Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Spock]

Part of the continuing problem is exactly that. Different meanings and/or usage by posters for the same word or phrase. It leads to tension and havoc if not clarified up front. Try it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

... naturally my dear Gwai.

Glad you understand.

Originally Posted by EH

My thoughts on this topic are that it exists solely to give religious zealots an opportunity to justify their prejudices.

Should I say that it exists only for radical liberals to attempt to undermine Western civilization? Shall we play tat for tit, Elfhelm, and see who can insult the other better? Or would it be better if we respected one another, and were willing to accept people as having different views without slinging mud at them and assuming that everyone who disagrees with us is operating solely on something so base, without truly considering the matter, and employing Reason, the king of the soul, in their beliefs? Must we reduce our opponents to the low level of prejudice, and what not, or are we capable of respecting different opinions?

Anyway, I'm afraid what you claim it is for doesn't make much sense, since the thread was founded by a supporter of gay rights, but not someone who was a wild-eyed liberal (so that what I proposed would be senseless as well). I think rather the purpose is for people to discuss this issue, and to have serious and open dialogue, striving to understand different opinions on this topic.

The only argument we normal folks can give is to be tolerant.

But haven't the "normal folks" just been arguing that it is natural?

Anyway, we do tolerate homosexuality. I'm afraid you are misusing the word.

And again, do you think that it is fair to portray yourself as "normal" and everyone who disagrees with you on this issue as "religious zealots"? Do you really think the division on this subject is so simple? I would remind you, the Marquess of Queensbury was an agnostic, who wrote that "no Christian Mummeries" were to be read at his funeral.

But they think Rome fell due to loose morals. I believe that theory unlies all their real objections. They feel America will fall if we tolerate gay people.

1) I absolutely support the toleration of gay people, and believe not tolerating them is a monstrosity of wickedness and prejudice, unless it is balanced by non-toleration of a number of other things (what exactly they are depending on the reason for not tolerating gays), in which case I would merely say that it is very much over strict.

2) I assume you are using "tolerate gay people" to mean A) teach everyone that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and B) allow same-sex unions. If you mean something different, correct me. However, based on this definition of the phrase, I don't by any means believe America will fall as a nation or political institute.

Gays are probably the most reviled people in history.

I don't know about that; the Jews have been pretty badly reviled. I would also point out that historically, the distinction between "gay" and "straight" simply doesn't apply; ancient culture's views on sexuality seem to have been too different from ours to be

By the way, everyone: Do you consider it offensive for a straight person to call a homosexual person "gay"? I read on some website that it was okay for gays to call themselves that, but if a straight person did it, it was a very offensive term. That seems quite wrong to me, and very contrary to my experience, and I'm just wondering: is my perception skewed? Also, if so, what would be a suitable substitute?

A society's greatness can be measured by how it treats its minorities. In America today, we are falling short of greatness.

I don't know about that; I think Rome was great, but she wasn't terribly tolerant.

[Elfhelm]

Gwai, I made a point of using the word zealot. By that I mean the lunatic fringe, not ordinary religious folk who are concerned with their own salvation. The zealots are the ones who, I think, aren't able to live with just thinking they are right. They have to run around telling everyone else that they are wrong.

The reason I oppose this thread, and the gay marriage thread, is because now you have three threads in which to discuss religion. There is no other opposition to homosexuality than religion. I think the posts in this thread prove that.

The brute prejudice of gay bashers is just male dominant behavior, justified by the statements of religious zealots. What they do is a crime, and any support of a crime through apologetics (usually referenceing the Bible or the Koran) is the second degree of the same crime. For instance, if you see a murder and don't report it, you are a murderer, legally. And if you tell someone else it is ok to kill someone, and they do it, you are again a murderer. That's why Manson is in jail. And if you say that witches should be burned, even if you don't do it yourself, you share the guilt of witch burners. So I say every religious zealot who says that the Bible says gays are evil is giving permission to the boys to keep up their brutal behaviors.

Is Reason truly the king of the soul? Or aren't we actually governed by the irrational such that Reason is necessary to temper us.

And I think my reasoning that is continuing to be conveniently ignored, that non-procreative sex must be a successful survival behavior, is sound. What I think is irrational is the fear of the breakdown of the family if some people of the same sex love each other. So as you can see, it all fits for me. We must temper the irrational, male dominant, gaybashing, homophobic prejudice that is condoned in archaic religious texts with a new rationality of toleration, equality, protection from violence, and education.

other notes:

Gay is the word. That website sounds dubious.

Rome fell because of its own arrogance, and its intolerance was a symptom of it. Thinking one's nation has God on its side even when it commits war crimes is about one step away from the Roman way of thinking, and it is practically asking for the same result.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

There is no other opposition to homosexuality than religion.

In my experience, I have always seen it boil down to TWO issues actually. Theres the “because the [insert holy scripture here] says its wrong” but there is also the “because its disgusting” reasoning. You see this in many atheists and minimally religious folk.

I think the posts in this thread prove that.

In fact in the old gay thread we had a couple of these meat headed “because its disgusting” types post comments specifically derogatory of homosexuals and of their behavior and of an apparent universal wish among these types that they better not touch them or they’ll bash their head in etc. Rest assured these Neanderthals would be much more likely to pursue instruction in a publication like Hustler or Monster Trucks then they would in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

By the way, everyone: Do you consider it offensive for a straight person to call a homosexual person "gay"? I read on some website that it was okay for gays to call themselves that, but if a straight person did it, it was a very offensive term. That seems quite wrong to me, and very contrary to my experience, and I'm just wondering: is my perception skewed?

That’s bogus. Theres nothing wrong with calling someone gay if they are gay. Assuming it isn’t being used in its derogatory form which it often is of course. But if its used as a relevant description of their sexual persuasion then its fine and those folks need to get over themselves. One of my best friends is a lesbian and I call her a dyke all the time. She finds pride in that rather then insult. But the key is I don’t mean it as an insult and she knows it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

There is no other opposition to homosexuality than religion.

That's not true.

STDs resulting from homosexual behavior and from promiscuous heterosexual behavior are a terrible affliction our country and many other parts of the world, especially Africa, experience. Many of those diseases wouldn't be problems if it wasn't for homosexuality.

Also, homosexuals often tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals, and that kind of morality has a negative impact on society. The Gay Pride marches also tend to be highly explicit in nature. The majority of the homosexuals I've met personally are fixated on sex far more than the majority of the heterosexuals I've met. Those are all things negative for society in general. That goes for heterosexual promiscuity as well as homosexual, but homosexuality seems to be a source of this kind of behavior to a significantly greater extent than heterosexuality. Monogomous homosexuals are not nearly so common as monogomous heterosexuals.

Homosexuals also have significantly higher suicide rates than heterosexuals do. I don't buy into the argument that this is the result of persecution they experience partly because one lesbian friend I have told me that she had experienced suicidal thoughts, but she also let me know that in her school, it was actually the heterosexuals who were teased about their sexuality rather than the homos.



None of these issues is purely religious or a simple "it's disgusting" approach. I think homosexuality is disgusting and also very sad, because I like homosexual people a lot and I think homosexuality causes significant problems they have to deal with.

The issues I've raised above have already been spoken about on this thread before, and responded to, and responses are made to the responses, and response made to those, etc. It's a big debate, obviously, and the issues of diseases, promiscuity and suicide rates have certainly been hacked apart in detail. But even though you think that these arguments I've raised are invalid for various reasons, I don't bring them up to show you that homosexuality is wrong. I'm simply bringing them up to show you Elfhelm and Insidious Rex that the arguments about this issue are NOT all either religious or "it's disgusting" arguments.

Perhaps the arguments I pointed out above are flawed- I know you think they are, though I don't. But whether they are or not is not my point. My only point in bringing them up is to show you that the arguments concerning this matter are not all religious. It is either ignorant or strongly biased to say that all arguments on the matter are either religious or "it's disgusting" claims. As I have shown, some of the most commonly raised arguments concerning this matter are of neither of these two varieties.


EDIT: By the way, this may very easily seem a cop-out, but I'm going to be leaving for France tomorrow and will be gone for a month, so I won't be able to respond to anyone on this after today.

[Elfhelm]

Lief, the religious background to everything you said is obvious to me. You state that promiscuity is somehow harmful to society, but you don't say why. You take it as a given. But that is actually a religious opinion. If you study all cultures, and don't simply accept what you are told, you'll find that there have been many successful societies who members were more promiscuous than the Bible allows people to be.

And you have your facts wrong about HIV and Africa. It is mostly women who are suffering there.

IR, I'm saying the male dominant behavior "because it's disgusting" is actually a kind of gayness. They are tops that have been twisted by the sickness in our society that abhors tenderness and preaches against affection. They are victims, too.

But whether the brutality came first or the religious injunctions, I don't know. It's a chicken or the egg question.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm simply bringing them up to show you Elfhelm and Insidious Rex that the arguments about this issue are NOT all either religious or "it's disgusting" arguments.

Lets ignore for now that most of your arguments are simple ignorant stereotypes or worse. And lets also ignore for now that basically your arguments are against "promiscuity" and not homosexuality according to the logic of your assertions.

Your arguments listed above are all "moral" in nature. Are you saying morality is independent from religion for you?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

IR, I'm saying the male dominant behavior "because it's disgusting" is actually a kind of gayness. They are tops that have been twisted by the sickness in our society that abhors tenderness and preaches against affection. They are victims, too.

All of them? Thats quite an assertion considering the numbers of angry male gay bashers there are in the world.

[Elfhelm]

Yeah, I think they bash gays because they hate themselves. And they hate themselves because the religious people tell them they are sinful for their secret gay thoughts.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your arguments listed above are all "moral" in nature. Are you saying morality is independent from religion for you?

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Lief, the religious background to everything you said is obvious to me.

So only a religious person would object to STDs and high suicide rates?

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You state that promiscuity is somehow harmful to society, but you don't say why. You take it as a given. But that is actually a religious opinion. If you study all cultures, and don't simply accept what you are told, you'll find that there have been many successful societies who members were more promiscuous than the Bible allows people to be.

We don't have suicide rates for many of these ancient cultures, and we also don't have much information on how widespread STDs were among them. We don't know how self-esteem fared in many of these places. Without valid data to form comparisons, we can't know how badly promiscuity might have hampered these societies.

STDs are one obvious reason why promiscuity is harmful to society, though many people simply take that for granted whether they're religious or not.
Perhaps I should have combined that argument with the one I listed first, though.

[Butterbeer]

wotcha Lief!

[B]edit****[/B]

damn ..missed him ... oh well suppose i better go read the thread an al ...

[Butterbeer]

eh up , he's back on again???

wotcha Lief, hows it going my friend?

[Butterbeer]

ok ... bit sketchy but jumping in ala BB of old .... i think you will find the VAST ... i repeat for clarity ,... VAST majority of aids infection in Africa is hetero.

without any agenda here at all - seriously - the Catholic church and stance on condoms is factually the main perp here.

..heh .. just a fact .... i look forward to arguing with any bleeper wants to try this one ..


all the best (seriously) BB x

[Butterbeer]

we talk ABOUT FREEDOM OR LIBERALITY OR JUSTICE OR ETC ETC ....

(OOPS CAPS LOCK) er caps lock ...


but ... do you really think this 1st world western perspective applies in Africa? The continent that sends now missionaries into the western world: usa, uk, europe etc etc?

Africa if we were (and i do NOT wish to ) ... but if we were to say , is essentially as a fair metaphor as old testament as the West is Capaitalist ...

... you really can eqaute the AIDS pandemic in Africa with homosexuality ??????


...whichever way you care to come at this, that is clearly one fact that does not add up.

simple pure FACT.

...hope that helps guys and girls, best BB x x x

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So only a religious person would object to STDs and high suicide rates?

No, but in my experience, it's usually the religious folk who blame homosexuality for the epidemics of AIDS and other STD's.

[Elfhelm]

Yeah, the church forbidding condom distribution. The US insisting on changing texts that recommend condoms to texts that suggest abstinence, and one more truly devious thing. Female circumcision. In the Christian and Muslim parts of Africa where this practice is done, supposedly to discourage female pleasure and to discourage the seeking of pleasure, the HIV cases among women number higher than among men. I would call that an example of a practice, condoned by religion, that is un-natural, and truly harmful to the species.

Of course, I also think killing your artistic people just because they are contrary in nature is unwise. The killing of gays really has always been about shutting up the dissenters, hasn't it?

Who was it said the Jews were more reviled than the gays? Oh, it was Gwai. Well, I have yet to meet a Jew who's afraid to tell his own father!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

... Of course, I also think killing your artistic people! ...

i refer you to your previous post somewhere ... something asbout quotes???




i'm not sure that is quite what Gwai said or meant though?? ...

best, BB

[Elfhelm]

You are right. To be fair I must acknowledge that Gwai said:

1) I absolutely support the toleration of gay people, and believe not tolerating them is a monstrosity of wickedness and prejudice, unless it is balanced by non-toleration of a number of other things (what exactly they are depending on the reason for not tolerating gays), in which case I would merely say that it is very much over strict.

2) I assume you are using "tolerate gay people" to mean A) teach everyone that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and B) allow same-sex unions. If you mean something different, correct me. However, based on this definition of the phrase, I don't by any means believe America will fall as a nation or political institute.

1. Thanks

2. I don't expect miracles. I understand that we have to take baby steps. So teaching everyone that gays have made significant contributions to society with specific examples would be a good start. It's called gay appreciation. After all, these computers we are using to communicate... well...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Gwai, I made a point of using the word zealot. By that I mean the lunatic fringe, not ordinary religious folk who are concerned with their own salvation. The zealots are the ones who, I think, aren't able to live with just thinking they are right. They have to run around telling everyone else that they are wrong.

Well, EH, I don't run around telling everyone else they are wrong. I don't introduce myself to new people and say "Hi, my name is Gwaimir Windgem, the Catholic Church is the one true religion, homosexuality is wrong, traditional worship is superior to modern worship, etc." No. But if it comes up, I do discuss it. Do you know why?

Because I believe that Truth is one of the highest goods one can possibly attain. I believe that the search for Truth is of vital importance to everyone. I believe that mankind is, intellectually speaking, like a group of pilgrims, working their way together towards the attainment of Truth; sort of a "communion of saints" type-thing, only not in a religious aspect. Basically, we're in this boat together, and we need to help each other to find the Truth. I welcome people trying in a charitable and courteous way to help me find the truth; I think this one of the greatest goods we can do for one another. No-one of us has an ultimate understanding of Truth, but short of a direction booming voice from the Heavens, we're stuck with our limited means, and the means of our fellow men. Thus, we must attempt to utilize these to the best extent that we can. I believe that I must seriously consider any reasoned attempt to show me the Truth, even if it contrary to my current view. And similarly, I believe that I must try to help others to see the Truth. As I said before, we're all in the same boat, on the same road to Truth, and we have to help each other to stay on the straight and narrow, and accept the help of others.

I hope you can see it's not just some sort of arrogant superiority complex that leads me to debate. It's something much deeper than that, something motivated by a deep yearning to come to the Truth, and to help others to do so.

The reason I oppose this thread, and the gay marriage thread, is because now you have three threads in which to discuss religion. There is no other opposition to homosexuality than religion. I think the posts in this thread prove that.

This is untrue. One can oppose homosexuality without referencing religion. Certain ancient Romans opposed it, and the Greco-Roman religion if anything condoned this (see Zeus and Ganymede). Also, as I stated before, the Marquess of Queensbury was an avowed agnostic.

The brute prejudice of gay bashers is just male dominant behavior, justified by the statements of religious zealots. What they do is a crime, and any support of a crime through apologetics (usually referenceing the Bible or the Koran) is the second degree of the same crime.

Depends on what they do. If they keep their prejudice to themselves, it's not a crime, just wrong. If, however, they beat someone up for being gay, it's definitely a crime and also wrong. I assume by apologetics, you mean defending their actions? In which case, I would definitely agree that it is wrong to do so.

So I say every religious zealot who says that the Bible says gays are evil is giving permission to the boys to keep up their brutal behaviors.

Then I guess I'm exempt, as I neither say gays are evil, nor that the Bible says so.

Is Reason truly the king of the soul? Or aren't we actually governed by the irrtional such that Reason is necessary to temper us.

It ought to be, and we should strive to make it so. But there are few monarchical men or women these days; most are democratic, ruled by their passions.

Gay is the word. That website sounds dubious.

That's what I thought. It sounded like bunk to me, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't just way out in the left-field.

Rome fell because of its own arrogance, and its intolerance was a symptom of it. Thinking one's nation has God on its side even when it commits war crimes is about one step away from the Roman way of thinking, and it is practically asking for the same result.

So, you're not going to go with the whole Gibbon theory that it was the Christians who killed Rome?

But anyway, do you deny either that Rome was a) a great society or b) intolerant?

Yeah, I think they bash gays because they hate themselves. And they hate themselves because the religious people tell them they are sinful for their secret gay thoughts.

Respectfully, I disagree, and I believe I am more qualified to speak on this than you. To borrow your language, the religious people me I am sinful for my secret gay thoughts, and I agree (being myself one of those bigoted zealots). However, I do NOT bash gays, but very much respect them. I'm much more likely to bash gay-bashers than gays. I simply think that homosexuality is wrong; this is not the same as bashing gays.

Incidentally, what basis do you have for saying that gay-bashers are all latent homosexuals, as you seem to be doing?

without any agenda here at all - seriously - the Catholic church and stance on condoms is factually the main perp here.

One bleeper comin' up...No, I don't think so. I think it's blatantly obvious that if abstinence was the rule, contraception wouldn't be an issue.

Of course, I also think killing your artistic people just because they are contrary in nature is unwise.

Umm...I'm not quite sure what you mean here...could you clarify?

The killing of gays really has always been about shutting up the dissenters, hasn't it?

I don't profess to be sufficiently learned in the matter to be able to say the reason for it, so no comment.

Who was it said the Jews were more reviled than the gays? Oh, it was Gwai. Well, I have yet to meet a Jew who's afraid to tell his own father!

True enough. But again, there have been a lot more rulers that expelled all Jews from their domains than there have been that expelled men who have sex with men from their domains. They sort of turned a blind eye (and sneering lip), (largely due, probably to the fact that such things were generally the practices of those who were dangerous to persecute). During certain periods of the middle ages, the practice was rampant among the clergy, for example, and I'm sure you'll agree with anything indicating the oppressive nature of the Papist hierarchy.

Oh, here's another one. How about witches? They've been pretty reviled.

I understand that we have to take baby steps. So teaching everyone that gays have made significant contributions to society with specific examples would be a good start.

I certainly approve of that. Big Oscar Wilde fan here. Though he was bi, not gay, but since it's his homosexual relations that were so famous, I think he probably counts, or am I wrong?

But anyway, you seem to have not noted the original context here. You stated that we think that America will fall if you tolerate gays. I asked for a definition of tolerating gays. I'm assuming you do not mean to say that we believe America will fall if we teach that gays have made significant contributions to society, correct? So, in that context, what exactly is it that you mean by "tolerating gays", which people like Rian, Lief, inked, and I, believe will lead to the downfall of America?


Elfhelm, I don't think you replied to much of what I said. Could I ask again again:

Do you believe that we should respect the (thought-out) opinions of others, and not simply make blanket statements about them and ad hominem arguments?

[Lief Erikson]

Hey BB! Been a while . About to be a while longer too, seeing as I'm about to go absent again. Oh well; it's good to hear from you .

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

ok ... bit sketchy but jumping in ala BB of old .... i think you will find the VAST ... i repeat for clarity ,... VAST majority of aids infection in Africa is hetero.

It's logical that the vast majority of people infected with AIDS would be heterosexual simply because homosexuals make up only a small percentage of the total population. I don't know how much of the current AIDS problem is in modern times caused by homosexuality; I just don't have any data on that. However, I have heard Inked argue that AIDS originated with and was originally spread through homosexuality. As he's a medically licensed professional, I'd need to see some solid evidence to counter what he's said.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

No, but in my experience, it's usually the religious folk who blame homosexuality for the epidemics of AIDS and other STD's.

My point is that there are nonreligious arguments out there as well as religious arguments, whether it's mainly religious people who argue them or not.

Your experience has been my experience too, on this. I think that this is largely because non-religious people have worldviews which say homosexuality is ethically okay. Thus they want to accept it, especially in the more liberal culture we live in these days. That desire to be accepting of homosexuality (which also avoids getting you labeled "intolerant" or "bigot") biases people against arguments and data that show homosexuality often hurts people.

Of course, one might just as well say that it's actually religious folk that are the biased ones, and I think that's a fair point. Some religious people are just plain biased. Other religious people just connect the dots in a reasonable pathway and thus religion leads them to say homosexuality is wrong.

For instance, I might say: Evidence shows compellingly that Christ was the Son of God. Evidence shows compellingly that the Bible is infallibly accurate. Hence if the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, homosexuality is wrong. Provided the evidence supporting the assumptions is really strong, all this logically follows. Thus religion is a sensible form of evidence.

Bias goes both ways, in my view, and I've seen plenty of bias on this from both sides. I don't know how many nonreligious people are out there who object to homosexuality, but I suspect there are plenty of people. That would actually be very interesting to know.