Comments
Posted by BlondChick :: 
:: 
:: Mar 21, 2005 07:46pm
:: :: Mar 21, 2005 07:46pmPeople who protest at gay pride events either need to get a life or join the party closet case!
Posted by Jenna :: 
:: 
:: Mar 22, 2005 01:24am
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 01:24amI've always wanted to protest against the protesters. Like create big signs with Bible quotes on them about shaving their beards and eating shellfish. It would certainly cut their Bible arguments against homosexuality to shreds and as an added bonus, rile them up and make them look particularly stupid.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 12:23pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 12:23pmI've always wanted to confront anti-abortion protesters and ask them how many adopted children they have (since this always seems to be one of their "options" for girls - just give the baby up for adoption). I never have, because they make me so angry that I'm afraid I'd bean one of them and get myself thrown in jail.
People who feel they have the right to publicly stand in judgement of others just appall me. One is certainly entitled to one's own opinion, but it seems to me that standing on a street corner and shouting about it doesn't accomplish much.
People who feel they have the right to publicly stand in judgement of others just appall me. One is certainly entitled to one's own opinion, but it seems to me that standing on a street corner and shouting about it doesn't accomplish much.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 06:13pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 06:13pmWe get a lot of that corner shouting stuff around this area. It's embarrassing to know I share genetic material with some of these cretins.
I am neither pro- nor anti-abortion. I think both are wasting effort battling each other. What should be going on is trying to fix all the reasons that a woman would feel unable or unwilling to bring a child into the world. Of course, if all of us were working on those issues, there would not be enough time to stand in judgement of anyone else -- hell, we wouldn't have time to worry about what anyone else was doing, would we?
Ah, if only you and I ran the world, RedRaven. Tell me -- milk or dark chocolate?
I am neither pro- nor anti-abortion. I think both are wasting effort battling each other. What should be going on is trying to fix all the reasons that a woman would feel unable or unwilling to bring a child into the world. Of course, if all of us were working on those issues, there would not be enough time to stand in judgement of anyone else -- hell, we wouldn't have time to worry about what anyone else was doing, would we?
Ah, if only you and I ran the world, RedRaven. Tell me -- milk or dark chocolate?
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 07:23pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 07:23pmOoh, ooh! Dark chocolate...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 07:52pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 07:52pmNow I know Sir Craig and I are soulmates...gotta be DARK chocolate! In fact, I've placed an order with a friend who is travelling to England the 1st of the month for a bar of English dark. Yum!!
How about you Sherri?
How about you Sherri?
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 07:57pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 07:57pmDark. Completely Dark. I prefer the 70% pure chocolate bar from Lindt, although once upon a time I got my widdle hands on something called "Aztec Black" chocolate...it lives still in my memory, although it didn't last a half-hour. Pure, unsweetened baking chocolate is just a tad too bitter for me, but only a tad...
That was what I needed to know. It is obvious you and I should rule the world. Sir Craig can be our cabana boy...
That was what I needed to know. It is obvious you and I should rule the world. Sir Craig can be our cabana boy...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 08:23pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 08:23pmYou are a gentlewoman and a scholar, and I like the way you think! The world would be a better place for our ruling it.
And the thought of Sir Craig as a cabana boy...most appealing! However, that job might be too much of a waste of his brilliant mind and glib tongue. Perhaps one of our other ABAHC hunks would apply...?
And the thought of Sir Craig as a cabana boy...most appealing! However, that job might be too much of a waste of his brilliant mind and glib tongue. Perhaps one of our other ABAHC hunks would apply...?
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 08:42pm
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 08:42pmI don't think he would be wasted, really. He would be always available for scintillating conversation (with us) and could still bring us tall cool drinks and perfect dark chocolate confections and make sure the beach umbrella was always tilted the right way, and we could watch him during his off minutes lying on his stomach on his towel in his beach-appropriate attire reading Shopenhauer...
Of course there are no rules saying we cannot have multiple cabana boys. Like perfect dark chocolate, cabana boys can be enjoyed in multiples.
Of course there are no rules saying we cannot have multiple cabana boys. Like perfect dark chocolate, cabana boys can be enjoyed in multiples.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 23, 2005 06:09pm
:: :: Mar 23, 2005 06:09pmSuddenly I'm feeling all tingly -- must be the dark chocolate squares from Ghirardelli I just had (that and the thought of Sherri and redraven ogling me -- it's the perky breasts and my critical analysis of Schopenhauer and his inability to appreciate individuality, isn't it?)...
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 23, 2005 11:00pm
:: :: Mar 23, 2005 11:00pmObviously...and I bet you're just all over Kant ;>
Posted by Sir Craig, cabana boy :: :: :: Mar 24, 2005 09:01pm
:: :: Mar 24, 2005 09:01pmIT'S THE BRUCES' PHILOSOPHERS SONG!
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schegal.
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.
- Courtesy of Eric Idle and the rest of Monty Python's Flying Circus
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schegal.
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.
- Courtesy of Eric Idle and the rest of Monty Python's Flying Circus
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 25, 2005 12:25am
:: :: Mar 25, 2005 12:25amI used to write that on the blackboard in one of my philosophy classes waaaaay long time ago in college! The prof I had loved it. One night when I did it, he couldn't make himself erase it to put up notes for the lecture.
I can sing it, too.
Sir Craig, you are now on my list of Officially Adored People. This entitles you to share my dark chocolate and one free cookie.
I can sing it, too.
Sir Craig, you are now on my list of Officially Adored People. This entitles you to share my dark chocolate and one free cookie.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 25, 2005 07:05pm
:: :: Mar 25, 2005 07:05pmJoy! :)
(enjoying a dark chocolate as I type)
The feeling, I assure you, is mutual. We three shall chocolate ourselves silly...
(enjoying a dark chocolate as I type)
The feeling, I assure you, is mutual. We three shall chocolate ourselves silly...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Mar 25, 2005 08:08pm
:: :: Mar 25, 2005 08:08pm...and revel in the joy of spending time with like-thinking people! :) Anyone who can sing the philosopher song is someone I'd love to share an evening with!
Here's to our smart/sexy cabana boy, and dark chocolate!
Here's to our smart/sexy cabana boy, and dark chocolate!
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 25, 2005 10:43pm
:: :: Mar 25, 2005 10:43pm*blush*
:)
:)
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 25, 2005 11:57pm
:: :: Mar 25, 2005 11:57pmI second this! Intelligence, dark chocolate, cabana boy talents and knowledge of Monty Python are characteristics always to be prized in anyone, handsome men in particular.
Posted by Amy Bo Bamy :: :: :: Mar 23, 2005 11:10am
:: :: Mar 23, 2005 11:10amOr better yet, why don't they stand and protest outside of fertility clinics? :P
Posted by hardvice :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:15am
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:15amMy only problem with over-dependence on the "inborn" position is that it seems to indicate that homosexuality is something that needs to be excused. While that certainly may be the right approach to win over the fundies, I'd rather sane, rational people not view my sexuality as a kind of birth defect--something I was born with and for which it would be wrong to punish me. Instead, I'd rather people view sexual orientation in a way that doesn't really care whether it's inborn or chosen, or immutable or mutable.
A better analogue than birth defects would be, oddly enough, religion. Most people are "born" into a certain religion (that of their parents), although it's learned behaviour rather than a genetic byproduct. If they really want to, they can change what religion they belong to, or at the very least adopt the practices of another even if they find they can't change their underlying brainwashing beliefs. Yet almost no one would say it's appropriate to discriminate against a religious group. Why not? Religion is not genetically determined, nor is it immutable. The reason probably is that, like sexuality, it's a fundamental part of how a person constructs their identity. Whether we like the religious choices a person makes or not, it becomes a basic, almost inseperable part of who that person is, and discrimination based on that is as problematic as discrimination based on salient and immutable characteristics like race and sex or as socially constructed characteristics like gender and nationality. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether sexuality is genetically determined or predisposed; it's still one of those fundamental identity characteristics towards which we should tolerate no discrimination.
As an added bonus, this approach also overcomes the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric spewed by the fundies, and used to argue that discriminatory laws focus on homosexual practices and not homosexuals themselves. Genuine religious practices are protected, even when they might otherwise be prohibitable; it stands to reason the same would hold for genuine expressions of sexual preference.
Also, the analogy between religion and sexuality always seems to piss them off, which is really just icing.
A better analogue than birth defects would be, oddly enough, religion. Most people are "born" into a certain religion (that of their parents), although it's learned behaviour rather than a genetic byproduct. If they really want to, they can change what religion they belong to, or at the very least adopt the practices of another even if they find they can't change their underlying brainwashing beliefs. Yet almost no one would say it's appropriate to discriminate against a religious group. Why not? Religion is not genetically determined, nor is it immutable. The reason probably is that, like sexuality, it's a fundamental part of how a person constructs their identity. Whether we like the religious choices a person makes or not, it becomes a basic, almost inseperable part of who that person is, and discrimination based on that is as problematic as discrimination based on salient and immutable characteristics like race and sex or as socially constructed characteristics like gender and nationality. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether sexuality is genetically determined or predisposed; it's still one of those fundamental identity characteristics towards which we should tolerate no discrimination.
As an added bonus, this approach also overcomes the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric spewed by the fundies, and used to argue that discriminatory laws focus on homosexual practices and not homosexuals themselves. Genuine religious practices are protected, even when they might otherwise be prohibitable; it stands to reason the same would hold for genuine expressions of sexual preference.
Also, the analogy between religion and sexuality always seems to piss them off, which is really just icing.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:37am
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:37amFirst off, I didn't mean to characterize homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) as a birth defect; if that's how it comes across, I apologize.
That said, I have to disagree with your reasoning here. I don't think a Christian will be convinced if you compare their religion with being gay or straight, and pissing them off to no purpose is counterproductive. And while one can change one's religion through an act of introspection and conscience, I don't think anyone can change their sexuality that way, not fundamentally or permanently, anyway. Sure, you can stop doing the acts, but does that really make you stop being what you are? I doubt it.
That said, I have to disagree with your reasoning here. I don't think a Christian will be convinced if you compare their religion with being gay or straight, and pissing them off to no purpose is counterproductive. And while one can change one's religion through an act of introspection and conscience, I don't think anyone can change their sexuality that way, not fundamentally or permanently, anyway. Sure, you can stop doing the acts, but does that really make you stop being what you are? I doubt it.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:50am
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:50amSure, you can stop doing the acts, but does that really make you stop being what you are?
Wouldn't that be similar to being a dry drunk
Wouldn't that be similar to being a dry drunk
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:13pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:13pmWell sure, if you equate being homosexual with being alcoholic. But I don't think being homosexual is a disease or a defect.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:23pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:23pmthat's not quite what I meant. a dry drunk is somebody that still has the behavior of a drunk without actually drinking. so a dry homosexual (no pun intended) would be somebody that still lives and acts like a homosexual without actually partaking in the physical activities of a homosexual.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:29pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:29pmWell, I guess in a sense that's right, a dry drunk is still a drunk, and a "non-practicing" homosexual is still a homosexual. (But if they get out of practice, they'll get rusty.)
I just dislike this particular comparison, because it sounds like you're comparing being gay (a natural state) to being a drunk (a disease or a defect of character, depending on your point of view).
I just dislike this particular comparison, because it sounds like you're comparing being gay (a natural state) to being a drunk (a disease or a defect of character, depending on your point of view).
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 10:57am
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 10:57amI agree the phrase is not exactly the best one. It is simply the only one that I know of to describe the act of quiting a certain aspect of behavior while still having characteristics of the previous behavior.
Posted by hardvice :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 12:03pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 12:03pmNo apology is necessary (we're on the same side here, after all). I don't think you implied that homosexuality is a birth defect; I just think that focusing on whether it's genetic does that automatically.
For the record, I feel as strongly that it's bad to argue that racial discrimination is wrong because people don't choose their race; it's like saying "he can't help being black". To me, that always smacks of the unspoken assumption that there's something wrong or less desirable about belonging to a particular race, and that given a free and clear choice, everyone would choose to belong to the "proper" race.
I should probably have been more clear in stating that I, personally, believe that there are both genetic and socially constructed componants to race, sexuality, and gender, but that's really neither here nor there. A characteristic can be entirely a social construct (like nationality) and still be protected, just as it can be entirely chosen (like religion) and be protected.
The point of the religion analogy is that it doesn't depend on whether it is chosen or changeable: religion has the same characteristics as the "worst case" scenario put forth by those who oppose protections for sexual minorities: it isn't genetic, and while your initial choice is probably made for you by your parents. you can choose whichever one you like and can change at any time. That's basically what the fundies say about sexual orientation: you're born straight, choose to be gay, and can choose to be straight again whenever you like, perhaps in response to what they see as "proper" social pressure.
I'd argue that even if we take every thing they say as true, it's still wrong to regulate sexual orientation. Religion has the same characteristics and yet it is protected. What makes religion like race, gender, sex, and nationality is that it is a fundamental part of a person's identity. So is sexual orientation.
My overall frustration comes about merely because I'm really, really sick of the nature v. nurture debate. It doesn't really get us anywhere. Whether or not it's ok to discriminate on the basis of a given characteristic is largely unrelated to whether that characteristic is genetic or socially constructed or whether it's changeable or not. You need look no further than the list of "protected" characteristics to see that some are inborn and some aren't, and some can be changed and some can't. Getting bogged down in this debate with respect to sexual preference is counter-productive; it may yield short-term gains, but in the long run I don't think it's good to seek to "excuse" homosexuality ("the poor homos can't help it: they're born that way!"). That comes dangerously close to putting us back into a "disease" model, and right behind that comes the inevitable "cure".
I for one know that a large part of my sexual preference was not a matter of my choice; however, it's an almost impossible task to convince someone who has never felt that predilection that it's not just a wicked and sinful choice. Also, the danger is that many of the fundies don't care really what you feel, so long as you have no right to practice it or be open about it. They don't really want to "cure" homosexuality; they want to hide it. Until we accept that human sexuality and the inevitable expression of it deserves protection whether or not it can be changed and whether or not it is a choice, we're fighting the wrong fight.
For the record, I feel as strongly that it's bad to argue that racial discrimination is wrong because people don't choose their race; it's like saying "he can't help being black". To me, that always smacks of the unspoken assumption that there's something wrong or less desirable about belonging to a particular race, and that given a free and clear choice, everyone would choose to belong to the "proper" race.
I should probably have been more clear in stating that I, personally, believe that there are both genetic and socially constructed componants to race, sexuality, and gender, but that's really neither here nor there. A characteristic can be entirely a social construct (like nationality) and still be protected, just as it can be entirely chosen (like religion) and be protected.
The point of the religion analogy is that it doesn't depend on whether it is chosen or changeable: religion has the same characteristics as the "worst case" scenario put forth by those who oppose protections for sexual minorities: it isn't genetic, and while your initial choice is probably made for you by your parents. you can choose whichever one you like and can change at any time. That's basically what the fundies say about sexual orientation: you're born straight, choose to be gay, and can choose to be straight again whenever you like, perhaps in response to what they see as "proper" social pressure.
I'd argue that even if we take every thing they say as true, it's still wrong to regulate sexual orientation. Religion has the same characteristics and yet it is protected. What makes religion like race, gender, sex, and nationality is that it is a fundamental part of a person's identity. So is sexual orientation.
My overall frustration comes about merely because I'm really, really sick of the nature v. nurture debate. It doesn't really get us anywhere. Whether or not it's ok to discriminate on the basis of a given characteristic is largely unrelated to whether that characteristic is genetic or socially constructed or whether it's changeable or not. You need look no further than the list of "protected" characteristics to see that some are inborn and some aren't, and some can be changed and some can't. Getting bogged down in this debate with respect to sexual preference is counter-productive; it may yield short-term gains, but in the long run I don't think it's good to seek to "excuse" homosexuality ("the poor homos can't help it: they're born that way!"). That comes dangerously close to putting us back into a "disease" model, and right behind that comes the inevitable "cure".
I for one know that a large part of my sexual preference was not a matter of my choice; however, it's an almost impossible task to convince someone who has never felt that predilection that it's not just a wicked and sinful choice. Also, the danger is that many of the fundies don't care really what you feel, so long as you have no right to practice it or be open about it. They don't really want to "cure" homosexuality; they want to hide it. Until we accept that human sexuality and the inevitable expression of it deserves protection whether or not it can be changed and whether or not it is a choice, we're fighting the wrong fight.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:20pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:20pmBelieve it or not, I wasn't even trying to bring in any kind of "nature vs. nurture" or "gay gene" argument at all, or imply any kind of qualitative judgement of homosexuality. I'm just trying to point out the logical fallacy of assuming that homosexuality is a chosen way to be, because it implies that a heterosexual would at some point consciously choose to be homosexual, even if it goes against his natural heterosexual tendencies - or vice versa, homosexuals spontaneously choosing, against their natural tendencies, to love up the opposite sex. It's just not reasonable to think that would happen.
Posted by ag :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 06:50pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 06:50pmI don't believe that homosexuals are born homosexuals. I believe that certain people have an inclination towards homosexuality. Some people act out on it and others don't. I imagine there could be varying degrees of a homosexual inclination, thats why some homosexuals know since they are 12 or something that they like persons of the same sex and others don't.
Now with that said, I don't like equating homosexuality with being born with a definitive trait. Some genetic traits you are born with and thats that (like skin color, eye color etc...). With homosexuality its not that easy. We just don't know.
You also mentioned that it would be repugnant for non-homosexuals "to love up" the same sex. I think its more of a learned idea. The Greeks didn't think homosexuality was all that bad. The American idea of how males should treat each other is very different from other cultures. Also, humans are hypersexual, consider that humans are the only animals able to reproduce year round (I think). We are built "to love up".
Now with that said, I don't like equating homosexuality with being born with a definitive trait. Some genetic traits you are born with and thats that (like skin color, eye color etc...). With homosexuality its not that easy. We just don't know.
You also mentioned that it would be repugnant for non-homosexuals "to love up" the same sex. I think its more of a learned idea. The Greeks didn't think homosexuality was all that bad. The American idea of how males should treat each other is very different from other cultures. Also, humans are hypersexual, consider that humans are the only animals able to reproduce year round (I think). We are built "to love up".
Posted by Mermaid :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 09:51am
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 09:51amWell ag...I'll have to disagree. I knew when I was 6 years old that I would never get married (to a man). Forty years ago, there were no "role models" for me to look at and say, "I want to be a homo, just like her." Who did I learn it from? I was born this way. It still took me until I was 20 to physically act out on it. I had crushes on every lead actress on TV as a kid.
It hasn't always been the easiest life, but I sure as hell wouldn't want it any other way.
It hasn't always been the easiest life, but I sure as hell wouldn't want it any other way.
Posted by Jenna :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 01:27am
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 01:27amI dont believe that sexuality can be changed, but it can certainly be repressed, or hidden in order to fit in with what someone else wants you to be. That can be said too about religion, you can go to church every week, but not believe in a word that's being spewn out at you.
Not that repression would be at all good for your mental well-being, but Im sure we've all done it (to some varying degree) at some point or another. Myself, I went to church for years because it was easier than standing up to my very Catholic mother. Even today its easier to let her think that Im a non-practicing Catholic, than a non-believer. I know she would have no problem accepting if I were to tell her I was a lesbian, but would be very upset with me if I were to tell her that I have no faith in a god.
Not that repression would be at all good for your mental well-being, but Im sure we've all done it (to some varying degree) at some point or another. Myself, I went to church for years because it was easier than standing up to my very Catholic mother. Even today its easier to let her think that Im a non-practicing Catholic, than a non-believer. I know she would have no problem accepting if I were to tell her I was a lesbian, but would be very upset with me if I were to tell her that I have no faith in a god.
Posted by Chloe :: :: :: Mar 21, 2005 10:24pm
:: :: Mar 21, 2005 10:24pmNo, I don't think it comes across as a birth defect, but I think the idea is... Who cares if it is a choice? Like even if it was, would that be so horrible, or change much at all?
Frankly, I think I'd have an easier time if I were gay in some ways... I mean, a lot of gender issues should not be present in a same gender relationship. That's not really rational though, because same gender couples seem to have the exact same types of problems heterosexual couples have anyway.
Frankly, I think I'd have an easier time if I were gay in some ways... I mean, a lot of gender issues should not be present in a same gender relationship. That's not really rational though, because same gender couples seem to have the exact same types of problems heterosexual couples have anyway.
Posted by Jenna :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 01:36am
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 01:36amThat's not really rational though, because same gender couples seem to have the exact same types of problems heterosexual couples have anyway.
From my experience, relationship problems happen as a result of the personalities in the relationship, regardless of gender.
From my experience, relationship problems happen as a result of the personalities in the relationship, regardless of gender.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 22, 2005 10:01am
:: :: Mar 22, 2005 10:01amrelationship problems happen as a result of the personalities in the relationship, regardless of gender.
yeah, crazy is crazy whether boy, girl, straight or gay.
yeah, crazy is crazy whether boy, girl, straight or gay.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:49am
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 11:49amI am a firm believer in the God of the Bible, also I am a firm believer in the Constitution of the United States. These sometimes conflict and based upon the Consitution this country has to take a turn away from radical religion and toward equality of mankind. I believe homosexuality is wrong, based upon my belief in what the Bible has to say, however, as a citizen of the United States the Constitution was designed to keep redical anything from running this nation whether radical religionists or radical liberals.
I have been doing some reading recently and have found several interesting points about religion and politics. C.S. Lewis said that "almost all crimes of Christian history have come about when religion is confused with politics. Another author observed that "politics allures us to trade away grace (the only thing that truly seperates Christianity from other religions) for power". Mark Galli of Christian History magazine has pointed out, "Christians at the end of the twentieth century complain about the disunity of the church, the lack of godly leaders in politics, and the death of Christian influence in popular culture. None of these complaints applied to the Middle Ages, an era when the church was unified, Christians appointed key political leaders, and the faith permeated all of popular culture. Yet who would lok back on the results with nostalgia? Crusaders devasted lands to the East. Priests, marching alongside soldiers, "converted" whole continents at the point of a sword. Inquisitors hounded Jews, hunted down witches, and even subgected loyal Christians to cruel tests of faith. Truly the church had become the "morals police" (thought yall would all appreciate this reference) of society. Grace gave way to power.
My politics and chrisian rant is now over and on to the homsexual part.
After other reading (one of the newest editions to my reading list is Stranger at the Gates: to be gay and Christian in America) I am starting to believe that not all homosexuals are that way by choice. I don't necessarily believe that it is genetic but do believe that there is something that causes some people to lean toward same sex relationships rather than hetero relationships. It is a foreign concept to me and the majority of people as to how or why somebody would be homosexual and for a lot of people that thought scares them. Like I have said before a lot of people are scared because they simply think homosexuals are some side show attraction that you see on Jerry Springer and have never really met or know a real life homosexual.
There are some that would choose to be homosexual, although I believe a small portion of the homosexual population, out of rebellion or a desire to be a part of some group. While you may criticize the later of the possible reasons consider outcast groups of teenagers, a lot of times somebody with little to no social skills will gravitate towards groups such as these simply as a group that may accept them. Now like I said this is a small portion of the homosexual population and is pretty much a sidebar part of this post.
My question is this though, what is your obsession with the religious right and homosexuality?
I have been doing some reading recently and have found several interesting points about religion and politics. C.S. Lewis said that "almost all crimes of Christian history have come about when religion is confused with politics. Another author observed that "politics allures us to trade away grace (the only thing that truly seperates Christianity from other religions) for power". Mark Galli of Christian History magazine has pointed out, "Christians at the end of the twentieth century complain about the disunity of the church, the lack of godly leaders in politics, and the death of Christian influence in popular culture. None of these complaints applied to the Middle Ages, an era when the church was unified, Christians appointed key political leaders, and the faith permeated all of popular culture. Yet who would lok back on the results with nostalgia? Crusaders devasted lands to the East. Priests, marching alongside soldiers, "converted" whole continents at the point of a sword. Inquisitors hounded Jews, hunted down witches, and even subgected loyal Christians to cruel tests of faith. Truly the church had become the "morals police" (thought yall would all appreciate this reference) of society. Grace gave way to power.
My politics and chrisian rant is now over and on to the homsexual part.
After other reading (one of the newest editions to my reading list is Stranger at the Gates: to be gay and Christian in America) I am starting to believe that not all homosexuals are that way by choice. I don't necessarily believe that it is genetic but do believe that there is something that causes some people to lean toward same sex relationships rather than hetero relationships. It is a foreign concept to me and the majority of people as to how or why somebody would be homosexual and for a lot of people that thought scares them. Like I have said before a lot of people are scared because they simply think homosexuals are some side show attraction that you see on Jerry Springer and have never really met or know a real life homosexual.
There are some that would choose to be homosexual, although I believe a small portion of the homosexual population, out of rebellion or a desire to be a part of some group. While you may criticize the later of the possible reasons consider outcast groups of teenagers, a lot of times somebody with little to no social skills will gravitate towards groups such as these simply as a group that may accept them. Now like I said this is a small portion of the homosexual population and is pretty much a sidebar part of this post.
My question is this though, what is your obsession with the religious right and homosexuality?
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:11pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:11pmThat's a fair question, although it isn't just homosexuality, it's a whole range of issues and the Christian right's take thereon, mainly having to do with personal freedom and civil liberties. Some Christians in the U.S. will unashamedly tell you that they want a theocracy, that they want to eliminate their opposition, they want to abolish homosexuality itself, not just gay marriage, and that democracy and the Constitution are an impediment to their plans. To me, that's scary and insane. I thought we had evolved past this kind of medieval mindset. For a few years there, in the mid- to late 90s, I thought Prohibition and the Comstock Act and McCarthyism and all that shit was behind us and we'd finally started growing up. But apparently that's not the case. So I obsess about it, because the Christian right frightens me, because they just might get everything they want, a kind of hyper-nationalist, hyper-Christian government like something out of Robert Heinlein's Revolt In 2100. Even if they don't, we may see protests and violence like the civil rights marches in the 60s, only worse. And it's all because these militant Christians can't abide anything secular. It's not enough for them that I lead a good life and don't harm anybody - freedom of religion to them means freedom to be Christian.
Posted by tennesseeblue :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:41pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:41pmGreat post Ryland. We were posting pretty close comments at the same time. I'm a Christian and I am scared to death of the Christian right!
To me the question should not be of why you are obsessed with the Christian right and homosexuality but WHY is the Christian right obsessed with homosexuality???
We all know that there was NO movement by Democratic leadership in the U.S. to allow gay marriage. But the Christian right said it enough times (actually yelled it) so that most of rural America began believing it!
To me the question should not be of why you are obsessed with the Christian right and homosexuality but WHY is the Christian right obsessed with homosexuality???
We all know that there was NO movement by Democratic leadership in the U.S. to allow gay marriage. But the Christian right said it enough times (actually yelled it) so that most of rural America began believing it!
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 02:27pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 02:27pmWith the reading I've been doing lately (and they are christian books with christian authors) I fear the religious right taking this nation over as well. From what I have been reading at no time has any religious movement taken over a government/country without then going crazy. While I would love to see a more morally structured nation, the problem lies in that if the religious right were to ever fully take over this nations political arena they would be able to ammend the constitution and allow them to rewrite whatever laws they wanted including silly ones like what was in some of the early colonies laws, including not being able to walk on Sunday except to the church meeting, or that nobody, including married couples, could kiss on Sunday under penalty of law.
So while I pretty much have different stances on most political issues than most on this board I do not wish to see either party dominate the political climate for fear of absolute anarchy brought on by overly liberal candidates or for fear of removal of all freedoms taken away from the religious right.
I think it should boil down not to opinions or beliefs but to what is best for the people of this nation. Homosexuals should have rights but I see no benefit to allowing nudity and vulgar language on public airwaves, these are different issues completely and yet neither can be viewed with objectivity to figure out if the current laws hurt or help people only through the lenses of religion and liberal revolt against all things christianity has come to stand for in today's world.
So while I pretty much have different stances on most political issues than most on this board I do not wish to see either party dominate the political climate for fear of absolute anarchy brought on by overly liberal candidates or for fear of removal of all freedoms taken away from the religious right.
I think it should boil down not to opinions or beliefs but to what is best for the people of this nation. Homosexuals should have rights but I see no benefit to allowing nudity and vulgar language on public airwaves, these are different issues completely and yet neither can be viewed with objectivity to figure out if the current laws hurt or help people only through the lenses of religion and liberal revolt against all things christianity has come to stand for in today's world.
Posted by tennesseeblue :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:54pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:54pmI have several friends who say they feel the same way about not wanting either party to dominate, etc., but who have (I believe) continued to allow the fearmongering far right to scare them into the ideology that all things liberal/democrat are evil, stupid, irresponsible, ignorant, nonpatriotic and communist. (not necessarily in that order!) Right after they say they don't want either party to dominate, they defend voting almost down the line republican in the last election, helping to allow the very thing they say they fear. I'm sorry but I just cannot understand the logic.
Try to read some of Jim Wallis' thoughts(author of God's Politics) who takes both the left and the right to task. If you have not seen his appearance on Jon Stewart's show, go here you just might get some enjoyment from hearing a self-professed 'evangelical Christian' who differs greatly from the Christian right. I want as many people as possible to know that Christian and Judgemental Jerk are not necessarily one and the same!
Rick, help me out because that last sentence made me actually say: "huh?" I think you might have gotten a little pre-occupied while typing that one-
Try to read some of Jim Wallis' thoughts(author of God's Politics) who takes both the left and the right to task. If you have not seen his appearance on Jon Stewart's show, go here you just might get some enjoyment from hearing a self-professed 'evangelical Christian' who differs greatly from the Christian right. I want as many people as possible to know that Christian and Judgemental Jerk are not necessarily one and the same!
Rick, help me out because that last sentence made me actually say: "huh?" I think you might have gotten a little pre-occupied while typing that one-
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:40pm
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:40pmtennblue, the point with the last sentence was that somethings really effect peoples lives like marriage or homosexual rights and some are just simply stupid arguments. Whether or not somebody can be vulgar is really not a very good argument.
Also the point was that in today's political climate it seems that both parties are not defined by who or what they are as much as who or what they are not. The leftist liberals do everything they can do to prove they are not in any way affiliated with republican intersts and right wing republicans go out of their way to prove they are not in any affiliated with democratic interests, thereby alienating everybody that is not with "them".
That's one of the reasons that certain parties keep getting votes. I don't necessarily agree with the whole of the Republican party but I do not condone the majority of the democratic party or their stances on political issues, therefore I pretty much vote straight republican even though I don't necessarily want to.
Also the point was that in today's political climate it seems that both parties are not defined by who or what they are as much as who or what they are not. The leftist liberals do everything they can do to prove they are not in any way affiliated with republican intersts and right wing republicans go out of their way to prove they are not in any affiliated with democratic interests, thereby alienating everybody that is not with "them".
That's one of the reasons that certain parties keep getting votes. I don't necessarily agree with the whole of the Republican party but I do not condone the majority of the democratic party or their stances on political issues, therefore I pretty much vote straight republican even though I don't necessarily want to.
Posted by Saladin :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:47pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:47pmMy question is this though, what is your obsession with the religious right and homosexuality?
Presumably, it's the same obsession that I have (did you notice how smoothly I inserted myself into this discussion? Like silk!): namely, the injustice (or what I view to be injustice) inherent in the legal repression of homosexuality. There is also - again, at least for me - the fact that this is the sort of behavior, legislation, and rationalization which allowed for the best-known crime of Nazism, the industrial extermination of the European Jewry.
Please don't misunderstand me here - I would not compare the Christian faith and the Nazis, nor the concept of banning homosexual marriage to that of genocide. However, there are similarities in this instance to the build-up towards the infamous Final Solution. I don't think things would go that far in this country, but one never knows... and, in any case, baby steps are still enough to worry me.
I've yet to hear an argument against homosexual marriage which was valid, or for that matter even lucid; the only which I've found which I can respect, even if I disagree with them, are those which openly state that they are foundationally Christian. Those who wish to follow Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) are just fine with me. Those who wish to cram the same down my throat, or try to dictate what people in this nation can or can't do on such basis alone, however, are not.
If you will forgive me the generalization, I tend to believe that people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want, up to the point where it starts hurting others or curtailing the rights of said others. Of course, this leads to some sticky situations (abortion comes to mind), but there are other situations which are clear-cut for me - such as this one.
I can't say for certain, but I believe that I would likewise and for the same reasons be up in arms over any laws which so obviously discriminated on the basis of religion or skin color (or any of the dozens of other traits upon which discrimination can be based).
Or, here's the reader's digest version (sometimes known as The Bottom Line or The Point): the religion-based suppression of homosexual marriage through political means is wrong and potentially dangerous.
Presumably, it's the same obsession that I have (did you notice how smoothly I inserted myself into this discussion? Like silk!): namely, the injustice (or what I view to be injustice) inherent in the legal repression of homosexuality. There is also - again, at least for me - the fact that this is the sort of behavior, legislation, and rationalization which allowed for the best-known crime of Nazism, the industrial extermination of the European Jewry.
Please don't misunderstand me here - I would not compare the Christian faith and the Nazis, nor the concept of banning homosexual marriage to that of genocide. However, there are similarities in this instance to the build-up towards the infamous Final Solution. I don't think things would go that far in this country, but one never knows... and, in any case, baby steps are still enough to worry me.
I've yet to hear an argument against homosexual marriage which was valid, or for that matter even lucid; the only which I've found which I can respect, even if I disagree with them, are those which openly state that they are foundationally Christian. Those who wish to follow Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) are just fine with me. Those who wish to cram the same down my throat, or try to dictate what people in this nation can or can't do on such basis alone, however, are not.
If you will forgive me the generalization, I tend to believe that people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want, up to the point where it starts hurting others or curtailing the rights of said others. Of course, this leads to some sticky situations (abortion comes to mind), but there are other situations which are clear-cut for me - such as this one.
I can't say for certain, but I believe that I would likewise and for the same reasons be up in arms over any laws which so obviously discriminated on the basis of religion or skin color (or any of the dozens of other traits upon which discrimination can be based).
Or, here's the reader's digest version (sometimes known as The Bottom Line or The Point): the religion-based suppression of homosexual marriage through political means is wrong and potentially dangerous.
Posted by Matt :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:57pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:57pmI can't speak for Ryland--I'll tell you why I'm obsessed with the religious right and homosexuality. It's because homosexuality is probably the largest civil rights issue of our time and the religious right are the leading group on the wrong side of that issue. One of my guiding precepts in life is Martin Luther King's statement to the effect that until everyone is free, no one is truly free.
Gay and lesbian people are NOT free to live their lives in a substantially equivalent manner to heterosexuals in the United States. It's an undeniable fact. For instance: my cousin and her partner have a baby. Legally, it's my cousin's baby. Her partner has no legal parental rights to the baby. If he were hospitalized, she wouldn't be able to make decisions about his care. If she (the partner) died, my cousin could not inherit her assets without paying a substantial gift tax that straight people don't have to pay. It's these and a thousand other little daggers that are the ethical equivalent of Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal".
As a concerned straight person, I consider it my duty to point out to other straight people the difficulties that gay and lesbian folks encounter every day, and to make as much noise about it as possible. If you were being discriminated against, wouldn't you be pissed off if everyone else simply turned away and didn't say anything? I sure would. Do you think that people ever accused civil rights protesters in the sixties of being shrill? Absolutely. Did that make them wrong?
The religious right isn't just WRONG on this issue. They are fundamentally wrong in a very particular way. Like the dixiecrats before them who had justified their unfair activities with a vast web of rationalizations, the religious right has become immobilized by its own ideology. It has drawn its battle lines of "biblical authority" and "it's a choice/possibly a disease" using a whole host of arguments that are, many of them, the same arguments that give them their own power. In fact, I would argue that over the past twenty years, the religious right has derived a solid percentage of its power and authority by being condemnatory, and playing to prejudices that are latent in the American worldview. Communists, gays, Twisted Sister, whatever you can point a finger at and say, "Threat!"
This is no game--real peoples' lives and livelihoods are at stake. If you think gay marriage is just some political wedge being used by "activist judges" and the "homosexist agenda" (whatever that is) you have no idea what is going on on the other side of this debate. These are real people with real lives and they are NOT going to change who they are because some idiot with a bible tells them to.
Gay and lesbian people are NOT free to live their lives in a substantially equivalent manner to heterosexuals in the United States. It's an undeniable fact. For instance: my cousin and her partner have a baby. Legally, it's my cousin's baby. Her partner has no legal parental rights to the baby. If he were hospitalized, she wouldn't be able to make decisions about his care. If she (the partner) died, my cousin could not inherit her assets without paying a substantial gift tax that straight people don't have to pay. It's these and a thousand other little daggers that are the ethical equivalent of Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal".
As a concerned straight person, I consider it my duty to point out to other straight people the difficulties that gay and lesbian folks encounter every day, and to make as much noise about it as possible. If you were being discriminated against, wouldn't you be pissed off if everyone else simply turned away and didn't say anything? I sure would. Do you think that people ever accused civil rights protesters in the sixties of being shrill? Absolutely. Did that make them wrong?
The religious right isn't just WRONG on this issue. They are fundamentally wrong in a very particular way. Like the dixiecrats before them who had justified their unfair activities with a vast web of rationalizations, the religious right has become immobilized by its own ideology. It has drawn its battle lines of "biblical authority" and "it's a choice/possibly a disease" using a whole host of arguments that are, many of them, the same arguments that give them their own power. In fact, I would argue that over the past twenty years, the religious right has derived a solid percentage of its power and authority by being condemnatory, and playing to prejudices that are latent in the American worldview. Communists, gays, Twisted Sister, whatever you can point a finger at and say, "Threat!"
This is no game--real peoples' lives and livelihoods are at stake. If you think gay marriage is just some political wedge being used by "activist judges" and the "homosexist agenda" (whatever that is) you have no idea what is going on on the other side of this debate. These are real people with real lives and they are NOT going to change who they are because some idiot with a bible tells them to.
Posted by lucy :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 02:39pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 02:39pmMatt - I love you! Are you married - oh wait, I'm married! You are always able to express with such calm eloquence the ideas that I'd like to scream. With your compassionate and well thought out posts, you frequently restore my faith (no pun intended) in those who are religious - because the current political climate in this country (dominated by, yes, the "religious" right - or as I think of them, the religious wrong) makes me squirm!
Posted by Matt :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:24pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:24pmLucy, I like the way you think!
Posted by martin :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 03:55am
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 03:55amI've always been darkly amused by the phrase "separate but equal".
Posted by Dave! :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 04:24pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 04:24pmHi. I made a rant about this a few days ago. I thought I'd share.
You also may want to know, that the US Constitution wasn't based on the Christian religion. If you do not believe me, you can look up "The Treaty of Tripoli" as it states in there. Since most Christians do not know that.
Did Jesus say anything about gay being technically wrong? If people are going to continually rely on the Old Testament for stuff like that, ya better not wear two different fabrics, or eat pork...and keep kosher. I believe you aren't supposed to work on Sunday (I could be wrong on this) and not touch women during their menstruation cycle.
If people are going to go something said by Paul.. they'd better keep their precious hair covered, sit down, and never speak back to men. You know...Paul, (the Ultimate Misogynist) I believe was all about the surpression of women. Last time I checked, Paul wasn't "God".
Humans are always going to be flawed and will always be incapable of understanding the perfection of God. All theological systems are flawed. This is where we need to use 'dem there brains "God" gave us to help us decide what is right, and what is wrong. Not rely on a book.
It's disgusting how after thousands of years people are still doing heinous and gross acts in the name of "God". Between discrimination of races, genders, religions, sexuality, wars, murders, etc. It's still going on today? =|
Sorry, doesn't really add up. Murderers who can kill numerous people and later repent and accept Christ into them can get a free pass to Heaven? But Gay people can't? If there is a God, I don't think God is just some vengeful guy with a harp and wand and shit. I think he can look past peoples flaws, love all his, "children".
Whenever I see something so narrow-minded religion related...I'm sick of some people using the damn Bible and Jesus as an excuse to be so fucking biggoted.
Wasn't Jesus' number one sin, it was Hypocrisy, was it not? That sins of the soul or spirit were greater than flesh?
Depending on how you interpret it, it says married men can rape their wives. "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days."
You also may want to know, that the US Constitution wasn't based on the Christian religion. If you do not believe me, you can look up "The Treaty of Tripoli" as it states in there. Since most Christians do not know that.
Did Jesus say anything about gay being technically wrong? If people are going to continually rely on the Old Testament for stuff like that, ya better not wear two different fabrics, or eat pork...and keep kosher. I believe you aren't supposed to work on Sunday (I could be wrong on this) and not touch women during their menstruation cycle.
If people are going to go something said by Paul.. they'd better keep their precious hair covered, sit down, and never speak back to men. You know...Paul, (the Ultimate Misogynist) I believe was all about the surpression of women. Last time I checked, Paul wasn't "God".
Humans are always going to be flawed and will always be incapable of understanding the perfection of God. All theological systems are flawed. This is where we need to use 'dem there brains "God" gave us to help us decide what is right, and what is wrong. Not rely on a book.
It's disgusting how after thousands of years people are still doing heinous and gross acts in the name of "God". Between discrimination of races, genders, religions, sexuality, wars, murders, etc. It's still going on today? =|
Sorry, doesn't really add up. Murderers who can kill numerous people and later repent and accept Christ into them can get a free pass to Heaven? But Gay people can't? If there is a God, I don't think God is just some vengeful guy with a harp and wand and shit. I think he can look past peoples flaws, love all his, "children".
Whenever I see something so narrow-minded religion related...I'm sick of some people using the damn Bible and Jesus as an excuse to be so fucking biggoted.
Wasn't Jesus' number one sin, it was Hypocrisy, was it not? That sins of the soul or spirit were greater than flesh?
Depending on how you interpret it, it says married men can rape their wives. "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days."
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:50pm
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:50pmMurderers who can kill numerous people and later repent and accept Christ into them can get a free pass to Heaven? But Gay people can't?
Actually anybody can repent at any given time, sometimes it's just hard for people to accept that. I read about a Sunday School class that discussed Jeffery Dahmer claiming Christianity and that they would one day meet him in heaven and how a lot of the class was freaked out about it, but the truth stands that if Dahmer repented then he was forgiven. Same thing with homosexuals, if homosexuality is a sin and they repent then they are forgiven and will be in heaven as well.
I don't recall Jesus claiming a number one sin. Matt maybe you would know this better than I. Jesus actually described many other things that are sin as well as actual acts. Hating somebody could be equated with murder since before the murder happens you have hated them enough to murder them therefore hate is the first step to murder. Lusting after another woman would be the first step to adultery or fornication so even lust was a sin. Covetousness would be the first step to theft.
It is hard for me to take seriously your better points with the barrage of profanity sprinkled around the end.
Actually anybody can repent at any given time, sometimes it's just hard for people to accept that. I read about a Sunday School class that discussed Jeffery Dahmer claiming Christianity and that they would one day meet him in heaven and how a lot of the class was freaked out about it, but the truth stands that if Dahmer repented then he was forgiven. Same thing with homosexuals, if homosexuality is a sin and they repent then they are forgiven and will be in heaven as well.
I don't recall Jesus claiming a number one sin. Matt maybe you would know this better than I. Jesus actually described many other things that are sin as well as actual acts. Hating somebody could be equated with murder since before the murder happens you have hated them enough to murder them therefore hate is the first step to murder. Lusting after another woman would be the first step to adultery or fornication so even lust was a sin. Covetousness would be the first step to theft.
It is hard for me to take seriously your better points with the barrage of profanity sprinkled around the end.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 08:52am
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 08:52amNow see, Rick, this is why I have a problem with religion: it lacks any kind of fairness (or even rational thinking).
Let me cite a hypothetical example: Two gay men are walking along one night when they are beset upon by a group of thugs. The beatings leave one gay man dead and the other horribly brain damaged. The law catches the thugs responsible, finds at least one of them guilty, and he is executed for his crimes.
Now, prior to being executed, he expresses remorse and begs forgiveness, saying that he has accepted Jesus into his life and repents his sins (a la Karla Faye Tucker). According to religious dogma, if he is sincere enough in his beliefs (and who should question the sincerity of someone who is facing imminent death?), he gets a free pass into the rewards of heaven.
Now let's go back to the gay men who were attacked. Possibly the last thing to go through their minds, before the bats and lead pipes ended all thought for good, was Why are we being attacked? We didn't harm anyone. Sadly, that left them with no time to "repent their sins and accept Jesus into their hearts" (if they hadn't already accepted Him), and as such they are now cast into the eternal fires of Hell, damned because they didn't have enough time to repent, unlike their vicious murderers.
Does that sound fair to you? Because it sure as heck doesn't to me, and you would think that if there were such a powerful and compassionate being as God, He might have thought about fairness in His doctrines.
No Rick, there is no God; there are only people who would use this myth to help spread, defend, and enforce their own fears and hatreds.
Let me cite a hypothetical example: Two gay men are walking along one night when they are beset upon by a group of thugs. The beatings leave one gay man dead and the other horribly brain damaged. The law catches the thugs responsible, finds at least one of them guilty, and he is executed for his crimes.
Now, prior to being executed, he expresses remorse and begs forgiveness, saying that he has accepted Jesus into his life and repents his sins (a la Karla Faye Tucker). According to religious dogma, if he is sincere enough in his beliefs (and who should question the sincerity of someone who is facing imminent death?), he gets a free pass into the rewards of heaven.
Now let's go back to the gay men who were attacked. Possibly the last thing to go through their minds, before the bats and lead pipes ended all thought for good, was Why are we being attacked? We didn't harm anyone. Sadly, that left them with no time to "repent their sins and accept Jesus into their hearts" (if they hadn't already accepted Him), and as such they are now cast into the eternal fires of Hell, damned because they didn't have enough time to repent, unlike their vicious murderers.
Does that sound fair to you? Because it sure as heck doesn't to me, and you would think that if there were such a powerful and compassionate being as God, He might have thought about fairness in His doctrines.
No Rick, there is no God; there are only people who would use this myth to help spread, defend, and enforce their own fears and hatreds.
Posted by tsefardayah :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 09:25am
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 09:25amI had a professor for a New Testament survey course that believed it was something more like when you die you stand before God on a judgement seat and either accept Him or reject Him there. Because, following the New Testament, Jesus already died for everyone's sins anyway.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 12:17pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 12:17pmAnd see, this is another problem: interpretation. No one seems to be able to interpret religious dogma the same way twice.
It seems kind of silly to believe that, if you are standing in front of the Almighty, you are going to deny Him to his face (or is this implying that he may be a less-than-imposing figure?).
And in any case, your professor's interpretation brings up yet another can of worms: Is there sexuality in heaven/hell? If not, then sexual orientation at the time of Judgement is rendered moot in regards to entrance into heaven (provided that the judged meet all the other requirements, i.e., have accepted God and Jesus as their personal yadda-yadda), and that takes the steam out of the conservatives' arguments against homosexuality, and brings further disrepute upon the Bible for its needless condemnation of sexuality (both homo- and hetero-). If there is sexuality in the afterlife, then the conservatives' motives regarding their distaste for even discussing it could be seen as an afront to the god they supposedly worship (and again the Bible would be seen as flawed for not addressing it correctly).
Am I making any sense? I think I just confused myself...
It seems kind of silly to believe that, if you are standing in front of the Almighty, you are going to deny Him to his face (or is this implying that he may be a less-than-imposing figure?).
And in any case, your professor's interpretation brings up yet another can of worms: Is there sexuality in heaven/hell? If not, then sexual orientation at the time of Judgement is rendered moot in regards to entrance into heaven (provided that the judged meet all the other requirements, i.e., have accepted God and Jesus as their personal yadda-yadda), and that takes the steam out of the conservatives' arguments against homosexuality, and brings further disrepute upon the Bible for its needless condemnation of sexuality (both homo- and hetero-). If there is sexuality in the afterlife, then the conservatives' motives regarding their distaste for even discussing it could be seen as an afront to the god they supposedly worship (and again the Bible would be seen as flawed for not addressing it correctly).
Am I making any sense? I think I just confused myself...
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 02:41pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 02:41pmSir Craig, you seem to believe (as many christians do) that a person's life will be judged based on what that person did when in actuallity it is based on what Jesus did and your response to that. So many people base how good a christian they are on how they compare to other christians or non-believers. The Bible says that many will call upon the name of the Lord on judgement and say "Lord, Lord" and He will say depart I never knew you. Not you never knew me but that God never knew us. I guess that would be what's called "playing christian". In the end it has nothing to do with whether or not you smoke, drink, homosexuality, adultery, or even overeat, it has to do with what you did when presented with the Gospel and your response to it.
Now I don't believe in Once Saved Always Saved, I believe that if there is a true change within a person that that person will live differently as a reflection of that change, but I could be wrong on that too since it is really just speculation and not clearly defined in the Bible. I am working on the basis of Phillipians 2:12 "12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure." I'm gonna keep trucking with what I got on my plate cause it's all I can handle. I'll help you if you want it, but I'm not going to pester you to death with it cause in the end you are the only person that can make the choice to belive or not.
Now I don't believe in Once Saved Always Saved, I believe that if there is a true change within a person that that person will live differently as a reflection of that change, but I could be wrong on that too since it is really just speculation and not clearly defined in the Bible. I am working on the basis of Phillipians 2:12 "12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure." I'm gonna keep trucking with what I got on my plate cause it's all I can handle. I'll help you if you want it, but I'm not going to pester you to death with it cause in the end you are the only person that can make the choice to belive or not.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 21, 2005 11:34am
:: :: Mar 21, 2005 11:34amWell, as with anything mankind creates, religion is confusing and multifacated and not always logical.
As for sexuality in the afterlife, there's nothing specificly mentioned that I've seen, only Jesus did indicate there is no MARRIAGE in heaven (there's a whole thing about a woman who marries a series of brothers who, one after the other, keep dying -- that has to do with Jewish law and such). Marriage, it seems, is totally an earthly affair.
So much of the Bible, from an historic or sociological view, is a collection of laws and rules to govern the organization and help the survival of a particular tribe living in a particular area. There's a book called "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddle of Culture" by Marvin Harris that discusses a few of these things. Rather old book (1974) but interesting.
As for sexuality in the afterlife, there's nothing specificly mentioned that I've seen, only Jesus did indicate there is no MARRIAGE in heaven (there's a whole thing about a woman who marries a series of brothers who, one after the other, keep dying -- that has to do with Jewish law and such). Marriage, it seems, is totally an earthly affair.
So much of the Bible, from an historic or sociological view, is a collection of laws and rules to govern the organization and help the survival of a particular tribe living in a particular area. There's a book called "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddle of Culture" by Marvin Harris that discusses a few of these things. Rather old book (1974) but interesting.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 02:31pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 02:31pmSir Craig, that's the thing, everybody knows that when your numbers up, or it's your time to go, that's it it's check out time and your gonna die. It might be something as weird as slipping in the shower and bumping your head. It could be in a car accident, or it could be being beaten to death by some thugs. You just gotta be ready, I know you are not going to like this answer but that's basically it. In the words of Tim McGraw you gotta Live Like You Were Dying, because basically we all are, life itself is simply a constant state of decay until death comes.
I know it seems unfair that the thug would have an opportunity to repent and the beaten to death homosexual would not, I don't like it either. I would like to see the thug suffer twice as bad as the beaten to death homosexual for the injustice that has been done.
You mention fairness but let's face it, life isn't fair. Simply living till tommorrow and you will face something that is unfair.
Sorry, there isn't any better answer than that. As far as you believing there is no God, that's your choice. I choose to believe. I am not going to try to push my beliefs on you, however if you ask I will be happy to discuss them with you. Maybe one day you will find somebody in your life that reflects the love and grace that the Bible speaks of instead of the new age christian batch of political bullies trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of everybody including other christians.
Have a good day Sir Craig.
I know it seems unfair that the thug would have an opportunity to repent and the beaten to death homosexual would not, I don't like it either. I would like to see the thug suffer twice as bad as the beaten to death homosexual for the injustice that has been done.
You mention fairness but let's face it, life isn't fair. Simply living till tommorrow and you will face something that is unfair.
Sorry, there isn't any better answer than that. As far as you believing there is no God, that's your choice. I choose to believe. I am not going to try to push my beliefs on you, however if you ask I will be happy to discuss them with you. Maybe one day you will find somebody in your life that reflects the love and grace that the Bible speaks of instead of the new age christian batch of political bullies trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of everybody including other christians.
Have a good day Sir Craig.
Posted by Revolution :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 02:35pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 02:35pmJust my two cents...
In order for the Thug to be absolved of his sins, he would have to truly be sorry in his heart for what he did. Just repenting isn't enough to get into heaven. God isn't stupid. Since being a Thug requires being a true piece of shit, the likelyhood of his request for forgiveness being genuine is pretty far off. I take comfort in knowing that mere words (regardless of what the Catholics say) aren't enough in the eyes of a "true" God.
In order for the Thug to be absolved of his sins, he would have to truly be sorry in his heart for what he did. Just repenting isn't enough to get into heaven. God isn't stupid. Since being a Thug requires being a true piece of shit, the likelyhood of his request for forgiveness being genuine is pretty far off. I take comfort in knowing that mere words (regardless of what the Catholics say) aren't enough in the eyes of a "true" God.
Posted by tennesseeblue :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:30pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 01:30pmI don't think Ryland's post came anywhere close to equating a genetic link to homosexuality as a 'birth defect'. I tend to look at it in a more simplistic manner.
I truly believe there is a genetic factor which is there in a very large majority of homosexuals just based upon aquaintances and friends I've known over the years. Just like a good friend of mine has no recourse that he is only 5'7" tall because of genetics and I can't help it that I'm 6'6" tall because of genetics. It should be nothing to complain or judge about because it just simply is that way. I had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how I was born. I did not choose my parents or my height or that I am really, EXTREMELY attracted to women! It is, as I very often say, PURE LUCK that I was born the way I am, to the wonderful parents I was born to, in the United States middle class Christian family who taught me to love people and to be non-judgemental. I did not choose this--I am grateful for it--but I did NOT choose it. I am indeed a very fortunate individual and therefore I feel it is required of me to care for my brothers and sisters all over the state of Tennessee, the South, the country and the world. I believe that my God asks that of me.
Thank you Rick for the quotes. You and I are from boardering southern states and are from very close- theologically speaking- Church denominations. You and I seem to be of the same thought in our view of religion in control of government. Unfortunately, the man you voted for and many of his backers do not feel the same way and would turn the U.S. into a Theocracy if given the ability to snap their fingers and make it so. Given the history of the world, it is both amazing that so many want to go down that road and scary at the same time. For the time being, I'll just continue to white-knuckle it on this ride.
I truly believe there is a genetic factor which is there in a very large majority of homosexuals just based upon aquaintances and friends I've known over the years. Just like a good friend of mine has no recourse that he is only 5'7" tall because of genetics and I can't help it that I'm 6'6" tall because of genetics. It should be nothing to complain or judge about because it just simply is that way. I had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how I was born. I did not choose my parents or my height or that I am really, EXTREMELY attracted to women! It is, as I very often say, PURE LUCK that I was born the way I am, to the wonderful parents I was born to, in the United States middle class Christian family who taught me to love people and to be non-judgemental. I did not choose this--I am grateful for it--but I did NOT choose it. I am indeed a very fortunate individual and therefore I feel it is required of me to care for my brothers and sisters all over the state of Tennessee, the South, the country and the world. I believe that my God asks that of me.
Thank you Rick for the quotes. You and I are from boardering southern states and are from very close- theologically speaking- Church denominations. You and I seem to be of the same thought in our view of religion in control of government. Unfortunately, the man you voted for and many of his backers do not feel the same way and would turn the U.S. into a Theocracy if given the ability to snap their fingers and make it so. Given the history of the world, it is both amazing that so many want to go down that road and scary at the same time. For the time being, I'll just continue to white-knuckle it on this ride.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:46pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:46pmWOW, the discussion here is getting interesting and in depth, with interesting thoughts coming in from all sides. I am unable to resist tossing in some tidbits. ('m so weak!)
First, I am non-Christian although very familiar with Christianity. My entire arguement with the Christian fundamentalist arguement against homosexuality is the "pick and choose" method in which it is applied. The particular sections proscribing such acts (getting entirely away from the debate concerning interpretation of the original writings) is that they are couched with a complete selection of laws, all given the same weight and importance, yet only PARTICULAR laws from this book are supposed to be followed. That some laws are more important than others seems to throw everything into doubt for me. There's also that New Testament section where Jesus is asked something along those lines -- which are the most important laws? -- and he comes back with the "love God above all" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself", both of which summarize Christianity for me, and neither of which seem to be involved at all with whom one has sex with.
I'm also of the opinion that our culture (as opposed to other cultures, both currently and historically) are far too preoccupied with homosexuality, and sexuality in general. Sexual orientation is, in my humble and semi-educated opinion, like any other preference -- same importance more or less, comng out of a person's particular genetic make up combined with pre-natal and post-natal influences. No one gets nearly as wound up if you prefer vegetables to meat as a matter of taste, or if you like everything except beets.
There is a strong political component to sexuality in our culture -- if you aren't "Mainstream" (and what the hell does that mean anyway?) then you have to pick a subgroup. I've heard/read many people, both gay, straight and bi, comment upon how this component has influenced or even dictated their choices. OF course, from here you can go on to the whole thing about minority groups, the development of subcultures as a defense, the need to create self-approving groups when there is real or perceived condemnation from the larger group, la la la...this is a huge, I mean HUGE, area of human social studies, and it applies not just to gays, but to religious, ethnic, age and political groups of people. Pick something culturally polarizing, and there's a group standing around it with a secret handshake or a code word. Think about groups of teenagers you knew in highschool. Think about clubs.
It always looks to me like it comes back to that great big human reaction to anything strange, anything unknown, anything "other". Homosexuals make up a minority. If you really wanted to cut up the population along lines of desire and or means of sexual expression, a goodly number of us would probably end up in some sort of minority slice, for that matter. (All those who lust for big busted blondes, stand over THERE -- those who get woozy for hairy chests, over HERE..spanking afficianados, stand under the tree...etc.) Humans have two conflicting needs inherent that are exhibited constantly and can be seen in much of what we do -- to be individual and to be part of the group. Different cultures emphasise one of these two impulses to a greater or lesser extent, under various sets of conditions.
This doesn't make a single set of choices the absolute "right" choice.
This eventually runs back into my favorite observation -- it's all about who is the "most right". The more people who agree with me, the more "right" I am, no matter what the specifics of that agreement might be. Anyone who disagrees with me throws doubt on me and forces me to think -- sometimes uncomfortably -- about my actions and my beliefs. If I can browbeat or intimidate those disagreeing folks into silence, I can continue to feel "right" and enjoy all the feelings of security and safety that come with it.
The only answer I can come up with for the whole thing is acceptance of differences. No, I can't accept everything about all people. I have trouble with things that directly affect me without my consent or input caused by the actions of others. I do, however, accept that other people are not constrained to agree with me and I have no "right" to force them to agree or force them into silence, or to interfere with their lives, either. Whatever I want for myself -- which includes the freedom to make my own choices, to think for myself, and to live as peacefully and productively as I can manage -- I must also allow for others. This is far from easy. Not everyone shares my beliefs in how the world should be.
Which is, at the bottom, the whole problem, isn't it? We all have different viewpoints on how the world should be, especially in the details. I think many people would find they are in much agreement over the basic matters of how the world should be. They can get together on the important stuff, like shelter and protecting the earth and protecting the helpless like children and elderly people and...well, you all know what that stuff is.
Who you sleep with, and what set of genitalia they have, and what you do with them, seem to be to be a very personal, private set of choices, that should not be infringed upon by the world outside, nor forced upon the rest of the world (if a man choses a woman as his sexual partner, he does not have the option to force all people everywhere to make the same choice). I wish our culture could get passed these things and on to what is, to me, the more important stuff.
First, I am non-Christian although very familiar with Christianity. My entire arguement with the Christian fundamentalist arguement against homosexuality is the "pick and choose" method in which it is applied. The particular sections proscribing such acts (getting entirely away from the debate concerning interpretation of the original writings) is that they are couched with a complete selection of laws, all given the same weight and importance, yet only PARTICULAR laws from this book are supposed to be followed. That some laws are more important than others seems to throw everything into doubt for me. There's also that New Testament section where Jesus is asked something along those lines -- which are the most important laws? -- and he comes back with the "love God above all" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself", both of which summarize Christianity for me, and neither of which seem to be involved at all with whom one has sex with.
I'm also of the opinion that our culture (as opposed to other cultures, both currently and historically) are far too preoccupied with homosexuality, and sexuality in general. Sexual orientation is, in my humble and semi-educated opinion, like any other preference -- same importance more or less, comng out of a person's particular genetic make up combined with pre-natal and post-natal influences. No one gets nearly as wound up if you prefer vegetables to meat as a matter of taste, or if you like everything except beets.
There is a strong political component to sexuality in our culture -- if you aren't "Mainstream" (and what the hell does that mean anyway?) then you have to pick a subgroup. I've heard/read many people, both gay, straight and bi, comment upon how this component has influenced or even dictated their choices. OF course, from here you can go on to the whole thing about minority groups, the development of subcultures as a defense, the need to create self-approving groups when there is real or perceived condemnation from the larger group, la la la...this is a huge, I mean HUGE, area of human social studies, and it applies not just to gays, but to religious, ethnic, age and political groups of people. Pick something culturally polarizing, and there's a group standing around it with a secret handshake or a code word. Think about groups of teenagers you knew in highschool. Think about clubs.
It always looks to me like it comes back to that great big human reaction to anything strange, anything unknown, anything "other". Homosexuals make up a minority. If you really wanted to cut up the population along lines of desire and or means of sexual expression, a goodly number of us would probably end up in some sort of minority slice, for that matter. (All those who lust for big busted blondes, stand over THERE -- those who get woozy for hairy chests, over HERE..spanking afficianados, stand under the tree...etc.) Humans have two conflicting needs inherent that are exhibited constantly and can be seen in much of what we do -- to be individual and to be part of the group. Different cultures emphasise one of these two impulses to a greater or lesser extent, under various sets of conditions.
This doesn't make a single set of choices the absolute "right" choice.
This eventually runs back into my favorite observation -- it's all about who is the "most right". The more people who agree with me, the more "right" I am, no matter what the specifics of that agreement might be. Anyone who disagrees with me throws doubt on me and forces me to think -- sometimes uncomfortably -- about my actions and my beliefs. If I can browbeat or intimidate those disagreeing folks into silence, I can continue to feel "right" and enjoy all the feelings of security and safety that come with it.
The only answer I can come up with for the whole thing is acceptance of differences. No, I can't accept everything about all people. I have trouble with things that directly affect me without my consent or input caused by the actions of others. I do, however, accept that other people are not constrained to agree with me and I have no "right" to force them to agree or force them into silence, or to interfere with their lives, either. Whatever I want for myself -- which includes the freedom to make my own choices, to think for myself, and to live as peacefully and productively as I can manage -- I must also allow for others. This is far from easy. Not everyone shares my beliefs in how the world should be.
Which is, at the bottom, the whole problem, isn't it? We all have different viewpoints on how the world should be, especially in the details. I think many people would find they are in much agreement over the basic matters of how the world should be. They can get together on the important stuff, like shelter and protecting the earth and protecting the helpless like children and elderly people and...well, you all know what that stuff is.
Who you sleep with, and what set of genitalia they have, and what you do with them, seem to be to be a very personal, private set of choices, that should not be infringed upon by the world outside, nor forced upon the rest of the world (if a man choses a woman as his sexual partner, he does not have the option to force all people everywhere to make the same choice). I wish our culture could get passed these things and on to what is, to me, the more important stuff.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:48pm
:: :: Mar 16, 2005 03:48pmAnd I should have proofread better! Don't even POINT at that embarrassing number error. I see it and am ashamed.
Posted by el Bow :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:16am
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:16amWhat about those Goth kids who dress in their odd way, listen to their odd music, engage in their odd behaviours. Aren't they choosing to adopt a 'lifestyle' that isolates them from the rest of society, for the sake of being included in their own sub-society. Were the goth-kids born goth?
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 12:58pm
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 12:58pmHmmmm el...I guess the question would be, do the Goth kids then follow their "lifestyle" into adulthood and throughout the rest of their lives? Were they of a Goth mindset when they were young?
The lesbian/gay people I've known didn't just wake up one day and say, "I think I'll be gay today". They felt it deep within themselves, many times from the point of self-awareness as a child. Their orientation continued into adulthood. It didn't change because they matured. I think there is a difference between the act of expressing one's "individuality" (while belonging to a group, i.e., Goths or rappers or jocks), and the innate hardwiring of sexuality.
As a person matures, they generally move past the need to show the world how "different" and "individual" they are, and become more comfortable leading an everyday life. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, one doesn't see a lot of 55 year old Goths walking down the street or hanging out at the mall. One does, however, see gay/lesbian people of all ages and walks of life. This says to me that attraction to the same sex is not a choice; it is, rather, within that person (my vote would be for genetically).
This whole flap about gay marriage is nonsense. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. If churches choose not to marry people of the same sex via their particular religious ceremony, that is their choice. One does not need to be "married" by a representative of a given religion in order for their partnership to be valid in the eyes of the law.
The state, however, should not discriminate against people who wish to pay the fee and buy the license, be they same sex or opposite sex. We all pay taxes. We are all required to follow the same motor vehicle code, and abide by the laws made by our legislatures. If we are all equal under those situations, why are we not equal when it comes to being married?
And frankly, who cares whether a person is married man to woman, or woman to woman / man to man? I don't have to live with that couple, and what they do in their own home, in the privacy of their bedroom is just not my business. Let's move beyond this concentration on other peoples' sex lives, and look to the important issues that face all of us as people of this planet. Fighting about gay marriage is just a huge waste of time.
The lesbian/gay people I've known didn't just wake up one day and say, "I think I'll be gay today". They felt it deep within themselves, many times from the point of self-awareness as a child. Their orientation continued into adulthood. It didn't change because they matured. I think there is a difference between the act of expressing one's "individuality" (while belonging to a group, i.e., Goths or rappers or jocks), and the innate hardwiring of sexuality.
As a person matures, they generally move past the need to show the world how "different" and "individual" they are, and become more comfortable leading an everyday life. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, one doesn't see a lot of 55 year old Goths walking down the street or hanging out at the mall. One does, however, see gay/lesbian people of all ages and walks of life. This says to me that attraction to the same sex is not a choice; it is, rather, within that person (my vote would be for genetically).
This whole flap about gay marriage is nonsense. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. If churches choose not to marry people of the same sex via their particular religious ceremony, that is their choice. One does not need to be "married" by a representative of a given religion in order for their partnership to be valid in the eyes of the law.
The state, however, should not discriminate against people who wish to pay the fee and buy the license, be they same sex or opposite sex. We all pay taxes. We are all required to follow the same motor vehicle code, and abide by the laws made by our legislatures. If we are all equal under those situations, why are we not equal when it comes to being married?
And frankly, who cares whether a person is married man to woman, or woman to woman / man to man? I don't have to live with that couple, and what they do in their own home, in the privacy of their bedroom is just not my business. Let's move beyond this concentration on other peoples' sex lives, and look to the important issues that face all of us as people of this planet. Fighting about gay marriage is just a huge waste of time.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 12:33pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 12:33pmOnce again you have won my heart...
I agree that sexuality is indeed genetic: As many have said, love is hormonal. We know that people react to pheromones differently, and that it takes place at a subconscious level. Who is to say that this isn't what defines sexuality -- it is no more a genetic aberration than eye color (as has been stated earlier).
However, I do agree with some of the others here that have expressed concern regarding viewing sexuality as a possibly correctable physical or genetic trait -- I would like to think that Nature sometimes knows what it is doing, and that we would be wise to leave well enough alone.
------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, my favorite argument that I ever heard regarding not allowing gay marriages: If we allowed gays to get married, then humans would soon die out because gays can't procreate. (This was actually said to me by an otherwise decent fellow, and when I asked if this meant that all people would suddenly become gay as a result of allowing gay marriages, because that was basically what he was saying, you could see his Faux News-conditioned brain suddenly vapor lock.)
Anyone else got a favorite reason that seemed to defy all reason, yet was said in all sincerity?
I agree that sexuality is indeed genetic: As many have said, love is hormonal. We know that people react to pheromones differently, and that it takes place at a subconscious level. Who is to say that this isn't what defines sexuality -- it is no more a genetic aberration than eye color (as has been stated earlier).
However, I do agree with some of the others here that have expressed concern regarding viewing sexuality as a possibly correctable physical or genetic trait -- I would like to think that Nature sometimes knows what it is doing, and that we would be wise to leave well enough alone.
------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, my favorite argument that I ever heard regarding not allowing gay marriages: If we allowed gays to get married, then humans would soon die out because gays can't procreate. (This was actually said to me by an otherwise decent fellow, and when I asked if this meant that all people would suddenly become gay as a result of allowing gay marriages, because that was basically what he was saying, you could see his Faux News-conditioned brain suddenly vapor lock.)
Anyone else got a favorite reason that seemed to defy all reason, yet was said in all sincerity?
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 03:45pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 03:45pmIt always kills me when conservatives and/or Christians bring up that argument, because they are basically arguing for an evolutionary model - somehow gay people are more fit for survival and will displace straight people. Apparently evolution works when it backs up your prejudice, but if you teach it in school, it's just a theory.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 19, 2005 06:06pm
:: :: Mar 19, 2005 06:06pmI don't know what causes a person to be homosexual but I just don't see that it is a fully genetic thing. I googled the article for the percentage of gay identical twins and it showed that when one of the twins is homosexual only 52% of the time is the other homosexual. Now take account some of them repressing the homosexual desire I still don't think that it would make up the other lacking 48%. If it were strictly genetic then wouldn't it have to be 100% of the time, or at least over say 95%?
Like I said I don't know what causes homosexuality, and genetics may very play a part of it but I just don't see that that is the only contributing factor.
Like I said I don't know what causes homosexuality, and genetics may very play a part of it but I just don't see that that is the only contributing factor.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 20, 2005 09:52am
:: :: Mar 20, 2005 09:52amThe twins example has already been shown to be flawed: twins are not true genetic copies of one another, otherwise they would both be born either right-handed or left-handed (which is very much a genetic trait).
This does not happen, either.
This does not happen, either.
Posted by ag :: :: :: Mar 23, 2005 02:41pm
:: :: Mar 23, 2005 02:41pmSorry Sir Craig, but identical twins are exact genetic copies. They are in effect clones of each other. Maybe there are some epigenetic factors that might be brought by the environement after birth but I honestly don't know enough of this subject.
I don't know if the cited data by Rick is correct. It seems awfully low for being identical twins and too high for fraternal twins.
I don't know if the cited data by Rick is correct. It seems awfully low for being identical twins and too high for fraternal twins.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Mar 23, 2005 05:58pm
:: :: Mar 23, 2005 05:58pmI may have misstated my point (as I am prone to do when I am tired from pulling cabana boy duty). But while I agree that they share identical genetic structures, they are not exact genetic copies. Yes, they are as close to being clone-like as you can get, but while their genetic material is identical, it's like using identical building materials between two buildings, each using the same construction team: You will end up with two very similar buildings, with everything in the same place and serving the same function, but there will always be some small differences between the two, no matter how hard one tries.
It's the same with identical twins: They have all the identical parts, and they were built by the same mother, but there will always be some small difference between the two (environmental factors or no), and so cannot be exact genetic copies of one another; to be so would imply that there is no difference at all between the two, and the "left-handed/right-handed" example has shown this to be false.
Reality abhors a vacuum and perfection...chaos theory RULES!
It's the same with identical twins: They have all the identical parts, and they were built by the same mother, but there will always be some small difference between the two (environmental factors or no), and so cannot be exact genetic copies of one another; to be so would imply that there is no difference at all between the two, and the "left-handed/right-handed" example has shown this to be false.
Reality abhors a vacuum and perfection...chaos theory RULES!
Posted by Gerry :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 01:00pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 01:00pmI thought that the whole point of calling identical twins identical is that, genetically speaking, they are identical. They are two people that originate from the same fertilized egg, and therefore are exactly the same as a cloned pair. If there are an differences between the two, it is the result of environmental factors that take place after the two seperate, either in the womb, or outside of it. Perhaps there are other influences that determine whether a person is left or right handed that we do not yet understand. But to say that they are not exact genetic copies is wrong, IMO. But then, I'm not a geneticist.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 01:54pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 01:54pmYou're right Gerry: simply put, fertilized human eggs are created from a half-copy of each parent's genetic material in a sperm or egg (which contains a mix of their parents' genes), but the egg itself splits identically when twins are formed.
I always get fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall that meiosis produces haploid gametes, which join to form a diploid zygote, which (rarely) subsequently undergoes mitosis to form another diploid zygote.
Translated to english this means that sperm and eggs only have a half copy of the relevant parent's genes, consisting of a mix of their parents' genes which get mixed up through crossing over when the sperm or egg is formed, and they get together to from a full version of the human genome when an egg is fertilized - phew - but when an egg splits, it takes a full copy of the original egg's genetic material, so the twins theoretically have exactly the same genetic makeup.
But mistakes do happen during copying, so there is still the reasonable chance that "errors" could occur during any of these copying processes, meaning that there can be minor genetic differences between "identical" twins. Also, enviromental exposure of the mother to things like cigarette smoke, PCBs, pesticides, gasoline, you name it, can all have an impact on the development of proteins when the embryo starts to grow and make additional cells for the brain and bones and such, so the fact that they started from identical genes may not result in identical proteins and therefore, identical people. But that's just the chemical and biological factors, and it doesn't address developmental factors resulting from a kid's social environment after birth.
Still, the fact that a gene is present for a given "behaviour" (Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is dry but worth a read here if you're really bored) doesn't necessarily mean it will always be expressed in the developed person. Again, exposure to various chemicals in a child's house or school can cause issues, as can diseases that are only expressed in one twin due to environmental factors. In other words, an identical set of genes in two embryos does not necessarily result in identical people, from a strictly biological and chemical perspective.
Hope that made sense. Sorry to go on and on...
Somebody else will have to argue the sociobiology behind this, but the net effect is that both genetics and environment seem to contribute to sexuality in people. I'm not a sociologist or psychologist, but it occurs to me that it would be nearly impossible to sort out whether homosexuality is "nature or nurture", not that it matters! It is what it is.
I always get fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall that meiosis produces haploid gametes, which join to form a diploid zygote, which (rarely) subsequently undergoes mitosis to form another diploid zygote.
Translated to english this means that sperm and eggs only have a half copy of the relevant parent's genes, consisting of a mix of their parents' genes which get mixed up through crossing over when the sperm or egg is formed, and they get together to from a full version of the human genome when an egg is fertilized - phew - but when an egg splits, it takes a full copy of the original egg's genetic material, so the twins theoretically have exactly the same genetic makeup.
But mistakes do happen during copying, so there is still the reasonable chance that "errors" could occur during any of these copying processes, meaning that there can be minor genetic differences between "identical" twins. Also, enviromental exposure of the mother to things like cigarette smoke, PCBs, pesticides, gasoline, you name it, can all have an impact on the development of proteins when the embryo starts to grow and make additional cells for the brain and bones and such, so the fact that they started from identical genes may not result in identical proteins and therefore, identical people. But that's just the chemical and biological factors, and it doesn't address developmental factors resulting from a kid's social environment after birth.
Still, the fact that a gene is present for a given "behaviour" (Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is dry but worth a read here if you're really bored) doesn't necessarily mean it will always be expressed in the developed person. Again, exposure to various chemicals in a child's house or school can cause issues, as can diseases that are only expressed in one twin due to environmental factors. In other words, an identical set of genes in two embryos does not necessarily result in identical people, from a strictly biological and chemical perspective.
Hope that made sense. Sorry to go on and on...
Somebody else will have to argue the sociobiology behind this, but the net effect is that both genetics and environment seem to contribute to sexuality in people. I'm not a sociologist or psychologist, but it occurs to me that it would be nearly impossible to sort out whether homosexuality is "nature or nurture", not that it matters! It is what it is.
Posted by Gerry :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 03:09pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 03:09pmYou're right that it doesn't matter, and that it is what it is, and of course we have to treat people as the individuals that they are, but I was responding to the premise made that identical twins are not genetically identical, which I do believe them to be, at least as far as the point of seperation of the two embryos. Then, if that is true, something happens to make these two people different, as far as sexual preference is concerned, and right or left handedness as well. If we knew what that was, a choice could be made. I know that for myself, if I could have chosen for my children to be right or left-handed, I would choose for them to be right-handed, all other things being the same (if that is possible). Similarly, I would choose them to be hetero-sexual, all other things being the same. If there is an after "seperation" or after conception influence on sexuality, and it can be identified, which I think there is, then that influence might be neutralized. It's an interesting idea. As it is, I have three sons, all hetero-sexual, and one of them left-handed. Being a person who works with my hands and with tools, I know that life is easier for the right-handed. I can also imagine that life would be much easier for someone who is not homo-sexual, particularly in some families, and certainly in most societies.
I'm rambling here a bit, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. I hope.
I'm rambling here a bit, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. I hope.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 03:52pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 03:52pmConsider that a number of things happen to the in-utero embryo after the two separate -- hormonal washes, variance of nutrients through the unbilical, even the fact they exist in separate space -- and the idea of "identical" sort of wears off. The term itself is a hold over from the time before any scientific research was done. Don't get wound up too much in words.
There have been several studies and many books written on the idea that throughout most of nature, bi-sexuality seems to be the norm -- few other species seem to have problems with it, at least according to these studies. Being exclusivly and extremely homosexual seems rather rare if you follow the Kinsey scale, and according to anecdotal evidence I've heard and read over the years, as much a social/political choice as anything else, (because our society is big on extending one kind of choice to restrict everything else in a person's life -- fall in love with someone of the same sex and you are suddenly in an entirely different world from those who do not).
I'm afraid I recoil in horror over the idea that some influence that creates a sexual preference could be "neutralized" pre-natally. First, I think it would be far easier to change social conditions to include all people of difference rather than trying to create a homogenous world. Second, such a technology could so easily become one to selectively create "certain kinds of people" -- and who would make those decisions? The ethical quagmire of that is epic.
There have been several studies and many books written on the idea that throughout most of nature, bi-sexuality seems to be the norm -- few other species seem to have problems with it, at least according to these studies. Being exclusivly and extremely homosexual seems rather rare if you follow the Kinsey scale, and according to anecdotal evidence I've heard and read over the years, as much a social/political choice as anything else, (because our society is big on extending one kind of choice to restrict everything else in a person's life -- fall in love with someone of the same sex and you are suddenly in an entirely different world from those who do not).
I'm afraid I recoil in horror over the idea that some influence that creates a sexual preference could be "neutralized" pre-natally. First, I think it would be far easier to change social conditions to include all people of difference rather than trying to create a homogenous world. Second, such a technology could so easily become one to selectively create "certain kinds of people" -- and who would make those decisions? The ethical quagmire of that is epic.
Posted by Gerry :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 05:50pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 05:50pmI'm not sure that I'm getting hung up on words, just looking for some clarity by using the right ones. Genetically identical means genetically identical. That doesn't mean that the subjects would be identical, but it does mean that environmental factors caused the differences that do exist, whether those are pre-natal or post-natal. If we know what those factors are, then they can be enhanced, neutralized, mitigated, whatever. The choices would be those of the parents, obviously. If I knew that eating a lot of carrots during the second trimester was an influence towards left-handedness and I preferred right-handed children for whatever reason, then that would be something for my wife and I to discuss. That seems easier to me than anything else, and nothing wrong with it. I'm not talking about eradicating left-handed people here.
A lot of changes happen without us doing anything other than being people. For instance, brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes. I can see this in my own family. I'm blue-eyed and my wife is brown- eyed. All my children are brown-eyed. The same is true for most of my siblings. At this rate, there will soon not be any blue-eyed people left on earth, as people travel more and have children with others from around the world. Not a big deal. And that is genetic loss. Genetically, our world becomes more homogenous all by itself, doesn't it? If all people were to become right-handed by means of environmentally controlled factors, what would be so horrific about that?
A lot of changes happen without us doing anything other than being people. For instance, brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes. I can see this in my own family. I'm blue-eyed and my wife is brown- eyed. All my children are brown-eyed. The same is true for most of my siblings. At this rate, there will soon not be any blue-eyed people left on earth, as people travel more and have children with others from around the world. Not a big deal. And that is genetic loss. Genetically, our world becomes more homogenous all by itself, doesn't it? If all people were to become right-handed by means of environmentally controlled factors, what would be so horrific about that?
Posted by Gerry :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 07:16pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 07:16pmHey, maybe we can figure out what makes people ambidextrous. That might be cool, as long as ambidextrous people are as talented with either hand as right or left handed people are with their dominant hands.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 09:56pm
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 09:56pmI'm ambimouseterous. :) I taught myself to use my left hand to mouse, as well as my right. Maybe this is a skill that can be learned, or is inherent in us all - it only needs to be honed?
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 12:36am
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 12:36amI am partially ambidextrous -- while right handed in most things, there are certain things -- like cutting meat at a meal -- I can only do left handed. I also can use left handed scissors. However, I drive people nuts because my right-handed track ball -- that I use with my right hand -- is set up left handed. It's just easier for me that way, although it makes my computer confusing for others to use.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 02:02am
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 02:02amI guess you and redraven would have to be ambidextrous, what with your well-intentioned plans for world leadership, all that junk food to eat and cabana boys to correspond with and so on ;)
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 01:59am
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 01:59amI hear what you're saying Gerry, that if there were some environmental determinant of the expression of hetero- or homosexuality, why not choose the more "acceptable" - I'm being vague here on purpose, of course, since I'm planning to get all philosophical-like :) ...
As I see it, all of this discussion ultimately returns to the idea of right and wrong, good and bad, and although I know you might not have being going there specifically, I'm going to anyhow. "Good" and "bad" are subjective judgement calls. For instance, if one happens to be gay, then homosexuality is presumably "good". If one happens to be a fundamentalist of a number of religions or insecure about sexuality in general, homosexuality is apparently "bad".
Let me be the "devil's advocate" for a moment: if someone is a strict religious fundamentalist, they are presumably creationists or intelligent design followers. It follows that they believe everything around us is a creator's intention in some way or another. Hence, this must include homosexuals, and they are therefore God's good work/children/insert metaphor here, and as the aforesaid creator is omnipotent and infallible, homosexuality should be "good". This isn't bacon double cheeseburgers we're talking about - a human creation worthy of high praise IMHO, but the fundamental nature of man (or woman) which appears quite beyond human control.
Alternatively, if one is a scientist (religious or not), an atheist, an existentialist or someone who otherwise believes that nature, like the theoretical market of the economics textbooks, is "efficient", and that the random nature of existence is truly driving the survival of the "fittest" and only the strong survive, then clearly, the fact that homosexuality is alive and steadily active, thousands of generations (and many types of social groupings/societies) after homo sapiens appeared, this must also indicate that homosexuality in our species is "good", as only "good" or advantageous traits (and therefore genes) would be proactively selected for as we reproduced and evolved.
Both of these arguments work whether or not homosexuality is a direct result of the expression of a specific "gay" gene or genes, or the result of the developmental impact of a complex set of behaviours resulting indirectly from a group of interdependent genes, or even if homosexuality is only a result of the social environment of a child/adult who might otherwise be ambivalent.
If a "bad" gene that, for instance, results in the death of a person is created or evolves, as long as it does not kill the carrier of that gene before reproductive age is attained, it could still be propagated successfully, even though it is "bad" for the carrier. It's just that it wouldn't exercise that effect until after it had already been propagated. However, this argument clearly does not apply to whatever genetic factors might or might not influence homo/heterosexuality, as it appears that the gene or socialization that results in homosexuality is expressed in many people before puberty! Therefore, if the cause is genetic, we can only conclude that there is a specific advantage to the gene which causes someone to be homosexual, and again, that it is "good", or at least not "bad" from a genetic perspective.
Even if homosexuality is entirely "learned", we now know that all behaviour (reaction to stimulus) is a result of our genetic makeup, and again, this argument applies - only advantageous (or, to the creationist, intentionally designed) traits and behaviours would survive over the long term. Disadvantageous behaviours would have been selected out or presumably avoided by an omnipotent creator.
The only question I can think of that requires more contemplation is not whether homosexuality is "good" or "bad", but rather what specific and advantageous purposes it serves in the development of human beings and their behaviour, i.e. what advantages have resulted in it being propagated. Or, if you prefer, what was the creator's plan?
I realize you have to be a seriously bored insomniac with alot of free time to waste (i.e. me) for this argument to be worth considering, but do you see what I mean?
No doubt someone out there's about to beat me with a bible or other divine tome and tell me about sinners and free will and satan and such, or ask the inevitable "do you think Hitler and Barney the Dinosaur and terrorism are good just because they exist, too?" kinds of questions, but from a rational perspective, doesn't this argument "hold water"?
As I see it, all of this discussion ultimately returns to the idea of right and wrong, good and bad, and although I know you might not have being going there specifically, I'm going to anyhow. "Good" and "bad" are subjective judgement calls. For instance, if one happens to be gay, then homosexuality is presumably "good". If one happens to be a fundamentalist of a number of religions or insecure about sexuality in general, homosexuality is apparently "bad".
Let me be the "devil's advocate" for a moment: if someone is a strict religious fundamentalist, they are presumably creationists or intelligent design followers. It follows that they believe everything around us is a creator's intention in some way or another. Hence, this must include homosexuals, and they are therefore God's good work/children/insert metaphor here, and as the aforesaid creator is omnipotent and infallible, homosexuality should be "good". This isn't bacon double cheeseburgers we're talking about - a human creation worthy of high praise IMHO, but the fundamental nature of man (or woman) which appears quite beyond human control.
Alternatively, if one is a scientist (religious or not), an atheist, an existentialist or someone who otherwise believes that nature, like the theoretical market of the economics textbooks, is "efficient", and that the random nature of existence is truly driving the survival of the "fittest" and only the strong survive, then clearly, the fact that homosexuality is alive and steadily active, thousands of generations (and many types of social groupings/societies) after homo sapiens appeared, this must also indicate that homosexuality in our species is "good", as only "good" or advantageous traits (and therefore genes) would be proactively selected for as we reproduced and evolved.
Both of these arguments work whether or not homosexuality is a direct result of the expression of a specific "gay" gene or genes, or the result of the developmental impact of a complex set of behaviours resulting indirectly from a group of interdependent genes, or even if homosexuality is only a result of the social environment of a child/adult who might otherwise be ambivalent.
If a "bad" gene that, for instance, results in the death of a person is created or evolves, as long as it does not kill the carrier of that gene before reproductive age is attained, it could still be propagated successfully, even though it is "bad" for the carrier. It's just that it wouldn't exercise that effect until after it had already been propagated. However, this argument clearly does not apply to whatever genetic factors might or might not influence homo/heterosexuality, as it appears that the gene or socialization that results in homosexuality is expressed in many people before puberty! Therefore, if the cause is genetic, we can only conclude that there is a specific advantage to the gene which causes someone to be homosexual, and again, that it is "good", or at least not "bad" from a genetic perspective.
Even if homosexuality is entirely "learned", we now know that all behaviour (reaction to stimulus) is a result of our genetic makeup, and again, this argument applies - only advantageous (or, to the creationist, intentionally designed) traits and behaviours would survive over the long term. Disadvantageous behaviours would have been selected out or presumably avoided by an omnipotent creator.
The only question I can think of that requires more contemplation is not whether homosexuality is "good" or "bad", but rather what specific and advantageous purposes it serves in the development of human beings and their behaviour, i.e. what advantages have resulted in it being propagated. Or, if you prefer, what was the creator's plan?
I realize you have to be a seriously bored insomniac with alot of free time to waste (i.e. me) for this argument to be worth considering, but do you see what I mean?
No doubt someone out there's about to beat me with a bible or other divine tome and tell me about sinners and free will and satan and such, or ask the inevitable "do you think Hitler and Barney the Dinosaur and terrorism are good just because they exist, too?" kinds of questions, but from a rational perspective, doesn't this argument "hold water"?
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 04:28am
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 04:28amI'm guessing that in the "fitness for survival" sense, if it has any genetic basis at all, homosexuality is superfluous; it simply exists, and neither helps nor hinders the race in terms of survival. So to answer your question, nope, I don't think your argument holds water, simply because you're assuming too much (in my opinion).
To address your points: first off, the fundamentalist believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" that is chosen, for whatever reason - presumably because of wickedness or Satanic influence. God granted man free will, the ability to choose between good and evil, so choosing to be gay is a moral decision, and isn't influenced by genetics.
(Speaking as an agnostic, I like the idea of free will, myself - if your behavior is determined by your genes and nothing else, we're basically automatons. I don't think that we would be able to meaningfully discuss free will if we didn't have free will. Where does free will come from? I don't know. Maybe it's quantum in nature - basically random at the microscopic level, but predictable at the macroscopic level. Who knows. But the closest thing I have to a religious belief is the idea that we are more than an equation, behavior = genetics + environment.)
Second, nature is not efficient - quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. Nature is often hideously inefficient. Countless millions of sperm die for every one that fertilizes an egg, countless thousands of newly hatched fish die due to predators for every one that swims upstream to spawn, and so on. Nature is chock-a-block with examples of profligacy, superfluity, and waste.
Third, "survival of the fittest" is meaningless in any moral or qualitative sense. It doesn't mean that the biggest, toughest, smartest or whatever species will "win". Evolution doesn't "favor" one set of genes over another. A given configuration of genes will perpetuate itself in a given environment, or not - and that's all. If you're talking about competition, resources, etc., now you're talking about ecology, not evolution.
To address your points: first off, the fundamentalist believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" that is chosen, for whatever reason - presumably because of wickedness or Satanic influence. God granted man free will, the ability to choose between good and evil, so choosing to be gay is a moral decision, and isn't influenced by genetics.
(Speaking as an agnostic, I like the idea of free will, myself - if your behavior is determined by your genes and nothing else, we're basically automatons. I don't think that we would be able to meaningfully discuss free will if we didn't have free will. Where does free will come from? I don't know. Maybe it's quantum in nature - basically random at the microscopic level, but predictable at the macroscopic level. Who knows. But the closest thing I have to a religious belief is the idea that we are more than an equation, behavior = genetics + environment.)
Second, nature is not efficient - quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. Nature is often hideously inefficient. Countless millions of sperm die for every one that fertilizes an egg, countless thousands of newly hatched fish die due to predators for every one that swims upstream to spawn, and so on. Nature is chock-a-block with examples of profligacy, superfluity, and waste.
Third, "survival of the fittest" is meaningless in any moral or qualitative sense. It doesn't mean that the biggest, toughest, smartest or whatever species will "win". Evolution doesn't "favor" one set of genes over another. A given configuration of genes will perpetuate itself in a given environment, or not - and that's all. If you're talking about competition, resources, etc., now you're talking about ecology, not evolution.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 04:46am
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 04:46amAnd so, to answer the implied question, "So, Ryland, do you think homosexuality is genetic?", the answer is, hell if I know. I don't think it matters, really. The way things are, the majority of people are predisposed to be heterosexual, and the minority are predisposed to be homosexual, and whatever the reasons are, I'm OK with that. I don't think either one is "good" or "evil", or "fit" for survival or "unfit", they just are. I honestly don't understand why people are threatened by simple facts of life, but some folks are. Fundamentalists always seem to feel threatened by a whole raft of everyday phenomena that I couldn't care less about. They seem unable to refrain from assigning a (seemingly arbitrary) moral value to everything in life. I think that's why the "[X] for Jesus" phenomenon happens - Christians just can't seem to allow a thing to be morally neutral, so they combine it with religion. So it is with homosexuality. In a sane world (in my opinion) homosexuality would be morally neutral, not worth talking about on other than a practical level. But in the Christian worldview, moral neutrality is not allowed, and since homosexuality feels kinda icky on an aesthetic level, it must be evil.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 03:47pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 03:47pmActually Ryland, I think we're on the same page, even if I do think you're oversimplifying genetics and ecology a bit - doesn't matter, really. "Free will" and the drive to "learn as much as you can to improve your lot in life" may also be genetic constructs. But that's another discussion.
I said earlier (up above somewhere) that I thought we'd never be able to sort out if homosexuality was genetic, and that it doesn't matter a bit. I was just playing devil's advocate: the fundamentalists say homosexuality is bad, "cuz Jeeezus says so", so I was making a case that it was "good" ;)
It is what it is, and in my opinion as well, moral qualifications are irrelevant to its existence or purpose. It'd be like having a fundamentalist doctrine that said blue eyes were evil. Or left handedness. Hey, wait a minute....
Religious fundamentalists are the ones that really baffle me, too, even though (in my opinion), moral neutrality is in fact a dangerous thing, and a sign of the times. That may sound self-contradictory, but I don't think the fundamentalist's problem is with with moral neutrality or even dogmatic moral "conviction": I think the problem is that they voluntarily give up the ability to make moral distinctions for themselves as it interferes with their ability to mindlessly follow the dogma of an organized religion. Or politcal party, for that matter. The flip-side of that coin is the group of people who refuse to make any moral distinctions (i.e. when they really are required, as C-SPAN should have known), even without dogma to follow, and they're just as dangerous. There seems to be a balance that needs to re-assert itself between dogma, individual moral determinations and tolerance that's way the hell out of whack these days. You seem to be one of the minority that's struck it nicely, BTW. Me, I'm still working on it.
J.G. Ballard wrote some really neat stuff (sci-fi too) that goes into this If you haven't already read some of it, it's worth a look. He's the guy who wrote "Empire of the Sun", which was apparently autobiographical. Avoid his psychadelic stuff (Crash, etc.) at all costs, unless you're dropping acid too, of course, in which case, read it :), but he's an interesting guy with alot to say about the loss of our "moral" reasoning abilities as individuals and its impact on society.
Again, IMHO (and I think you would agree), we should be preoccupied with moral dilemmas over whether it's right to steal from pensioners, imprison and torture human beings, deny human rights at a whim, bomb water plants for profit or commit theft and thuggery on a nation state scale for wealth, not what two mature adults do in the privacy of their own lives.
I think we're saying the same things, ultimately.
I said earlier (up above somewhere) that I thought we'd never be able to sort out if homosexuality was genetic, and that it doesn't matter a bit. I was just playing devil's advocate: the fundamentalists say homosexuality is bad, "cuz Jeeezus says so", so I was making a case that it was "good" ;)
It is what it is, and in my opinion as well, moral qualifications are irrelevant to its existence or purpose. It'd be like having a fundamentalist doctrine that said blue eyes were evil. Or left handedness. Hey, wait a minute....
Religious fundamentalists are the ones that really baffle me, too, even though (in my opinion), moral neutrality is in fact a dangerous thing, and a sign of the times. That may sound self-contradictory, but I don't think the fundamentalist's problem is with with moral neutrality or even dogmatic moral "conviction": I think the problem is that they voluntarily give up the ability to make moral distinctions for themselves as it interferes with their ability to mindlessly follow the dogma of an organized religion. Or politcal party, for that matter. The flip-side of that coin is the group of people who refuse to make any moral distinctions (i.e. when they really are required, as C-SPAN should have known), even without dogma to follow, and they're just as dangerous. There seems to be a balance that needs to re-assert itself between dogma, individual moral determinations and tolerance that's way the hell out of whack these days. You seem to be one of the minority that's struck it nicely, BTW. Me, I'm still working on it.
J.G. Ballard wrote some really neat stuff (sci-fi too) that goes into this If you haven't already read some of it, it's worth a look. He's the guy who wrote "Empire of the Sun", which was apparently autobiographical. Avoid his psychadelic stuff (Crash, etc.) at all costs, unless you're dropping acid too, of course, in which case, read it :), but he's an interesting guy with alot to say about the loss of our "moral" reasoning abilities as individuals and its impact on society.
Again, IMHO (and I think you would agree), we should be preoccupied with moral dilemmas over whether it's right to steal from pensioners, imprison and torture human beings, deny human rights at a whim, bomb water plants for profit or commit theft and thuggery on a nation state scale for wealth, not what two mature adults do in the privacy of their own lives.
I think we're saying the same things, ultimately.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 05:44pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 05:44pmSince we're touching on the subject of fundamentalists, and it is ever so much fun (if shamefully easy) to screw with their heads, from this link:
For Paul neither homosexual practice nor heterosexual promiscuity nor any other specific vice is identified as such with 'sin.' In his view the fundamental sin from which all particular evils derive is idolatry, worshiping what is created rather than the Creator, be that a wooden idol, an ideology, a religious system, or some particular moral code."
I find it interesting that while there's exactly zero, nada, zip in the bible that makes homosexuality a "sin", there's plenty that makes idolatry a big no-no - i.e. worshipping human creations, including man-made moral codes! Uh oh....
I guess that means watching FOX or voting for a neoconservative presidential candidate is a sin, since they're promulgating a man-made moral code. Damn, there's fun to be had in the bible after all - it does put the "fun" back in fundamentalism. Then again, I suppose I might be in trouble for being a fan of Orwell...
For Paul neither homosexual practice nor heterosexual promiscuity nor any other specific vice is identified as such with 'sin.' In his view the fundamental sin from which all particular evils derive is idolatry, worshiping what is created rather than the Creator, be that a wooden idol, an ideology, a religious system, or some particular moral code."
I find it interesting that while there's exactly zero, nada, zip in the bible that makes homosexuality a "sin", there's plenty that makes idolatry a big no-no - i.e. worshipping human creations, including man-made moral codes! Uh oh....
I guess that means watching FOX or voting for a neoconservative presidential candidate is a sin, since they're promulgating a man-made moral code. Damn, there's fun to be had in the bible after all - it does put the "fun" back in fundamentalism. Then again, I suppose I might be in trouble for being a fan of Orwell...
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 06:47pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 06:47pmjman, you might want to pick up a Bible and read it sometime, comments like exactly zero, nada, zip in the bible that makes homosexuality a "sin", shows your lack of knowledge of the Bible. In the old testament it was commanded that homosexuals be put to death in the new testament it is always listed with other sins.
I'm not here to argue with you about homosexuality, only the innacurate facts about the Bible.
I'm not here to argue with you about homosexuality, only the innacurate facts about the Bible.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 07:31pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 07:31pmRelax, Rick, I was being cheeky. Don't worry about chapters and verses, I'll trot them out for you in a second.
You are of course, correct, Mosaic Law and the Old Testament are often held up by the religious right as being a tad more definitive on the subject, and there is that pesky passage in Corinthians, after all. Some even claim that parts of Matthew and Mark indicate that Mosaic Law should be upheld (they don't, according to most folks in the debate these days). It's still a matter of interpretation, as I see it.
BTW, as an example, most religious scholars I've read seem to view the prohibitions in Leviticus as pertaining to ritual cleanliness, and do not hold that the things cited therein as "unclean" are sins (good discussion of the difference between sins and uncleanliness in context here). Even if they were somehow relevant today, which even most fundamentalists acknowledge, many of the rules and regs in the bible are not, they are still subject to translation and interpretation, which can vary substantially. Heck, JC himself was a revisionist!
Here's a bit of reading for you on how the religious right and left use the bible in various ways:
# [Right] The following scriptural passages (so people say) clearly[?] condemn homosexuality: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13+23, II Kings 23:7, Romans 1:26+27, I Corinthians 6:9. (More about this later.) Given that these are scattered all over the Bible, the entire Bible must condemn homosexuality.
# [Left] The above passages are either mistranslations of the Greek, taken out of context, historically inaccurate or furthering someone's (eg. Paul's) agenda. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
There are a number of useful links and such there that discuss the ambiguities of the bible and its various versions and translations.
You might do well to remember that there is nothing in the Ten Commandments which discusses homosexuality, and that JC is quoted as saying those particular rules make up the law, not the older Hebrew or Mosiac rulebook. Hence my comment about the man of the day (it is Easter Monday, after all, and I do live in a 43% Catholic country) being a revisionist.
You might also be interested in keeping up on the debate between religious scholars about the meaning and relevance of the various portions of the bible, Rick. Those debates continue to rage on, and remember that the bible was written by men, who were subject to their own human failings.
And be careful out there, I notice that you don't argue with me about idolatry being a sin, and you do seem to lean a bit to the right, amigo. Now that's some dangerous territory... ;)
You are of course, correct, Mosaic Law and the Old Testament are often held up by the religious right as being a tad more definitive on the subject, and there is that pesky passage in Corinthians, after all. Some even claim that parts of Matthew and Mark indicate that Mosaic Law should be upheld (they don't, according to most folks in the debate these days). It's still a matter of interpretation, as I see it.
BTW, as an example, most religious scholars I've read seem to view the prohibitions in Leviticus as pertaining to ritual cleanliness, and do not hold that the things cited therein as "unclean" are sins (good discussion of the difference between sins and uncleanliness in context here). Even if they were somehow relevant today, which even most fundamentalists acknowledge, many of the rules and regs in the bible are not, they are still subject to translation and interpretation, which can vary substantially. Heck, JC himself was a revisionist!
Here's a bit of reading for you on how the religious right and left use the bible in various ways:
# [Right] The following scriptural passages (so people say) clearly[?] condemn homosexuality: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13+23, II Kings 23:7, Romans 1:26+27, I Corinthians 6:9. (More about this later.) Given that these are scattered all over the Bible, the entire Bible must condemn homosexuality.
# [Left] The above passages are either mistranslations of the Greek, taken out of context, historically inaccurate or furthering someone's (eg. Paul's) agenda. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
There are a number of useful links and such there that discuss the ambiguities of the bible and its various versions and translations.
You might do well to remember that there is nothing in the Ten Commandments which discusses homosexuality, and that JC is quoted as saying those particular rules make up the law, not the older Hebrew or Mosiac rulebook. Hence my comment about the man of the day (it is Easter Monday, after all, and I do live in a 43% Catholic country) being a revisionist.
You might also be interested in keeping up on the debate between religious scholars about the meaning and relevance of the various portions of the bible, Rick. Those debates continue to rage on, and remember that the bible was written by men, who were subject to their own human failings.
And be careful out there, I notice that you don't argue with me about idolatry being a sin, and you do seem to lean a bit to the right, amigo. Now that's some dangerous territory... ;)
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 09:07pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 09:07pmI'll read the links in a little while, gotta bathe the baby first.
I don't get the bottome portion though, maybe you could spell that one out. And be careful out there, I notice that you don't argue with me about idolatry being a sin, and you do seem to lean a bit to the right, amigo. Now that's some dangerous territory... ;)
I don't get the bottome portion though, maybe you could spell that one out. And be careful out there, I notice that you don't argue with me about idolatry being a sin, and you do seem to lean a bit to the right, amigo. Now that's some dangerous territory... ;)
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 09:23pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 09:23pmThe links were interesting - hope you think so and I'm not wasting your evening.
I was joking in a previous comment that since Mr. Bush and his followers seem to be pushing a "moral code" or "values" based agenda, and worshipping man-made moral codes (i.e. the created instead of the Creator) falls under the definition of "idolatry", this could place a conservative or "moral" agenda supporter in jeopardy if they're a dogmatic Christian.
Again, I was poking fun at the right in general, and no offense is intended to you or anyone else - people's religious beliefs are their absolute right and I'm in no position to criticize. I'm just surprised sometimes at how selective some people can be when they interpret laws, religions, etc., so it seemed like a good way to point out an apparent conflict between the religious and the political right.
I was joking in a previous comment that since Mr. Bush and his followers seem to be pushing a "moral code" or "values" based agenda, and worshipping man-made moral codes (i.e. the created instead of the Creator) falls under the definition of "idolatry", this could place a conservative or "moral" agenda supporter in jeopardy if they're a dogmatic Christian.
Again, I was poking fun at the right in general, and no offense is intended to you or anyone else - people's religious beliefs are their absolute right and I'm in no position to criticize. I'm just surprised sometimes at how selective some people can be when they interpret laws, religions, etc., so it seemed like a good way to point out an apparent conflict between the religious and the political right.
Posted by Gerry :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 11:17pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 11:17pmWow, you're heading off to places I'm not qualified to follow, but like Ryland I'll say that I don't agree with you.
First of all, I had a fairly strict religious upbringing, and your tangents on Christian philosophy are nowhere near what I was taught in the church I grew up in. The whole idea of something being good because it is, is not Christian, IMO, far from it.
As far as something being genetically good because it is, that idea is also wrong IMO, especially since we as humans interfere so much in "survival of the fittest". I for one, am fortunate to live in this day and age, because without the modern benefit of corrective lenses, I'd be hard pressed to survive for long on hunting my own food. It's kind of hard to kill what you can't see until you're close enough that it's long gone. Maybe there's some benefit to the overall gene pool that a near-sighted person like me can make a contribution of some kind, but I'm hard pressed to figure out what it is. :)
As for homo-sexuality being genetic, in my simple way of looking at things, I'd say no. I do realize that homo-sexuals have children, but that would require hetero-sexual activity on their part. If homo-sexuality becomes more and more accepted in society, and the need to hide it is less and less, the feigned "normal" relationships would no longer be necessary, would they? Genetics would then take over, and homo-sexuality would then die it's own natural death, as the genes for it would not be passed on to subsequent generations.
First of all, I had a fairly strict religious upbringing, and your tangents on Christian philosophy are nowhere near what I was taught in the church I grew up in. The whole idea of something being good because it is, is not Christian, IMO, far from it.
As far as something being genetically good because it is, that idea is also wrong IMO, especially since we as humans interfere so much in "survival of the fittest". I for one, am fortunate to live in this day and age, because without the modern benefit of corrective lenses, I'd be hard pressed to survive for long on hunting my own food. It's kind of hard to kill what you can't see until you're close enough that it's long gone. Maybe there's some benefit to the overall gene pool that a near-sighted person like me can make a contribution of some kind, but I'm hard pressed to figure out what it is. :)
As for homo-sexuality being genetic, in my simple way of looking at things, I'd say no. I do realize that homo-sexuals have children, but that would require hetero-sexual activity on their part. If homo-sexuality becomes more and more accepted in society, and the need to hide it is less and less, the feigned "normal" relationships would no longer be necessary, would they? Genetics would then take over, and homo-sexuality would then die it's own natural death, as the genes for it would not be passed on to subsequent generations.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 29, 2005 01:42pm
:: :: Mar 29, 2005 01:42pmIt occurs to me from what I've been told/read, given that I have no personal experience of my own, that some people "know" they are homosexual from a very young age, whereas others don't seem to "realize" it and come out until they are adults with children! A guy who worked for me a few years back was laughing as he told me about his new "stepdad", Roberta, with whom his mother had partnered up after coming out at age 50 :)
Based my conversations with people who are either homosexual themselves or who have parents/friends who have "come out" later in life, this leads me to conclude that homosexuality may be both genetic and conditioned, i.e. that there is a recessive gene that leads to a tendency or predisposition that occurs genetically but which is only expressed when the person has the right set of experiences.
Again, IMO, it doesn't make any difference to the fundamentally equal worth or value of homosexuals as human beings why they are homosexual, it's just a matter of curiousity to me why it occurs, from a scientist's perspective. I don't know if anyone's ever mapped such gene(s), but I hope they never do. Some yahoo will inevitably decide that it should be screened for in a fetus or something (didn't Mass. just pass a law against that?) Any google search for "gay gene" turns up all sorts of insane "treatment" programs that want to make gay people straight. Straight people are boring. I am one, I know this, I'M boring. Why the hell would we want to make more of them? It would make about as much sense as a program to make black folks into WASPs....wait a minute, there is Michael Jackson to consider, after all... ;)
I saw a movie about active eugenics programs once - of course it was kinda hard to follow, since it was B&W and in German and all...actually it's scary that such programs actually existed all over the place before the Holocaust.
Based my conversations with people who are either homosexual themselves or who have parents/friends who have "come out" later in life, this leads me to conclude that homosexuality may be both genetic and conditioned, i.e. that there is a recessive gene that leads to a tendency or predisposition that occurs genetically but which is only expressed when the person has the right set of experiences.
Again, IMO, it doesn't make any difference to the fundamentally equal worth or value of homosexuals as human beings why they are homosexual, it's just a matter of curiousity to me why it occurs, from a scientist's perspective. I don't know if anyone's ever mapped such gene(s), but I hope they never do. Some yahoo will inevitably decide that it should be screened for in a fetus or something (didn't Mass. just pass a law against that?) Any google search for "gay gene" turns up all sorts of insane "treatment" programs that want to make gay people straight. Straight people are boring. I am one, I know this, I'M boring. Why the hell would we want to make more of them? It would make about as much sense as a program to make black folks into WASPs....wait a minute, there is Michael Jackson to consider, after all... ;)
I saw a movie about active eugenics programs once - of course it was kinda hard to follow, since it was B&W and in German and all...actually it's scary that such programs actually existed all over the place before the Holocaust.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 29, 2005 05:46pm
:: :: Mar 29, 2005 05:46pmIf you want to read about that and many related subjects, pick up some of Pat Califa's nonfiction, like "Sex Changes: Transgender Politics", or Carol Queen's "PomoSexuals". Some of the best writing comes from those who don't fall into ANY convenient catagory -- gay or straight, male or female. It is a far, far more complicated world than many people are even willing to realize.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Mar 29, 2005 06:37pm
:: :: Mar 29, 2005 06:37pmYup, there's almost as many variations on the theme of human sexuality as there are people. The philosophy behind it (including Pat Califa, if memory serves) was fascinating stuff.
It sure did make for a nifty undergrad course way back when I was an undergrad student. Certainly was a heck of alot more interesting than debating the flaws of Aristotelian logic or metaphysics a la Leibniz (ugh), even if the lecturer did have to spend much of her time shouting down the radicals in the front row who were far more interested in emotion than philosophy - the irony of getting emotional in a philosophy course was just priceless :)
It sure did make for a nifty undergrad course way back when I was an undergrad student. Certainly was a heck of alot more interesting than debating the flaws of Aristotelian logic or metaphysics a la Leibniz (ugh), even if the lecturer did have to spend much of her time shouting down the radicals in the front row who were far more interested in emotion than philosophy - the irony of getting emotional in a philosophy course was just priceless :)
Posted by Jenna :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 01:47pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 01:47pmI know a woman who was born left-handed, but when she went to (Catholic) school the nuns said that she is supposed to right-handed and forced her to learn to do things with her right hand instead of her left. That forced her to be ambidextrous, whether that's the same for other people, I dont know.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 05:37pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 05:37pmMy husband was born a leftie, but an accident when he was a small child damanged one of his left fingers, so he learned to be right handed. But he didn't become ambidextrous. I think it depends a lot on how adaptable one's brain is, I guess -- everything has to more or less be "rewired".
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 12:34am
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 12:34amAgain, the term "Genetically identical twins" is much more recent than "identical twins", and the second term is the one you used. Colloquial useage of words is often less precise in meaning than a scientific use.
Hand usage relates to brain hemisphere dominance. There is some evidence to indicate that people with left hand dominance have brains that operate somewhat differently. Many left handed people have been unusually and distinctively creative in many fields, far above that of right handed people. If there is a chance that distinctive genius is related to being left handed, would you want to lose that?
There's also evidence that being blond is being bred out of the human race, despite the fact that blond hair is considered very attractive and a plus for breeding opportunities. Hair color isn't all that important, as you can buy that in a bottle. Other things about the human being can't be purchased at the store, and their loss, I think, would be tragic. I admire and encourge differences in people, because I think it is what helps us forward as a species.
Hand usage relates to brain hemisphere dominance. There is some evidence to indicate that people with left hand dominance have brains that operate somewhat differently. Many left handed people have been unusually and distinctively creative in many fields, far above that of right handed people. If there is a chance that distinctive genius is related to being left handed, would you want to lose that?
There's also evidence that being blond is being bred out of the human race, despite the fact that blond hair is considered very attractive and a plus for breeding opportunities. Hair color isn't all that important, as you can buy that in a bottle. Other things about the human being can't be purchased at the store, and their loss, I think, would be tragic. I admire and encourge differences in people, because I think it is what helps us forward as a species.
Posted by Gerry :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 10:47pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 10:47pm"Genetically identical" or "identical", it doesn't matter. When people of 30 years ago referred to identical twins, they weren't saying that these two people are today identical in every way, they were saying that they are identical twins (genetically identical, as being from the same egg and sperm) as opposed to being fraternal twins. At least that is what I was taught in school thirty years ago. We can now be much more precise about things, but we mean the same thing. Therefore, in my simple, unscientific way of thinking, if sexuality or left-right-handedness is strictly genetic, then identical twins will both exhibit the same sexuality or left-right brain hemisphere dominance. I might be wrong, and I'm willing to learn, but that is my current opinion. So, when someone says otherwise because it happens to coincide with their social philosophy, I will say that I don't agree. That doesn't mean that I'm homophobic, or that I hate gay people, but it does mean that I don't agree with this idea that homosexuality is genetically driven. I think that we don't know why some people are homosexual, and I'll leave it at that, until we do know.
And no, I would not want to lose the distinctiveness of the human race, which is why I hedged my comments about "losing" left-handedness with the line "all other things being equal". We might think that we are ridding ourselves of something minor, inconvenient, or insignificant, but actually be losing more that we don't understand is tied in with it.
As for the differences in people, I think that we will more and more begin to resemble each other and sound like each other as time goes on. Blond hair and blue eyes will slowly disappear, perhaps not altogether, but will be statistically insignificant. To stop that would take almost a Hitlerian seperation of the races, and no one wants that, do they?
BTW, I personally believe that a mixture of the races is genetically healthy. I fell in love with my wife, but the fact that she was "different" than me, was a plus as far as I was concerned, because I think that the resulting children benefit from the genetic diversity.
And no, I would not want to lose the distinctiveness of the human race, which is why I hedged my comments about "losing" left-handedness with the line "all other things being equal". We might think that we are ridding ourselves of something minor, inconvenient, or insignificant, but actually be losing more that we don't understand is tied in with it.
As for the differences in people, I think that we will more and more begin to resemble each other and sound like each other as time goes on. Blond hair and blue eyes will slowly disappear, perhaps not altogether, but will be statistically insignificant. To stop that would take almost a Hitlerian seperation of the races, and no one wants that, do they?
BTW, I personally believe that a mixture of the races is genetically healthy. I fell in love with my wife, but the fact that she was "different" than me, was a plus as far as I was concerned, because I think that the resulting children benefit from the genetic diversity.
Posted by Tasha :: :: :: May 25, 2005 08:42pm
:: :: May 25, 2005 08:42pmIdentical twins are not exact genetic copies of each other, because, while their nuclear DNA are identical, there are slight differences in their mitochondrial DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hmg.box.2463
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hmg.box.2463
Posted by Mermaid :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 11:49am
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 11:49amA fundy woman a work with voted to ban gay marriage in Oregon because, "Gad, what if it passes? What if I have to teach health one day and I have to teach the kids how two men have sex?" OMG.
To really understand how far her head is up her...you know...my school district does not allow health teachers to teach about sex at all. The only birth control method allowed to be taught is abstinance. We all know if we teach kids about birth control, they'll all turn into little rabbits.
As for gay marriage? I hate that term, because marriage to me is a religious contract. If we called it a civil union we wouldn't have to deal with the religious right. I don't like the religious right. I've pretty much washed my hands of all organized religion.
To really understand how far her head is up her...you know...my school district does not allow health teachers to teach about sex at all. The only birth control method allowed to be taught is abstinance. We all know if we teach kids about birth control, they'll all turn into little rabbits.
As for gay marriage? I hate that term, because marriage to me is a religious contract. If we called it a civil union we wouldn't have to deal with the religious right. I don't like the religious right. I've pretty much washed my hands of all organized religion.
Posted by Jenna :: :: :: Mar 28, 2005 01:53pm
:: :: Mar 28, 2005 01:53pmand I have to teach the kids how two men have sex?
You should have smacked her. When people are determined enough, they'll find out on their own. That's what I dont get about abstinance only programs. Few things make me more irate than ignorance.
You should have smacked her. When people are determined enough, they'll find out on their own. That's what I dont get about abstinance only programs. Few things make me more irate than ignorance.
Posted by Phil :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 07:03pm
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 07:03pmThis thread is gay.
Phil
Phil
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:30pm
:: :: Mar 17, 2005 11:30pmNow that was a succint and insightful comment. Useful, too.
I suppose this threat might be suffering from some manner of sexual identity crisis during which it is debating whether or not it can survive departing from the majority opinion or if it simply must be what it is.
I suppose this threat might be suffering from some manner of sexual identity crisis during which it is debating whether or not it can survive departing from the majority opinion or if it simply must be what it is.
Posted by Chloe :: :: :: Mar 21, 2005 10:17pm
:: :: Mar 21, 2005 10:17pmLeaving aside the fact that the word "lifestyle" always puts me to mind of furniture catalogs and leisure suits
Me too!! hahahaha!!
Me too!! hahahaha!!
Posted by Hmmmmmm :: :: :: Mar 26, 2005 01:16pm
:: :: Mar 26, 2005 01:16pmAre you ALL gay? I don't see a single opposing view in this thread.
Posted by Sherri :: :: :: Mar 26, 2005 03:14pm
:: :: Mar 26, 2005 03:14pmWhy should are particular sexual orientations affect how we see this issue? That's rather like saying one has to be black to agree African Americans should have voting rights, or female to think women are entitled to equal pay for equal work.
And if you wanted to see an opposing viewpoint, why didn't you bring one up?
I suspect -- just suspect, I have no proof -- that you are using the term "gay" as a perjorative and intended to be insulting without really saying anything of value, possibly due to insecurities of your own. Or it might be you had nothing of value to add but could not resist an opportunity to participate in a conversation. Who knows?
And if you wanted to see an opposing viewpoint, why didn't you bring one up?
I suspect -- just suspect, I have no proof -- that you are using the term "gay" as a perjorative and intended to be insulting without really saying anything of value, possibly due to insecurities of your own. Or it might be you had nothing of value to add but could not resist an opportunity to participate in a conversation. Who knows?
Posted by Mermaid :: :: :: Mar 27, 2005 11:50am
:: :: Mar 27, 2005 11:50amSherri...
Well said. Ditto.
Well said. Ditto.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: May 31, 2005 01:10pm
:: :: May 31, 2005 01:10pmI just got an email forwarded to me from somebody at church telling me all about how the AFA, American Family Association, is calling for a boycott of Ford Motor Company for supporting homosexuals. You can read all about it here. They sent it to me because all we drive are Ford vehicles.
I then proceeded to tell him to stick it, and gave him a list of another half dozen companies that support homosexuals that I am sure he uses their products, such as Proctor & Gamble, Kraft, Microsoft, Disney, AT&T, and MCI.
Stupid shit like this just pisses me off. I was the only recipient on the email so he deliberately sent it to JUST ME. I'd personally like to go over and shove a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese up his ass and format his freakin computer.
Rant Over.
I then proceeded to tell him to stick it, and gave him a list of another half dozen companies that support homosexuals that I am sure he uses their products, such as Proctor & Gamble, Kraft, Microsoft, Disney, AT&T, and MCI.
Stupid shit like this just pisses me off. I was the only recipient on the email so he deliberately sent it to JUST ME. I'd personally like to go over and shove a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese up his ass and format his freakin computer.
Rant Over.
Posted by lucy :: :: :: May 31, 2005 02:40pm
:: :: May 31, 2005 02:40pmWow, you gotta love people who want to boycott a company because it doesn't discriminate. Unfortunately your friend will probably never run out of places to shop, as we'll always have those who are more than willing to discriminate against one group or another!
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: May 31, 2005 03:25pm
:: :: May 31, 2005 03:25pmThanks for the link, Rick, I'm adding it to the "take a look at this" box.
Posted by Jenna :: :: :: May 31, 2005 08:23pm
:: :: May 31, 2005 08:23pmIgnorance like that hurts my head. It makes me want to go up to people like that, grab them by their shoulders, and shout "HATRED MAKES BABY JESUS CRY!" But right-wing Christians make me nervous, so I tend to keep my distance.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jun 01, 2005 12:48am
:: :: Jun 01, 2005 12:48amThought you might be interested to know: Hyundai ran a "homosexual-friendly" ad campaign here in Canada, and they saw a double-digit sales increase. Ford's not stupid, but evidently bigots are.
It's really too bad Ford's products suck so bad, at least their consumer products. Maybe they should try building products that don't suffer from SFA (spontaneous fall apart), and then they won't have to worry about ignorant inbred useless retarded hateful insecure moronic toothless bible-thumping braindead fascist (...phew...) trash boycotting their products!
It's really too bad Ford's products suck so bad, at least their consumer products. Maybe they should try building products that don't suffer from SFA (spontaneous fall apart), and then they won't have to worry about ignorant inbred useless retarded hateful insecure moronic toothless bible-thumping braindead fascist (...phew...) trash boycotting their products!
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jun 01, 2005 10:42am
:: :: Jun 01, 2005 10:42amIt's funny that you should mention Hyundai, they just opened a $1+ billion dollar factory in Montgomery, Alabama (about 10 miles away). I mean they just got done doing the grand opening with former President GHW Bush showing up and everything.
I told the guy that sent me the email that big companies pitch a little money around to everybody so that they won't be labeled bigots or racists.
I was at the local Ford dealership yesterday, I went to high school with a bunch of guys that sell up there, and I was aggravating them about the boycott and one of them actually broke out an email that he had received from somebody locally telling the local dealer how they would never buy another Ford product again because of this. You just want to call this dumbass and let them know all the companies that they should not be doing business with and watch their head explode.
I'm still not for gay marriage but until I find out that Ford has lawyers and lobbyists loaded up headed for Washington trying to ramrod this through our government I don't give a flying crap.
I told the guy that sent me the email that big companies pitch a little money around to everybody so that they won't be labeled bigots or racists.
I was at the local Ford dealership yesterday, I went to high school with a bunch of guys that sell up there, and I was aggravating them about the boycott and one of them actually broke out an email that he had received from somebody locally telling the local dealer how they would never buy another Ford product again because of this. You just want to call this dumbass and let them know all the companies that they should not be doing business with and watch their head explode.
I'm still not for gay marriage but until I find out that Ford has lawyers and lobbyists loaded up headed for Washington trying to ramrod this through our government I don't give a flying crap.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jun 01, 2005 11:00am
:: :: Jun 01, 2005 11:00amI hear ya. Glad to hear they're investing some cash in the US economy! I always laughed about the "buy cars your neighbors make" campaign here. Southern Ontario has about 10M people, and it sometimes seems like about a quarter of them work in the Ford, Honda, Chrysler or GM plants in the area. Two people in my wife's family work in those factories. But, my nice little Honda actually contains more US and Canadian parts than the Fords they build, I checked! And they're assembled in Ontario. It's a screwy world...
As for gay marriage, I've always said that the government should get out of the business of marriages entirely, and only perform "civil unions", straight or gay. That way, people who want to stick to the traditional definition of marriage can go to their church/mosque/temple whatever and have a marriage performed.
I'm "married" (to a woman!), and I don't like the fact that the definition of what we did in a civil service is being changed on us - I entered into a legal contract under certain terms, and expected that the terms of the contract would not change due to force majeure. BUT, it's not as if allowing gay people to solemnize marriage in any way affects the quality of my marriage (OK, the arguments it caused didn't help), but it MAY affect the terms if I ever divorce. That's the only problem I have with the whole situation, that it could affect me personally and adversely if I ever divorce in a common law court which now has to address same-sex marriages/unions.
That being said, personally, I believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights and obligations (and miseries/boredom/lack of sex ;) as straight couples, if they enter into a marriage or civil union - it doesn't change my rights or harm me in any way, so how could I possibly oppose it.
As for gay marriage, I've always said that the government should get out of the business of marriages entirely, and only perform "civil unions", straight or gay. That way, people who want to stick to the traditional definition of marriage can go to their church/mosque/temple whatever and have a marriage performed.
I'm "married" (to a woman!), and I don't like the fact that the definition of what we did in a civil service is being changed on us - I entered into a legal contract under certain terms, and expected that the terms of the contract would not change due to force majeure. BUT, it's not as if allowing gay people to solemnize marriage in any way affects the quality of my marriage (OK, the arguments it caused didn't help), but it MAY affect the terms if I ever divorce. That's the only problem I have with the whole situation, that it could affect me personally and adversely if I ever divorce in a common law court which now has to address same-sex marriages/unions.
That being said, personally, I believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights and obligations (and miseries/boredom/lack of sex ;) as straight couples, if they enter into a marriage or civil union - it doesn't change my rights or harm me in any way, so how could I possibly oppose it.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jun 01, 2005 12:21pm
:: :: Jun 01, 2005 12:21pmI'm not for it, but I'm no longer fully against it. I will never and could never in good conscience vote for legalized homosexual marriage or civil union (although I really like the idea of the civil union by the government and marriage by the church), however I will not vote against it either, if it ever comes to a vote here I will simply abstain from voting on that issue.
I know that I may get blasted as being hypocritical but I will take neutral ground in this issue. I understand the need for rights in homosexual relationships and can honor their wishes but I can not in good conscience with my beliefs in the Bible vote 'YES' for those rights.
I know that I may get blasted as being hypocritical but I will take neutral ground in this issue. I understand the need for rights in homosexual relationships and can honor their wishes but I can not in good conscience with my beliefs in the Bible vote 'YES' for those rights.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jun 01, 2005 12:38pm
:: :: Jun 01, 2005 12:38pmI don't think that's hypocritical at all, Rick. I think you're acting according to your beliefs, but not interfering with the rights of others to do the same, knowing that it doesn't have a huge impact on your day-to-day life or rights, but does have an impact on theirs. Abstaining on an social issue is also a perfectly valid way to "vote", IMO.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jun 01, 2005 01:02pm
:: :: Jun 01, 2005 01:02pmYou're following your conscience Rick, and I don't think that there is a darn thing wrong with it. People may not agree with you on the issue, but you're not coming from a position of hate - you're merely saying that you wish to follow what your strongly held beliefs.
I've been married almost 33 years. Personally, I don't see how two people of the same sex marrying has any negative impact on my relationship. I feel strongly that people who love one another should be together - no matter what their persuasion is. I voted for gay marriage when it was on the ballot here in California, and will continue to support the issue, even though I don't live the lifestyle.
I try to respect other people's opinions on the issue, but when they come at the subject via bigotry and hate, I just can't tolerate it. That's when I have a real problem with people who are anti-gay.
I've been married almost 33 years. Personally, I don't see how two people of the same sex marrying has any negative impact on my relationship. I feel strongly that people who love one another should be together - no matter what their persuasion is. I voted for gay marriage when it was on the ballot here in California, and will continue to support the issue, even though I don't live the lifestyle.
I try to respect other people's opinions on the issue, but when they come at the subject via bigotry and hate, I just can't tolerate it. That's when I have a real problem with people who are anti-gay.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:06pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:06pmBoycottford.com update. They have suspended their boycott until December 1st. The Supportford.com sent me an email
Thanks in part to your support, the AFA has suspended its boycott
against ford until December 1. There's a good chance this will be
indefinite:
Thanks in part to your support, the AFA has suspended its boycott
against ford until December 1. There's a good chance this will be
indefinite:
Posted by Revolution :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:10pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:10pmI got that one, too. Good stuff
Posted by Revolution :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:10pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:10pmI wonder if I can still boycott Ford because their cars suck
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:25pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:25pmNo, now you have to buy Ford products. I haven't had any problems with their trucks or vans. Great products but I'm not a car kinda guy anyway.
Posted by Revolution :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:37pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:37pmCan I buy a Geo Metro with a spoiler?
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:51pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:51pmYou have to have a spoiler on a Metro, with the engine package on that car at high speeds, in excess of 21 MPH, the car is not stable without a spoiler.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 09:26pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 09:26pmDepends. Are you gay?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by Jenna :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 10:24pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 10:24pmRyland: Depends. Are you gay?
That made me laugh out loud. At work.
But yeah, why would anyone WANT to buy a Geo Metro, let alone put a spoiler on it?
That made me laugh out loud. At work.
But yeah, why would anyone WANT to buy a Geo Metro, let alone put a spoiler on it?
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:37pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:37pmFords light trucks and their cargo vans kick ass. Their cars, SUVs and family trucksters (aka minivans) however, suck ass. And fall apart. Fast.
So now I have to go buy a truck to support Ford for being decent about a social issue, 'cuz I don't trust their cars to make it from my house to the dealer? Damn.
Did you ever get anywhere with that veggie oil conversion kit thing, Rick? There's gotta be a way I can tell Ford they're doing something right for a change without needlessly burning an extra 25 gallons of gas a week... and my truck will smell like popcorn. Coo-oool! ;)
So now I have to go buy a truck to support Ford for being decent about a social issue, 'cuz I don't trust their cars to make it from my house to the dealer? Damn.
Did you ever get anywhere with that veggie oil conversion kit thing, Rick? There's gotta be a way I can tell Ford they're doing something right for a change without needlessly burning an extra 25 gallons of gas a week... and my truck will smell like popcorn. Coo-oool! ;)
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:56pm
:: :: Jun 06, 2005 08:56pmWe've had good luck with their trucks and minivans (we're on our second van now, but the first one was totaled in a nasty wreck).
I haven't bought the F-250 Diesel yet. Waiting till the 06's come out cause I'm gonna buy an older one, like a 2000 or 2001. I just don't want to spend $42,000 on a new F-250 crew cap diesel or closer to $47,000 loaded out. I can get a good buy on a 2000 or 01 for around $17,000-$22,000 right now and figure the prices will drop around August when the 06's come out. But I'm still looking into the veggie oil conversion or possibly the propane conversion kit as well. I talked to a guy that said that he ran for an entire month on 100 lbs (around $200) and he works out of his truck like I do. That would definately help since I spent just under $5,000 on fuel last year.
Thanks for the family truckster reference, was that a throwback to National Lampoons Family Vacation? I loved that movie and have used that phrase for years.
I haven't bought the F-250 Diesel yet. Waiting till the 06's come out cause I'm gonna buy an older one, like a 2000 or 2001. I just don't want to spend $42,000 on a new F-250 crew cap diesel or closer to $47,000 loaded out. I can get a good buy on a 2000 or 01 for around $17,000-$22,000 right now and figure the prices will drop around August when the 06's come out. But I'm still looking into the veggie oil conversion or possibly the propane conversion kit as well. I talked to a guy that said that he ran for an entire month on 100 lbs (around $200) and he works out of his truck like I do. That would definately help since I spent just under $5,000 on fuel last year.
Thanks for the family truckster reference, was that a throwback to National Lampoons Family Vacation? I loved that movie and have used that phrase for years.
Protesting the gay pride parade isn't a choice! It's a "lifestyle"!