Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

As to where it comes from, as a sometimes skeptical supporter of Evolutionary Psychology, I believe it came out of the needs of an increasingly intelligent social animal to establish some way of living together successfully in groups.
How we justify and maintain those standards when we know where they came from is the tough part.

EX-ACTLY!!


Now, to finish up the "obsessed" discussion ...

*runs off to get reference - hang on ... *

[Rían]

To answer Gaffer's challenge ...

Originally Posted by BoP

I don't have anything new to add, but hear ****ing hear Lady M. That is a very valid point you raise RE: what makes a couple, and YES it is more than the sex, and who sticks what in which hole. People often forget that. One of my best friends is gay, and lo! and behold, SHE isn't humping her girlfriend like bunnies in heat when she's around me. There's more to their relationship than fiddling with each other's bits.

Who said it wasn't about more than sex? Not me. I've never denied that there's more to a homosexual relationship than sex, so I'm not quite sure what to say ...

And I'd object to anyone having sex with anyone around me, no matter what they put where.

I'll second that BoP. I've often seen "conservatives" questioned as to why they are so obsessed with what goes where and never seen a satisfactory answer.

* waits to see if one appears *

So the first part of the satisfactory answer is that IMO, you're considering something to be "obsession" when it's actually a reaction. IMO, it's the homosexual activists that are constantly pushing things in people's faces (which is a very smart strategy if you want to change things, and I have no doubt of the sincerity of the vast majority of them) and the conservatives are reacting back, which they also should do if they feel that something that is right is being attacked.

And as to the "what goes where", well, as far as marriage, I don't care what goes where. But my opinion is that in the US, marriage should be between one man and one woman, of an age deemed suitable by the residents of each state, between a man and a woman that are not already married, and are not too closely related as determined by the residents of each state. This is entirely independent of what goes where.

Another angle - EVERYONE (even you!) is concerned with what goes where - it's just where along the spectrum you draw the line as to when to object. If a man is in a room with your lovely young (theoretical) daughter and you walk in, and he's rapidly pulling up his pants, I can tell you you'd be concerned with what just went where. It ALL depends on each person's worldview, which shapes what they think is right and wrong.

So I guess I'm not concerned with the specifics of what goes where - I'm just saying that IMO, sex is a wonderful thing that is designed to be between one man and one woman in marriage. Your opinion may differ, because your worldview is different. We both have to go with what we think is right, based on which worldview we think is right.

[Elfhelm]

And I disagree here exactly, Rian. I think marriage is for making a family. I think sex is for more than making babies. I think two people of the same gender can make a family. It's more difficult, but I have seen stronger ties between same gendered lovers than between some opposite gendered lovers. Ties that would make a family work! I think sex should be separated from marriage. It's the plumbing that makes babies, but marriage is far more than permission to use the plumbing. And whether they are married or not, people will use the plumbing. So let's keep them safe while using the plumbing, and get them to prevent the plumbing from making babies unless they are totally committed to a family, in which case, let's marry them together and get the whole community to support it, no matter how they are shaped. It's what's in their hearts that matters.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And I disagree here exactly, Rian.

Yes, I know ... and please don't mistake my differing opinion for hate, as some do. I have NO hate in my heart towards homosexuals (or any other group) at ALL. NONE. It's very painful for me to state my differing opinion here, as I know it can bring pain to some, and I don't want to bring pain to anyone. But IMO, the truth spoken in love is more important than avoiding pain, so I speak up. But I hope people here can see my compassion. I sincerely hope the worst thing that anyone can accuse me of in this thread is that I'm totally wrong, but loving.

I think marriage is for making a family.

I agree, but we have, I think, only one difference in who we think is eligible for a marriage. I imagine we agree on age and relatedness issues, which are also matters of opinion.

I think sex is for more than making babies.

Oh, definitely agreed here!

I think two people of the same gender can make a family.

I disagree, as you know.

It's more difficult, but I have seen stronger ties between same gendered lovers than between some opposite gendered lovers.

I can believe that, but IMO it isn't relevant to the question of "is this right or wrong?", although it is a heart-wrenching issue, and I have deep compassion for those involved. I also have deep compassion for other people who would like other things but can't have them. For example, my middle son can't walk.

It's what's in their hearts that matters.

But not everything in a person's heart is right and/or good, IMO. I know that my heart is flawed, and so far, everyone I've met has also had heart flaws to some degree or other. Sincerity is important, but is not the sole indicator of what is right or wrong, IMO. People have been sincerely wrong before. And a person's worldview will shape their opinion of what is right or wrong, but that worldview is unproveable, so we each gotta go on what we think, to the best of our abilities, is right. And I hope we can all do this in a loving manner.

[Elfhelm]

One other thing, Rian. When people disagree about a point like who is eligible for marriage and making a family, I prefer democracy as a process over following tradition. Just as you say that what is in the heart is not always what's right, what is done traditionally is not always what's right.

FWIW, when I said it's what in the heart that matters, I meant Love. I guess that wasn't obvious.

[Rían]

OK, I'm caught up with other posts, so now I'll address yours, Maggie. Frankly, I've been avoiding it today because of your comment that I've already said some things that you found "incredibly offensive". I don't look forward to the possibility of offending you more, so I've been avoiding starting the post. But here I go now, and I hope you can continue to see that I don't mean to be offensive; I'm talking sincerely and lovingly about my opinions on this difficult and complex subject, just like you are.

(and btw, you've said some things to me that I've found "incredibly offensive", too! Did you realize that? For one example, your comment about challenging me to think was very offensive to me, because it implied to me that you don't think that I think, which is totally wrong! I've spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of thought on this issue. But IMO the heart behind it was not meaning to be offensive, so I let it go, although I challenged you back.)

So here's my question: If you really, truly do not have any problem with people of any sexual orientation, then how can you believe that those people who are not heterosexual don't deserve the same rights as those who are?

To clarify - here's what I said: "I have NO problem at ALL with being friends with people of ANY sexual persuasion - I think ALL people are really wonderful and incredibly beautiful and valuable."

Now I happen to think that homosexual acts are wrong, in the same way that I think some acts by hets (including myself) are wrong. But to me, each person, regardless of their sexual orientation or their orientation to other things, is wonderful and valuable and beautiful. I hope that is REALLY clear, because I really think that way.

Now, to me, the discussion seems to hinge on the "rights" thing. First of all, unless you can point to a section in our government's documents (to keep it to the U.S. for sanity's sake) that specifically calls out rights for homosexuals to marry (and I mean specifically using the name "homosexual"), then you can't assume that they (or any other group, btw) has those rights. Right?

SO, since I know you can't do this then we're now at ground zero as far as how a marriage should be defined.

This is where people's opinions come in. And people's opinions are based on their worldview (i.e., what they think is reality).

Here's mine:

An amazing, powerful, loving God created this universe out of the abundance of who He is. Because of the high value He places on love, He created people with free will, because coerced love is valueless. That was one of the most amazing, wild, reckless things that has ever taken place, for to give people free will while desiring their love is opening up your heart for great sorrow and pain. But it also opens up the possibility of great joy. Personally, I don't think I could have taken that risk, but God is more than loving - He IS love - and love doesn't count the cost of loving, it just loves, full and free and without reserve.

Just as an artist creates a wonderful work of art, God created this amazing, beautiful, wild universe, and the even more amazing, beautiful, wild people in it. And as any great designer who makes a complex work of art, each design choice led necessarily to a rejection of other options. One of the design choices He made was to make two sexes and have them come together in a marriage, representing the union He longed for with His creation. And as He chose things that would make this a great and glorious union, other options were necessarily excluded because they would be harmful. One of the aspects he designed into the relationship was sexuality, and one part of this picture was that the closeness expressed in sexual acts produces life, and that union with your complement creates a greater whole.

And then He handed a great part of this wild and wonderful universe over to the people he created, and sat back and watched to see what kind of a story they would write, knowing ahead of time that it would involve a giving of Himself beyond imagining - His entering into his own creation to take all the suffering and wrongs upon Himself - to heal the hurts that would come of all the wrong choices. But love doesn't count the costs - it just loves. He created us with free will, and He took all the responsibility of that choice upon Himself.

So there are things that ARE right or wrong, because creation was a purposeful design act, and just like cars are designed to run on gasoline and will be harmed if a driver wants to put milk into the tank, even if he sincerely thinks it is right, sex outside of a man/woman marriage will be harmful, even if those involved sincerely think it is right.

This is a brief description of the worldview that I think is correct, based on thousands of hours of thought and research and observation of the world around me. I cannot prove that my worldview (i.e., what I think is the absolute reality of things) is right, but I think it is.

Here is what I think yours is (please correct me if I"m wrong):

The world came into being through unguided processes. There is no instrinic authority. Therefore, it is perfectly valid for each person to decide what is right or wrong, based on what they think is right or wrong at the time. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts or homosexual marriage.

This is a brief description of the worldview that I think you think is correct, hopefully also based on thousands of hours of thought and research and observation of the world around you. You cannot prove that your worldview (i.e., what you think is the absolute reality of things) is right, but you think it is.

NOW - given your worldview, your opinion about homosexual marriage makes sense (except don't stop there - why should ANYTHING be wrong if your worldview is right?). Given my worldview, my opinion about homosexual marriage makes sense. Do you agree?

If we consider each other friends, then I consider it my duty to point out instances of what seems to me to resemble doublethink (from 1984, I believe that's the right term... it's the newspeak word for simultaneously believing two contradictory things).

And I point out to you what I think is doublethink (hmm, can't remember if that's the term or not - I read it too long ago!)

1. You think that a woman and a woman should be able to marry, and a man and a man should be able to marry. Fine. Now what logical reason do you have for denying ANY sincere group their "right" to marry, or do you think ANY group should be able to marry? And if so, why keep age limits? Yes, it might be repugnant to you, but what LOGICAL reason do you have to say that a man shouldn't marry a little boy if they both want to? If you appeal to protection of the kid because he can't think well enough yet, then again, you're appealing to an absolute standard, and why should others LOGICALLY have to agree with your standard if there is no higher authority?

2. You seem to think that the definition of a family should be available for making up. Well, fine - I hearby declare that I think it should be one man and one woman until death do they part. Since it's open for definition, what's wrong with my definition? If yours is different, why is it any better (if it is?) If you think it's better, what standard are you judging it against? (for to be better, something must be closer to a standard than another thing).

The trouble I have with your worldview is that it doesn't hold up logically, IMO. You're appealing to a common standard, which given your worldview, shouldn't exist. Now I think it DOES exist, but I think that that speaks against the validity of your worldview.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

One other thing, Rian. When people disagree about a point like who is eligible for marriage and making a family, I prefer democracy as a process over following tradition.

So do I

Just as you say that what is in the heart is not always what's right, what is done traditionally is not always what's right.

I agree.

FWIW, when I said it's what in the heart that matters, I meant Love. I guess that wasn't obvious.

No, I knew what you meant, but I think that sometimes the way a person wants to express that love can be flawed. For example, there are very loving mothers that want to protect their children from all harm, but I think we'd agree that overprotective mothers, although their motive comes from love, have a wrong expression of that love. I don't deny that love is involved in homosexual relationships at all! But I think that there are right ways and wrong ways to express love, just as you do.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

But when significant benefits are given to those who are married, then prohibiting a specific group of people who want to marry from doing so is willfully denying them access to those benefits and is thus harmful discrimination.

I don't think so. There is a difference between denying someone benefits and harming them. The one quite simply refrains from bestowing some good upon someone, whereas the other actually bestows an evil upon them.

I'm not saying the benefits offered with marriage are inalienable human rights, but they are offered to anyone from other groups who are willing to commit to binding, longterm, relationships and should therefore be offered to homosexuals who are willing to commit to binding, longterm relationships.

But the reason they are offered to them is because, through the legal institution of marriage and these benefits, society is bestowing its blessing upon the union. The question is: should society bless same-sex unions. I say it shouldn't, but my religion causes me to say so. Without my religion, I would be inclined to say "yes".

And I would point out that they are offered to homosexuals who are willing to commit to longterm (because as we all know, these days marriage ain't binding, regardless of the sexuality of the couple)

I don't disagree with that. Living in accordance with our beliefs is all we really can do most of the time.

And hoping they are right, because none of us can really, truly, absolutely know. That includes you, me, Gaffer, Rian, Elfhem, and the Pope in Rome. Fortunately, hope is a virtue.

Forgive me for psychoanalyzing here... but it sounds to me like you're projecting your own anxiety about not wanting your feelings to be wrong but believing they are onto people who have similar feelings but don't believe them to be wrong.
As in, because giving in to them denies your conscience it must be wrong for everyone. (Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just what it's sounding like from my point of view).

That's not quite right. You see, the reason that denying them denies my conscience is because I believe that it is, in and of itself, wrong to give into them. Because I believe that it is wrong per se to do such things, I believe that it is wrong for someone else to do them, as well. It's not that there is anything about my particular situation that would make it wrong to do so; only that, as I see it, I have awareness of the wrongness. I think it was Julia Flyte in Brideshead Revisited who said (and I paraphrase), "If only I hadn't been Catholic! Now that I am, to leave the Church would be to lose my soul. But if I'd been a Protestant, I could have lived quite comfortably without the Church's requirements, and still been able to be saved."

For myself, I believe (also very strongly) that if giving into these feelings brings significant happiness to myself and my partner and doesn't physically harm anyone then there is no way they can be wrong.

In the first place, I don't believe they give you happiness. It's a state of being, not a feeling. They can give you joy; but, in and of themselves, I don't any sexual act can give happiness. It can only be one brick in the wall, so to speak (and don't think too hard about that analogy ). But what happiness is or what its constituents are is a very different question.

In the second place, I don't think believe that right and wrong are defined by pleasure of any sort, whether physical, intellectual, or spiritual. I take "pleasure" to mean essentially what you mean by happiness; am I wrong?

Of course, I also believe that God has bigger things to be worrying about when it comes to humans.

I definitely agree with that. There's a lot out of things we do that are just awful.

What else would you call it? If it's merely suppression of a socially maladaptive instinct then how can other people who are no better or worse than you be at peace with the same sort of feelings? It's your choice to deny that part of you, if you're happier that way then go ahead. Just don't insist that those who choose not to deny are inherently wrong.

I didn't deny it was; I merely asked in what way it is self-denial.

But anyway, as Rian pointed out, self-denial is very much a part of the Christian tradition. Christ denied himself in the highest way; "he emptied himself" of his divinity "taking on the conditions of a slave". For God to abase himself to become Man is the ultimate self-denial, I think. Of course, for non-Christians this isn't relavent, but for me, as a Christian and especially as a Catholic it is very much so.

God Almighty helps those who help themselves, if you don't want to offend anyone it's within your power not to.

How very Arminian.

Homosexuality, on it's own, unstigmatized, does not prevent forming strong relationships, does not lead to lowered self-esteem, does not cause depression, and has contributed to survival in a social group.

While the latter is true, I don't know if we have sufficient information to state the former two on fact (especially the self-esteem bit), due to the huge gap between our culture and one where homosexuality isn't stigmatised. It's certainly possible, though.

Example: 'The Sacred Band', Theban elite troops composed of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers. Use of these troops enabled Thebes to break Spartan control of the Peloponnesias. The nature of these soldiers caused them to fight harder and as a more cohesive unit.

(Can you tell it's exam week? )

Don't I know it.

I very much appreciate, Marion, the way you are able to discuss this in such a calm and level-headed manner. Hopefully, this will be a fruitful discussion.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And hoping they are right, because none of us can really, truly, absolutely know. That includes you, me, Gaffer, Rian, Elfhem, and the Pope in Rome. Fortunately, hope is a virtue.

Please note that the Greek word we translate "hope" is not the same as how we Americans use the word (kind of like "wishful thinking"). The Greek word is quite strong - it's like patiently waiting for a reasonable expectation based on experience.

But anyway, as Rian pointed out, self-denial is very much a part of the Christian tradition.

Well, hopefully I demonstrated that it's something that everyone does and thinks is right to do.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

To respond to you, Rian:

I apologize for the offensively worded challenge, I tend to be rather harsh in my wording when I think it necessary, even towards friends.

On to worldviews...

Here is what I think yours is (please correct me if I"m wrong):
The world came into being through unguided processes. There is no instrinic authority. Therefore, it is perfectly valid for each person to decide what is right or wrong, based on what they think is right or wrong at the time. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts or homosexual marriage.

This is a brief description of the worldview that I think you think is correct, hopefully also based on thousands of hours of thought and research and observation of the world around you. You cannot prove that your worldview (i.e., what you think is the absolute reality of things) is right, but you think it is.

This is actually quite a ways off from what my worldview is... before I outline it let me say that I do not in any way claim it to be logical, I try, but I'm still too young to have achieved it yet.

Firstly it would be helpful if you knew the basics of my background, as it makes it easier to understand where I'm coming from. I was raised as very liberal Irish-American Catholic. Now, I think spirituality is something best achieved without the interference and biases of organized religion. However, I do retain some things from my upbringing as a catholic, those being:
-Forgiveness
-Unconditional love for those I am close to
-The ten commandments
-'Love thy neighbor as you love thyself'
-And the three basic prayers

So here's what my worldview has come to after 19 years of learning, being confused, and hard thinking:

Part One:

1) I believe that an ieffable something, to which for sake of convenience I continue to refer to as God, created the means and put in motion the evolution of the universe.

2) I believe that God is omnipotent, forgiving, has a sense of humor and good .

3) If God is omnipotent forgiving, has a sense of humor and good, and is our creator, then God would not have created anything that did not have potential for those qualities, especially good.

4) But because God allowed free will, that potential is not always reached.

5) Thus Everything can be either good or bad.

Part Two:

1) Humans are only able to judge what is good from a human, subjective view.

2) What is good to us is therefore going to be what aids our survival, or gives us pleasure.

3) Strong relationships of any sort have the potential to do both.

4) If a strong relationship meets that potential, then it is good.

1. You think that a woman and a woman should be able to marry, and a man and a man should be able to marry. Fine. Now what logical reason do you have for denying ANY sincere group their "right" to marry, or do you think ANY group should be able to marry? And if so, why keep age limits? Yes, it might be repugnant to you, but what LOGICAL reason do you have to say that a man shouldn't marry a little boy if they both want to? If you appeal to protection of the kid because he can't think well enough yet, then again, you're appealing to an absolute standard, and why should others LOGICALLY have to agree with your standard if there is no higher authority?

2. You seem to think that the definition of a family should be available for making up. Well, fine - I hearby declare that I think it should be one man and one woman until death do they part. Since it's open for definition, what's wrong with my definition? If yours is different, why is it any better (if it is?) If you think it's better, what standard are you judging it against? (for to be better, something must be closer to a standard than another thing).

As you can see from my real worldview, I don't have any logic for denying any group as a whole their ability to marry. I think it's something that should be decided on a case by case basis and should be judged by whether the relationship is strong enough, and is aiding the survival and bringing pleasure (by which I mean more than just physical stimulation) to all people involved in said relationship.
Such things would be incredibly difficult to prove as being true for a relationship involving more than two people or one mature and one immature person.

My definition of a family would be a group of two or more people united by a network of strong, positive relationships such as I have described. I contend that this definition is (if not better) more practical because it is a much broader and includes more than the North American ideal, nuclear family, which tends to be more of a myth than an actuallity in the majority of cultures.

Does that help what I'm saying make more sense?

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Your turn, Gwai:

I don't think so. There is a difference between denying someone benefits and harming them. The one quite simply refrains from bestowing some good upon someone, whereas the other actually bestows an evil upon them.

In an active sense, yes there is a difference. In this case however, denial of those benefits constitutes a passive bestowal of evil.

It's like the difference between telling an outright lie and telling a lie by omission. With the latter you can pretend to yourself that you aren't actually doing anything wrong, but in fact you really are.

I say it shouldn't, but my religion causes me to say so. Without my religion, I would be inclined to say "yes".

And I say that because we live in a society where people's beliefs vary so dramatically, these questions should be decided objectively, without religious interference. When you decide 'no' because of religion it's a passive forcing of those beliefs on people who may or may not share them, and is thus unconstitutional.

Because I believe that it is wrong per se to do such things, I believe that it is wrong for someone else to do them, as well.

That's what I said... projection of personal morals onto others. Understandable, but dangerous ground.

In the second place, I don't think believe that right and wrong are defined by pleasure of any sort, whether physical, intellectual, or spiritual. I take "pleasure" to mean essentially what you mean by happiness; am I wrong?

No, you aren't wrong, I do use physical/intellectual/spiritual pleasure and happiness interchangebly. Most of the time. Depends on what I'm writing, but in this case, yes.

And since you invite the question... what do you define right and wrong by?
And is it something that can be applied across cultures and religions?

"If only I hadn't been Catholic! Now that I am, to leave the Church would be to lose my soul. But if I'd been a Protestant, I could have lived quite comfortably without the Church's requirements, and still been able to be saved."

I will agree that leaving the Church is difficult, but, as I still seem to have my soul intact, not impossible. Guess it's a good thing Dad's side of the family is methodist.

While the latter is true, I don't know if we have sufficient information to state the former two on fact (especially the self-esteem bit), due to the huge gap between our culture and one where homosexuality isn't stigmatised. It's certainly possible, though.

Perhaps not to state, but to guess with a reasonable degree of certainty... It should be noted that that was the chapter of my psych. textbook I was studying that afternoon.

Fruitful discussions are excellent, and I also very much hope that this one will continue to be.

[Rían]

Just a quick clarification question, because I only have a minute ...

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

Now, I think spirituality is something best achieved without the interference and biases of organized religion.

What is "spirituality", IYO?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now I happen to think that homosexual acts are wrong, in the same way that I think some acts by hets (including myself) are wrong. But to me, each person, regardless of their sexual orientation or their orientation to other things, is wonderful and valuable and beautiful. I hope that is REALLY clear, because I really think that way.

Now, to me, the discussion seems to hinge on the "rights" thing. First of all, unless you can point to a section in our government's documents (to keep it to the U.S. for sanity's sake) that specifically calls out rights for homosexuals to marry (and I mean specifically using the name "homosexual"), then you can't assume that they (or any other group, btw) has those rights. Right?

SO, since I know you can't do this then we're now at ground zero as far as how a marriage should be defined.

It's that emphasis on the "acts" (it's OK to be gay, just don't act on it) that is at the heart of this impression I have of an obsession.

And the idea that we should define marriage like this is fascism-lite, IMO.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

why should others LOGICALLY have to agree with your standard if there is no higher authority?

Oh no, please, not again. Where will it all end? I would like to announce have just married my prize marrow, in a private civil ceremony in my tool shed. I am not sure whether our campaign for recognition will succeed, but we consummated it anyway, just to be on the safe side.

Sorry. What I meant to say was that they might, if it was LOGICAL, which "because God says so" isn't, IMHO.

I think all was fine for a long long time when the "Christian ideal" of the nucelar family held sway. Now we realise that this doesn't fit many people, whether through women's rights, divorce, sexual orientation or indeed sexual behaviour. And we also realise, at a societal level, that these people should not be forced to fit into a role that does not fit them.

Now the reality hits home that the orthodox view is no longer enshrined in our collective morality, and so it is up for grabs. For some reason, divorce and women's rights aren't considered fruitful grounds for debate and so the battle lines are drawn up along gay marriage.

But the fact is that people are both adaptable and rational. Nowadays, in this country anyway, so many more people have direct contact with people who are openly gay that these attitudes are eroding. They see that GLB people are just as capable of being happy and productive, and of having long-term, successful relationships. Increasingly, it will become harder and harder to simultaneously believe that their partnerships are inherently worth less than a straight couple's.

So, the good news is that I don't think we can turn back the clock on this one.

I can understand how it is a challenge for the Church, but given the moral gymnastics performed in justification of stuff like greed and wars, I don't see it as being beyond the bounds of probability that a way could be found to make peace with the issue. I certainly don't think that defining marriage in religious terms is going to work.

[Elfhelm]

I can understand how it is a challenge for the Church, but given the moral gymnastics performed in justification of stuff like greed and wars, I don't see it as being beyond the bounds of probability that a way could be found to make peace with the issue.

If "The Church" is such a thing, why are there church groups in the Gay Pride Parade?

[The Gaffer]

Because some of them have already managed to make that peace.

[Elfhelm]

Amen to that!

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

What is "spirituality", IYO?

Belief in anything which is intangible, or not materially proven/provable for the purpose of becoming at peace with one's self and the world/situation in which one is living.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's that emphasis on the "acts" (it's OK to be gay, just don't act on it) that is at the heart of this impression I have of an obsession.

But it's not only the "acts" of homosexual desires that I think are wrong. I just talk about them because that's the subject of this thread. I also think acting on selfish desires is wrong. Am I obsessed with selfish acts? No. I also think acting on angry desires is wrong. Am I obsessed with angry acts? No. I also think acting on prideful desires is wrong, etc. etc. I don't think it's wrong to have a desire, but if the desire is for something that is wrong, then I think acting on the desire is wrong.

I wouldn't say "it's OK to be gay, just don't act on it". I think I would say something more like "Some people have homosexual desires, and IMO acting on those desires is wrong. And as with any desire for something wrong (like some desires I have), with God's grace and help it can be changed."

And the idea that we should define marriage like this is fascism-lite, IMO.

What?! Both of us have opinions on how we think marriage is best defined. Why is mine fascist and yours not? Aren't you trying to force your opinion on me? If it came to a vote in the UK, would you decline to vote because you didn't want to force your opinion on anyone else? Seems like a double standard to me.

Oh no, please, not again. Where will it all end? I would like to announce have just married my prize marrow, in a private civil ceremony in my tool shed. I am not sure whether our campaign for recognition will succeed, but we consummated it anyway, just to be on the safe side.

Yes, that is certainly a logical option given your opinions Makes ya wonder about your worldview ....

You know, logic is important to me, and if a worldview and/or an opinion can't stand up to it, then IMO it's faulty, so that's why I bring it up "again". If one's opinion is that marriage can be defined however a person thinks is right, then marriage to a marrow is certainly a logical option, and to have that a logical option should, IMO, make the person holding that opinion spend some serious time thinking about the validity of the worldview.

Sorry. What I meant to say was that they might, if it was LOGICAL, which "because God says so" isn't, IMHO.

That's why I don't give that reason.

I think all was fine for a long long time when the "Christian ideal" of the nucelar family held sway. Now we realise that this doesn't fit many people, whether through women's rights, divorce, sexual orientation or indeed sexual behaviour. And we also realise, at a societal level, that these people should not be forced to fit into a role that does not fit them.

Then why should any person be forced to fit into a role that doesn't fit ANY part of them? Why stop at marriage? If I like to set little fires in people's house, because that fits who I am, why should I feel constrained to stop?

Now the reality hits home that the orthodox view is no longer enshrined in our collective morality, and so it is up for grabs.

*protects her marrows*

Well, if traditional marriage was only valid because it was "enshrined in our collective morality", that's a lousy reason for it to be valid.

That's not the reason that I think it's valid.

I can understand how it is a challenge for the Church, but given the moral gymnastics performed in justification of stuff like greed and wars, I don't see it as being beyond the bounds of probability that a way could be found to make peace with the issue.

Are you proposing that doing moral gymnastics to make peace with the issue is actually a GOOD thing? It seems to me that if one has to do gymnastics to justify something, then the thing isn't worthy of being justified.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

Belief in anything which is intangible, or not materially proven/provable for the purpose of becoming at peace with one's self and the world/situation in which one is living.

I'm trying to understand more fully, so I'm probing further...

Do you think the intangible/unproven thing is actually a part of reality (i.e., it actually exists in reality, although intangibly to you at least for now), or is it merely something in the imagination? If it is entirely intangible, how can you discover it? Do you think the peace comes about because that thing is reality, and if so, what aspect of that thing has the capability to bring peace?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What?! Both of us have opinions on how we think marriage is best defined. Why is mine fascist and yours not? Aren't you trying to force your opinion on me?

How is he forcing you to do anything? Is he saying you should only be allowed to marry a woman like you are saying gays should only be allowed to marry people of the opposite sex? That would be forcing his opinion on you. But hes fine with you marrying a man or a woman. He is not attempting to control another person's freedom simply because of how he views those people. He is saying let them do what they want to do in this regard. There is no justifiable reason to bar them from marrying. Yet you want to. Thats the facist aspect.