when either tyranny or licentiousness became too dominant in politics and society, liberty ended and political slavery began.
Lawanda,
I think you might find This article on Liberty interesting. Look at the one on common law, too! Very interesting…
This is interesting. However, it does not answer my point about marriage being mentioned in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights…while the Right to bare arms is.
Fundamentally my challenge to you is based upon your high-jacking of my words when referencing the the Right to Bare Arms as an direct analogy to the issue of Gay Rights. On that premise alone, I challenge you from a strict Constructionist view of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to find a reference to marriage. It does not exist.
To your point about the IRS not being in the constitution, that is a complete non-sequetor. The ability of the US Government to assign levy's to finance war and the operations of the US government are indeed embodied in the Constitution. Further, as many Conservatives will argue, there are fundamental flaws with Case Law that builds precedence for the establishment of the IRS or any other legislative action from the bench.
Basically, your point holds no water with me. You can't have it both ways in saying on one hand the Supreme Court over-reached by ruling in favor of Roe v. Wade (since the abortion right is not in the Constitution) and then at the same breath say the IRS is legal because of case law although it is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. It does not stand up when looking at only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Also, you fundamentally did not answer my challenge about real-world discrimination of gays under the law (see previous post). Either you don't have an answer, or you think it OK to discriminate. The latter in my book makes you a bigot…no different than a WASP hating blacks or a Jews or Hispanics.
– s
I challenge you from a strict Constructionist view of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to find a reference to marriage. It does not exist.
That matters, but when I point out that any reference to the IRS does not exist in the Constitution: that is a complete non-sequetor.
That is actually funny!
I understand why the US government made the IRS. I also understand that legal marriage comes from common law – "a body of unwritten law based on the steady accretion of procedures and definitions used by common law courts, and based on the ancient system of writs, commissions, and trial process." (from the article I previously posted)
Your opposition to gay marriage fundamentally ignores if not outright displays your bigotry towards a group that is indeed being discriminated against along the lines I have outlined above…all from a legal standpoint.
I don't think my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman diplays my "bigotry". Just my belief that marriage is what it always has been legally and naturally.
My opposition to legal gay marriage is number 1 because I cannot, being a Christian, say that homosexual marriage is right in the sight of God. However, I will be fine with it inasmuch as I am "fine" with other legal marriages I disapprove of, such as those between a man and his 5th wife. (when all his wives are still alive)
But number 2, the main reason I oppose legal gay marriage and will not vote for it (which is my right, btw!), is because it is not really marriage by law, and they are proposing to change the "common" law regarding marriage to suit their purposes.
I see no difference in that and my previous example of changing the term "speech" to include any thing for your own purposes. And then lobbying to change the law accordingly.
Are you out to call everyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot? That seems a bit like "scare tactics" to me…
There are people who are not christians who think gay marriage is not right either. They are most likely not bigots either, but are using what they know about history and common law as their guide.
Hi Lawanda:
Whether or not opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, I don't know what those of us who disagree with you on the issue want from you. It seems to me you have expressed your views with civility, and you have avoided calling homosexuality "disgusting"; all you have said is that you believe it is wrong and you believe God considers it wrong. A couple of points have arisen in this debate that I'd like to address:
1. It is claimed by some that "loving the sinner but hating the sin" is not possible, that loving a person means accepting as morally fine what the person does. But anyone who is a parent knows better. It altogether common–necessary even–for parents who love their children to not accept everything their children do as morally fine; to fail to do so is to fail to behave lovingly toward that child. But…
In the parent/child relationship, the parent has a responsibility to teach his children the right ways, and how the parent reacts to his children's misdeeds needs to be based on pedagogy (I'm a teacher so I tend to sometimes use that kind of edubabble:-), on the practical question of how is the most effective way to guide your child to right ways.
But the neighbor/neighbor relationship is different. Supposing that X is a sin and that your neighbor would be better off refraining from X, if simply declaring that X is a sin and that your neighbor ought stop it seems unlikely to help your neighbor, then you (and me to) need to seriously consider our motivations for speaking what we believe to be truth. If we really "love the sinner" we have to think about what effect our speech is likely to have. If you really believe that your strategy wrt (what you believe to be) the sin of homosexuality is likely to help gays then while I disagree with you about that, you are acting in love when you apply it.
Now I don't agree with you about gay marriage; I am unconvinced the Bible was referring to gay-marriage like relationships when it uses the words translated to English as "homosexual". But we've been through that discussion. I also don't agree with your strategy about "sin-condemnation". If I am wrong about this, am very sorry.
2. You object to gay marriage, but am I to understand that you are OK with civil unions that would provide equal legal rights to gays but wouldn't use the word "marriage"? If so, then I think the best strategy for the gay liberation movement would be to take the deal and not worry about your religious belief.
your friend
Keith
There's that same ol' canard again: things have to remain the way they are because…well, because that's the way they've always been! Somehow, marriage, in the minds of people like Lawanda, has always been "defined" as one man/one woman. And this is patently untrue, as marriage has undergone various permutations throughout history. Since the majority is hetero, the usual arrangement has been male/female (although not necessarily one man/one woman). Of course, this is true because the history of gay relationships has been suppressed as gay people have themselves been suppressed, often with violence. It is in this atmosphere of silenced voices that Lawanda asserts her dogma about marriage.
What it really boils down to is Lawanda's discomfort and disapproval. And when writ large, we have institutional and pervasive discrimination. However, we won't be intimidated into silence.
Silence=Death
Lawanda,
It is pointless to continue discussion with you on this, because you are unable to disconnect the religious ramifications of what you call marriage with the legal and economic benefits extended to hetero couples by the state by being married. The two are not one and the same.
While it is your right to feel and believe what you do, it is not your right to conduct or condone discriminatory behavior. Just like it not your right to insight the overthrow or assasination of the President of the United States (POTUS). You can believe in it or feel it, but it is not your right to do it. Period.
Are you out to call everyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot? That seems a bit like "scare tactics" to me…
On the contrary, it is factual and not a scare tactic.
I respect your religious opposition to marriage as recognized by God and a Church. I do not and cannot accept the continued discrimination of people (regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation) under the law when it comes to freedom of association, freedom from persecution, and deriving the benefits of liberty and financial fulfillment that is extended to hetero couples automatically, but is discriminated against gays. Period.
That my friend is discrimination. Anyone that feels that doing those thing is OK while conitunuing to enjoy those same benefits as a hetero in a marriage, is a bigot.
There is no difference between having those beliefs and believing those should hold legal force from those 50 years ago condoning the Jim Crow laws against blacks and obstructing voting rights of blacks. A similar parallel, would be those over 70 years ago that opposed granting Universal Suffrage rights to women in this country.
All of those things in tandem with the legal discrimination of gays as I have consistently outlined above and in the past is just that Discrimination and is wrong regardless of your religious beliefs.
I think you are just uncomfortable with the fact that I am not afraid to call you what I see you to be.
No one likes to be labeled…bigot is a very heavy word, but you cannot help what you believe just like the racists post Civil War and into the Civil Rights movement couldn't help what they believe.
Just the same that does not make it right. Sorry.
-s
Why is everything in italics?
t is pointless to continue discussion with you on this, because you are unable to disconnect the religious ramifications of what you call marriage with the legal and economic benefits extended to hetero couples by the state by being married.
So it is all about the money is it? Or is it all about the love?
Now I am confused. :-p
Either way, it is not bigoted to see marriage for what it actually is and always has been, legally (read the article on common law?) and religiously.
I am not unusual in not separating the two (legal and religious marriage)… It has more to do with me being a human than a bigot.
I think the term bigot is thrown around so carelessly. And I think you are doing just that.
I would agree that it would be wrong to discriminate against anyone in those freedoms you mentioned.
But this: deriving the benefits of liberty and financial fulfillment that is extended to hetero couples automatically, but is discriminated against gays.
I wonder do you think that everyone should get Social Security or welfare?
Why is that not discrimination to only give it to those who "qualify"?
Is it discrimination to extend welfare to those who qualify (thus implying that SOME ONE some where decided what it meant to qualify!), but not to those who are barely above the line?
Keith,
If so, then I think the best strategy for the gay liberation movement would be to take the deal and not worry about your religious belief.
My beliefs really do not matter to the government, except with how I vote. I cannot in any good conscience vote for gay marriage.
If it gets voted through, I have no choice but to legally recognize gay marriages.
Like I said, I have no choice but to legally recognize people's 5th or 6th marriages either.
That does not mean they are right though, or that I even think they are right. Even though I have to recognize it legally.
:)
Hi Lawanda:
But would you vote for civil unions?
your friend
keith
Lawanda,
My beliefs really do not matter to the government, except with how I vote. I cannot in any good conscience vote for gay marriage.
That is where you are wrong. If you take actions to discriminate based upon your beliefs, then the Federal Government does care and will take action. If that were true, then the government would not prosecute those that discriminated against African Americans.
The is a little law called the Civil Rights Act that protects those rights. Similarly, there is no stretch of the imagination that similar force of law is or can be extended to Gays under those same grounds.
Keith,
But would you vote for civil unions?
The problem with Civil Unions is that they do not extend the same legal rights or financial benefits as Legal Marriage in this Country. For that reason, Civil Unions are discriminatory. If there were parity in terms of those rights, then there would probably be no issue.
– s
note, for clarification, my above statement should have said "That is where you are wrong. If you take actions to discriminate based upon your beliefs, then the Federal Government does care and will take action. If that were NOT true, then the government would not prosecute those that discriminated against African Americans."
-s
Trying to reason with the irrational is, by definition, impossible. Lawanda's opposition to gay marriage is based on nothing but her religious beliefs and the ludicrous argument from tradition. Neither are relevant. Of course, she will remain stubborn on the issue because it involves her religion (ie, irrationality), therefore, more argument is pointless (note how it goes round and round above). This is what gay people are faced with. It doesn't matter what arguments we use, what facts we bring to bear, what studies or scientific data we produce, the religionists just keep, parrot-like, repeating their exploded arguments. They are indifferent to the human costs of their belief-system: they just don't care. What they care about is their religion, period. End of story. It is odd, and horrendously ironic, that a belief-system which claims to engender love and compassion and humility results in some of history's most terrible injustices. This is one of the primary reasons I despise religion and feel contemptuous of its partisans. Religion poisons everything.
Hi Louis:
I must disagree with your assessment. True, it is pointless to try to argue a person into changing his mind on these kind of moral questions, but it's not because the person who disagrees with you is irrational or hateful. I agree with you about the wrongness of the anti-gay position, but your view and my view on gay rights is no more based on reason that Lawanda's is–you and she and I just disagree on premises. You complain that religious beliefs are irrational, but you have more beliefs and those beliefs also cannot be derived from reason alone–your ideas of what is right and wrong derive ultimately from your deeply help presuppositions and your conscience, not from some kind of scientific, objective thought.
You say she is indifferent to the human cost of her anti-gay ideology, but why do you discount the possibility that she believes homosexuality is a sin that imposes a much higher cost on gays than her ideology does, and that she'd be hurting your more by turning a blind eye to it? You might say you don't care about what she thinks, still her ideology inflicts terrible injustices. I agree, but you have accused her of bad faith and I don't see that you can support those charges.
You say religion poisons everything? I'd say it's judgmentalism that poisons everything, whether it's the judgmentalism of the fundamentalist who thinks he has commissioned by God to separate the saints from the sinners, or the atheist who thinks he's the one truly wise who can separate the intellectually worthy from the "backwards thinkers". Both forms of fundamentalism are in error and embracing that error feeds our hypocrisy. Too bad we ALL fall into that trap.
Religion caused so many of history's worst injustices? I'd say what caused those injustices was the belief–held by some religionists and by some secularists who claim to have come to their conclusions by clear headed reasoning–that violence is sometimes a proper way to promote the good. No one who rejects that belief would have committed the Crusades, or the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or killed four kids in a prayer group before classes one morning in December.
your friend
keith
Well, if you believe that government should be involved with social engineering, like structuring the tax code to encourage saving, or taking care of your children, then you can argue that the government has an interest in supporting the traditional family unit, in order to ensure domestic tranquility.
Since homosexuality is demonstrably unhealthy on an individual level (emotionally and physically), as well as on a childhood development level (sub-optimal for kids), I'd say that refusing to sanction gay marriage (which you might argue is passive discrimination, but not active in that it is not criminalizing it) is really what a responsible government ought to do.
There is such a thing as reasonable discrimination. I do a credit check on potential tenants, and discriminate against the ones that have poor credit. Homosexuals can have the same protection from discrimination in housing and employment that people of other recognized traits have, but the privilege of economic favor bestowed upon hetero marriage is something that they do not deserve because they are demanding equality for their dysfunction. This would be a bad move for a government interested in encouraging behavior good for society. It's like rewarding women for having children out of wedlock – it looks like you are being compassionate, but instead, you are enabling dysfunction.
The compassionate and right thing to do is to allow gays to marry in whatever un-biblical church they want to, but to deny them the favored economic status of a real marriage, that is, real in the intended sense, intended by nature and the creator, and testified to by the obvious unnaturalness of gay sex and affections.
These are not religious arguments, but biological, social, and medical reasons for not encouraging the further moral and sexual decay of our country through affirming such dysfunctions are normal.
Keith, I reject your criticisms. I will stick by reason over all other ways of living, no matter what. I point to seeker's and Lawanda obvious hatred and evil above.
Talking to religionists is stupid, and I have been guilty of that stupidity here. One might as well argue with a barking dog for barking at you.
Go to hell.
Hi S:
You wrote: The problem with Civil Unions is that they do not extend the same legal rights or financial benefits as Legal Marriage in this Country. For that reason, Civil Unions are discriminatory. If there were parity in terms of those rights, then there would probably be no issue.
I would agree about the parity thing; I wonder if Lawanda would?
Louis, you wrote
I reject your criticisms. I will stick by reason over all other ways of living, no matter what. I point to seeker's and Lawanda obvious hatred and evil above.
Well, reason PLUS your moral intuition I guess. I would question your evaluation of Lawanda–I don't see any obvious hatred there. Seeker has already stated he thinks homosexuality is disgusting; I find that attitude somewhat offensive. But I wouldn't say that Seeker hates either. I also wouldn't say that you hate Seeker.
Talking to religionists is stupid, and I have been guilty of that stupidity here. One might as well argue with a barking dog for barking at you.
maybe, but might also be stupid to argue with overconfident, self-proclaimed rationalists (or with pathologically overly tolerant Quakers too:-). But I like to to talk to dogs and I am glad you have been willing to talk to me.
your friend
keith
Seeker,
The compassionate and right thing to do is to allow gays to marry in whatever un-biblical church they want to, but to deny them the favored economic status of a real marriage, that is, real in the intended sense, intended by nature and the creator, and testified to by the obvious unnaturalness of gay sex and affections.
These are not religious arguments, but biological, social, and medical reasons for not encouraging the further moral and sexual decay of our country through affirming such dysfunctions are normal.
I am not going to debate you on these points…not because I agree with them and not because I cannot refute them. Rather it is because the position you take is so intertwined between religious beliefs and civil law that there is just no point in making the attempt…we will go around and around and make this post well over 200 comments long.
That being said, regardless of how you slice you reasoning, the omission of granting similar rights as married couples (financial, legal, etc) to gays whether it is called marriage or civil unions is discriminatory. Period.
I don't think there is any question of it. You may be able to argue said discrimination is justified, but it is still discrimination.
-s
Hi Louis:
I just reread my comment and I do want to make it clear: I wasn't calling you a dog. I consider you to be an intelligent and passionate man who I respect. I just meant that arging with a dog might be useless, but talking to a sweet puppy can be good for the soul.
your friend
keith
Lawanda,
I wonder do you think that everyone should get Social Security or welfare?
If they pay into the the system, then yes they have a right to receive benefits.
Now here is where your logic breaks down. If a partner is a gay relationship dies, he/she is not entitled to receive survivor benefits. In contrast a hetero-married couple is entitled to such survivor benefits.
That is discrimination and is just not right. They paid into the system and are not able to derive survivor benefits. That is wrong.
I don't think you can find social program examples to refute my position here. There are examples rife with similar problems when it is tied to financial and legal discrimination of gays.
Just because it is in the law does not mean it is right. I seem to remember hearing that from the anti-abortion lobby. Hmmmm….a little hypocritical.
-s
Keith said… Seeker has already stated he thinks homosexuality is disgusting; I find that attitude somewhat offensive.
You mean, you find my opinion disgusting? Immoral? Offensive? I hope you see the silliness of your stance. We are both reacting with moral indignation, but yours contains a logical contradiction. Is moral indignation offensive?
While you may consider my conclusion incorrect, moral indignation can't be allowed by people who are find moral indignation offensive and subjective.
Anyway, I find that humorous.
Silver said… Rather it is because the position you take is so intertwined between religious beliefs and civil law that there is just no point in making the attempt…we will go around and around and make this post well over 200 comments long.
I did not take the time to separate the arguments in separate responses, but I am arguing on two fronts. This may be confusing, and probably gives fuel to those who want to peg me as confounding these two separate, but related lines of argument.
My religious argument is that the scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality as immoral, and those who claim otherwise are poor exegetes (at least – those in positions of religious power who teach such are false teachers), and their doctrine is unbiblical and therefore unChristian. However, this conclusion is not part of my public policy justification, it is only a doctrinal and exegetical discussion.
My non-religious argument does have public policy application, though. My argument is that all legislation is built on various ethics (and morals, if you like), and I have previously argued that in questionable matters, government should be neutral. I then argued that homosexuality is an ethically and morally questionable position, based on the medical, biological, pscyhological and social arguments, and therefore, govt should remain neutral.
And while the non-religious argument does have some metaphysical content (specifically, the argument from design), that does not make it religious or invalid for public policy debates, any more than the phrase "we hold these truths to be self evident…Creator…" etc.
the omission of granting similar rights as married couples (financial, legal, etc) to gays whether it is called marriage or civil unions is discriminatory. Period.
You are free to disagree. However, I would say that by a pure definition of discrimination (as in the example of screening out potential bad tenants with a credit report), such discrimination is warranted and justifiable. Not all discrimination is unjust. In the sense that you mean such discrimination is unjust, I wholeheartedly disagree.
In fact, I would say that the unbalanced 'tolerance' that we see in today's liberal circles is really a lack of discrimination between good and evil, between just and unjust. This is why Europs is succumbing to Islamofascism – it's too tolerant for it's own good. Same goes for the question of homosexuality. We have ceased recognizing immorality and dysfunction, and made excuses. We have forgotten how to justly discriminate.
If "justly discriminate" seems like an oxymoron, it is only because we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
I have come to the conclusion that, as a self-respecting gay man, I can no longer participate in this website. I have come to the conclusion that christianity – and any other theism – is my vicious enemy, an evil that must be opposed by all fair-minded, decent, and just human beings. I am surprised that I lasted this long. I can say, however, that my experiences here have convinced me that my former interest in christianity was mistaken and stupid. Thanks, everyone, for providing evidence for this conclusion.
btw- seeker, it's better to admit your real orientation than to inflict your repression on the rest of us.
Louis, i have never had such inclinations, though I did have what I call "wounded masculinity" which I have healed significantly through seeing the true masculine, and through allowing God to heal my brokenness, including my lack of a father. So you could say that I had many of the environmental precursors to homosexuality, but never sought emotional refuge in that coping mechanism – mine was in intellectual pursuits, which most dumb jock frat types were inferior in.
While some men are pathologically projecting their self-hatred and guilt over perceived sin onto others, including some preachers, I do not hate gays, nor do I despise them, nor do I perceive any SSA in my own life. My clear proclamation of what the bible says, and what I believe reason and nature and science say about homosexuality, has nothing to do with hating gays, and everything to do with hating sin and those who teach that homosexuality is normative and irreversible, because that is a LIE. God hates lies, and so do I because they keep me and anyone else who believes them in bondage.
Sexual sin is serious, and I have done my fair share in the past. But I do not justify it, but am ashamed by it, admit that it was and is wrong, and have turned from it, vowing to stop doing it.
Those who seek to justify sexual sin of any kind need to be called out. And so i will continue to do so.
I think it tragic and humorous that people think that my digust with such perversions, and my willingness to call them such (along with Moses and the Apostle Paul), makes people think that I am projecting some self-loathing for the same sins. I suppose I could say that those who call bestiality immoral are really projecting too.
While there is truth in the aphorism "in that which you judge, you also do," this should not be misunderstood as a blanket statement to never make moral judgements – as I outlined in Do Not Judge.
In one sense, I am glad that you have come to the end of your arguments regarding Christianity, which does reject homosexuality as a sin. Both scripture and nature teach such. In another, I am sad that we did not provide the right words to help you find solace and healing for your SSA in Christ. Though we disagree, I admire your intellectual honesty. Good luck on your search for truth, but mine, which led initially away from Christ, led right back. Buddhism has some truth, but not the personal loving God of Christianity. Gay-affirming and universalist churches have a loving God, but not a God of truth, just a feel-good social club God.
But let me say once more: God does heal and change homosexuals, and he desires to, but healing of such deep wounds is painful and costly. But it is possible. I did my own work, and you will have to do yours, as I am sure you already have begun in your own way.
go f*ck yourself, hypocrit
Seeker,
You are free to disagree. However, I would say that by a pure definition of discrimination (as in the example of screening out potential bad tenants with a credit report), such discrimination is warranted and justifiable. Not all discrimination is unjust. In the sense that you mean such discrimination is unjust,
I think it should be blatantly obvious that I disgree based upon our RL and online conversations. While the ability to discriminate based upon credit worthiness is a point I can concede. I cannot in good conscious from a moral or civic perspective allow one to equivicate the notion of screening for a rental as being the same as denying health, death, and other survivor benefits to gays under the same premise. That equivocation does not add up.
Sorry. We agree to disagree and I feel that your stance in terms of civic penalization is morally wrong.
I cannot change your view, but I am firm in my position and view of your take on discrimination and civil rights as it pertains to homosexuals.
-s
Louis,
It may be too late for this message to reach you…
I am both saddened and filled with respect for your decision. Although we have not always agreed and often butted heads, I have enjoyed our exchange of ideas.
I wish you the best on your journey and hope that you can find a way to positively effect social and political change on the issues you care most about.
With Respect.
Silver
"I have come to the conclusion that, as a self-respecting gay man, I can no longer participate in this website."
I was afraid something like this would happen with this thread. Louis, you have to remember that Seeker is a pig. And, as a pig, he likes nothing better than to lure you into his slimy little cesspool of rhetoric and smear you with his sh*t arguments until you get offended. As soon as you rebut his rhetoric, he will simply repeat it, but slightly rephrased. Louis, your commentary is quite good and it's a shame to see a pig, whose pen you should have avoided, drive you away with filth. Right now, pig Seeker is wallowing happily in slop because this is exactly what he wants you to do. I can understand your reaction though, pigs like Seeker are nasty animals and it's only right that you get away from his stink.
Am I the only one who can remember Louis claiming to be "through" with Seeker at least once or twice before? Louis, there is no doubt in my mind that you are still visiting this website, and still reading these messages, even if you are pretending not to by not posting.
Silver,
I said: I wonder do you think that everyone should get Social Security or welfare?
You said: If they pay into the the system, then yes they have a right to receive benefits.
Survivors do not pay into the system, necessarily… And survivors who are never legitimately claimed (children) do not get benefits, either, even if they are in reality children of the person.
You did not comment on this: Is it discrimination to extend welfare to those who qualify (thus implying that SOME ONE some where decided what it meant to qualify!), but not to those who are barely above the line?
If you qualify, you qualify. If you don't, you don't.
Man. Sorry about the italics again. :(
HI Seeker:
From before:
Keith said… Seeker has already stated he thinks homosexuality is disgusting; I find that attitude somewhat offensive.
You mean, you find my opinion disgusting? Immoral? Offensive? I hope you see the silliness of your stance. We are both reacting with moral indignation, but yours contains a logical contradiction. Is moral indignation offensive?
While you may consider my conclusion incorrect, moral indignation can't be allowed by people who are find moral indignation offensive and subjective.
Anyway, I find that humorous.
Well since I like to make people smile, your amusement pleases me. But I am not sure what contradiction you see in what I wrote. I haven't really said that moral indignation is in general immoral. But I find the attitude that holds homosexuality to be disgusting an offensive attitude. I am certainly in no position to judge you as person because you hold this attitude that I find offensive, and to whatever extent I do judge you, I am a hypocrite. Your attitude reflects your opinion? Then that's the way you feel and how can I expect you to feel other than the way you feel? There are things bring out my moral indignation as well–I tend to be indignant when people are getting picked on for example.
The main point I've made about judgmentalism, which IMO reflects the teaching of our Lord, is that we are not competent to judge anyone as being morally inferior to ourselves, and that if we love those around us we won't do stuff that will hurt them. You might say that not proclaiming the disgust you feel about homosexuality would hurt homosexuals by giving them a false sense that homosexuality is OK, but even if I were wrong about God's attitude toward homosexuality simpliciter, I would question whether or not finger pointing strategy is the best way to help.
your friend
keith
we are not competent to judge anyone as being morally inferior to ourselves,
No, but we are qualified, nay, demanded, to condemn sin and discern between good and evil. But that does not mean I think of those who are sinful as less than myself, for I am in the same bucket.
We are also called to rebuke, instruct, and preach. Jesus condemned none of these.
I would ask you to show me where a Christian is commanded to rebuke non-Christians. Also, teaching is an art, and just saying “this is the truth and you better accept it” is an ineffective teaching tool. If you believe that X is a sin and you want to teach some sinner that truth, then you have to consider how effective your teaching will be. If you think Louis is sinning, then I believe you need to pay attention to the effect your teaching style has had on him. You don’t agree?
your friend
Keith
show me where a Christian is commanded to rebuke non-Christians
First of all, we are to rebuke christians, like those who teach false doctrine.
Regarding those who are outside, Paul remarks in 2 Timonthy 2:
Preaching is for both saved and unsaved. Why do you think God sent Prophets, even to pagan places like Nineveh, to tell them to repent? Same with Sodom and Gomorrah. We are to warn and inspire, not just be nice.
Of course, there is the balance of 2 Corinthians 5:20
There is a balance to be had, it's not one or the other. I explained how I view this in Stick or Carrot in Gospel Preaching?
Hi Seeker:
You wrote: Preaching is for both saved and unsaved. Why do you think God sent Prophets, even to pagan places like Nineveh, to tell them to repent? Same with Sodom and Gomorrah. We are to warn and inspire, not just be nice.
When God sends you to say something specific to someone that's one thing. But in general the preacher must consider how effective his teaching is. I think Jesus was right when he said we have to take care of our own big logs first before we worry about the tiny sliver in someone else's eye–otherwise we have no credibility and no effectiveness. Warnings and inspiration? I don't get the impression that Louis has been inspired.
We are to be ambassadors for Christ, but ambassadors have to concern themselves with diplomacy.
your friend
Keith
I am chiming in on this again because I want to say this:
Keith, I very much agree that we must season our speech with salt, and be concerned for the hearers of our words. But I think we have to say negative things about what God considers negative things.
We find out what God views negatively by reading the Bible. If he calls it vile affections, then that is what it is…
If perhaps someday Louis decides he thinks the Bible really is God's word (which is Louis's true problem with what christians have to say) then he may remember what christians said before about homosexuality being sin. He might try to dig into the Word of God and figure it out for himself. He might be saved because someone showed him he was wrong at one point in his life. Even though he most surely did not like hearing that he was wrong at that time.
He may never do this. In fact, I highly doubt he will. But you never know.
I know that when someone is talking about a sin I have a problem with, I usually feel hostility toward the speaker too.
But, when I realize that the Bible does teach me that I am wrong, I have to try to get my thoughts and feelings aligned with the Bible…
Because I believe it. I believe it when it says:
"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love"
The Apostle Paul separated sex from procreation when he said it's OK for Christians to be married in order to avoid fornication. Having children isn't required.
Sorry keith, missed this one. Just because he didn't mention children in this passage doesn't mean that sex doesn't lead to children ;).
Scripture clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin, ergo having children outside of the marriage bond is also a sin – ergo marriage is a necessity in order to have children, morally speaking.
What I was saying is that we have separated the three, when biblically and naturally, they go together.
Think of it like this:
– You should not have sex without marriage
– You can't have kids without sex
– Therefore, morally speaking, you should always have children inside marriage.
I am not explaining it well, but regardless, while the bible does not require children, he requires sex within marriage, and therefore, marriage, sex, and children, are all connected, but due to our emphasis on personal gratification while avoiding the committments and consequences that surround the sex act, we try to have sex without marriage or children. It's like trying to sow but not reap. It's like eating unhealthy food and expecting medicine to save us. The maker's design is to eat healthy, and love healthy.
eating unhealthy food and expecting medicine to save us.
O my goodness, is that not the truth!!!
Keith, btw, I don't think we vote on "civil unions" do we?
I do not mind if people want to call themselves "civilly united" … ;)