Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

Isn't it marvellous the way people can paint with a broad brush and entirely homogenize that which is heterogeneous?

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. )

And how!

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.

I don't think they should be either.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

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

Well, that's a relief, because none of my fruits show a hatred of homosexuals.

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 don't see how you can say that that is the point for this thread, since it was started by TinuvielChild, who if I recall was a self-proclaimed bisexual and on your side of the argument.

In no way does this thread further the prejudice, I think. It can do so, but only for those who desire to further their prejudice. I at any rate am not concerned in the least with making pre-formed judgements against homosexuals (such as "they are good decorators"; that is prejudice as much as "gays are effete"). What I am concerned with is primarily the following:

A) The morality or immorality of homosexual sex.
B) The understanding of the distinction between inclination and act.
C) How society should react to the above.

I am not concerned with forming any sort of judgement on homosexuals, only with the abstract of the act or the inclination. If you look at gays as persons, and look at the homosexual act as something separate from them, I think that is the best way to avoid pre-judging them.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

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.

English is actually a very expressive language. But remember, I noted that "bestow" is active in meaning, as well as in form. This is not a case like "We are done", in which a passive form indicates an active meaning (something I realised after my last final ), but rather the meaning is active. Bestowing is something that you do.

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.

I disagree that it's harming them. To harm is to somehow injure or damage, whether physically, psychologically, etc. Injuring and damaging, along the lines of what I said before, are things which indicate a sort of addition of evil. It's like math.

Let's say someone is at a level of 5 regarding the scale of help and harm. Then, by smacking them upside the head, I substract 1 from their score. Thus, they are now at 4.

If two people at level 5 enter the lottery, and one does not win, and the other gains a minor 100 dollar prize worth 1 point, then the one will remain at level 5, while the other goes up to level 6.

Do you see what I mean? Someone cannot be harmed or benefited without actually undergoing something, and if some benefit is not bestowed on someone, they are not harmed; they simply aren't benefited.

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.

Very true. I just think it's important to realise that no-one can truly be objective.

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.

I do not advocate "cutting off all other safe options"; that would be illegalising same-sex copulation. I advocate the withholding of state approval of such copulation.

I disagree that it is likely; possible, certainly, but not likely.

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.

You're right, not everyone believes that universal morals exist. But I do. Doesn't it seem that the necessary consequence of belief in universal morals is a belief that they don't apply solely to me? That would be making me the universe, which I am clearly not!

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

And my answer is, through Divine Revelation.

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.

In the first place, I don't claim such understanding; I seek it. There is very little that I understand.

In the second place, I believe that the only to achieve such understanding is through, as I indicate above, revelation from God; by no means is it possible through my own reason alone.

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.

I didn't say God is right or wrong; I said I define them by God. That is, I believe God is the legislator of universal morality.

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.

No, it's the attempt to eradicate other religions that start religious wars, not the belief that the Law of God applies to all mankind. I'm not talking about any religion, but merely morality.

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.

The very fact that you say you believed in most ancient mythologies shows that you didn't believe in the Church. To believe in the Catholic Church is not some vague sense of attachment to it. It is to believe that:

1) God became flesh.
2) God died for our sins, that we might be saved through His blood.
3) God instituted a hierarchical organization to guide us.
4) God promised to lead this organization into all truth.
5) God will never let the gates of hell prevail against this organization.
6) God appointed a solitary figure as the head of this organization and His steward.
7) God gave this figure the keys of heaven and hell.
8) God preserves this organization from teaching error.
9) All salvation comes through this organization.

And maybe some other things that I didn't think of.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

If "having a natural urge" doesn't make something right, how does calling something unnatural make it wrong?

I would say it doesn't. I think that celibacy is unnatural, but it's not wrong.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

they are not harmed;

Oh no?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...773952,00.html

Care to comment on how the mathematics of homophobia stack up with societal discrimination such as the denial of equal "benefits"?

[GreyMouser]

If I'm following your reasoning, Gwaimir, saying that "everyone in the company gets a raise except those with red hair" is not harming redheads.

Or saying , as the Nazis did "we're building new housing, offering new medical benefits, and new employment opportunities, but Jews are not eligible" is not harming Jews.

Or when Stalin said that people weren't allowed into the new universities without avowing atheism, that wasn't harming Christians

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

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?

That IS a big part of the argument for me, so no, I can't drop it (until people on the homosexual side admit it). EVERYONE has their own thoughts as to what is right/wrong/neutral, and hopefully everyone, when it's time for them to express those opinions via their personal vote, will vote carefully and thoughtfully for what they think is best for all involved. And to say the homosexual side isn't doing this (setting definitions/limits) and the het side is, is just a false statement and needs to be addressed.

If you, Gaffer, sincerely thought about it and decided that het marriages have been so bad lately that only homo marriages should be allowed, then IMO, by golly you should make your voice known and vote in a way that supports that idea.

Society has LONG recognized limits on who should be able to marry. The argument that your side typically uses about my side "denying rights" to a group is just empty - your side (except those who want to completely abolish marriage, or who think ANYTHING should be fine, the sky's the limit) does the exact same thing. The real question is, IMO, what each person thinks the def. of marriage should be, and what they base those opinions on. You and I differ on ONE part of the definitions, and what we base our opinion on is a differing worldview system that each of us has, in all sincerity, come to believe is true. Whether the belief system is written down or not is totally irrelevant; what IS relevant, IMO, is the thought that has been put into analyzing the belief systems, including alternative belief systems. And as I've said before, I've put thousands of hours into the analysis.

What would you say to three lesbians who really love each other and wish to marry? "Sorry, only two!" ??? If you claim that the def. of marriage is open to change, then logically, it's open to ANY change and ANY definition. Fine, but don't say that one particular group's definition is wrong because they're excluding a group when you're excluding, too.

This is such a painful topic, I really wish sometimes that I had homosexual inclinations so I could somehow be of more comfort to homosexuals ... I would say the same thing to a homosexual that I would say to a married woman that really loved and wanted to marry another man while keeping her current husband - "I'm so sorry you have this pain to deal with, but IMO it is by far the best thing for society, and especially for children, to say that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I will not be able to support your campaign to change the definitions so that you can marry this other man, too."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Doesn't it seem that the main point is for those who call us sinners to have a podium for doing that?

No - in my mind, it's to try to further discussion and understanding between two groups that too often can't even talk to each other.

As katt says, "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."

You're not the only one getting hurt in this thread, Elfhelm, although I think your hurt is probably greater than mine. Try having names like "hater", etc., thrown at you when hate is the farthest thing from your mind

[inked]

Ah, Elfhelm, you ought to know that all (a very inclusive term, that!) have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is not just homosexuals as you imply. And the moral laundry lists in the OT and NT are pretty inclusive, too,
but recall that Jesus extended the moral law to the intent and thought while not requiring the act. So, as I noted above, all is a very inclusive term.

That means Rian and I aren't on a podium thundering opprobrium down on the audience. We're sitting in the audience ACKNOWLEDGING that we are sinners too. This is one area in life where there is absolute and total equality-sin.

But humanity hasn't been left there. All sin has had reparation completed to the n-th degree. That discussion properly belongs on the religious threads, though.

[Elfhelm]

The reason we were told not to judge other people is because it was SUPPOSED to be a personal relationship between you and God, and sin, which is mostly from pride, is harmful TO THAT RELATIONSHIP because it puts distance between you. But the false version, the perversion of Jesus' teachings has included the establishment of an intervening priesthood, the creation of a political agenda, and the unceasing judgement of fellow beings - which in my book is a sin in itself. It is caused by pride. You can hem and haw, but I am not fooled. I'm too old to fall for verbal shenanigans. Read the Book and have your personal relationship with God. And keep your judgements to yourself. Thank you.

[inked]

See you on the theology thread, Elfhelm!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

That means Rian and I aren't on a podium thundering opprobrium down on the audience. We're sitting in the audience ACKNOWLEDGING that we are sinners too.

Ex-ACTLY!!!! We're all in the same boat - we just have some different clothing on.

oh rats, the kiddos just got home and need to eat - later!

[brownjenkins]

I'm not a sinner.

[Rían]

your opinion on the subject may not count ...

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'm not a sinner.

No, your honor, it wasn't a sin. There is no such thing. I just managed to miscue on the societal expectations and it was really a matter of of a minor misjudgment on my perceptions.........

or something like that, right, BJ?!

[Rían]

or it was perhaps just an evolutionary throwback moment ...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But the false version, the perversion of Jesus' teachings has included the establishment of an intervening priesthood, the creation of a political agenda, and the unceasing judgement of fellow beings - which in my book is a sin in itself.

Those feckin' Papists. There's nothing in the world worse than the Catholic Church.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Those feckin' Papists. There's nothing in the world worse than the Catholic Church.

I apologize if I offended you. Sorry. Quite unintentional, I assure you.

[Nerdanel]

Today, May 17th, is the International Day Against Homophobia. You can read about IDAHO here: www.idahomophobia.org

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

No, your honor, it wasn't a sin. There is no such thing. I just managed to miscue on the societal expectations and it was really a matter of of a minor misjudgment on my perceptions.........

or something like that, right, BJ?!

The way I see it, "sin" is a construct of the society of humans that believe in divine law. And since, a) I do not believe in divine law and b) the greater society I am a part of (the USA) does not require me to follow divine law, I can not "sin".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I apologize if I offended you. Sorry. Quite unintentional, I assure you.

No, not at all. I meant to include a afterwards; I apologise for forgetting it, and thus seeming offended. I in fact found it rather amusing; I don't understand why you seem so concerned that we do not support official state condoning of certain relationships (and apparently ipso facto hate all persons those who have such relationships), and yet at the same time you have no trouble using the harshest language in condemning my religion (I'm almost surprised that "Whore of Babylon" wasn't included). It doesn't really seem consistent to me.

But again, no, I wasn't offended. I'm quite used to hearing the Catholic Church put down; when non-Catholics mention her, it's more or less all they do, after all. I intended that quote to be entirely light-hearted, and apologise for failing to include the tell-tale smiley.