Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

The same basic human rights, yes. But while they wish to be outside the moral compass, they want greater rights. IMO, you can't have it both ways.

Which "greater rights" are those exactly?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

The same basic human rights, yes. But while they wish to be outside the moral compass, they want greater rights. IMO, you can't have it both ways.

Being outside the "moral compass", would that be to marry someone of the same sex? If so, what is so immoral about that?

As I see it, it's not about "greater rights" - it's about less discrimination.

[Spock]

The right to "marry" is within the moral compass of society. -don't jump.

Greater rights is meant to explain the demand for changing that words meaning to suit those who insist on labeling their conduct as "whatever".

Civil Unions are able to convey the same rights etc. and yet maintain the different definitions of each type of behavior. The consistent attempt to errode such distinctions is counter productive to all, IMO.

[Butterbeer]

'ere what happened to me post?

that was funny ... how could anyone take offence with that???
(EDIT: they didn't apparently )

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

The same basic human rights, yes. But while they wish to be outside the moral compass, they want greater rights. IMO, you can't have it both ways.

Greater rights than who? Straight people? What rights do gay people want that straight people do not enjoy?

Equal does not mean greater.

(Yeah Butterbeer, I seem to remember quite a long post of yours near the end of the last page. )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

Greater rights is meant to explain the demand for changing that words meaning to suit those who insist on labeling their conduct as "whatever".

Wait... how is wanting to be able to marry also gaining greater rights... What is it exactly that gays are seeking to do that heterosexuals cant do? You havent shown me this "greater right" yet.

[Spock]

The right to change the existing laws meaning and intent and to subvert societies preference.

They want to be called gay or bi or what the h*** ever, but don't want laws which embrace that different status; i.e. civil union.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

They want to be called gay or bi or what the h*** ever, but don't want laws which embrace that different status; i.e. civil union.

They want that just as little as blacks would like to be prohibited from drinking from "whites only" water fountains.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Would you please go ahead and explain why it isn't a contradiction, then? Because to me, it looks like one.

There is no contraddiction what so ever. Here is the difference: the "set in stone"-type of pseudo-moralities such as the ones inspired by christianity are "given", they require no ethical judgement. My true morality requires a moral judgement for every possible contingency. The prescription for the moral act might vary according to the contingency for a given set of acts, and might be the same for all possible continegencies (such it is good to recognize same-sex sexuality as par with different-sex suality).
To sum it up one of the difference between the pseudo-moralities and my true morality is that I took the pain of evaluating what is the moral thing to do in each possible contingency that I can think of. I do not exclude that there might be contingenceis I have not thought of, but that's perfectly fine because I will use my moral sentiment in the moment in which these contingencies arise.

I believe I had already explained all this before.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I belong to the ambidextrous blonde Italian-Irish bisexual agnostic community, myself.

This sounds interesting

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

The right to change the existing laws meaning and intent and to subvert societies preference.

You mean to allow for the law to be EQUAL to ALL parties? Again I dont see how thats seeking a "greater right". And as for "subverting societies preference", tell it to the vast majority of americans who opposed civil rights for minorities just two generations ago. And to the vast majority that felt that giving blacks the right to marry whites was giving them a "greater right".

They want to be called gay or bi or what the h*** ever, but don't want laws which embrace that different status; i.e. civil union.

Again, "they" want to be treated equally. Thats all. Not discriminated against. Not be told be happy with a different social status and different laws and legal language for you. That is no different then the concept that apartheid was a fair and even way of white south africans to deal with black south africans.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

There is no contraddiction what so ever. Here is the difference: the "set in stone"-type of pseudo-moralities such as the ones inspired by christianity are "given", they require no ethical judgement. My true morality requires a moral judgement for every possible contingency. The prescription for the moral act might vary according to the contingency for a given set of acts, and might be the same for all possible continegencies (such it is good to recognize same-sex sexuality as par with different-sex suality).
To sum it up one of the difference between the pseudo-moralities and my true morality is that I took the pain of evaluating what is the moral thing to do in each possible contingency that I can think of. I do not exclude that there might be contingenceis I have not thought of, but that's perfectly fine because I will use my moral sentiment in the moment in which these contingencies arise.

I believe I had already explained all this before.

I never really understood your posts about morality until now. Just thought I'd point out your ideas were worth re-iterating.

And now on to equal rights for all gay people...

Originally Posted by Spock

The right to change the existing laws meaning and intent and to subvert societies preference.

They want to be called gay or bi or what the h*** ever, but don't want laws which embrace that different status; i.e. civil union.

This really sounds like "I'll treat you equally, as long as you don't want the same rights as me."

What you seem to be saying is that it's okay to descriminate based on sexuality. If you were hiring for a position, and you were right about to hire a certain person because she was the best qualified, would you suddenly not hire her if you found out she was a lesbian?

What would the Bill of Rights have to say about all this anyway?

[Spock]

Originally posted by Johnathan:
They want that just as little as blacks would like to be prohibited from drinking from "whites only" water fountains.


That's an unbalanced comparison. Been there and it's no such thing.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What you seem to be saying is that it's okay to descriminate based on sexuality.......

NO, I am not saying any such thing.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

would you suddenly not hire her if you found out she was a lesbian?

YOU just don't get what I'm saying in plain English and that is understandable, I'd have trouble in any second language. She could be a lesbian but she couldn't ask that she be included in the definition of heterosexual. Hope that makes it a bit clearer. I respect your passion on the subject.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This really sounds like "I'll treat you equally, as long as you don't want the same rights as me."

It's a matter of semantics which I choose not to go into now.

We're actually saying the same thing, only slightly different wording.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Spock

Originally posted by Johnathan:
They want that just as little as blacks would like to be prohibited from drinking from "whites only" water fountains.


That's an unbalanced comparison. Been there and it's no such thing.

Thought this would enliven the debate about black attitudes - unless you don't want Africans to have their own opinions.....

World Christianity under new management?
Mainline churches and the collapse of colonialism

by David C. Steinmetz

It's no secret, of course, that Christianity is an international movement. But it is an international movement that has been dominated by Christians in the developed West. Christians from Asia, Africa and Latin America (the region known as the Global South) have taken their cues from the settled churches of Europe and North America.

There are signs, however, that this relationship is changing. Take, for example, the recent debate in the United States and Canada over gay ordination and same-sex marriage. While mainline churches in the West have taken an increasingly liberal stance on gay and lesbian issues, churches in the Global South have not. With very few exceptions, they oppose the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The English newspaper, The Guardian, urged Anglicans in the developed West to "ignore the bigots" in the Global South and to continue to support gay and lesbian issues. But ignoring the Global South is increasingly hard to do.

At its triennial convention, the Anglican Church of Canada decided to postpone its debate on the approval of same-sex unions until 2007, even though the liberal provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, already have approved same-sex marriage. The reason was the opposition of the Global South.

The case for postponement was argued by the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, speaking on behalf of the archbishop of Canterbury. Such a postponement could buy time for the beleaguered Anglican Communion and reduce the strains brought on by the unilateral decision of the Episcopal Church to consecrate an openly gay man, Gene Robinson, as the bishop of New Hampshire. The Canadians grudgingly agreed to wait.

The Global South is hard to ignore because it is the fastest-growing area in Christendom. In 1900, there were only 10 million Christians in Africa. Africa now has 360 million, Latin America 560 million and Asia 313 million. There are at least 30 million Christians in China, perhaps as many as 50 million. Korea has a large Christian minority, and Korean missionaries can be found throughout Asia.

The figures for attendance at Sunday worship are even more striking. Archbishop Peter Akinola presides over an Anglican Church in Nigeria with more than 17 million members. But Anglican services in Nigeria can be attended on any Sunday by twice that number of worshippers. In contrast, the Church of England with 26 million members and the Episcopal Church with 2.3 million have an average Sunday attendance of roughly 800,000.

Christians in the West are well aware of the reaction against Western values by Islamic militants but seem far less sensitive to the anti-colonial thinking of Christians in the Global South. Africans in particular regard the imposition of the sexual morality of the West on their traditional societies as a new and insidious form of intellectual colonialism that must be resisted.

As painful as the cross-cultural argument between Christians in the West and Global South may be, it is unavoidable. One of the oldest tests for authentic Christian teaching is to ask whether it is universally accepted. The old rule was it should have been taught "everywhere, always and by all."

According to that rule, a theological opinion was thought to fail the test of universality if it could be embraced in Canada but not in Kenya, or in England but not in Hong Kong. On the other hand, it passed a crucial test if it showed staying power over time.

Even then, it could not be accepted as correct if promoted by only one sociological group -- by men but not by women, by whites but not by blacks, or by rich but not by poor. Christians thought truth was by definition boundary-transcending, or it was an error. "Local option" was another name for heresy.

Judged by the ancient standard of "everywhere, always and by all," the international debate in mainline Christian churches over human sexuality is a long way away from achieving a consensus. The temptation of the liberal West will be to give up on dialogue with the more conservative Global South, surrender any hope of consensus and fall back into the comfortable old ways of colonial thinking. We teach; they listen.

But falling into the bad old ways is a formula for disaster. Unless the emerging consensus of the churches over human sexuality is international, it will not last.

You can count on it.

-- David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns professor of the history of Christianity at the Divinity School at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel. It is reprinted with his permission.

END
++++++++++++

So, do black africans get to say their views and have them count, or is it just the white, northern, politically correct?

[Nurvingiel]

I love the title "World Christianity under new management?" After billions of years of hard work, God has retired to persue his hobbies and relax. In a recent statement, He's quoted to saying "I'm thinking of writing another autobiography."

Christianity in Africa does tend to be ultra-conservative. Obviously there's a lot of factors involved. There's a great deal of hardship in Africa, and I think this leads to strong conservatism. Of course, it's much more complicated, but I think this is a factor.

I'm not going to ignore the "global south" [??], but I will disagree with any anti-gay sentiment no matter who is saying it.

Interesting article though Inked. Conservative African bishops are an important part of the debate that we haven't looked at in this thread.



edit:

Originally Posted by inked

So, do black africans get to say their views and have them count, or is it just the white, northern, politically correct?

Of course they get their say! (There are a lot of black people that are for gay marriage too.) Everyone gets to have their say.

I'm an equal-opportunity disagreer. There are probably more anti-gay than pro-gay people (to crudely break it down) in the world, but numbers don't equal rightness.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Discriminating against LGBT people is wrong regardless of the continent of provenance of the discriminator

[Butterbeer]

Inked i saw (or heard) a report recently about the reversal of Missionaries ... how more now were now coming from the third world or 'global South' (??) to become missionaries in the developed and decadent West.

Funny, but in a way not suprising

In terms of rights and civil unions and the subsequent rights as afforded literally today to same sex marriages in England, there is an equality issue in terms of rights and legality and finance - like income support, pensions, inheritance tax, etc etc ... these are not "more" than others, BUT in terms of marrying in church and before God ... that is another issue ... until any such time as rightly or wrongly the Church umbrella decides they do not consider it immoral before God (which would be tricky to do without ignoring various scripture etc) then it will not be an option ....

but under english law, now, same sex civil unions are legally and financially more or less on a par ...

there was these two women (both rather butch with spiky hair) signing up today at brighton registry office for a wedding before christmas, on the BBC breakfast programme ....

... they were very happy - what was interesting though... One of them was the local Vicar. (true - funny old world, ain't it?)

[brownjenkins]

south africa's top court blesses gay marriage