Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As far as "who", whatever the school boards have put into place, and if people don't like it, they can make their voice heard with their money (don't go to the school) and in the press.

I can't name a specific curriculum because I haven't looked into it, but I think something that covers basic thinking/analysis skills, such as the law of noncontradiction and valid ways of drawing conclusions, is sorely needed.

Wouldn't it be nice if parents were able to teach their kids moral values without relying on schools? Then we wouldn't have to make policy about it.

Of course, the problem is that the parents will breed a new generation of intolerence (left or right) with the same views about what they want changed.

It is probably impossible to make rules without being prejudice in some way. If you say "Don't kill people, absolutly, that's final," then you are denying euthinasia and abortion which are personal decisions that you are limiting.

Where does the line between personal and government end? You can abort a fetus, but only up to a certian age before it is protected by the state because it is a human being. What? Something that can't survive outside the womb is a person? And babies. I don't know if they have a soul, but they surely can't see past their own nose so they have no consept of the world they have been brought into and won't even notice leaving it.

PS: Polyamory is neat, I have discovered.

[The Gaffer]

Thanks for clarifying, Rian. I think I understand your position a little better now.

Firstly, I agree with you that "liberals" by no means have a monopoly on tolerance, and I know plenty of 'em who are intolerant!

Am I right in seeing a parallel with your beef with the "safe sex" label? I remember you saying that it should be called "safeR sex" because it's not 100% safe. Is this a case of the same thing?

If so, your issue seems to me to be more about how the arguments are branded (whether "pro-tolerance", "pro-life" or pro-lapse )

This is, IMO, a smokescreen (however accidental) because it diverts from the real issue. I know that words are important, particularly as branding tools, but it is a peripheral issue to the main thing. Which, as TWfM points out, involves who's right and, as RtB says, questions of who's comparatively more tolerant.

I can understand that being branded "intolerant" because of one's views may feel unfair and inaccurate. I don't like being branded unpatriotic for questioning the Iraq war either. It just so happens to be an effective way of communicating.

However, I'm confident we can leave the name-calling to the politicians and spin doctors and stay focused on the argument.

Gwaimir, on recent revelations I don't think the Church is doing a very good job of suppressing pederasty. Quite the contrary, if anything. And you don't have to be a Christian to find the concept morally repugnant.

"In days of old, when knights were bold and women weren't invented
Men used to drill holes in telegraph poles and **** them until they bended."

[GreyMouser]

I'll come out in favour of any kind of relationships among consenting adults- though I think my own country's setting of that level at fourteen is a little young. I'll settle for sixteen, with a Romeo provision for those younger.

I think polygamy is, on the whole, impractical in any society where the sexes have equal rights, but for those who wish to attempt it, go ahead.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can't name a specific curriculum because I haven't looked into it, but I think something that covers basic thinking/analysis skills, such as the law of noncontradiction and valid ways of drawing conclusions, is sorely needed.

Oh, wow...have you read the Analytics? Because that's exactly what it's about; the different valid forms of syllogism.

*not looking forward to finals on it*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Gwaimir, on recent revelations I don't think the Church is doing a very good job of suppressing pederasty. Quite the contrary, if anything. And you don't have to be a Christian to find the concept morally repugnant.

The former, and it's causes, are a separate topic altogether. Let's just say for now that, at the most, one can attribute that to poor management on the part of the hierarchy, and not to general Christian morality.

Obviously, you don't have to be Christian; if you did, I should hardly refer to lingering Christian morality. But I think that the reason that non-Christian Westerns do is becuase of some lingering traces of Christian influence. My reason for saying that is that the practice was so very widespread in pre-Christian days amongst advanced civilisations.

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

And I rather doubt, Gaffer, that telegraph poles were around before women.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, I don't think that word is appropriate. But if you used it of me, then I'd use it of you, because we're doing the same thing - trying to define marriage by what we each think is right.

And how exactly am I being intolerant by saying I DON’T want to ban gays from marrying?

Where did you get that quote from? I think a more normal def is from Webster's: "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own."

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's a rather iffy definition, IR. It seems to be merely constructed to attempt to signify a conservative viewpoint.

Rather iffy…. Its from DICTIONARY.COM that horrible bastion of liberalism...

And its for INTOLERANT not TOLERANT. Look it up yourself if you guys dont believe me:

Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

Being intolerant is not being opposed; one can be opposed to something, and still tolerate.

But if you are INtolerant then by definition you are opposed to something. Right?

You are confusing tolerating with embracing.

I’M not confusing anything with anything slick Im just relaying a given definition that seems relevant. You are now jumping from intolerance to tolerance here it seems.


And as far as all this talk of being intolerant to active child molesters then yeah call me guilty but its ok to be intolerant of people who would seek to do harm to others (especially minors). There is in NO WAY AT ALL a parallel between child molesters who want to molest children and saying gays CANT marry because I don’t want them to. And that argument quite frankly is rather tired here. If you are impinging on the rights and freedoms of others to do what DOESN’T HARM THEM AT ALL or what DOESN’T HARM OTHERS at all then you are being intolerant of others for no good reason. If you want to arrest and punish people who molest others then you are being intolerant of those that deserve intolerance because they themselves are HARMING OTHERS (the children) and IMPINGING ON THEIR RIGHTS (not to be abused). You are also being discriminatory of those that need discrimination. Do you see the difference? For you to say they are the same thing is basically saying gays are as bad as child molesters.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Rather iffy…. Its from DICTIONARY.COM that horrible bastion of liberalism...

Regardless of the source, it is a poor definition, and does not properly capture the meaning of the word.

But if you are INtolerant then by definition you are opposed to something. Right?

In a way...I suppose, theoretically, one could be such a person that they were not opposed to anything, but if they were, they would not tolerate it, and then such a person could be said to be intolerant, in so far as they tended towards intolerance, even if there was nothing for them to be tolerant towards. Though, practically speaking, everyone is opposed to something, so of course those who are intolerant are opposed to something.

But anywhere, the mere fact that if someone is intolerant of something, they are by definition opposed to it means nothing. If you are human, you are by definition an animal, but a definition of a human as a "sensitive organism" would be a poor definition. Just as human is a species of animal (or sensitive organism), so is intolerance of something a species of opposition to it.

I’M not confusing anything with anything slick Im just relaying a given definition that seems relevant. You are now jumping from intolerance to tolerance here it seems.

Well, the fact that it is 'in-tolerance' indicates that it is in some way the opposite of tolerance; I think it's probably fair to consider the two to be in some way related and having to do with the same general subject. If intolerance may be given as the negation of tolerance, one must know what tolerance is.
My point was that I am opposed to, for instance, sexual same-gender relationships. However, I do tolerate them. I do not go out and round up homosexuals and gas them, and I consider such actions or other hate crimes against homosexuals or other groups to be abominable and monstrous. I believe in tolerating the practice of homosexual relationships. I do not believe in embracing the practice of homosexual relationships. If language is of any use at all, it must be consistent. If 'Tolerance' means allowing or indulging, then 'intolerance' must mean in some way prohibiting or preventing.

And as far as all this talk of being intolerant to active child molesters then yeah call me guilty but its ok to be intolerant of people who would seek to do harm to others (especially minors). There is in NO WAY AT ALL a parallel between child molesters who want to molest children and saying gays CANT marry because I don’t want them to. And that argument quite frankly is rather tired here. If you are impinging on the rights and freedoms of others to do what DOESN’T HARM THEM AT ALL or what DOESN’T HARM OTHERS at all then you are being intolerant of others for no good reason. If you want to arrest and punish people who molest others then you are being intolerant of those that deserve intolerance because they themselves are HARMING OTHERS (the children) and IMPINGING ON THEIR RIGHTS (not to be abused). You are also being discriminatory of those that need discrimination. Do you see the difference? For you to say they are the same thing is basically saying gays are as bad as child molesters.

Ah, the preferred liberal argument: "You're saying gays are as bad as child molesters!" That's the argument that's getting very tired.

But I'm sorry, IR; if you look over my posts I made no connection or comparison between "child-molesting" (concerning which I in fact said little or nothing), or for that matter pederasty in general. Nor did Rian mention child-molesting, but rather pederastic sex. There is a difference; again it's the species and the genus. Child-molesting implies that the attention the child is subjected to is unwanted. Pederasty does not; indeed, if you read Plato's Symposium, you will find in the speeches of the first five characters a good deal of discussion of the relation between the man and the boy.
You fail to make the distinction, it seems, between consenual and nonconsenual relations between an adult man and a boy.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

My point was that I am opposed to, for instance, sexual same-gender relationships. However, I do tolerate them. I do not go out and round up homosexuals and gas them, and I consider such actions or other hate crimes against homosexuals or other groups to be abominable and monstrous. I believe in tolerating the practice of homosexual relationships. I do not believe in embracing the practice of homosexual relationships. If language is of any use at all, it must be consistent. If 'Tolerance' means allowing or indulging, then 'intolerance' must mean in some way prohibiting or preventing.

Which is what people who actively and overtly attempt to BAN gays from marrying are doing. If they tolerated gays and gay relationships then they would not go out of their way to ban it. But many do. Constitutional amendments are NOT passive items. They are an attempt to bar something from happening or change the way something currently is. If you want to say hey I don’t support your right to get married but Im neither gonna stand in your way or support you then that’s fine. That’s not intolerant technically. Just pig headed.

Ah, the preferred liberal argument: "You're saying gays are as bad as child molesters!" That's the argument that's getting very tired.

Well then one really shouldn’t bring up the former argument now should they. Because otherwise they walk right into it.

Nor did Rian mention child-molesting, but rather pederastic sex. There is a difference; again it's the species and the genus. Child-molesting implies that the attention the child is subjected to is unwanted. Pederasty does not; indeed, if you read Plato's Symposium, you will find in the speeches of the first five characters a good deal of discussion of the relation between the man and the boy.
You fail to make the distinction, it seems, between consenual and nonconsenual relations between an adult man and a boy.

We define any sexual relationship between a full grown adult and a young child as HARMFUL and ABUSIVE. This is backed up by the reams of evidence that this kind of relationship tends to lead to harm almost universally on the part of the young child. In this way the adult (whether in genuine denial or not) is impinging on the rights (constitutional) of the young child (to NOT be sexually abused) not to mention the rights of the parents or guardians of that child who can speak and act in the childs best interest according to law. You can trot out all the contrived or anecdotal evidence you like about how great a sexual relationship between a 40 year old man and an 8 year old boy is but it wouldn’t stand up to the evidence against the opposite. And in OUR SOCIETY where such relationships are anathema its even worse (psychologically) for the child. Perhaps in certain societies in ancient Greece or elsewhere one could make the argument that it is the norm therefore the psychological impact is negated but that’s a different discussion and one where the weight of evidence could still be brought to bare to argue against such thinking. So to be intolerant of something that is clearly infringing on the rights of others seems a worthwhile intolerance to have to me.

[inked]

Distinguio, GW! Excellent. You get extra points for argumentation with distinguishment of terms. A process sorely needed in this discussion in general and frequently sought (and fought) here on the 'Moot.

Tolerance and embracement. Good points. One may tolerate something but then not be willing to move beyond to embrasure. True of many areas of life and not just sexual behaviours in the public arena. ( For instance, many persons seem to tolerate Ted Kennedy's drinking and driving and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne without embracing drunken driving or his party. I know of none who embraced the action or embrace it. Even Democrats in the USA seem to oppose drunken driving.) But, one may tolerate the existence of an activity without the need to embrace it. Good point.

And, as regards your point on the issue of pederasty and man-boy relationships as emblematic of homosexual activity. I think a long ignored valid point is that if it were due to genetic factors as alleged and not proven, there would have been no such major decline as evidenced in Western culture. Reflectively of the apparent allegations of a third sex (homosexuals of either gender), one must wonderwhat happened to the gene in the intervening 2000 years. Did it go underground only to emerge in the mid-1950's? That is very doubtful prima facie. More likely it is a cultural aberration encouraged by a climate of permissivity. Clearly it would have been (relatively) safer prior to the advent of syphillis and gonorrhea and HIV and Hepatitis B - D, etc.

The issue of harm in respect of individuals and society would mandate against practices that spread these illnesses via sexual activity in either homosexuals or heterosexuals. One can clearly demonstrate the harm to societies in regard to HIV and STD's in general.

Any adult is inherently more powerful than any child in a potential relationship, particularly a sexual one. Have the feminists taught us nothing about that issue? Why can we not extend their observations to this matter?
Inequality in power means inequality in sexual relations. How then can children (and I include adolescents in that grouping) consent? That is why there are laws about these matters.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Which is what people who actively and overtly attempt to BAN gays from marrying are doing.

No, they are not. If they were attempting to illegalise sexual relations between a man and a woman, that's what they would be doing. But marriage is a sort of official state (or church, as the case may be) approval of an erotic relationship. One can object to such official approval of relationships, but still not think we should illegalise the act itself.

Well then one really shouldn’t bring up the former argument now should they.

But they didn't. No one compared gays with child-molestors; they merely replaced "man-man marriage" with "man-boy relations", in order to demonstrate that everyone has their own ideas of what is a valid form of sexual expression. And anyway, your supposed reduction of the point to "fags are (morally) the same as child-molestors" does not follow.

We define any sexual relationship between a full grown adult and a young child as HARMFUL and ABUSIVE. This is backed up by the reams of evidence that this kind of relationship tends to lead to harm almost universally on the part of the young child.

Such "evidence" is irrelevant, because pederasty involves not a young child, but an adolescent boy.

If "young child" is defined to include adolescence, then I think that the prevalence and apparent health of such relations widely throughout the ancient world negates any modern "evidence" as regards pederasty qua pederasty.

In this way the adult (whether in genuine denial or not) is impinging on the rights (constitutional) of the young child (to NOT be sexually abused) not to mention the rights of the parents or guardians of that child who can speak and act in the childs best interest according to law.

Again, this acts on the assumption that all relations between a man and an adolescent boy are abusive.

You can trot out all the contrived or anecdotal evidence you like about how great a sexual relationship between a 40 year old man and an 8 year old boy is but it wouldn’t stand up to the evidence against the opposite. And in OUR SOCIETY where such relationships are anathema its even worse (psychologically) for the child. Perhaps in certain societies in ancient Greece or elsewhere one could make the argument that it is the norm therefore the psychological impact is negated but that’s a different discussion and one where the weight of evidence could still be brought to bare to argue against such thinking. So to be intolerant of something that is clearly infringing on the rights of others seems a worthwhile intolerance to have to me.

I think you are saying here that

a) it is innately harmful
b) American anathema makes it more so
c) such harmfulness was negated by social acceptance in, say, Athens

Is this correct?

If so, I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. If something is innately psychologically harmful, then how can it be that mere acceptance by society negates such harmfulness? It seems to me more likely that

a) it is not innately harmful (psychologically speaking, at least)
b) American taboo makes it harmful

I think it more likely that societal taboo would cause something to be harmful than that societal norm would negate a natural harmfulness.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, they are not. If they were attempting to illegalise sexual relations between a man and a woman, that's what they would be doing. But marriage is a sort of official state (or church, as the case may be) approval of an erotic relationship. One can object to such official approval of relationships, but still not think we should illegalise the act itself.

But that’s exactly what they are doing… attempting to BAN by use of constitutional amendments the possibility of gays marrying. Theres no getting around it. If you want to be truly tolerant then even if you are against gay marriage you wouldn’t support a constitutional amendment BANNING it. You COULD however NOT support an amendment in FAVOR of it.

Such "evidence" is irrelevant, because pederasty involves not a young child, but an adolescent boy.

By adolescent do you mean 13? 14? 16? And by the way pederasty refers to “boy� not specifically “adolescent boys� from all sources Ive looked it up with.

If "young child" is defined to include adolescence, then I think that the prevalence and apparent health of such relations widely throughout the ancient world negates any modern "evidence" as regards pederasty qua pederasty.

Young child refers to what I was talking about originally: young children.

I think you are saying here that

a) it is innately harmful

sexual relationships between a full grown adult male and a “young child� (as I referred to) is (as I said before) “almost universally� bad for the child. Now sex between a teen and an adult is a different thing entirely. We can argue about that but that’s not what I was referring to.

b) American anathema makes it more so

True. Social context always plays a role in how things effect the citizens of that society on a psychological level.

c) such harmfulness was negated by social acceptance in, say, Athens

Not necessarily 100% negated but certainly effected. And again I think you are talking about something different from what Im talking about. We will need to define ages.

It seems to me more likely that

a) it is not innately harmful (psychologically speaking, at least)
b) American taboo makes it harmful

for who…

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Am I right in seeing a parallel with your beef with the "safe sex" label? I remember you saying that it should be called "safeR sex" because it's not 100% safe. Is this a case of the same thing?

Hmmm ... *ponders* ... good thought ... *ponders more*

OK, I would say that's one PART of my objection, because there is life and death in words. I think a sex ed teacher, facing a student of his who is dying of a case of sexually-contracted AIDS, and whom he told using condoms is "safe sex", would never call it that again. So I think it's partly that. But I think it's mostly that I consider it a form of mud-slinging, and I don't think mud-slinging in a discussion is valuable for ANYONE involved - the participants or the audience. It doesn't allow the one so branded to even present his/her points for consideration. I place a high value on the fair, free and open discussion of ideas, and by the (IMO, false) calling of names, that cuts out one side of the discussion by causing an attitude of "why even listen to this person if they're intolerant, because we know intolerant is bad!" And this is unfair, because both sides are acting the exact same way - they both have candidates for who they think are valid and invalid in a marriage.

If so, your issue seems to me to be more about how the arguments are branded (whether "pro-tolerance", "pro-life" or pro-lapse )

See above.

This is, IMO, a smokescreen (however accidental) because it diverts from the real issue. I know that words are important, particularly as branding tools, but it is a peripheral issue to the main thing. Which, as TWfM points out, involves who's right and, as RtB says, questions of who's comparatively more tolerant.

Well, someone that tolerates an even broader range of sexual behavior would be "more tolerant" than someone that just favors adding gay marriage to the definition - is "more tolerant" always better? I would think you would disagree at some point along that line. So again, it's just a matter of differing opinions.

And as far as TWfM, I don't think he thinks there are any absolute truths (is this correct, TWfM?), so "right" and "wrong" are meaningless words. What's "right" today might be "wrong" tomorrow. If we find out in the future that homosexuality is really "wrong", then will he accept it's wrong? I doubt it. So I won't take his word for it that something is "wrong" or "right".

And you don't have to be a Christian to find the concept morally repugnant.

Of course you don't have to be a Christian to find it morally repugnant All you have to be is a human, created by God and with His laws in your heart that tell you it's morally repugnant

Ah, Gaffer!!! *big Moothug* I'm so glad you're not mad at me! It would be so painful to me if our differing opinions ever caused a rift in our friendship.

[klatukatt]

Concerning pederasty:
1) Most sexual relations between adults and “young children� (of any gender) are harmful because the “young child� hardly has a choice in the matter and does not often know what is happening. (There is also much potential for abuse other than sexual.)
2) Adolescents, those children beginning or experiencing puberty, have already developed a world view and are now trying to add sex into the equation. They don’t know what is happening to their bodies (at least, most of the time because parents go “um, uh,� when asked about it) and a kind adult may be the best thing to lead them to maturity. However, there is still the possibility of abuse. Adults who have been brought up with sexuality as taboo or punishment may try to start the cycle again. But there is the possibility for a kind, loving relationship between a 12 year old and a 30 year old.

Concerning safe sex:
1) No sex is completely safe. There can always be complications.

Concerning tolerance:
1) To be tolerance, just remember that everyone has a good point, no matter how stupid it may seem to you. Look at their background and where they got their information to develop this viewpoint and you will see that you are very similar with some slight alterations that led you down different paths. Example:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Of course you don't have to be a Christian to find it morally repugnant All you have to be is a human, created by God and with His laws in your heart that tell you it's morally repugnant

Me: Arr-- Gr-- MMN-- okay, calm down. She obviously grew up with a lot of religion in her life and believes in it very passionately. I never had religion, so it is logical that I might take offence. But I don’t have to because she means it so well. I might have said the same thing with different wording. “We are all part of the same compost heap, trying to better our whole species.� Neat!

[Rían]

(Gaffer and I are old friends - the "His laws in your heart" thing was a tease on an old discussion )

(and if I believe in it "passionately" is beside the point - it's whether or not I have rational reasons to believe as I do that is important here . I do have rational reasons to believe as I do - do you? We can open up the "Why you believe what you believe" thread again, if you want to ... it's interesting! I'd be interested to see how you rationally support "“We are all part of the same compost heap, trying to better our whole species.� And many people are Christians now that did NOT grow up "with a lot of religion" in their lives Atheism is a belief system, just like Christianity, Buddhism, etc. )

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Atheism is a belief system, just like Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

There was a cartoon in today's paper where a girl was asking about religion. "So, to be a mainstreem religion you have to have over a million followers? Does that mean Atheism is a mainstreem religion?"

I just thought I'd share.

Anyway, my point was you don't have to be offended by anything really because people have a reason for saying the things they say, and if they don't then there is a reason for them spouting untruths as well.

[Rían]

I definitely consider atheism a mainstream religion! A polytheistic one, as a matter of fact.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But that’s exactly what they are doing… attempting to BAN by use of constitutional amendments the possibility of gays marrying. Theres no getting around it. If you want to be truly tolerant then even if you are against gay marriage you wouldn’t support a constitutional amendment BANNING it. You COULD however NOT support an amendment in FAVOR of it.

The possibilities of gay's marrying, not of gay's having relations. You miss the distinction. From my POV, It's not a matter of tolerance or non-tolerance of gay marriage, but of gay's. The scrap of paper itself doesn't matter that much (and according to my theology, that's all a same-sex union would be), but what does matter is that it implies a societal acceptance and approval of the union. I tolerate the union, I do not approve of it.

By adolescent do you mean 13? 14? 16? And by the way pederasty refers to “boy� not specifically “adolescent boys� from all sources Ive looked it up with.

"Adolescent" was the term used; I didn't see a source that specified what age exactly, except that it was the same age Greek girls were married. I'm looking at wikipedia which has an extensive article on the subject; it says in the first sentence that "The term pederasty embraces a wide range of erotic relations between adult males and adolescent boys."

The link again:

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

"sexual relationships between a full grown adult male and a “young child� (as I referred to) is (as I said before) “almost universally� bad for the child. Now sex between a teen and an adult is a different thing entirely. We can argue about that but that’s not what I was referring to. "

But the question that was brought up was pederasty, which, according to wikipedia at any rate (which seems the best source from what I've seen) involves adolescent behaviour; so to then rant about child-molesting, and equating gays with child-molestors, etc., seems not to have been called for, as it simply was not discussed.

for who…

The boy; perhaps also the man in a more complicated way.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Of course you don't have to be a Christian to find it morally repugnant All you have to be is a human, created by God and with His laws in your heart that tell you it's morally repugnant

I'm starting to rethink this...but my view is still tentatively "no". I assume by "His laws in your heart", you mean someone with the natural law, right? I. E. that morality which is universally found in the souls of all men?

Me: Arr-- Gr-- MMN-- okay, calm down. She obviously grew up with a lot of religion in her life and believes in it very passionately. I never had religion, so it is logical that I might take offence. But I don’t have to because she means it so well. I might have said the same thing with different wording. “We are all part of the same compost heap, trying to better our whole species.� Neat!

What is you, klatty? I have this feeling, for some reason, you are pagan? Irreligious? Wot?

Rian: Polytheistic? Now, I must admit that I don't think that makes too much sense. "Atheist" and "Polytheist" are purely opposed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm starting to rethink this...but my view is still tentatively "no". I assume by "His laws in your heart", you mean someone with the natural law, right? I. E. that morality which is universally found in the souls of all men?

Yup - Romans 2, and other places.

Rian: Polytheistic? Now, I must admit that I don't think that makes too much sense. "Atheist" and "Polytheist" are purely opposed.

Gwai, Gwai, Gwai - there are at least two things that every atheist I've ever known worships ... (PM me if you want )

(my, I"m in a lively mood! Probably because I just pulled off a great pizza party for my son's volleyball team - go me!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Of course you don't have to be a Christian to find it morally repugnant All you have to be is a human, created by God and with His laws in your heart that tell you it's morally repugnant .

eek! Gerrout of there! * swats his chest *

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Ah, Gaffer!!! *big Moothug* I'm so glad you're not mad at me! It would be so painful to me if our differing opinions ever caused a rift in our friendship.

* Hugs back *

Well, I would welcome the opportunity to have such discussions without the use of pejorative terms. The thing is, almost nobody regards themselves as "bad", "wrong", "intolerant" or anything else pejorative.

That said, I wish I had a pound for every time I'd heard someone say "I'm not a racist but...[racist comment]". So, there is an important project to identify things like intolerance and prejudice which lie hidden.

Obviously, that makes these arguments difficult to have. It seems that the only way to avoid it would be to focus on the grounds for the belief and not label them.

Which, leaving aside the "coz God says so" argument for a second, has taken us back to concepts of "harm" arising from GLBness.

* sigh *

So, just for the record:
- associations made between GLB and disease are useful only insofar as they enable us to target health care interventions. To cite them as evidence that the lifestyle is "wrong" is nonsensical IMO.
- the "cause" (genetic, environmental, invisible ray gun aimed by the planet Liberon to turn everyone gay and eliminate the species) of GLB is irrelevant to the gay rights issue
- oh, and right and wrong DO exist, just not written in some divine statute book somewhere, which IMO makes them all the more real!