Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

While I believe that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman can be considered a symptom of fascism lite ...

But defining marriage as between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman ISN'T a symptom in the same way? You're defining, too.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

1) I don't know, haven't read it!

2) An astute observation!

3) It is against nature! It's "natural" result is termination of the species.

Oh, well, 1 out of three, that's about the usual for our agreement.

Faggotry is NATURE'S population control!

I just wrote "faggotry," didn't I?

Oh well. I'm entitled.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

No, its natural result is not termination of the species, because not the entire species is gay. A small percentage of the species is gay. A small percentage of non-breeders is hardly going to spell termination for the human race; population control at best. Love is natural. Human love, sexual love, is natural. Nothing unnatural about two adult humans loving one another sexually as well as mentally and intellectually.

Man, I wish I could give you karma for that! Well said. I agree 100% with your statements of fact. And even IF the species were 100% gay, well shades of gray, right? There'd still be *some* breeding going on, and in this day and age, if we can't figure out how to artificially impregnate, then we've got problems.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But defining marriage as between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman ISN'T a symptom in the same way? You're defining, too.

Well of course. The question is whether that definition systematically excludes a large minority of people from feeling like they belong in society and reinforces/legislates in favour of the already huge prejudices which exist against them.

Can I ask that we refrain from saying "well you have definitions/limits too so you're just the same" and focus on the argument?

[Elfhelm]

I guess I wasn't done.

It is NOT unnatural to be gay. By that definition it would be unnatural to have sex during pregnancy, or worse (shudder) to practice the rhythm method (that is, knowingly have sex between menstruation and ovulation). A married couple that has sex once a week (or even once a month) but only has two children, by that definition, would be unnatural!

But, do you know why people say it's unnatural? Because they really think it's a sin and you don't believe them, so they go grasping after straws.

Nature spurs me to murder in vengeance. Should I do so? Let's not be silly.

The truth is they think it's a sin. They think they know the mind of God. And they choose to judge on God's behalf. It is, in fact, the furthest thing from love. It is a form of hatred that is practiced by more people than practice racism. And it is the most legal form of hatred that has ever existed.

And THAT is why we want to change it. Not because we want to advance the homosexual agenda. But because it is wrong to continue to allow this legal hatred to continue.

We really have to stop this permitted exclusion of one class of people. How can we claim to be proud of our freedoms when only SOME people are free? That's not freedom, that's privilege.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not inconsistent - you apparently thought (WRONGLY!) that I thought everything I thought was wrong should be legislated against!?!

Yes you certainly are inconsistent since you accuse everyone else of being just that yet YOU are the one that is SO adamant against one particular thing that you want legislation enacted to discriminate against gays in this way. Yet you dont scream for legislation for a huge list of other things. The very notion that more people are harmed by gay marriage then by smoking or driving a car is a complete joke. Yet you can sit here with a straight face and say well I want to ban them from being married because I care about them so much? But let em smoke and drive and jump out of airplanes and swim in shark infested waters because that’s their right? This is either utter denial or masked hate mongering.

[Rían]

Or it's you not reading my posts

[Elfhelm]

Frankly, I don't even know why this thread exists. We don't have a thread about blacks, asians, and amerinds. We don't have threads about autistic people, brain damaged people, etc. Of course not. Why have a thread to talk about whether or not someone who is born a particular way should have equal rights?

And I don't see how sexuality pertains to anything at this site at all, except for something to talk about in a general way. I left a while back because I didn't want to let my feelings about political matters affect my feelings about fellow Tolkien fans. I notice we don't talk about The War anymore. Perhaps that's because the ops decided it was pitting Tolkien fans against each other and was actually counter-productive.

Is it possible that these two argue-about-gayness threads are just unnecessary in the same way? Haven't we pretty much all repeated ourselves ad infinitum? I mean, this same nonsense was going on when I left, and the same arguments were being made. Nothing has changed. The people who think it's a sin do feel they must (lovingly) put on the pressure to stop people from sinning, especially any young people who read this thread. The people like me who have gay neighbors and gay co-workers, who have come to feel that the gays are just other people who are entitled to equal rights will just keep on arguing for fairness.

So what is the point of these threads anymore?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry for the delay...finals week!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Hey, no fair calling me on my equivocation!

Is this a fair definition: "Hope, in its widest acceptation, is described as the desire of something together with the expectation of obtaining it."

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

What? Demonstrated? Demonstrated? Where is the middle term? do you know the cause, that it is the cause, and that it cannot be otherwise?

Sorry, just finished my philosophy final.

But Christians more than most people. And for that matter, Buddhists most of all. Or maybe Socrates. They're pretty close on that one.

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

Your turn, Gwai:



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

But the word "bestow" is active both in form and in meaning. I don't see how there can be a passive bestowal of anything.

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.

An omission is not a lie, but a deception, and if a deception is not saying something contrary to what you believe to be true, then it can be morally justifiable, the perennial example being "Are there any Jews in your house" (yes) "There are no damned Jews in my house!" Strictly speaking, what you say is true, since the Jews are presumably alive, and only the dead can be damned. So omissions can be morally acceptable; in the same way, not giving something to someone, and giving it to others is (or at least can be) justifiable. See the parable of the vineyard workers.

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.

To be honest, I'm very dubious as to whether it is even possible to decide a question objectively; as we are human beings, and not logical processing machines, I don't think we can ever be truly objective.

Whether or not there should be religious interference is a different question, and one that seems to belong to a different discussion.

Again, forcing is active, not passive, and if I forced them to believe in the Catholic religion, then I would be forcing them into believing. I am not, however, either forcing them to believe or to act in accordance with it; I don't advocate illegalizing homosexual intercourse. I advocate withholding from bestowing the official state approval thereof which is marriage.

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

No, it's projection of personal view of universal morals onto others (but not imposition thereof).

What you said was:

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.

It is not because giving into them denies my conscience that it must be wrong for everyone. Using obscenities denies my conscience, but I don't believe it's wrong for everyone. There's a difference between conscience and understanding of universal morality.

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.

Okay. I don't think, then, that happiness is that; I think it is something more lasting, and a state of continually (but not necessarily interminally) being content as a rule.

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?

1) God.
2) Yes, even if they don't realise it.

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.

Ah, loopholes... But anyway, you say you were very liberal, so you didn't really believe in the Church in the first place.

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. [/QUOTE]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Frankly, I don't even know why this thread exists. We don't have a thread about blacks, asians, and amerinds. We don't have threads about autistic people, brain damaged people, etc. Of course not. Why have a thread to talk about whether or not someone who is born a particular way should have equal rights?

And I don't see how sexuality pertains to anything at this site at all, except for something to talk about in a general way. I left a while back because I didn't want to let my feelings about political matters affect my feelings about fellow Tolkien fans. I notice we don't talk about The War anymore. Perhaps that's because the ops decided it was pitting Tolkien fans against each other and was actually counter-productive.

Is it possible that these two argue-about-gayness threads are just unnecessary in the same way? Haven't we pretty much all repeated ourselves ad infinitum? I mean, this same nonsense was going on when I left, and the same arguments were being made. Nothing has changed. The people who think it's a sin do feel they must (lovingly) put on the pressure to stop people from sinning, especially any young people who read this thread. The people like me who have gay neighbors and gay co-workers, who have come to feel that the gays are just other people who are entitled to equal rights will just keep on arguing for fairness.

So what is the point of these threads anymore?

To avoid doing work? They wont let me play video games here...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

The truth is they think it's a sin. They think they know the mind of God. And they choose to judge on God's behalf. It is, in fact, the furthest thing from love. It is a form of hatred that is practiced by more people than practice racism. And it is the most legal form of hatred that has ever existed.

It's not hatred. I don't hate homosexuals; I merely believe (I think as objectively as we can believe) that it is immoral to commit homosexual acts.

We really have to stop this permitted exclusion of one class of people. How can we claim to be proud of our freedoms when only SOME people are free? That's not freedom, that's privilege.

1) Freedom can easily be privilege.

2) Freedom to marry whom you will is extended to no-one.

3) Freedom is overrated.

EDIT:

Kudos to IR.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So what is the point of these threads anymore?

I started posting here in hopes that I could change some people's minds about gay being "bad".

I know from my real life experience that understanding people begins with exposure. As a child I grew up in NYC and went to schools with all kinds of diversity. Later, around age 12, I moved to basic white suburbia in Connecticut and the discrimination and misunderstanding people had about minorities amazed me. But I realized in time that it was mostly due to lack of exposure. Everyone had grow up surrounded by white christians, and anything other than that (black, gay, muslim, whatever) was alien to them, or, at best, very different.

It's extremely hard to empathize with someone you can not understand, and very easy to stereotype. (As one who did not grow up for my entire life surrounded by white christians, I tend to stereotype them myself. )

But posting here has also proven to me that words are not powerful enough to overcome upbringing. Maybe it's the inability to teach old dogs new tricks. I know nothing said here has ever made me think that gays should be anything less than 100% equal members of society. So I'm just as stubborn as everyone else.

That said, even if I don't change any opinions I hope that time and exposure will. The generation being born now will be the first to grow up with all these gay issues completely out of the closet, much like my generation was the first to grow up in a society where "separate but equal" was no longer the norm for blacks in America. And, with the internet, this generation will mature with a exposure level to what is "different" light years ahead of any of us reading here now.

So the point, for me, is just keeping the discussion going. And it keeps me from doing work too.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's not hatred. I don't hate homosexuals; I merely believe (I think as objectively as we can believe) that it is immoral to commit homosexual acts.

It's not KNOWINGLY hateful. But you know very well that we tell the tree by its fruits.

You believe it is immoral.
Children surf this site.
You MUST argue against what you think is immoral.

I do not believe it is immoral.
I believe calling it immoral is immoral.
Young men similar to those who were abusive to me as a child surf this site.
I MUST argue against your argument.

This will continue until ... when...? In what way is this a fruitful discussion?

If your brother was mentally disabled and we had a thread about forced sterilization, would you be offended? That's what this thread feels like to me.

Are any other bi or gay people bothered in this way by this thread? Or the other one? Doesn't it seem that the main point is for those who call us sinners to have a podium for doing that? Doesn't this thread just further the prejudice?

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

But the word "bestow" is active both in form and in meaning. I don't see how there can be a passive bestowal of anything.

Grammatical technicality within an unfortunately limited language. The ability to read or write something as happening has little bearing on whether or not it could actually happen.

An omission is not a lie, but a deception, and if a deception is not saying something contrary to what you believe to be true, then it can be morally justifiable, the perennial example being "Are there any Jews in your house" (yes) "There are no damned Jews in my house!" Strictly speaking, what you say is true, since the Jews are presumably alive, and only the dead can be damned. So omissions can be morally acceptable; in the same way, not giving something to someone, and giving it to others is (or at least can be) justifiable. See the parable of the vineyard workers.

Failed analogy then. But my point still stands. Denial of benefits may not be actively harming a group of people, but it does harm them in a passive sense. It's sneaky harming, and should not be mistaken for anything justifiable.

To be honest, I'm very dubious as to whether it is even possible to decide a question objectively; as we are human beings, and not logical processing machines, I don't think we can ever be truly objective.

As objectively as possible then. We may not be able to achieve true objectivity but we are capable of coming pretty close. There's no excuse for not even trying to be objective.

Again, forcing is active, not passive, and if I forced them to believe in the Catholic religion, then I would be forcing them into believing. I am not, however, either forcing them to believe or to act in accordance with it; I don't advocate illegalizing homosexual intercourse. I advocate withholding from bestowing the official state approval thereof which is marriage.

Forcing in the sense of removing or cutting off all other safe options until there is no choice left but to conform.
If you allow one method of discrimination to be legalized then the other forms will likely follow one by one.

No, it's projection of personal view of universal morals onto others (but not imposition thereof).

I can't help but read that highlighted part as an oxymoron. Not everyone believes that universal morals exist, that they do is your personal view. So when you use them to judge others you are projecting your personal view on to them.

understanding of universal morality.

I can't see how achieving this would be possible for a human, except possibly by a psychological study of unimaginable scale.

The only being that could possibly understand universal morality would be the universe itself, or an embodiment of Everything. A human claiming such understanding comes off as being incredibly arrogant.

1) God.

Is a being, not a set of rules. If you say God is right or wrong you indirectly question God's infallibility and thus your own belief system. Careful with your definitions, Gwai.

2) Yes, even if they don't realise it.

It's statements like that which start religious wars. If something is truly applicable across cultures and religions it shouldn't require warring and supression of any of them to do so.

But anyway, you say you were very liberal, so you didn't really believe in the Church in the first place.

Not true. I was young enough I didn't know what being liberal or believing in the Church really meant, and so believed in both as much as a child who doesn't know any different can. I also believed in quite a lot of other things, including most ancient mythologies, fairy tales, legends etc. I was too young to care and when I got old enough to do so and learned more about the history of the Church I felt taken advantage of and got angry.

Loopholes on the other hand I've always believed in.

Are any other bi or gay people bothered in this way by this thread? Or the other one? Doesn't it seem that the main point is for those who call us sinners to have a podium for doing that? Doesn't this thread just further the prejudice?

Only if we give up and stop climbing up to the podium ourselves and refuting such arguments. The point is to erode stubborn predjuices (however well meant they may be) by being patient and asking and answering questions continuously.

[Elfhelm]

Check out answers dot com on Liberal Christianity.

http://www.answers.com/topic/liberal-christianity

Let me tell you. Growing up with the "f" word used against me every day from about age 8 till the day I ran away to join the military, I know for a fact that the teachings of the Church I grew up in made me hate myself. I have little more I can say on that. It took me a long time to realize that they were wrong and that I am not a bad person.

I prayed to have my thoughts taken away. It just made me want to die when the thoughts kept happening. You can never know if it isn't part of your life.

So, please, have a care. You may think you're not being offensive by calling other people immoral, but you are making them hate themselves and making them want to die!

And here's one more link pertaining to exactly what is and what is not natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

No, its natural result is not termination of the species, because not the entire species is gay. A small percentage of the species is gay. A small percentage of non-breeders is hardly going to spell termination for the human race; population control at best. Love is natural. Human love, sexual love, is natural. Nothing unnatural about two adult humans loving one another sexually as well as mentally and intellectually.

Your pardon, Lotesse! I should have said "Left to itself, the natural result would be termination of the species." Obviously homosexuals of either gender cannot reproduce vis-a-vis unisex relations.

BOP, assisted reproductive technologies are not "natural" - they are assisted.

Which brings me to wonder why if homosexuality has a genetic base (for which there is just as much evidence as for a god gene, by the way), why it hasn't failed of selective Darwinian processes over the ~4.8 million years since the first human ancestor? And that question suggests the obvious influence of cultural settings for the encouragement of homosexual expression which has had notable eddies and flows (should that be Eddies and Floes? ) in recorded history. Which brings us to Elfhelm's "why this thread".
Because we are exploring the various concepts in the issue.

Also, Elfhelm, the same God who says not to murder says not to lie with a man as a woman in an apodictic not relativistic sense. But it IS natural to want to murder in vengeance. That is called revenge. And it is apodictically prohibited. Along with stealing and adultery et cetera BECAUSE the natural is not sufficient of itself. So, having a natural urge to do a specific act is not, of itself, a guarantee of the "rightness" of the act, is it? Why the one specific prohibited act should suddenly be validated and all the other prohibited acts remain in force against "natural" acts is the real issue. It is merely societal whim at the moment as was pederasty in Greece in Plato's time and St. Paul's. It is contra naturales and was twittered at in Rome where Julius Caesar was known as the "Queen of Bythnia" for his conduct with the king of that region.

So despite cultural approval of varying degrees at different times, it has constantly been regarded as unnatural in the religious and the a-religious world views known to humanity.

Thus, while one category of classification, may indeed be sin, it is NOT the only reason for saying that homosexuality is unnatural.

I realise that it is much easier to avoid discussion of the alleged naturality of homosexuality by labelling all opposition as originating in religious bigotry ( a tactic used by Episcopalian +Vicky Gene Robinson in front of the Log Cabin Republicans, by the way), but that is a falsehood in generality.

A more productive mode of thought might be, why is it that such widely divergent human experiences as religion and politics address the homosexual experience in such a multiplicity of ways? And why, for the bulk of known societal history, has it been discouraged socially?

And, all opposition to the advancement of homosexual "marriage" is not hate or homophobic in origin either. There is legitimate ground for the debate apart from emotion and pseudoscience and religiosity. That's why there's this thread.

[Elfhelm]

If "having a natural urge" doesn't make something right, how does calling something unnatural make it wrong? Don't you see the contradiction? On one hand, the thing you think is sin and are willing to twist all logic to prove harmful, you call unnatural, but on the other hand the things that are natural that you think are sins are also wrong.

So the truth is, you think it's a sin.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

Sin is certainly one category of classification as I stated earlier. Why argue the conceded as though there were points to be scored? And I am a sinner, too, when it comes to the crux of the matter. Perhaps not in the area of homosexuality, but certainly in some areas of morality. Therefore, I am in the same state of sin as any homosexual and that is my natural human state. I may not be particularly attracted to my neighbors' possessions but maybe eBay gets the covetousness going with my lust for a 3D Star Trek Chess set!

For a religious argument which I think very apropos see:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=9626

You will find reference there to additional concerns about the nature of human sexuality and the nature/nurture controversy.

However, since you identify yourself as a minister of some sort (you marry folks), I may make bold to say that there are cogent reasons for dealing with sin, in its natural or unnatural manifestations, as YHWH has made known in Israel, Yeshua, and the Spirit, as well as the Church. There is no reason that homosexuality should be isolated from the moral laundry lists of the OT and NT by eisegesis. Exegesis has not found a way to expunge the texts of their meaning, though many have tried. Kleptomania is not an excuse for stealing which absolves one from penance, restitution, and amendment of life in religious terms nor prison in social terms. Justifiable rage over child abuse does not abdicate the murderer from the crime or the sin.

So, while one may certainly make serious argumentation over the clear and unequivocal nature of sin religiously, remain the social aspects of those acts in legal and sociological terms. Your attempt to unjustify all dissent from your view as contaminated by "sin-mentality" may be a convenient pigeon hole in your mental desk, but, alas, it is too limited.

You may review this thread and its predecessor for all of my posts on the subject since my arrival at Entmoot. You will not find that my argumentation has ever been based on religious precepts forced upon the contenders in this arena. I have been pilloried and accused of vile manipulations of data and a whole host of sins (both moral and social), but no one can say that I have not made my case from the available data by paucity, absence, or an embarassment of riches. Many have not liked what I have argued. They need not. But do not tar all opposition in this fashion. It is unbecoming a position for one advocating tolerance to argue that all motivation has but one source.

[klatukatt]

One:

Originally Posted by inked

lust for a 3D Star Trek Chess set!

Tee hee! You're a nerd! But that won't stop me from hating you!

Your pardon, Lotesse! I should have said "Left to itself, the natural result would be termination of the species."

I dissagree. The "spread" of homosexuality, if we are treating it as a disease, is limited and NOT contagious! True, homosexuals cannot breed (naturally), but there are plenty of heterosexuals to do that job.

Which brings me to wonder why if homosexuality has a genetic base (for which there is just as much evidence as for a god gene, by the way), why it hasn't failed of selective Darwinian processes over the ~4.8 million years since the first human ancestor? And that question suggests the obvious influence of cultural settings for the encouragement of homosexual expression which has had notable eddies and flows (should that be Eddies and Floes? ) in recorded history.

BECAUSE (in my view, which all my posts are in of course) there WEREN'T as many homosexuals back then because there was less of a need for that behaviour in the past. With our planet becoming overcrowded, God or Nature or whatever has created this "plague" to help keep the population in check.
(Haven't you been wondering why there are so many natural disasters occuring lately? Population control!)
Also, homosexuality isn't genetic. It's as random as which Jews survived the Holocaust. (I've been reading Maus, so this metafore has been on my mind.)

Also, Elfhelm, the same God who says not to murder says not to lie with a man as a woman in an apodictic not relativistic sense. But it IS natural to want to murder in vengeance. That is called revenge. And it is apodictically prohibited. Along with stealing and adultery et cetera BECAUSE the natural is not sufficient of itself. So, having a natural urge to do a specific act is not, of itself, a guarantee of the "rightness" of the act, is it? Why the one specific prohibited act should suddenly be validated and all the other prohibited acts remain in force against "natural" acts is the real issue. It is merely societal whim at the moment as was pederasty in Greece in Plato's time and St. Paul's. It is contra naturales and was twittered at in Rome where Julius Caesar was known as the "Queen of Bythnia" for his conduct with the king of that region.

Good point. God or society tells us to go against our natures for the betterment of mankind.
However, this brings us back to the point of "Who are homosexuals harming?" If there is no God and no Divine Judgement, what is wrong with homosexuality?

Oh, and I don't really hate you, Inked. I just get bothered sometimes.

Which brings me to this little tidbit that I forget who posted:

Are any other bi or gay people bothered in this way by this thread? Or the other one? Doesn't it seem that the main point is for those who call us sinners to have a podium for doing that? Doesn't this thread just further the prejudice?

I get bothered sometimes, but I'm glad we have this thread to debate this in everyway possible instead of just resorting to violence like we would do in person.

[BeardofPants]

I disagree with you Klatuwhatever. I think the nos of homosexuals has remained constant with the population numbers. And ink? The reason it hasn't "died" out I suspect, is largely because of genetics rather than culture. I suspect the homosexual genetic coding isn't just down to one gene, and therefore it doesn't matter if they don't breed and pass it on. It's likely that its linked to other genes.