Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Morality of Sexual Orientation

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 3 2005, 02:17 PM

Speaking of Mr. Gannon -- a political commentator I listen to mentioned that it was odd that the liberal left found it necessary to make a big deal out of Gannon's homosexuality.

It does seem odd, since according to the left, not only does the fact he is homosexual not matter but personal information is also irrelevant. So I have to wonder why all of a sudden his private sexuality is being used as a tool against him by the left.

It makes me think that the left gets cosy with the gay community when it wants votes but when it comes to trying to destroy another human being the fact that person is gay still carries some ability to damage another person's credibility in their opinion.

Here I am on the right -- thinking that homosexuality is immoral -- and yet I find the fact the man is gay to be totally irrelevent to his ability to report on a story in a factual manner.

Doesn't this seem backwards?:

Liberal Press: But Gannon is GAY and uses GAY PORN!

Mad_Gerbil: umm...yeah, and your point is?

Liberal Press: He isn't credible because he is gay!

Mad_Gerbil: What does being gay have to do with being a good reporter?

I'm supposed to be the narrow minded bigot here -- I do wish the liberal press would stay on their side of the hatred.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 3 2005, 02:34 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 3 2005, 02:17 PM)

As a pigeonhold liberal, I really could give a damn if he is gay and a prositute.
As I have said before elsewhere (debating this issue on other websites), that both should be legal.

MG, how is any of his life private when he advertise his "services" in the public domain? You said it yourself to anony~mouse that she may republish your defintion of liberal xian as it is in the public domain once you publish on a website.

Anyway, the way the liberal left – as you so put it, brings it up because sex was so much an issue with Clinton. Duh. Where is the Right Wing outrage that a prositute was in the white house as the Presidents shill? Take into consideration that Maruareen O'dwod, who was no friend of Clinton either, was revoked her daily access to the White House.

No Gerbil, this issue is not his sexuality, but in how this President controls the media with shills in the press core audience lobbing easy biased questions and paying off ardent conservatives (like that Williams guy and that other lady who I forgot oft-hand) to support the Presidents policies. This is agit prop. Nothing short of it.

Basically MG, when you state "left gets cosy with the gay community when it wants votes but when it comes to trying to destroy another human being.." is very much like the crap that the Right said against anyone who was against the confirmation of Gonzales, MR TORTURE MEMO, or Condie THE SMOKING GUN IN THE FORM OF A MUSHROOM CLOUD Rice. They called them "racist." Nothing further from the truth. Conservatives squack and squeak all the time about merit, well here was the perfect opportunity for them to put the rubber to the road, yet they suddenly veer off from their principles. Hmm, why is that?

Fact is that with Gannon, social conservatism and the religious right has totally bought and paid for Conservatism, and that people like Gannon have to become repressed to get-along, thus becoming hypocrites.

Like, Newt Grinch. Married 3 times, while divorcimg his last two hospitalized wives and having an affairs. Limbaugh, "punish the drug dealers" while sending his maid to shop for oxycoton for his addiction. Or Alan Keyes, family values man, disownes his daughter for being gay.

QUOTE

I'm supposed to be the narrow minded bigot here -- I do wish the liberal press would stay on their side of the hatred.

Liberal press. How long are you people going to continue with this canard. Its patenly ridiculous.

Name the Liberal that owns this media that is so liberal?

Why should I trust a "conservative" media anymore over than a so-called liberal-media?

Oh, you'll say Ted Turner.
But Turner gave up managing operations more than a decade or more ago.

Do you understand the media is owned by corporations? Do you understand that these corporations are owned by larger pro-rightie corporations like Viacom that publicly stated that Bush was better for their business. Where was this damn liberal-media informing the public that Saddam had nothing to do with 911? The PIPA poll showed that 70 percent of all Bush supports still made this bullshit connection. Hmm? Where is the damn liberal media?

I wonder how aware are you MG that conservative think tanks and money has spent its time to buy and change the media since the defeat of Goldwater. Do you know the millions upon millions of dollars spent to push this country into the direction its headed?

_________________________

One last thing I brough Gannon into the mix as this article was a "softball" thrown by the Author.

Has nothing to do with him being gay.

Homosexuality is no less immoral than hetrosexuality. You want to debate me on it?

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 3 2005, 03:23 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 3 2005, 05:17 PM)

Doesn't this seem backwards?:

Liberal Press: But Gannon is GAY and uses GAY PORN!

Mad_Gerbil: umm...yeah, and your point is?

Liberal Press: He isn't credible because he is gay!

Mad_Gerbil: What does being gay have to do with being a good reporter?

I'm supposed to be the narrow minded bigot here -- I do wish the liberal press would stay on their side of the hatred.

Gerbil, you know better than this.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18640

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 3 2005, 03:37 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Mar 3 2005, 11:23 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 3 2005, 05:17 PM)

Gerbil, you know better than this.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18640

RFLOL!

Ya got me Neil.

I like that comic.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 3 2005, 08:27 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 3 2005, 02:34 PM)

Homosexuality is no less immoral than hetrosexuality. You want to debate me on it?

He doesn't. He knows he'd lose.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:22 AM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 04:27 AM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 3 2005, 02:34 PM)

Homosexuality is no less immoral than hetrosexuality. You want to debate me on it?

He doesn't. He knows he'd lose.

I see Scripture as an authority.
He does not see Scripture as an authority.

I believe there is a G_d.
He does not believe there is a G_d.

If we did debate it, where could the conversation go but to eventually become a debate about our various presuppositions -- which we already discuss here anyways?

Posted by: Rachelness Mar 4 2005, 05:54 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:22 AM)

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 04:27 AM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 3 2005, 02:34 PM)

Homosexuality is no less immoral than hetrosexuality. You want to debate me on it?

He doesn't. He knows he'd lose.

So the only reason you have for thinking that homosexuality is immoral is what it says in the Bible?

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 06:04 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:22 AM)

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 04:27 AM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 3 2005, 02:34 PM)

Homosexuality is no less immoral than hetrosexuality. You want to debate me on it?

He doesn't. He knows he'd lose.

Stop while you're behind eh Gerbil boy? I take your concession gracefully.

Want I want to know from you, is how you think that I am presupposing that Homosexuality is no less immoral or moral than Heterosexuality.

Please, enlighten me.

Posted by: Zach Mar 4 2005, 06:30 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 3 2005, 05:17 PM)

Here I am on the right -- thinking that homosexuality is immoral -- and yet I find the fact the man is gay to be totally irrelevent to his ability to report on a story in a factual manner.

MG-

His sexual orientation is immaterial to his lack of credentials, questionable access, and subsidized reporting.

But given the vehement opposition of the Bush administration to the rights of homosexuals, it's mind-numbingly ironic.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 4 2005, 07:48 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:22 AM)

I see Scripture as an authority.
He does not see Scripture as an authority.

Well in all truth, you see one salad-bar section of Scripture as an authority. Usually, the one that appeals to your sensibilities the most (as is the way of all humans, especially, I find, with literary critics in universities. They take the bit of the book that backs up their own point of view and the rest becomes irrelevant or sublimated or, worst of all, the author didn't really mean what he/she said there...can you tell I think most people are lousy literary critics?).

After all, there is more then one set of scriptures, and there are more then enough verses to come down on both sides of the homosexuality debate, even if you throw out everything except the NIV salad-brand of scripture as an "authority" so...

Personally I find it destestable for christians to pretend that they are eating the green beans and the mushrooms even as they immediately pass them by to get to the carrots and then hiding the extras under a lettuce leaf, like a child at table. If some would just come right out and admit that they don't like mushrooms and aren't going to eat them...well, I would be much more impressed.

Me? I'm a meatetarian. I'm not fond of salads altogether.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 02:04 PM

Cerise:

Apparently you know more about my view of Scripture than I do...

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 02:04 PM)

Want I want to know from you, is how you think that I am presupposing that Homosexuality is no less immoral or moral than Heterosexuality.

Please, enlighten me.

Quicksand:

I would guess that there is a whole range of pre-suppositions that go into forming your position:

Presupposition #1: There is no absolute that can be known.
I imagine that you feel that there is no absolute standard that answers the question of whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral. Since you are incapable of proving there is no absolute standard either way then if you operate on that premise it is a presupposition.

Presupposition #2: Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
Naturally, lacking any real foundation for morals you'll likely appeal to 'as long as it hurts nobody it doesn't matter'. However, if there are absolute standards then homosexuality could be harming the participants in some way. Assuming it doesn't harm the participants is again, a presupposition.

Presupposition #3: Foundations of Morality.
Your greatest presupposition is that you've a foundation to make moral claims of any sort. Morality is a measurement against some standard of behavior; however, if there is no absolute standard than all you can do is appeal to your opinion on the matter -- which is no less valid than my opinion -- which means you cannot prove moral equivalency since there is no morality.

Until the foundational issues are addressed the discussion of a particular(such as homosexuality) is silly.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 02:19 PM

Actually, its pretty easy. Homosexuality exists, has always existed, and it part of the human condition. It's only religion that has maligned it as so, thus adding/grafting a supposition upon it.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 02:21 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:19 PM)

Actually, its pretty easy. Homosexuality exists, has always exist, and it part of the human condition. It's only religion that has maligned it as so, thus adding/grafting a supposition upon it.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 02:24 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:21 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:19 PM)

Actually, its pretty easy. Homosexuality exists, has always exist, and it part of the human condition. It's only religion that has maligned it as so, thus adding/grafting a supposition upon it.

Yes they have. Rape and murder is apart of our human condition as well. It does harms other humans and is wrong. Pretty easy.

You implication fails connecting homosexuality to rape and murder, as you are still adding/grafting the supposition that homosexuality is harmful to humanity.

What religion of mine are referring to? Unh?

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:24 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:21 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:19 PM)

Actually, its pretty easy. Homosexuality exists, has always exist, and it part of the human condition. It's only religion that has maligned it as so, thus adding/grafting a supposition upon it.

Yes they have. Rape and murder is apart of our human condition as well. However, they do harm other humans and are wrong. Pretty easy.

You implication fails connecting to rape and murder, as you are still adding/grafting the supposition that homosexuality is harmful to humanity.

Exactly the opposite, my friend.

Your claims seemed to be as follows:
1: Homosexuality has always existed.
2: Things that have always existed aren't immoral, but rather just the human condition.
3: Therefore, homosexuality is not immoral.

I countered by showing via example that #2 in your syllogism is a false premise.

I'm not attacking homosexuality by equating it with murder, rather, I'm showing that just because something has always existed doesn't make it right.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 4 2005, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:14 PM)

Presupposition #1: There is no absolute that can be known.
I imagine that you feel that there is no absolute standard that answers the question of whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral. Since you are incapable of proving there is no absolute standard either way then if you operate on that premise it is a presupposition.

Presupposition #2: Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
Naturally, lacking any real foundation for morals you'll likely appeal to 'as long as it hurts nobody it doesn't matter'. However, if there are absolute standards then homosexuality could be harming the participants in some way. Assuming it doesn't harm the participants is again, a presupposition.

Presupposition #3: Foundations of Morality.
Your greatest presupposition is that you've a foundation to make moral claims of any sort. Morality is a measurement against some standard of behavior; however, if there is no absolute standard than all you can do is appeal to your opinion on the matter -- which is no less valid than my opinion -- which means you cannot prove moral equivalency since there is no morality.

Until the foundational issues are addressed the discussion of a particular(such as homosexuality) is silly.

Gerbil...sometimes you really get weird.

You base your morals on an authoritian foundation. Non-believers base their morals on objective reasoning with what is good or bad for themselves and others and try to act in such a way that is mutally beneficial to all parties.

When you want to claim an absolute, then there is no changing it. You can never think it is right to lie even if someone else's life depends on it.

Thank your god they are not absolute.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 02:41 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:28 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:24 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:21 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:19 PM)

Actually, its pretty easy. Homosexuality exists, has always exist, and it part of the human condition. It's only religion that has maligned it as so, thus adding/grafting a supposition upon it.

More like this Gerbil boy.

1: Homosexuality has always existed.
2: Christianity has deemed it immoral for some reason.
3: Why?
4: Christianity has deemed it immoral.
5: Why?
6: Ok no answer. Where is the proof that Homosexuality does harm?
7: No proof that it is harmful.
8: Therefore, homosexuality is not immoral.

I understand where you are coming from about trying to show my premise is invalid. And I do understand that you are not trying to compare murder/rape to homosexuality. But in fact, when the statement is made that homosexuality is immoral, this is in fact what is being asserted.

Apples to oranges here.

A valid comparison would between rape and to murder.

Posted by: Asimov Mar 4 2005, 02:46 PM

oh man, it makes me cringe inside when I hear religious nutters equating homosexuality with murder and rape....

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 4 2005, 02:54 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:28 PM)

...I'm showing that just because something has always existed doesn't make it right.

You claim your god has always existed.

How do you make the decision on whether he is good or bad? Do you try to think of what would happen if everyone followed his rules? What does god say about liars MG?

What would happen if a child of yours was being pursued by a killer and they ran up to you and you hid them. The killer then approaches you and asks you where your child is? Do you lie? If you do, then you are using the same moral standards that everyone uses regardless of your claims of an absolute moral code of behavior.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 02:56 PM

quicksand:

I was showing that because something has always been doesn't make it right. It isn't as simple as you initially claimed.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 02:58 PM

MG ... I see youre online, and may not have seen what I added to my last post.
You could be editing a response.

Here it is:

I understand where you are coming from about trying to show my premise is invalid. And I do understand that you are not trying to compare murder/rape to homosexuality. But in fact, when the statement is made that homosexuality is immoral, this is in fact what is being asserted.

Apples to oranges here.

A valid comparison would between rape and to murder.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (Asimov @ Mar 4 2005, 10:46 PM)

oh man, it makes me cringe inside when I hear religious nutters equating homosexuality with murder and rape....

I wasn't equating homosexuality with rape and murder, rather, I was showing that just because something has always existed doesn't mean that it is morally correct.

The claim was made that homosexuality is moral because it always existed so I pointed out things that we consider immoral despite the fact they always existed. The only comparison is that all three have always existed -- I'm making no claims about homosexuality being morally the same as murder and rape.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:58 PM)

I've not asserted that homosexuality is immoral.
My only claim at this point is that your premise that it isn't immoral because it has always existed is false.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 4 2005, 03:04 PM

Maybe the better question to ask is why Gerbil considers homosexuality to be more immoral then heterosexuality?

Also, good point that just because something has always existed, it isn't neccessarily good. Does it apply to your God? Always existed, but not assured of being morally good?

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 03:04 PM)

Exactly.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:08 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 4 2005, 10:54 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:28 PM)

...I'm showing that just because something has always existed doesn't make it right.

You claim your god has always existed.

QUOTE

You claim your god has always existed.

That is his claim.
I only find it reasonable.

You cannot prove the universe has always existed, but you do find the claim reasonable, don't you?

QUOTE

How do you make the decision on whether he is good or bad? Do you try to think of what would happen if everyone followed his rules? What does god say about liars MG?

Scripture, Holy Spirit, Experience.

QUOTE

What would happen if a child of yours was being pursued by a killer and they ran up to you and you hid them. The killer then approaches you and asks you where your child is? Do you lie? If you do, then you are using the same moral standards that everyone uses regardless of your claims of an absolute moral code of behavior.

Two thoughts:
1: My failure to obey the absolute code doesn't change the nature of the absolute code.
2: Aiding a killer is evil, lying is evil. Often we are forced to chose between two evil acts because of our fallen condition.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:09 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 11:04 PM)

Yes.

That would apply to G_d as well.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 4 2005, 03:11 PM

With choosing between two evils, would you call one of those a "lesser" evil or do they all have the same...uh weight I guess you could call it, same amount of points on the evilness scale?

Posted by: Cerise Mar 4 2005, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:09 PM)

That would apply to G_d as well.

Do you suppose (or presuppose I guess) that God is morally good?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 4 2005, 03:13 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:08 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 4 2005, 10:54 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 02:28 PM)

...I'm showing that just because something has always existed doesn't make it right.

You claim your god has always existed.

QUOTE

You claim your god has always existed.

That is his claim.
I only find it reasonable.

You cannot prove the universe has always existed, but you do find the claim reasonable, don't you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE

How do you make the decision on whether he is good or bad? Do you try to think of what would happen if everyone followed his rules? What does god say about liars MG?

Scripture, Holy Spirit, Experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE

No...not at this time with all the information we have regarding the beginning of the universe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shame on you for saying experience, you heathen!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the best you got? You might as well say we have to make choices because the toilet overflowed.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 03:16 PM

QUOTE

MG states: Here I am on the right -- thinking that homosexuality is immoral...

Seems like to me you're were making the affirmative, thus grafting the supposition that it, homosexuality is indeed immoral.

As far as scripture goes.... (as you know we will differ on it)

The bible had no problems with slavery. OT and NT. Scriptural authority exists for that as well. Fact Jesus told us not to beat our slaves to death. (Very Alberto Gonzales-esque, don't you think?)

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:19 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 11:11 PM)

With choosing between two evils, would you call one of those a "lesser" evil or do they all have the same...uh weight I guess you could call it, same amount of points on the evilness scale?

Depends which scale you are using, I suppose.

I could steal $10.00 from Wal-Mart or I could steal $10 from an old lady on welfare. In both instances I stole the same amount of money but the impact on the victim is entirely different. The sin is the same but the fall out from the sin in this life is different.

Posted by: LloydDobler Mar 4 2005, 03:19 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 04:00 PM)

I've not asserted that homosexuality is immoral.

QUOTE (MG's first post)

Here I am on the right -- thinking that homosexuality is immoral

Whether or not you intended to debate this subject, you did make the assertion which sparked the argument.

Forgetful much?

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:21 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 11:16 PM)

QUOTE

MG states: Here I am on the right -- thinking that homosexuality is immoral...

My point there wasn't to argue the affirmative, but in context to show how ironic is was that I didn't care if Gannon was gay or not while the liberal press seems to care a great deal.

When, against my wishes you wanted to explore the question I immediately began to ask about your claim that homosexuality isn't immoral -- that is, working on your affirmative.

I won't argue that homosexuality is wrong here because of the presuppositions that are necessary to do so and because there are many homosexuals here that don't need the stress of seeing the topic debated.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:21 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 11:16 PM)

QUOTE

MG states: Here I am on the right -- thinking that homosexuality is immoral...

I hear you Gebil.

However, I have not presupposed anything regarding homosexuality.

It is here. Does no harm.

I don't speak for it. It speaks for itself.

Again, the value statement is grafted upon it. That's the issue I think we are really debating here.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 4 2005, 11:13 PM)

That's the best you got? You might as well say we have to make choices because the toilet overflowed.

I'm sorry.
I was basing my view on empirical observation.

Often we are forced to chose the lesser of two evils -- which is why we have the phrase lesser of two evils to begin with. You've heard the phrase, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'?

So yeah, the best I have on this one is the observations we see nearly every day.

(it was kinda fun to taunt you with that one...hehehehe....)

Posted by: LloydDobler Mar 4 2005, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 04:21 PM)

My point there wasn't to argue the affirmative, but in context to show how ironic is was that I didn't care if Gannon was gay or not while the liberal press seems to care a great deal.

Well you do know that you missed the point completely right? The point was that the republicans and/or christians who support Bush should be all up in arms and moral outrage over this. I mean what the fuck? The media practically cruicified Clinton for admitting that he tried pot in college, where the hell are they with Bush and his recent taped comments? Why are they not outraged that the white house hires gay hookers to throw softball questions at the president?

I don't care that the guy was a gay hooker. I care that the religious right doesn't care. Because they bring it up at EVERY OTHER OPPROTUNITY.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:33 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 11:24 PM)

I hear you Gebil.

However, I have no presupposed anything regarding homosexuality.

It is here. Does no harm.

I don't speak for it. It speaks for itself.

Again, the value statement is grafted upon it. That's the issue I think we are really debating here.

Well, we've dealt with one of your syllogisms:

1: Something that has always been isn't wrong.
2: Homosexuality has always existed.
3: Therefore, homosexuality isn't wrong.

This was demonstrated to be not true because murder and rape have always existed and we know they are wrong. The syllogism fails on #1.

--------------------------------------------------------

The second syllogism you present seems to be this:

1: Something that does no harm cannot be immoral.
2: Homosexuality does no harm.
3: Therefore, homosexuality isn't immoral.

The first presupposition that you make is that homosexuality does not harm the participants. In order to get to that point, you first completely discount the spiritual realm and physical evidence to the contrary. I'll let that presupposition stand since I don't want to get into it.

The second presupposition that you make is that the 'value is grafted upon it' which I'd also hold is not true -- but I don't wish to discuss it so I'll let that stand.

The second presupposition is that something that doesn't do harm cannot be immoral. I wonder if that is true -- I suspect that it is true but I'm not sure so I'll have to think about it.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:36 PM

QUOTE (LloydDobler @ Mar 4 2005, 11:28 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 04:21 PM)

My point there wasn't to argue the affirmative, but in context to show how ironic is was that I didn't care if Gannon was gay or not while the liberal press seems to care a great deal.

Right.

And the conservatives return the accusation of hypocrisy because all through the Clinton era it was claimed that his personal moral habits didn't matter. Either they do matter or they don't -- take your pick. At least the conservatives can claim that the private actions of a private citizen are of no concern to them vs. the actions of an elected official.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 4 2005, 03:45 PM

QUOTE

Wrong. Homosexuality is not raping and is not murdering. While it is true all have existed, that is the only thing that is true about them.

QUOTE

The second syllogism you present seems to be this:

1: Something that does no harm cannot be immoral.
2: Homosexuality does no harm.
3: Therefore, homosexuality isn't immoral.

Seems sound, but a little too simple. I'll accept this tentatively upon more exploration.

QUOTE

The first presupposition that you make is that homosexuality does not harm the participants. In order to get to that point, you first completely discount the spiritual realm and physical evidence to the contrary. I'll let that presupposition stand since I don't want to get into it.

We won't get into the metaphysical aspects.

You mention physical evidence. Please, cite it if you are so inclined.

QUOTE

The second presupposition that you make is that the 'value is grafted upon it' which I'd also hold is not true -- but I don't wish to discuss it so I'll let that stand.

Well, you don't wish to discuss it and I'll respect that.

QUOTE

The second presupposition is that something that doesn't do harm cannot be immoral. I wonder if that is true -- I suspect that it is true but I'm not sure so I'll have to think about it.

Me too. Let's see what we can come up with.

~I'm gone for the weekend MG, have a good one!~

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 4 2005, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:24 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 4 2005, 11:13 PM)

That's the best you got? You might as well say we have to make choices because the toilet overflowed.

You little shit...

Anyway, on my way home I knew I had to come back and address this furthur.

A good moral choice would not make it so a person would have to live with guilt. Your system, as you just stated, claims that it is immoral to lie and to kill and one must choose the lesser of two evils. (I think the saying came from politics

) The authoritarian nature of your moral system forces you to live with guilt for having to lie in order to save your child's life because it claims, by it's absolute nature, that it is always wrong to lie. You have to feel guilty and pray to god for forgiveness over something that does not need forgiving.

Excuse me, but that sucks. You should not have to live with guilt for making the moral choice to save their life. It would be immoral to tell the killer where your child is because it would cause harm to your child. It is also immoral for you to feel guilty about making a moral choice.

There was only one evil in this case (unless of course the killer knew your child was carring a virus that would exterminate all mankind if they lived...but we won't go there!)

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 03:53 PM

Have a good one, quicksand.
I'll have the rest of these infidels converted by the time you get back....

<--- infidels

<---- MG

Posted by: Bruce Mar 4 2005, 04:30 PM

A couple of questions for Mad Gerbil,

1. When in general did you decide to be a heterosexual as opposed to a homosexual?

2. If you did not choose your sexual orientation, please explain why you think a homosexual chose theirs.

3. If you did not choose to be a heterosexual, then why would you think someone whose sexual orientation differs from yours, is committing sin if sexual orientation is not a choice?

Look forward to your response.

//Bruce//

Posted by: Cerise Mar 4 2005, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 03:19 PM)

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 11:11 PM)

With choosing between two evils, would you call one of those a "lesser" evil or do they all have the same...uh weight I guess you could call it, same amount of points on the evilness scale?

So in the previous example used, would lying be a lesser evil then abetting a child murderer?

Does "in this world" imply that to God, lying would not be a lesser evil then abetting a child murderer?

And shouldn't it be:

<--- infidels

<---- MG

Posted by: MrSpooky Mar 4 2005, 05:06 PM

Homosexuality is not immoral in my view. There are two general ways that one's nature must be addressed by societal correction...

1) The individual represents an imminent threat against himself or others.
2) The individual's nature is detrimental to his functioning in society.

These stem from 3 basic objective facts:

1) Man is a biological creature.
2) Man is a psychological creature.
3) Man is a social creature. (this one is of varying importance as in modern society man can function as an individual moreso than before)

Homosexuality is neither physically or psychologically detrimental to the individual itself... it is the social stigma against it that makes it harmful. To address the matter, a homosexual individual can do one of two basic things...

1) Attempt to reform back to heterosexuality (very difficult and success rates are sketchy, if nil). This helps to preserve order of his social surroundings, if necessary, but it appears to have a high cost on his psychological well-being.
2) Try to live as a homosexual. While this is socially damaging in some respects (depending on how open-minded the surrounding culture is) it puts his/her psychological health before societal order. And as stated before, psychological health has a higher priority, especially due to the individualist nature of our culture.

Can a culture objectively condemn homosexuality in a social context? Possibly... but societal and cultural values change. There are some basic facts of human psychology that are dependant on the very human condition... the need for food, rest, companionship, security, etc.

And I'm bored of this topic now so I'll go leave it to others. I'm not an ethicist.

Basically, my final point is that the burden of proof rests on the person trying to condemn an action, not the person trying to say that it is permissible. The Anti-Gay movement has consistently failed to provide such justification, because all appeals to the bad effects of homosexuality are based on subjective or even epistemically incorrect values.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 05:23 PM

I'd like to re-state the fact that I'm not interested in discussing the morality or immorality of homosexuality. The only reason I've participated in the thread this far is because I found quicksand's claims interesting -- more for the approach they were taking to discern truth and less for the specific truth claim (homosexuality is ammoral).

Posted by: RichStPete Mar 4 2005, 05:31 PM

"A couple of questions for Mad Gerbil,

1. When in general did you decide to be a heterosexual as opposed to a homosexual?

2. If you did not choose your sexual orientation, please explain why you think a homosexual chose theirs.

3. If you did not choose to be a heterosexual, then why would you think someone whose sexual orientation differs from yours, is committing sin if sexual orientation is not a choice? "

Right on Bruce!

I have asked this question of many so called "christians" and have never gotten a straight answer (no pun intended) truly rendering their responses and beliefs totally useless.... I've been checking out this site for quite a while and have been totally blown away by all of you guys.... You rock!!! look forward to becoming more active in posting and getting to know you guys...

Rich

Posted by: RichStPete Mar 4 2005, 05:34 PM

oh yeah by the way I'm a Homo...... AND LOVE IT!!!!

Posted by: Casey Mar 4 2005, 05:34 PM

Does it really matter how two people choose to get their rocks off? My own view of sexuality is that I have got to a point where I don't care what two people do by way of arranging a trip on the banana express as long as whatever they do doesn't involve children or animals, and for preference, they have enough discretion not to do it in the street where it might frighten the horses or otherwise disturb the peace.

Where Party politics is concerned, I don't think political parties really give a damn what sexuality a person professes. It is a matter of how useful to the party they are. With politicians, when Expediency comes in the door, Morality flies out the window.

Party politicians couldn't care less if a person is as straight as a die or as queer as a two-bob watch. Their Golden Rule is, "Do whatever you like, but don't disgrace the Party". Under a dictatorship, those who disgrace the Party are shot or sent to the local equivalent of the salt mines; under democratic rule (so-called), they are "outed" by the Press and thereafter villified by the sheeple. Same thing really. Just my two-cents worth.
Casey

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 4 2005, 05:37 PM

QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 5 2005, 12:30 AM)

I see those questions as rhetorical of course, and I'll answer them this way:

1: First: The presupposition necessary for your questions to aid your claims is that homosexuality is not a choice. Are you certain it isn't a choice? What I mean is that perhaps people toy with an idea and the longer they toy with the idea or the longer they entertain a confusion the better chance it has of getting a grip on their lives.

Let's talk about gluttony. Why is it that a normal food appetite is turned into a serious physical problem (obesity)? It isn't because (in most instances) that the person actually needs that much food -- their body isn't telling them that. What happens (as I understand it) is that early on a misuse of food is practiced and practiced until it becomes a very real addiction -- the ability to choose was lost over time.

Perhaps the same is true for homosexuality. Perhaps it is given into in increments -- the thought, the feeling, the confusion in a developing youngster isn't corrected but rather encouraged by his environment until the choice is surrendered by a series of previous choices. Like someone who enters bankruptcy because they had no choice -- well, now they don't have a choice but they did have a choice 3 years ago when they got their first credit card.

So I don't see where it has been proven that homosexuality isn't a choice -- that is a presupposition that you make. Perhaps it is a choice at one point in a person's life -- they can chose to entertain and strengthen the temptation or they can choose to fight it.

2: Second: Another presupposition you seem to make is that if something isn't a choice than it cannot be wrong. I don't see where I have to accept that presupposition either. Does the fact that some pyscho likes to chop up puppies he steals -- and claims he cannot help it -- make the practice moral? Even if the person isn't morally responsible that isn't the same as saying the activity is okay.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 4 2005, 06:01 PM

1. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a biological condition is really irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. If two men share a sexual relationship without killing men or puppies or whatever, what's it to ya?
Proving that homosexuality isn't a choice may be a lofty task, but I do happen to know that we're not the only species in which homosexuality occurs. It happens in other mammals and bird species. Are these gay animals capable of the abstract thinking of choosing homosexuality over what nature actually intended?

2. The difference between a gay person and a person who chops puppies is that the guy who chops puppies is causing unnecessary harm. Gay people are just people of the same gender who share a love. With someone who is chopping puppies, he may not be able to help it, but still he should be stopped.

Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 4 2005, 07:44 PM

The whole thing is silly. It's all because Paul & friends decided to continue the tradition of calling the "abomination" of homosexuality a sin. Thankfully he did change his mind on food that was previously considered an abomination. Now you can eat all the pork you want, without the guilt!

Posted by: Clergicide Mar 4 2005, 08:30 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 08:37 PM)

Kinda like Christianity?

1) Gerbil, extract your head from Jesus' rump for a moment and investigate the matter a little. Have you ever read the testimonies of people coming out of the closet? It doesn't sound like you have, or you wouldn't come across as so ignorant on the matter. If you had, you would quickly see that that struggle isn't against urges of straightness. They deny they are gay, and fight the predisposition as long as they can in most cases. Some have wives and try to live 'normal' lives. Most of them don't 'toy with the idea', they aren't attracted to the thought of being gay. They reject it. Or are they lying..they really didn't struggle with it..it's just a fun thing to say?

2) People have already clearly illustrated some behavior that isn't 'choice' motivated isn't necissarily destructive or harmful. This would be one of those cases. It doesn't directly have a negative impact on innocent bystanders. I like that you equate it to killing puppies, though..jackass.

In the future show that you have carefully examined the information available before smashing the irrational raving of ancient shepherds over our heads.

Posted by: Bruce Mar 4 2005, 08:39 PM

This entire thread of Christian insanity could be named "The Morality of eating Lobster". The Levitical designation that a "man lying with a man" is an abomination is also applied to eating lobsters. However, Christians pick and choose which abominations personally offend them. Mad Gerbil, you seem like a fairly rational guy most of the time. I just fail to understand how or why you and other Christians cannot understand that picking and choosing demonstrates that your moral absolutes are nothing of the sort.

Posted by: JP1283 Mar 4 2005, 09:42 PM

QUOTE

Are you certain it isn't a choice? What I mean is that perhaps people toy with an idea and the longer they toy with the idea or the longer they entertain a confusion the better chance it has of getting a grip on their lives.

Let's talk about gluttony. Why is it that a normal food appetite is turned into a serious physical problem (obesity)? It isn't because (in most instances) that the person actually needs that much food -- their body isn't telling them that. What happens (as I understand it) is that early on a misuse of food is practiced and practiced until it becomes a very real addiction -- the ability to choose was lost over time.

MG, I am gay. I can safely say that I never "toyed" with or "entertained" the idea of being gay while growing up. It's just something that developed when my hormones started raging. Remember when you were about 14 or 15, and you started noticing girls? Well, see, the thing is, I started noticing boys. I certainly didn't choose it or want it for that matter, but no matter how much I tried to ignore the feelings they were always there. I in no way entertained these feelings.

QUOTE

So I don't see where it has been proven that homosexuality isn't a choice -- that is a presupposition that you make. Perhaps it is a choice at one point in a person's life -- they can chose to entertain and strengthen the temptation or they can choose to fight it.

Guess what, MG? I tried fighting it. Lots of people try fighting it. I tried denial, looking at pictures of naked women, even prayer. Nothing worked. You know why? Because it's a part of who I am. It's a part of my make-up, whether it be genetic or whatever. Teenagers committ suicide because they are tired of fighting it. You know those "reversion therapies" that people go to in order to "fight it?" They don't work. People actively try to get rid of it but they can't, it's in their blood. Don't you dare talk about something you know nothing about. You have no idea the angst and depression a gay person goes through "fighting" it.

QUOTE

Another presupposition you seem to make is that if something isn't a choice than it cannot be wrong. I don't see where I have to accept that presupposition either. Does the fact that some pyscho likes to chop up puppies he steals -- and claims he cannot help it -- make the practice moral? Even if the person isn't morally responsible that isn't the same as saying the activity is okay.

Chopping up puppies is disgusting. It's sick. That person does need help. He's crazy. He's been wired to be completely destructive. A gay person is wired to be attracted to people of their sex. Somehow I don't think a person who is gay can be compared to a deranged person who chops up puppies. That is just a flawed Christian argument.

MG, I tried living a lie. I didn't want to do it anymore. You, being straight, will never understand that. You have your own preconceived version of what is natural. I have mine. I will never believe that I didn't fight enough or whatever. I'm gay. That's all there is to it.

I, as well, LOOOOVE IT!!

Posted by: Clergicide Mar 4 2005, 10:03 PM

::Sings::
I am so smart, I am so smart
suck it stupid gerbil
I am so smart

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 04:07 AM

JP1283:

I don't believe I have to be gay to understand (maybe I do).

What I mean is that I understand the nature of temptation because I have sin in my own life (1). The sin is something that I practice and it gains a greater hold over my life the longer I practice it. Eventually I get to the point that I tell myself I 'need' that failure in order to be happy. My only point here is that the reason I've come to the conclusions I've come to about homosexuality is that I see the same patterns playing out in my own life -- only with different failings.

Also, please understand -- I'm not comparing being gay with the chopping up of puppies on a moral level. My only point was that just because a person gets a thrill or fulfillment out of something doesn't make it right. Frankly, I'd rather live in a whole neighborhood of gay people than have one neighbor that likes to chop up puppies.

One reason why I don't like the topic of homosexuality is because it is difficult to talk about without stepping on people's feet. Hey, if you were my co-worker or neighbor I'd have no problem working with you or living next to you. I'm not interested in having you live a lie -- rather, I'd be all for you NOT living a lie.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

--------------------------------------------------
NOTE:
1: I'm not talking about your homosexuality, I'm talking about my sin here. I don't want to discuss the particular -- that is personal and offensive. The particular, 'homosexuality' is a place holder for everything else.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 04:12 AM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Mar 5 2005, 02:01 AM)

2. The difference between a gay person and a person who chops puppies is that the guy who chops puppies is causing unnecessary harm. Gay people are just people of the same gender who share a love. With someone who is chopping puppies, he may not be able to help it, but still he should be stopped.

Neil:

They guy who chops up puppies does it in the privacy of his own home. He carefully raises his own puppies -- making sure that his dogs all have happy and healthy lives up until the point he decides to hatched a litter.

He does it because, ever since he was a tot, it is something he has wanted to do. He is having no measurable impact on his neighbors, the environment, or anyone else.

(I'm not equating the choping of puppies with homosexuality, rather, exploring the idea or question: Can something be immoral if it doesn't harm anyone else?)

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 04:13 AM

QUOTE (Clergicide @ Mar 5 2005, 06:03 AM)

::Sings::
I am so smart, I am so smart
suck it stupid gerbil
I am so smart

*joins in singing with Clergicide*

*sings 3 whole verses*

HEY...WAIT A SECOND....!

Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 5 2005, 04:18 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 08:12 AM)

They guy who chops up puppies does it in the privacy of his own home. He carefully raises his own puppies -- making sure that his dogs all have happy and healthy lives up until the point he decides to hatched a litter.

He does it because, ever since he was a tot, it is something he has wanted to do. He is having no measurable impact on his neighbors, the environment, or anyone else.

(I'm not equating the choping of puppies with homosexuality, rather, exploring the idea or question: Can something be immoral if it doesn't harm anyone else?)

Hmm...does he eat them too? It would be a horrible waste of good puppy meat if he didn't.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 04:33 AM

QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Mar 5 2005, 12:18 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 08:12 AM)

Hmm...does he eat them too? It would be a horrible waste of good puppy meat if he didn't.

No.

He's really immoral.

He sneaks the puppy bits into Veggie Burgers at a local vegan restaurant where he works.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 5 2005, 04:46 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 07:12 AM)

Okay, understood.

But at least with the puppies, there's something harmful to point to. These dogs are living creatures that are at least advanced enough to have a will to live, so it's not the same as, like, squishing a spider.
Animal torture and mutilation is always a touchy subject, because it's a moral gray area. I would personally think that hurting animals for no good reason is wrong, but at the same time, I condone the consumption of animals. We don't have compassion for cows and chickens, and that probably should be explored, because we'll certainly take the time to save an animal that's cute to us, like a puppy.

But with homosexuals, they're just not doing anything even remotely questionable. I wouldn't even know where to begin. I mean, I happen to find homosexuality somewhat peculiar as a phenomenon, but I don't know why anyone would suggest that it's morally wrong.
The best anyone can say against homosexuality is that it's a behavior based on our instinct to mate but can produce no procreative result. In other words, a homosexual's only drive to have sex is for the enjoyment of himself and his partner, since they obviously can't breed.

But the same can be said for hundreds of heterosexual couples in which at least one spouse is sterile and cannot produce a child with his or her selected mate, but no one's beating down their door when they have sex.

But then again, the Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not lie with an infertile woman the way one would lie with a fertile woman. It is an abomination." Nevertheless, theists will commonly use the procreation card, ignoring the obvious double standard.

Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 5 2005, 04:51 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 08:33 AM)

QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Mar 5 2005, 12:18 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 08:12 AM)

Hmm...does he eat them too? It would be a horrible waste of good puppy meat if he didn't.

No.

He's really immoral.

He sneaks the puppy bits into Veggie Burgers at a local vegan restaurant where he works.

Ah so now he's "really immoral", harming others (the vegetarians), compared to before where he wasn't harming others so directly (other then the puppies).

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 05:45 AM

QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Mar 5 2005, 12:51 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 08:33 AM)

QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Mar 5 2005, 12:18 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 08:12 AM)

Hmm...does he eat them too? It would be a horrible waste of good puppy meat if he didn't.

No.

He's really immoral.

He sneaks the puppy bits into Veggie Burgers at a local vegan restaurant where he works.

Ah so now he's "really immoral", harming others (the vegetarians), compared to before where he wasn't harming others so directly (other then the puppies).

LOL

This just proves one cannot chose one's words too carefully while in the midst of critics.

Remeber this line:

QUOTE

Hmm...does he eat them too? It would be a horrible waste of good puppy meat if he didn't.

At least he isn't wasting anything....

Posted by: kemeticpoet Mar 5 2005, 05:56 AM

I know a homosexual that fits a lot of these descriptions. When he was young... really young... he looked at girls, but I mean, this was before he really had hormones working on an adult level. He was trying to do what everyone else did. When he hit puberty, he found himself unattracted to women.

Now, the funny thing is, he believes in the power of Jesus - or maybe he just is tired of feeling like an outcast - and so he's trying to say he's not gay anymore. But the problem is, it's not convincing. There's always some excuse. For example, he stated that he tried watching straight porn but "they treat the women like meat." Now, I know plenty of straight people who don't watch porn; saying that straight porn is in bad taste is irrelevant to whether or not you are straight. It's just a silly excuse to be gay a little while longer. (And gay porn has the same kinds of things, anyway.)

To me, it would seem like he's better off just saying "I'm gay, that's how I am, if you don't like it, don't fuck me" rather than making up ridiculous excuses like "Straight porn is bad for women."

Personally, I think the guy is an asshole, but not for those reasons. He's extremely arrogant and self-centered.

Actually, I never liked homosexuals because of (gasp) my Christian upbringing. A year or so ago I met a friend of my wife's who was also gay, and the three of us hung out for a few hours. I found him intelligent and friendly and enjoyed talking with him. It was about that point that I saw firsthand that his sexual preferences didn't really make a difference in who he was as a person. Overall, of the two homosexuals I know in real life, one was a dick and one was a cool guy. Considering I find most people to be assholes anyway, I'd say that's a pretty average reflection then.

By the way, I hate to do this, but I have to defend Gerbil a little by saying that I think you guys are taking his words a little too literally or out of context. He said in the beginning he didn't want to debate homosexuality because he wasn't going to agree with you and you weren't going to agree with him. It made sense to just drop the subject, rather than have him preach. He did agree to debate about what makes something a sin, or how something can exist in society forever and still be harmful. It seems to me that is what he's attempting to do, and he's been very apologetic to those who took his words the wrong way. He's not saying rape or killing puppies is the same as being a homosexual, he's simply illustrating some examples that he can think of that have existed forever, or could take place in the privacy of the home, etc. I think he has made some interesting points; not that they are without flaw or that I agree with them, but it has been an interesting conversation nonetheless.

Unfortunately it IS a touchy subject, which may very well be why he wanted to avoid it in the first place.

Posted by: gssq Mar 5 2005, 05:58 AM

I have a friend who's a very devout - almost fanatical Christian, yet he's gay :0

Posted by: euphgeek Mar 5 2005, 07:56 AM

QUOTE (RichStPete @ Mar 4 2005, 05:31 PM)

You must not have been asking the right people. Here's an example of some quotes I've run across while posting to Usenet:

QUOTE (Lesbian)

So you could choose to be homosexual?

QUOTE (Insane Fundie)

It's possible. The devil offers homo sexual temptations to almost everybody. To most people they're disgusting - although as you keep a pointing out a whole lot of straight couples are experimenting with sexual acts that have traditionally been queer - such as your seed slurping and your butt banging and your orgy going. You can turn partially queer, bi sexual or totally queer if you give in to the devil's temptations and/or let yourself be recruited by the militant homo sexuals that carry whirly gizmo's and blank queer agenda's in their back packs.

And why does this insane fundie believe that homosexuals are evil? Because...

QUOTE (Insane Fundie)

Homo sexuals are vampires. They suck bodily fluids and recruit people into their Satanic sex cult.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 5 2005, 08:15 AM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 4 2005, 04:52 PM)

So in the previous example used, would lying be a lesser evil then abetting a child murderer?

Does "in this world" imply that to God, lying would not be a lesser evil then abetting a child murderer?

I'm booting this because, well...*whine* I didn't get an answer!

*huffs* And it was about sin in general, not homosexuality in particular, the thing certain someones wanted to talk about....

Posted by: TruthWarrior Mar 5 2005, 08:21 AM

QUOTE (euphgeek @ Mar 5 2005, 11:56 AM)

QUOTE (Insane Fundie)

You can turn partially queer, bi sexual or totally queer if you give in to the devil's temptations and/or let yourself be recruited by the militant homo sexuals that carry whirly gizmo's and blank queer agenda's in their back packs.

Oooh nooo they're coming to get me with their whirly gizmos!

Posted by: JP1283 Mar 5 2005, 10:37 AM

QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Mar 5 2005, 11:21 AM)

QUOTE (euphgeek @ Mar 5 2005, 11:56 AM)

QUOTE (Insane Fundie)

Oooh nooo they're coming to get me with their whirly gizmos!

I have a big whirly gizmo!

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 02:40 PM

I still think one of the funniest lines I've ever heard is 'You didn't catch gay did you?' -- as if it were a cold or something. I'm going to move away from JP1283 because 'gay' is contagious -- lol.

I hope that didn't offend anyone -- I just think that is a funny thing to say.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 5 2005, 02:41 PM

QUOTE (gssq @ Mar 5 2005, 01:58 PM)

I have a friend who's a very devout - almost fanatical Christian, yet he's gay :0

I'm a Christian and I've sin in my life as well.
I'm a materialist, and a bit of a narcissist.

The only point I'm trying to make here is I wouldn't be at all suprised if there were True Christians™ that were gay. I'd expect that.

------------------------------------

Posted by: euphgeek Mar 5 2005, 04:23 PM

QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Mar 5 2005, 08:21 AM)

QUOTE (euphgeek @ Mar 5 2005, 11:56 AM)

QUOTE (Insane Fundie)

Oooh nooo they're coming to get me with their whirly gizmos!

If you like that, come over to http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality and look for posts by http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=1iIS4BkAAAA_dR_nM0PMDzQ3iKBC8uMkLCdruCwLykpGhxM_v3J87w. Every one of her Mother Tucking posts are so Mother Tucking funny.

Posted by: Slayer-2004 Mar 5 2005, 06:31 PM

QUOTE

Uggh MG you have to stop reading crap apologetics like this and regergitating them . They will seriously cause your brain to rot . The circular logic assuming faith simply cannot be compared to the circular logic where you assume reality is real . Its like comparing an "A" student to an "E" student and claiming that they both tried just as hard and know the subjects just as good as each other . If the comparison was fair we would have to logically assert nearly millions of standards were acceptable despite the fact they would be mostly internally contradictory .

Posted by: kemeticpoet Mar 5 2005, 07:14 PM

JP1283, I love your new religion!!!

Posted by: Bruce Mar 5 2005, 07:57 PM

In my opinion, morality has two factual bases. (1) Evolutionary - what enhances the chance of survival of the species, group or individual, and (2) Societal - what is established by some sort of community agreement. The issue we find is that a particular group in a society gains a majority view and their particular moral standard is adopted. The dissenters object and rebel, which is evident to any student of history and sociology.

So, what is a great way to enforce and give legitimacy to the majority view? The majority simply says that God(s) revealed this to humans. Thus a rebel against the community standard is not simply a dissenter or an eccentric, but now has violated the command of the deity. The absolutism is/was established to give legitimacy to the majority view by creating a fictional revelation. Even with this, it can easily be shown that the tactic does not work in the long run. The example of slavery in Christianity is a great example of this. Christian morality is relative to the society and evolves. If the Christian God does not change, then slavery is ok, but then Christian morality evolved in response to free-thinkers in the enlightenment and slavery became an evil.

//Bruce//

Posted by: JP1283 Mar 5 2005, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 5 2005, 07:07 AM)

MG,

You equate homosexuality with addiction, i.e. someone who "practices" alcohol excessively and develops a drinking problem, who eventually feels that they need it to survive. I know what addiction is like; earlier this year I had a problem with marijuana and had to overcome it. It was just as you described; I felt that I needed to have it when it wasn't the case. This is not what happens with homosexuality. Again, I respectfully reiterate that you, being heterosexual, do not understand what a homosexual goes through in life.

Also, about you being all for me (and all gay people, for that matter) not living a lie, let me assure you that I'm not. I've tried being straight. I dated a Christian girl for a month, and although I did feel something for her, in the end I couldn't deny who I was. To have kept dating her and burying my true feelings deep inside would have been living a lie, and I refuse to do that.

I understand that a debate of homosexuality wasn't what you intended; however, this is something I feel strongly about and since I never get to debate anything, I had to chime in with my two cents.

Regards,
JP

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 6 2005, 04:01 AM

JP:

While it is true that I'm not a homosexual and while it is true that you may be correct in saying I cannot relate (on any level) I cannot help but feel you are downplaying what addiction means to some people.

My father used to smoke and when it came around to quitting he just up and quit. This was back in the very early 70's when there were no 'patches' or free 'quit kits'. He may have been addicted but it was a very light addiction. I'd say for him the addiction was very superficial-- probably only nicotine working on his body.

For my uncle, who is an alcoholic, the process of not drinking is a lifetime battle. He hasn't had a drink in years but he is still an alcoholic. Every morning he has to get up and tell himself that something he feels he needs every single day is something that he must not have in order to be healthy. He'll feel this way for the rest of his life. Why? Because his addiction means something to his very soul.

Two addictions.
Two entirely different magnitudes.

Having fought some forms of additciton myself I can say this about addiction -- if upon quitting you know for a fact that you've no reason left to live then you are facing an addiction -- a heavy addiction.

Is homosexaulity an heavy addiction? Is it something you felt a temptation for and you trained yourself into it? You decide that for yourself since that isn't really the topic anyways. However, there are people who get up every day and fight things that seem connected to their body, soul, and spirit -- that wonder if life is worth living without their special need and yet they go on.

One thing I do know -- that if homosexaulity is wrong, and a homosexaul being asked to fight it -- that homosexual isn't being asked to fight a battle any tougher than battles fought by a billion other people over issues just as near and personal to them. Again, I mean that as no disrespect to you -- I'm just throwing out there how I see things.

You've been very reasonable and kind about a hot button topic near and dear to you. Thank you.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 6 2005, 04:42 AM

M_G wrote:

QUOTE

So I don't see where it has been proven that homosexuality isn't a choice -- that is a presupposition that you make. Perhaps it is a choice at one point in a person's life -- they can chose to entertain and strengthen the temptation or they can choose to fight it.

You are trying to place the burden of proof on someone in regards their character. A person should be innocent untill proven guilty. If they say they can't be hetro then you aught to take their word for it just out of human decency. Hetrosexuals rightly have no say in the matter, be'ins they haven't walked in the shoes of a gay person.
Its funny. We can give you reasons to have confidence that the bible is the work of men..alone; through showing contradictions and how the bible contradicts history as well as what we see in nature, yet you can not refute these things, nor can you show how homosexuality is harmful, or is a character flaw. But you insist that homosexuality pisses off the Creator based soley on your mytholgy book.

JP1283 wrote:

QUOTE

Guess what, MG? I tried fighting it. Lots of people try fighting it. I tried denial, looking at pictures of naked women, even prayer. Nothing worked. You know why? Because it's a part of who I am. It's a part of my make-up, whether it be genetic or whatever. Teenagers committ suicide because they are tired of fighting it. You know those "reversion therapies" that people go to in order to "fight it?" They don't work. People actively try to get rid of it but they can't, it's in their blood. Don't you dare talk about something you know nothing about. You have no idea the angst and depression a gay person goes through "fighting" it.

I lost a cousin to suicide. He was gay and was fucked with by our community and his own family and relatives. He went through bouts of depression through out his teens up until his death. I don't think he ever even got a chance to have sex let alone a relationship which are basic human needs. I am truly glad that you are still here JP1283. Keep keepin' it real man.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 6 2005, 04:57 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 6 2005, 07:01 AM)

Homosexuality has never been shown to be an addiction. NEVER HAS.

I am a recovering junky and alcoholic. I have been in inpatient 3 times in my life, and outpatient twice. Christianity is more comparable to drug addiction than homosexuality ever could be.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I'll dig up some edu links to set you straight on what addiction is and is not.

Posted by: Bruce Mar 6 2005, 04:58 AM

QUOTE (Euthyphro @ Mar 6 2005, 07:57 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 6 2005, 07:01 AM)

Men's wisdom doesn't work on Christians.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 6 2005, 05:03 AM

QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 6 2005, 07:58 AM)

QUOTE (Euthyphro @ Mar 6 2005, 07:57 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 6 2005, 07:01 AM)

Men's wisdom doesn't work on Christians.

True. But hes a smart feller and has a heart. I refuse to believe that he is a fundie. He seems less fundie than most. I dunno.

Posted by: ficino Mar 6 2005, 06:03 AM

I haven't joined in this thread until now, but as a gay-affiliated hazy bi (off-center on Kinsey's scale but not at the gay extreme), I'm adding my view.

M_G, I don't understand you when you speak of homosexuality as an addiction. It's a basic orientation of personality, as are heterosexuality and bisexuality. I think people fall on different spots on that axis if their desires and impulses are catalogued.

I agree with you that a person's structure of desires can alter with repeated activity, for habits develop. But it seems to me that when we talk of sexuality as an underlying, inner structure of desire, we have to be able to substitute one "-ity" for another in statements about how sexuality works. Otherwise, we're not comparing equal things. So, if homosexuality is an addiction, I think you have to allow that heterosexuality too is an addiction.

By what theory? Do all young children start out with blank slates, and then some are habituated into homosexuality and a larger number are habituated into heterosexuality Or are young children bisexual, and society and family and friends and chance habituates the majority to repress their homosexual urges, and the minority, to repress their heterosexual urges? Or is this heavily determined by DNA? or a combo?

These seem to me to be questions hotly debated; no one I know is certain. Michel Foucault wrote his famous, unfinished "History of Sexuality" on this topic. If he's right, the notion of sexuality only came into being in the mid nineteenth century. Before that, people mainly spoke of acts, or of classes of individuals who performed certain acts (sodomites, etc.) The whole "inner structure of desire" thing is hard to pin down. But we have to be careful with how we use language when we talk about that construct of an inner structure of desire.

I think it's important in discussions that people consider the connotative power of words carefully. I object to "addiction" as a description of homosexuality unless it's also applied to heterosexuality. But I think it's probably illegitimate to apply the word to any sexuality rather than to compulsive sexual behavior. I'd think it makes sense to talk of promiscuity (sex with a string of partners), perhaps, as an addictive behavior, whether hetero or homo or bi. Or excessive masturbation as an addictive behavior, whatever the structure of the person's fantasies.

Finally, the following is probably inevitable, given that some accept orthodox church teachings about same-sex erotic behavior and others reject it: I get wearied when people say things like, "I'm a sinner, too, and my sins of X are like your sin of homosexuality, so we're in the same boat, but I repented and believed and you haven't yet." I'm in a 23-yr relationship just like marriage except we haven't had a gay marriage ceremony or legal contract in our state. We go through struggle and joy like hetero married couples, and have stayed together longer than many. If our "marriage"/partnership were to break up, I don't know how I'd go on. I believe that if I cheat on Ken, that's a wrong act against him, and it would damage my character, too. Our expression of love sexually within our relationship is nowhere the equivalent of an affair by me with some other guy. I reject the assertion that the sexual element of the glue that holds us together is sin, or that the gender of the other person is the stuff of taboos. So, it doesn't help to hear Christians say, "we're sinners, too." I accept the "too" about many things I do but not about this.

Over the years I've gradually come to be attracted by women, too. I think the standard hetero-homo dichotomy may be inadequate to explain the range of human behavior and impulse. I do not seek hook-ups or experiences with women. I have not under any circumstances wanted to ditch Ken and gain the advantages that a hetero marriage would bring me. Why? I love him as that individual, that one. Our lives together are workings out day to day of our word, pledge of ourselves. This is sin?

My remark a while ago about self-defense comes from the disquiet of knowing that huge numbers of people like Ken and me have been imprisoned or put to death by people who regard our love as sin. I'm sure you know the historical background of the term "faggot." That's why it's hard for me to trust the right-wing elements of the political spectrum who seek to raise money and expand their power by appealing to heterosexuals' historic fears of gays. (I also throw many solitications for money from gay activist groups in the trash. I agree with you that they use fearmongering to raise money, too.)

M-G, I appreciate your desire to discuss these topics meaningfully and respectfully with those of us who differ from you in our assumptions about the Bible as a code for morality.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 6 2005, 06:31 AM

ficino:

QUOTE

Finally, the following is probably inevitable, given that some accept orthodox church teachings about same-sex erotic behavior and others reject it: I get wearied when people say things like, "I'm a sinner, too, and my sins of X are like your sin of homosexuality, so we're in the same boat, but I repented and believed and you haven't yet."

Thank you.
Your reasons for being appalled at such a statement are very sound and I will take what you've said in regard to this statement into my thinking. I can see how you'd find this offensive and I'm having a little bit of a 'thrill' moment because I like seeing ways I'm being a jackass -- it allows for correction of the behavior.

The reason I say these kinds of things is so that it is understood that I'm fully aware that I'm not your judge. An examination of my life would find many things of which I'm guilty -- I'm not innocent. I don't want anyone to think I'm 'holier than thou'. I'm not.

QUOTE

M_G, I don't understand you when you speak of homosexuality as an addiction. It's a basic orientation of personality, as are heterosexuality and bisexuality. I think people fall on different spots on that axis if their desires and impulses are catalogued.

I have to agree here as well.
Addiction seems to be the wrong word for it. I'm not completely sure it is the wrong word but it seems to communicate the wrong idea -- again, a very good thought.

QUOTE

If our "marriage"/partnership were to break up, I don't know how I'd go on. I believe that if I cheat on Ken, that's a wrong act against him, and it would damage my character, too. Our expression of love sexually within our relationship is nowhere the equivalent of an affair by me with some other guy. I reject the assertion that the sexual element of the glue that holds us together is sin, or that the gender of the other person is the stuff of taboos.

I think this is one reason why addiction is a poor choice of words.
You see, the Scriptures don't condemn you and Ken living together and sharing your lives. The fact you love each other is a good thing -- the fact you share your lives is a good thing -- heck, there is nothing wrong with finding a great deal of comfort in one another. So even from my perspective, there is a great deal of good about your relationship.

I doubt your relationship with Ken is about the sex. If that was all you had I doubt you would have been together for 23 years. There is significantly more to your relationship and that more is all stuff honoring to G_d. (again, from my perspective)

So if we could call homosexuality an addiction it would be less like a crack addiction and more like a food addiction in that there is nothing good about taking crack whereas we must have food to live. The person who has an eating disorder still has to eat -- they are hardwired that way. Again, this is if I can use the word addiction and I'm no longer sure that is justified.

Much of the pull one feels in homosexuality is sex drive (good and natural in itself) and the need for companionship (again, good and natural) so when the homosexual claims to have no choice if he is speaking of those aspects of the homosexuality he would be quite correct. Those aspects are not addiction in any sense of the word -- in my theology, they were put there by G_d.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 6 2005, 10:17 AM

QUOTE

So...all God really cares about is which hole you stick it in?

Why does God care about silly stuff like that?

Posted by: gssq Mar 6 2005, 10:21 AM

You'd think a transcendent, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient being would have better things to do.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 6 2005, 10:26 AM

God's a pervert.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 6 2005, 10:28 AM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 6 2005, 06:17 PM)

QUOTE

So...all God really cares about is which hole you stick it in?

Why does God care about silly stuff like that?

If one hole is designed to handle the 'sticking' and the other has a tendency to tear, spread disease, and break down then as a designer I could see why -- on a purely physical level alone -- why he might care.

Posted by: Cerise Mar 6 2005, 10:33 AM

Both holes do that. And the backdoor must be good for sticking in something, otherwise the "G" spot in guys would not be located back there.

Gerbil, heterosexual sex can be just as dangerous as homosexual sex. That's a lousy reason for God to be interested in where we stick it.

Posted by: Madame M Mar 6 2005, 11:45 AM

QUOTE

One wonders why the designer doesn't care, when a big old baby comes tearing out of the designated "hole".

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 6 2005, 12:26 PM

If we look to nature, there are plenty of species that have differing percentages of homosexual behaviors. Some animals have even paired for life in a same sex unions.

I figure if we are to have a theology at all, we should look to nature to see what testaments (mechanisms) of God(s)/Sentient Universe are inherent in all creatures including ourselves. We have no reasons at all to assume that we should be held to different standards than other creatures aside from what we can do with our ability to reason. Sexual orientaion is not a reasoning, its a nature.

As far as S.T.D.'s go, having multiple partners without being responsible in that kind of activity is what is harmful and not sexual orientations. If anything society should put pressure on the gay communities to become monogamous (marriage) if we are gonna stick our noses were it don't belong.

Posted by: MalaInSe Mar 6 2005, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Mar 6 2005, 11:45 AM)

QUOTE

One wonders why the designer doesn't care, when a big old baby comes tearing out of the designated "hole".

LOL. When I was about due I told my very Christian friend (married to a pastor) that she needed to have a little discussion with God, because there was definitely a design flaw.

If God cared about such things, we would have zippers.

Ren

Posted by: LloydDobler Mar 6 2005, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 6 2005, 11:28 AM)

Which hole are you talking about? Because vaginas tear and spread disease and break down.

Or do you object to oral sex between heteros too? Cuz those parts don't go there for reproduction.

You're really really reaching with this one, man. Your best bet would be to walk away from the argument if you're not going to change your mind. But do know this, you don't have a leg to stand on other than 'bible says it's wrong'. Just say that and walk away. We've heard every possible argument against homosexuality that you are going to come up with, and they all come down to that anyway.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 7 2005, 07:15 AM

Ughh... look what happens when I leave for a weekend... lol, 4 more pages of stuff.
___________________

Okay Gerbil my man, I have had sometime to think about where the discussion was going and I noticed that I let my quick "wit" get the best of me when I should have taken more time analyze what you stated. Well, now I have. Please permit me.

Also, I want to state for the record that I realize that we are really not discussing whether or not homosexuality is immoral per se, but rather if I am making a claim that things that have always existed are not necessarily immoral.

Accordingly I objected to this characterization by you Gerbil of my statement:

QUOTE

Your claims seemed to be as follows:
1: Homosexuality has always existed.
2: Things that have always existed aren't immoral, but rather just the human condition.
3: Therefore, homosexuality is not immoral.

I'm not attacking homosexuality by equating it with murder, rather, I'm showing that just because something has always existed doesn't make it right.

I can agree with this in part. Something that has always existed doesn't make it necessarily immoral. However, this approach is far too reductive and black and white for my tastes Mr. Gerbil. The real problem with your characterization, is that it commits the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

I'll explain below.

1. Human sexuality has always existed. Murder and rape have always existed.
2. There are possible states of human sexuality, heterosexual and homosexuality being some of them.
3. Murder and rape cause harm to other individuals.
4. Causing harm to other humans, is wrong and immoral.
5. Homosexuality does not cause harm to other humans, therefore it is not immoral.

You see, that's the problem with your characterization Gerbil is that it equates homosexuality as a violent act carried out by one human against one another. Now at this point, I guess it could be argued that humans are born as rapists or murders (like every gay person reports being born gay, or straight person) too and this is part of the human condition. However, it doesn't change the declaration above. Being born homosexual, or being born heterosexual, does not cause harm for being a possible state of human sexuality. Actually, as Spooky pointed out more harm is done to the individual who has to repress his sexuality then it is to be open about it.

So in other words, I guess I do agree with this syllogism:

QUOTE

The second syllogism you present seems to be this:

1: Something that does no harm cannot be immoral.
2: Homosexuality does no harm.
3: Therefore, homosexuality isn't immoral.

Now there might be examples where this not all ways the case. So the word "cannot" maybe to explicit and may have to change to something less strict.

For instance, human fantasies have always existed as well. What if you hate your boss and fantasize about killing him, but never act upon it? Is violence being done and is it therefore immoral? I don't know how to answer this. I'm a hack when it comes to this stuff. Something to consider?

Again, I will have to go back and state, that I do not presuppose anything about homosexuality. It speaks for itself, and I do not speak for it. Those who fix a value to it, need to back up their assessment with evidence that it is, in fact, violence against another.

That's quite a burden in my mind to prove.

(Also, I didn't have time to read through the whole thread. Lots to do today. If I am repeating stuff that someone has already said and that you've addressed, I apologize. Quicksand)

Posted by: LloydDobler Mar 7 2005, 09:33 AM

I will say this in M_G's defense, if the bible is true, and hell exists, then being gay sends you to hell and is therefore a violent and harmful act.

I believe then it would indeed fall under the 'immoral' blanket.

I'm sure glad I don't believe in hell anymore.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 7 2005, 10:48 AM

QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 4 2005, 08:39 PM)

I just fail to understand how or why you and other Christians cannot understand that picking and choosing demonstrates that your moral absolutes are nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I tried to tell him that too. Oh well...

Posted by: quicksand Mar 7 2005, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (LloydDobler @ Mar 7 2005, 09:33 AM)

Well, in M_G's defense, I would agree with you 100%. He did state way back in the beginning that I had failed to completely discount the spiritual realm.

What I am trying to demonstrate that homosexuality, although it has always existed, is not in the same category as murder and rape. A further distinction must be made between the two because they are harmful against another individual. I wonder if I am special pleading here, but I don't think so.

However, this brings up another thought in my mind.

If my above syllogism is true, and homosexuality does no harm to someone sans spiritual level, then how could it be punishable with a resulting punishment of hell? Especially as it is a natural possible state of human sexuality?

The following syllogism is predicated upon that humans are not born homosexual or murders or rapists and that these are a conscious pre-meditated choices one can make.

1) There are some things that humans do that God has prohibited.
2) Murder, rape (not sure if this is true, but lets go with it) and homosexuality are some of these things that are prohibited and committed temporally.
3) Murder and rape cause harm to other individuals; Homosexuality does not.
4) Regardless, homosexuality is harmful to God.
5) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.

If this is true, then homosexuality is immoral because it defies God's authority for some reason. What kind of Zowie-Wow-Zowie-Super-Diety is that? We have absolutely no evidence that being homosexual (whether by choice or by birth) is detrimental to society or to the respective individual. Yet, on the other hand, rape and murder we have plenty evidence, which is really superfluous, because it's self evident.

So why again does the gay person go to hell?

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 7 2005, 01:01 PM

Because it's icky.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 7 2005, 02:21 PM

quicksand:

I didn't think I was making a logical fallacy - this was the syllogism I was attacking:

1: Homosexuality has always existed.
2: Things that have always existed are moral
3: Therefore, homosexaulity is moral.

By introducing murder, or rape, or whatever you wish into the mix I only meant to illustrate that just because something has always existed doesn't mean that it is moral. I think you would agree that #2 fails, wouldn't you?

The point isn't that homosexuality is immoral, only that the fact it has always existed does not make it moral.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 7 2005, 02:22 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Mar 7 2005, 09:01 PM)

Because it's icky.

Homophobe.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 7 2005, 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 7 2005, 02:21 PM)

I know and I agreed with you M_G. I was making the case your characterization is far to reductive.

You did attack me with this:

QUOTE

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 7 2005, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 7 2005, 10:27 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 7 2005, 02:21 PM)

I know and I agreed with you M_G. I was making the case your characterization is far to reductive.

You did attack me with this:

QUOTE

LOL

Okay...uncle UN-CLE.
I got a little snippy there is all.

I don't buy the 'too reductive' comment because the claim that something is moral because its always been is 'too inclusive'. I'm biased perhaps, but I think the logical fallacy I presented has a bit more ground than the claim I was being too reductive.

I think part of the reason I feel that way is because the statement 'Its always been this way' is usually made to justify silly things which have no other obvious merit. (slavery, segregation, etc.)

Posted by: quicksand Mar 7 2005, 02:45 PM

QUOTE

I think part of the reason I feel that way is because the statement 'Its always been this way' is usually made to justify silly things which have no other obvious merit. (slavery, segregation, etc.)

Exactly, I agree whole-hardly M_G. Exactly Exactly.

We have can look to history and see how segregation and slavery is harmful against humanity.

We just can't do the same with homosexuality, therein lies the distinction.

I have no biases in this regard.

I would say that this is an objective fact akin to saying that Lake Michigan is a fresh water lake.

You don't have to buy my "too reductive" argument and at least you are honest that you are perhaps biased.

I do appreciate that and I don't want to make some cheap rhetorical jab at you.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 7 2005, 02:50 PM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Mar 6 2005, 11:45 AM)

QUOTE

One wonders why the designer doesn't care, when a big old baby comes tearing out of the designated "hole".

That because a woman ate the apple ya know.

I really am grateful for the designer of the epideral! That has to be a sin though...deading the pain that god cursed us with. That's flood material there!

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 7 2005, 02:52 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 7 2005, 02:32 PM)

I think part of the reason I feel that way is because the statement 'Its always been this way' is usually made to justify silly things which have no other obvious merit. (slavery, segregation, etc.)

So much for your absolute morals MG.

Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 7 2005, 04:50 PM

It happened again. I neglect the Debating Forum for just a few days and I miss something interesting.

Mad Gerbil, I do have question for you, but I am apprehensive about asking it. I know that this thread has taken a turn that you did not wish it to take, so ignore my request if you like.

I get the impression from some of the Christians I have worked with that they are annoyed with me because I refuse to acknowledge that my life is somehow damaging to society. As an atheist who has adopted a humanist philosophy I see my life and my relationship as wholesome and good and have no intention of “pretending” otherwise. There seems to be the attitude among some Christians that I have responsibility to edit my life and delete any reference that could remotely define me as a homosexual. To do otherwise is often described as “shoving my homosexuality down their throats.” I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.”

As a non-Christian I do not feel the need or the desire to edit my life to make others comfortable. I do not feel the need to be a role model for other people’s faith or their children. In fact I honestly feel like I am doing a service to kids by being open about my relationship. If I had had the opportunity to meet an adult like me now when I was 13, perhaps I could have avoided a great deal of misery.

So the question is: Do you think it is appropriate to ask non-Christian homosexuals to edit their life to make others comfortable?

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 7 2005, 05:00 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 7 2005, 05:22 PM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Mar 7 2005, 09:01 PM)

Because it's icky.

Homophobe.

I was being funny.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 8 2005, 09:39 AM

QUOTE (I Broke Free @ Mar 7 2005, 04:50 PM)

It happened again. I neglect the Debating Forum for just a few days and I miss something interesting.

Mad Gerbil, I do have question for you, but I am apprehensive about asking it. I know that this thread has taken a turn that you did not wish it to take, so ignore my request if you like.

I get the impression from some of the Christians I have worked with that they are annoyed with me because I refuse to acknowledge that my life is somehow damaging to society. As an atheist who has adopted a humanist philosophy I see my life and my relationship as wholesome and good and have no intention of “pretending” otherwise. There seems to be the attitude among some Christians that I have responsibility to edit my life and delete any reference that could remotely define me as a homosexual. To do otherwise is often described as “shoving my homosexuality down their throats.” I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.”

As a non-Christian I do not feel the need or the desire to edit my life to make others comfortable. I do not feel the need to be a role model for other people’s faith or their children. In fact I honestly feel like I am doing a service to kids by being open about my relationship. If I had had the opportunity to meet someone like me as an adult when I was 13, perhaps I could have avoided a great deal of misery.

So the question is: Do you think it is appropriate to ask non-Christian homosexuals to edit their life to make others comfortable?

Wonderfully said IBF. I think other people should care just as much about your partner's picture as they would anybody elses husband or wife. Shame on them! Didn't their mother ever tell them that if they can't say something nice, don't say anything at all? It's your life and you are just as happy (if not more so) than anyone else is at home. You shouldn't have to hide your family...that's just wrong.

I will be honest with you and tell you that I used to be very negative about same sex partners. But, I educated myself and dropped religion only to find that I have no problem what so ever with anyone's personal choices. I hate myself for ever feeling the way I did. And what is so amazing is that I was the miserable one...not them. All that wrongly placed anger, by constantly judging, only made me unhappy.

When the shackles are removed, they are removed from many areas of one's life. Prejudices disappear. Religion blinds people to the things that are most important...people.

Posted by: Reach Mar 8 2005, 11:23 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 8 2005, 09:39 AM)

When the shackles are removed, they are removed from many areas of one's life. Prejudices disappear. Religion blinds people to the things that are most important...people.

Isn't that the truth? It's amazing how much the view can change with one paradigm shift. Once one is free from prison, he is free to explore all kinds of opportunities he never envisioned for himself.

Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 8 2005, 12:15 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 8 2005, 12:39 PM)

I will be honest with you and tell you that I used to be very negative about same sex partners. But, I educated myself and dropped religion only to find that I have no problem what so ever with anyone's personal choices. I hate myself for ever feeling the way I did. And what is so amazing is that I was the miserable one...not them. All that wrongly placed anger, by constantly judging, only made me unhappy.

When the shackles are removed, they are removed from many areas of one's life. Prejudices disappear. Religion blinds people to the things that are most important...people.

Don't fret NotBlinded. I was just as bad or worse when I was deep in the fundys ways of life. My life was so miserable the only happiness I found was pointing my finger of judgement at others. I was a total prick with my parents for two years. I still cringe at some of the things I said.

Many people just don't understand what they are asking when they think gay people should present a heterosexual image to the world. It can be done if one is prepared to LIE constantly. This has terrible side-effects though. If I deem my life so awful that I must lie about it, it sends out the message that I agree with them.

I could also choose not to lie about my life, but instead keep my life so private that people view me with suspicion. How would you react working next to someone who NEVER discusses ANYTHING about their life outside of work?

Regardless of what others may need to believe to make Christianity fair, I had no choice in the matter of my sexual orientation. I was attracted to my own sex before I even understood how babies were made. I can remember looking at the men's underwear section of the Sears Catalog at the age of 12 and did not even understand what was going on. I had not even discovered masturbation yet. How could I possibly have chosen something when I didn't even know or understand what it was I was supposed to avoid?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 8 2005, 12:25 PM

QUOTE (I Broke Free @ Mar 8 2005, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 8 2005, 12:39 PM)

You know, they have this idea that anyone that doesn't conform to their idea of 'normal' must be rebelling. They have fuzzied the definition of rebellion so much that they don't even know themselves what they are talking about.

I say........................fuck 'em and put up 50 pictures if you want to. I probably have about that many myself up here right now. You have every right to do the same.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 8 2005, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Mar 8 2005, 01:00 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 7 2005, 05:22 PM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Mar 7 2005, 09:01 PM)

Because it's icky.

Homophobe.

I was being funny.

I was attempting to be....

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 8 2005, 03:36 PM

QUOTE

It happened again. I neglect the Debating Forum for just a few days and I miss something interesting.

That's what ya get for not being 'round here.

QUOTE

I get the impression from some of the Christians I have worked with that they are annoyed with me because I refuse to acknowledge that my life is somehow damaging to society. As an atheist who has adopted a humanist philosophy I see my life and my relationship as wholesome and good and have no intention of “pretending” otherwise. There seems to be the attitude among some Christians that I have responsibility to edit my life and delete any reference that could remotely define me as a homosexual. To do otherwise is often described as “shoving my homosexuality down their throats.” I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.”

Frankly, I don't care to hear anybody talk to me about their sex life while we are at work. I've never had a homosexual brag to me about how many men he's bedded in a weekend but I've had heterosexuals brag about the women they've bedded and it makes me sick...or perhaps jealous... whatever the case I don't wanna hear it.

The rules for you would be exactly the same as the rules for heterosexuals -- I don't want heterosexual sex in my face in a professional environment and I wouldn't want the homosexual equivalent either. Like heterosexuals (who are polite) you have to identify whether or not the person with which you are speaking would be interested in hearing about your conquests. The rules of politeness are the same for everyone here.

In regards to a picture on your desk I'd tell people who have a problem with that to shut up already. For all they know, that person could be your brother for cryin' out loud.

QUOTE

So the question is: Do you think it is appropriate to ask non-Christian homosexuals to edit their life to make others comfortable?

This is a tricker question.

I like to talk about my G_d but it isn't fair to put that on people who may disagree with me in a professional environment. I think it is important that we all make sacrifices in order to work better together -- heterosexuals and homosexuals both need to do this -- they both must make these kinds of sacrifices.

For example, there is an ex-alcoholic where I work. Me? I like to drink Magaritas and laugh my butt off while on cruises. I don't talk to him about the fun I had doing that because I don't wish to offend him -- just like I might not tell a joke about the guy who shot his wife to a woman who I know gets abused domestically.

Its best to be careful -- but not because you are ashamed of who you are but just out of being polite to others.

Where that line is drawn is different for everyone.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 8 2005, 06:36 PM)

QUOTE

It happened again. I neglect the Debating Forum for just a few days and I miss something interesting.

That's what ya get for not being 'round here.

QUOTE

I get the impression from some of the Christians I have worked with that they are annoyed with me because I refuse to acknowledge that my life is somehow damaging to society. As an atheist who has adopted a humanist philosophy I see my life and my relationship as wholesome and good and have no intention of “pretending” otherwise. There seems to be the attitude among some Christians that I have responsibility to edit my life and delete any reference that could remotely define me as a homosexual. To do otherwise is often described as “shoving my homosexuality down their throats.” I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.”

Frankly, I don't care to hear anybody talk to me about their sex life while we are at work. I've never had a homosexual brag to me about how many men he's bedded in a weekend but I've had heterosexuals brag about the women they've bedded and it makes me sick...or perhaps jealous... whatever the case I don't wanna hear it.

The rules for you would be exactly the same as the rules for heterosexuals -- I don't want heterosexual sex in my face in a professional environment and I wouldn't want the homosexual equivalent either. Like heterosexuals (who are polite) you have to identify whether or not the person with which you are speaking would be interested in hearing about your conquests. The rules of politeness are the same for everyone here.

In regards to a picture on your desk I'd tell people who have a problem with that to shut up already. For all they know, that person could be your brother for cryin' out loud.

QUOTE

So the question is: Do you think it is appropriate to ask non-Christian homosexuals to edit their life to make others comfortable?

QUOTE

*The rules for you would be exactly the same as the rules for heterosexuals -- I don't want heterosexual sex in my face in a professional environment and I wouldn't want the homosexual equivalent either. Like heterosexuals (who are polite) you have to identify whether or not the person with which you are speaking would be interested in hearing about your conquests. The rules of politeness are the same for everyone here.*

I agree with this, however, your statement here is a non-answer to what was being said by I_Broke_Free. Nice dodging. He was not talking about sex and you know it.

QUOTE

*In regards to a picture on your desk I'd tell people who have a problem with that to shut up already. For all they know, that person could be your brother for cryin' out loud.*

But what if he said it was his boyfriend if some one asked? Would he be wrong to have a picture of his boyfriend if others have pictures of their girlfreind or wife on thier desk? Would it be inappropriate or impolite, if when asked who was in the picture, for I_Broke_Free to tell them that that is a picture of his boyfreind? If so, then how so?

QUOTE

So the question is: Do you think it is appropriate to ask non-Christian homosexuals to edit their life to make others comfortable?

QUOTE

*This is a tricker question.*

Your the only trickster in this case M_G.

QUOTE

*I like to talk about my G_d but it isn't fair to put that on people who may disagree with me in a professional environment.*

Nice dodge. You only addresed the position of religion. What about having to edit their personal relationships when the subject comes up in the office? Why can't they share and talk about the important people in their lives when hetrosexuals talk about their boyfriends/husbands or girlfriends/wives?

QUOTE

* I think it is important that we all make sacrifices in order to work better together -- heterosexuals and homosexuals both need to do this -- they both must make these kinds of sacrifices.*

Well that seems fair I guess. Care to be specific about how this should be done in regards people talking about their personal lives on break? He should be able to have a picture of his boyfreind on his desk and should not have to be dishonest about the fact that that is a picture of his boyfreind. Yes? No?

QUOTE

*For example, there is an ex-alcoholic where I work. Me? I like to drink Magaritas and laugh my butt off while on cruises. I don't talk to him about the fun I had doing that because I don't wish to offend him -- just like I might not tell a joke about the guy who shot his wife to a woman who I know gets abused domestically.*

Are you sure you took logic in school? What does this have to do with not being able to talk about your significant other when straight folks talk about their significant others? Are you gonna say you never ever said anything what so ever about your wife at your work to anybody, ever? Are you gonna say that none of your coworkers never ever talked about their spouses at work? Girlfriends?

From what I've read in your reply to I_Broke_Free it seems you must think talking about a good restaurant that your wife/girlfriend likes is the same as talking about sex. Or is it only sex that you think about when you think about homosexuality? Look at what I highlited in your non sequiter post. He wasn't even talking about sex. Interesting.

QUOTE

*Its best to be careful --*

Yes M_G it is best to be careful, because you could hurt peoples feelings. Isn't it loving and beautiful how your bible mytholgy brings out that bigoted quality in you?

QUOTE

*but not because you are ashamed of who you are but just out of being polite to others.*

You are so full of shit. Why is it ok for them to talk about their boyfriends/husbands and girl freinds/wives when it is impolite for I_Broke_Free to talk about his boyfriend? Why the double standard? Hmmmm? oink oink mr rodent.

QUOTE

*Where that line is drawn is different for everyone.*

Double standards are bullshit and you know it. The xian mythology book is bullshit.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 9 2005, 03:27 AM

Euth:

I would hesitate to talk about my wife and kids with someone who had lost theirs in an auto accident.

What I was attempting to demonstrate is that when in a professional environment having the sophistication to know what to talk about and what not to talk about is more complex then a simple 'one rule fits all' approach.

Each person I_Broke_Free works with is going to handle the news of a 'boyfriend' a little bit differently so I_Broke_Free has to know how to present it differently. This isn't just the rule for homosexuals, it is the rule for all people talking about personal things at work.

The issue isn't the sex at all -- but the individuals involved in the conversation.

I really don't know how to make it anymore plain than that. I know in a work environment I watch what I say all of the time on all sorts of personal matters and I'm heterosexual.

Posted by: Biggles7268 Mar 9 2005, 04:15 AM

QUOTE

I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.

Two words to anybody who tries to tell you how to live your life --- "FUCK OFF"

I would think that they are the ones being inappropriate making your sexual preference an issue when you don't bring it up.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 9 2005, 04:26 AM

QUOTE (Biggles7268 @ Mar 9 2005, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE

I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.

Yes -- tell your boss to take a hike!

Now that is sound advice...

------------------------------

The workplace isn't about winning your co-workers to Jesus and it isn't about teaching the world to be tolerant towards homosexaulity. The workplace is about doing your job and getting a paycheck.

The goal of a good manager is to try and make the work place comfortable for everyone and whether we like it or not the fact is not everyone is comfortable with homosexuality or having Jesus shoved into their faces.

I'm not saying those attitudes are right or wrong -- its just the fact of the work environment. I_Broke_Free's attitude may be very mature but that doesn't change the fact that he'll be working with others that are very immature. Learning how to handle the immature boss/co-worker is a skill that is learned by those that succeed in the workplace -- those that don't learn it don't get far.

If I was working with IBF I couldn't possibly care less if he had a picture of his boyfriend in his office. I wouldn't care if he told me about the great weekend they had in Spain. Even if I was his boss I wouldn't care -- it would only become an issue if other's started to complain about it -- at which point I'm put in a situation where I have to answer to my boss as to why my employees are all in a hub-bub.

Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 9 2005, 07:53 AM

Euthyphro, I want to thank you for your support in my quest here. I read Mad Gerbil’s response last night and thought I would sleep on it before replying. You already made many of the comments I was going to make.

MG, your comments about how a professional deals with his personal life at work was right on the money. I totally agree with you that it is inappropriate for anyone to be discussing sexual matters at work. I only mentioned that I also do not do that to clarify my positon at work. If we had to share a cubicle together at work, I doubt if there would be any problems between the two of us. From what I know of you, I expect it might even be rather enjoyable.

That said, the issue of just how far a gay man or lesbian can be comfortably “honest” about their lives is still the primary issue. I have been very fortunate having worked only the San Francisco Bay Area and for a year here in New Hampshire. I have taken my partner to company Christmas parties and family picnics (with children present) the company put on. Except for the photo issue nearly 20 years ago, there has never been a problem.

In my first post on this thread, I wanted to speak for those gays and lesbians living in parts of the country where people may be less tolerant. Should workers in these areas of the country expect their gay and lesbian co-workers to “edit” themselves to make everyone else comfortable?

Euthyphro suggested that you “sexualized” my post by concentrating your reply on that aspect of the question. One of the most irritating things I have to live with as a gay man is the “sexualization” of my life. Many people judge my life and my relationship in terms of my sex-life, yet I have never taped, broadcast, or discussed my sex-life with these same people. Why do they focus on something that is none of their business and something they have never witnessed rather than on me as an individual? I have a theory on that. It is because they don’t know any gay people personally. Why don’t they know any gay people? Because so many gay people “edit” their lives to the point that all people can do is speculate about them. A person without a personal life is prone to having the details of their life filled in by someone else. And considering what they have been told about gay people, you can just imagine what they fill that life with?

I think many people want gays to edit their lives because they want to hold on to their prejudices and because it gives them a sense of power and authority. What better proof can there be that one is right about the “sin” homosexuality than the homosexual himself hiding the fact. That is why I don’t edit out references in my life that confirm I am a gay man, I refuse to given anyone that authority over me.

Posted by: Zach Mar 9 2005, 08:33 AM

IBF-

QUOTE

Why do they focus on something that is none of their business and something they have never witnessed rather than on me as an individual?

Part of what defines heterosexuality is an aversion to homosexuality. There's a gut-reaction 'gross' factor that even I still experience whenever I consider homosexual sex. But while that reponse is normal in me, it is not transcendent- only 90% of the population shares that with me. But it's enough of a majority to make contact with with homosexual individuals rare for most heterosexual people, which doesn't give them an opportunity to rationalize past their heterosexual instincts.

Posted by: Bruce Mar 9 2005, 08:39 AM

Zach,

I agree. I think there is some evolutionary reason for aversion to homosexuality in most people. In my opinion, it is so prevalent amongst heteros, that there has to be some trait that developed, probably to encourage propgation of the species. I personally have friends and associates who are gay, but it really bothers me to see two men kissing, the same physical reaction as when I smell liver cooking. I hope my intellect can overcome my instincts.

//Bruce//

Posted by: Zach Mar 9 2005, 08:58 AM

Bruce-

There may also be an http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

Posted by: quicksand Mar 9 2005, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Zach @ Mar 9 2005, 08:58 AM)

Bruce-

There may also be an http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

And for left-handedness as well, based upon the size of early human hunting parties. A left-hander gave the party a different angle to strike at whatever particular prey that was being hunted . There was an author that I heard on Wisconsin Public Radio say this. I forgot his name, but his book that I checked out at the bookstore seemed rather straight-forward and reasonable in its approach.

Posted by: Bruce Mar 9 2005, 09:45 AM

Zach,

I agree totally. My german shepherd is a total homosexual, shows no interest in females and tries to mate with my male labrador retriever, who definitely DOES NOT like it and fights back. While I agree that homosexuality is a natural part of nature, in humans and other vertebrates, it is also not common for all humans. The overwhelming majority of humans are heterosexually oriented. Let me be plain, I have no prejudice against a person if they are gay or bisexual, to each their own is my motto. But I know that I personally get a revulsion even seeing two men kiss, let alone anything more passionate. I also know other people who have the same reaction.

So while I agree that homosexuality in humans is a natural thing, I also posit that the strong reaction of some males to male homosexuality also has a base in evolution. I also believe that there is both a nature and a nurture aspect of this. Humans, have one of the most, if not most, complex social system(s) known and our cultural memes are profoundly significant. I also find it interesting that males who are personally repulsed by male homosexual behavior, tend to not be repulsed by female homosexual behavior and in most cases are aroused by it.

I summary, my unproven hypothesis is that we as humans suffer from the synthesis of evolutionary adaptation that is mixed up in a long, long history of cultural memes. My guess would be that somewhere way back in our genetic past, males who were heterosexual developed a natural revulsion towards homosexual males because they did not contribute to the survival of the species, as our distinctive social structure developed. It is interesting that even in the cultures where homosexuality was practiced like the Greco-Roman (Hellenic) culture, having male-male sex was not in and of itself shameful, but being the one penetrated was. It was a male dominance thing, more than anything and there were still significant numbers of pagans (without an Abrahamic belief against it) who did not agree with it, Augustus being a prime example. We must learn to use our brains and intellect to overcome the reactive parts of our evolutionary past, that are now counter-productive in a modern society. Just my ramblings.

//Bruce//

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 07:26 AM)

QUOTE (Biggles7268 @ Mar 9 2005, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE

I have never discussed my sex life with anyone at work, yet I have been told that just having a photo of my partner on my desk is “inappropriate.

Now this post here addresses the question a little better. Since you seem to have some kind of connection with Ex-Christians you are er..kinda one of us.
That means perhaps you should give more thought to your posts when a brother asks questions. You know this is a sensitive issue and that a brother is frustrated, and feels isolated at work. I Broke Free used certain key words that described his feelings. His problems. And initialy you did not address thoughs things. You came off as insensitive and willfully ignorant of what what being asked.

Now if you reread your post you'll see that you really did not address what was being asked. Now I may of layed things on a little thick with the bigot remarks, and I owe you an appology for that. But still... what I got out of your post was.. " I don't hate blacks" "I love everyone" "But please use the other drinking fountain so as not to cause trouble with the white folks" Reread your post with the highlites, all of it and my rebutals to you, and see if you could have done a better job in how you attempted to address I Broke Frees points. Respect your brothers and sisters in reason.

You wrote:
<"Even if I was his boss I wouldn't care -- it would only become an issue if other's started to complain about it -- at which point I'm put in a situation where I have to answer to my boss as to why my employees are all in a hub-bub.">
Well pard, you'd best be careful less you want a law suite. Either folks talking about their personal lives at work is tolerated by the boss or it isn't. No double standards should be be allowed. Are you gonna be an uncle tom or are you gonna support a fellow human being by refusing to bow down to the predjudice and ignorance of others? Even if they happen to be the majority. Its a good thing you don't live in the Pacific Northwest. They don't tolerate double standards like the red states do.

Now you see, before my cousin offed himself with pills and alcohol I used to be a little bigoted myself kinda. I loved my cousin but I still was embarassed to be in public with him, be'ins he was so effeminate that he could not hide his nature. And when family or others in the small town I'm originaly from hassled him, sometimes I never stuck up for him when I should have. Just because I didn't call him names, and just because I recognized that he was a decent person does not excuse my silence when he was being mistreated. So, you can bet your ass this topic is a very sensitive one to me.

I know a lot of gay folks. I am a recovering alcoholic and junky who sponsors gay teens who are addicts in my area.
I hear every day the things that are very frustrating to gay people. You hang out with them long enough and it will become impossible to not see them as people.
Maybe you should check yourself for the us and them attitude so that you know that you are not part of the problem. America needs to grow up.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 9 2005, 12:03 PM

Euth:

I was trying to answer the question from a 'workplace professional' context. While I don't think a person should be treated differently at work simply because they are a homosexual the fact of the matter is that they are treated differently.

So I'd seek to pass out advice based upon the reality and not on the way we might wish things to be.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 9 2005, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:03 PM)

While I don't think a person should be treated differently at work simply because they are a homosexual the fact of the matter is that they are treated differently.

So I'd seek to pass out advice based upon the reality and not on the way we might wish things to be.

Until a few years ago, you could insert 'black' where you have 'homosexual' and probably still could today if everyone just accepted the 'facts of reality'.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 03:03 PM)

Yes. That is what I got in this recent post of yours. But not in the first post you made to I Broke Free.

I tell you what though. I have quit good paying jobs because of religious bullshit that sometimes goes on. I don't take shit from no one. And as a supervisor I have been fair to my people.

Now ya see.... I have skills and know how to market myself. Also I know how to shop around for a worlplace that I can breathe in. The world is my oyster because I have many different kinds of skills. It don't take me long before I find another job. If you want to be an uncle tom thats your CHOICE.
As for me I could not live with myself if I played favorites or put up with intolerant attitudes of bosses, coworkers, and the people that answer to me.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 9 2005, 01:11 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 9 2005, 08:16 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:03 PM)

Until a few years ago, you could insert 'black' where you have 'homosexual' and probably still could today if everyone just accepted the 'facts of reality'.

Well it's obvious I'm not going to get out of this thread without being labeled a hater of one type or another.

I quit.

Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 9 2005, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 04:11 PM)

Well it's obvious I'm not going to get out of this thread without being labeled a hater of one type or another.

I quit.

No MG, you are incorrect. I still like you and still think you're pretty cool.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 01:23 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 9 2005, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (Zach @ Mar 9 2005, 08:58 AM)

Bruce-

There may also be an http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

I am predominantly left handed. I feel sorry for the left handed generations before me who were forced to use thier right hands in school due to superstitious bullshit.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 04:11 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 9 2005, 08:16 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:03 PM)

Until a few years ago, you could insert 'black' where you have 'homosexual' and probably still could today if everyone just accepted the 'facts of reality'.

Well it's obvious I'm not going to get out of this thread without being labeled a hater of one type or another.

I quit.

Your NOT a hater. Your just stuborn.

--peace--

Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 9 2005, 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 9 2005, 11:39 AM)

but it really bothers me to see two men kissing, the same physical reaction as when I smell liver cooking.

I guess it depends of the type of kiss I am viewing. I am annoyed at any overtly sexual kissing going on in public around me; it just appears inappropriate to me. I grew up seeing men and women kiss, so it has never bothered me. Yet I have to admit that the first time I saw two men kissing it did shock me a little. I was not sickened by it, but it was just something I had never seen before. Now I see it only as an expression of affection, and not something sexual.

Question for heterosexuals – When you see a man and woman kissing (not a passionate kiss, but just one that indicates that they are a couple) do you imagine them having sex?

What about a gay male couple or a lesbian couple, can you help yourself from imagining what goes on in their bedroom?

Maybe I am odd, but I just don’t envision other people having sex. Trying to imagine a male and female having sex upsets me somehow. I suppose I put myself in the role of the male and I want to barf. The very idea of lying naked with a woman isn’t just unappealing to me, it is revolting! I have never even dated a woman, let alone slept with one. The point I am trying to make is that I am capable of seeing the value in a heterosexual couple without the need of sexualizing them. Can’t I be afforded the same courtesy?

Posted by: Zach Mar 9 2005, 01:53 PM

IBF-

QUOTE

The point I am trying to make is that I am capable of seeing the value in a heterosexual couple without the need of sexualizing them. Can’t I be afforded the same courtesy?

Absolutely. Just because people have a gut revulsion to fantasies of opposite sexual orientation doesn't make them wrong. As rational human beings we have a responsibility to transcend our instincts to work together for a harmonious society.

QUOTE

Question for heterosexuals – When you see a man and woman kissing (not a passionate kiss, but just one that indicates that they are a couple) do you imagine them having sex?

Yup. Just about every time.

QUOTE

What about a gay male couple or a lesbian couple, can you help yourself from imagining what goes on in their bedroom?

Nope.

Humans are sexual creatures. It's only natural for us to think about sex.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 9 2005, 01:53 PM

Let this breeder answer you.

QUOTE

Question for heterosexuals – When you see a man and woman kissing (not a passionate kiss, but just one that indicates that they are a couple) do you imagine them having sex?

Nope, well, unless she is really hot. I wish I was the guy doing the kissing. Then its me in the bedroom, not him.

But seriously, nope.

QUOTE

What about a gay male couple or a lesbian couple, can you help yourself from imagining what goes on in their bedroom?

When I was like in HS and highly homophobic still and immature sexually myself.

But I've seen enough same-sex couples kissing and wedding-like cermonies and I don't think twice about what the going-ons in the bedroom are. Don't care really.

Also, two women kissing isn't a big turn-on either.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 9 2005, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 01:11 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Mar 9 2005, 08:16 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 12:03 PM)

Until a few years ago, you could insert 'black' where you have 'homosexual' and probably still could today if everyone just accepted the 'facts of reality'.

Well it's obvious I'm not going to get out of this thread without being labeled a hater of one type or another.

I quit.

I apologize MG...I really do understand what you were trying to say. I'm a rebel at heart and I never have been able to stand by while something I thought was wrong was taking place. I know you wouldn't either and I don't see you as a hater of anybody.

It's just my opinion that if people just don't do or say anything because they are viewed as different, then no change can ever come about. Times are changing and it is because of people that have been able to stand up and say "that's not right".

Please accept my apologies you little, cute and fuzzy rodent.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Mar 9 2005, 02:09 PM

Frankly, I'm a little grossed out watching any couple kissing passionately in public. It's kinda rude.

If it's just a short, affectionate kiss, then it doesn't bother me. Gay, straight, lesbian... A kiss is just a kiss as far as I'm concerned. Unless it's two really hot women. Then it's an exhibition.

Posted by: I Broke Free Mar 9 2005, 02:10 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 9 2005, 04:53 PM)

I wish I was the guy doing the kissing. Then its me in the bedroom, not him.

I can certainly relate to that. If I am every imagining sex, it is not about another couple, it is about me and another man. (Or woman in your case)

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 02:11 PM

I used to be revolted by gay folks when they kissed. But since I spend some time on their turf, Ive gotten used to it. It don't bother me anymore. But I do feel that folks should not go too far in public affections regardless of sexual orientations, as it can be offensive to folks for many different reasons. So I agree with some of M_G's intitial points to IBF.

When I see huggs or pecks on the lips or cheeks in the gay communty that doesn't offend me in the slightest anymore.

Posted by: kemeticpoet Mar 9 2005, 02:12 PM

QUOTE

Question for heterosexuals – When you see a man and woman kissing (not a passionate kiss, but just one that indicates that they are a couple) do you imagine them having sex?

Actually, when I see any couples kissing in public, I generally get very angry. It makes me crazy. I've never liked people in public acting like that.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 9 2005, 02:12 PM

Last night I had a discussion with my 6 year old daughter about how it's not legal for men to marry men or women to marry women.

You know what she said? "That's not fair."

I'm raising her right....

Posted by: quicksand Mar 9 2005, 02:26 PM

QUOTE (Euthyphro @ Mar 9 2005, 01:23 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 9 2005, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (Zach @ Mar 9 2005, 08:58 AM)

Bruce-

There may also be an http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

I am predominantly left handed. I feel sorry for the left handed generations before me who were forced to use thier right hands in school due to superstitious bullshit.

I hear you man. At least there are plenty of left-handed Standard Phillips screw-drivers now for you poor bastards.

Actually, left-handers were maligned per biblical scripture too and was used to persecute them, sometimes death. You know, only witches and demons use their left hands (for some reason). It was pretty much up until the early 20th century that this form of cultural idiocy was left behind.

When the (christian) homophobe (or otherwise) will say something like "Homosexual culture is destroying the very social fabric of society." I normally counter by saying that look how left-handedness has destroyed right-handed society, or how deaf culture has completely ruined hearing culture.

Of course, they see how ridiculous their argument is when you highlight these other examples.

Modern society has left these forms of bigotry behind, so its perfectly acceptable and an effective counter-argument to use against the person who argues that twaddle that homosexuality is ruining (straight) society.

Usually at this point instead of rebuffing me, I get attacked and they lose.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 9 2005, 02:26 PM

QUOTE (I Broke Free @ Mar 9 2005, 02:10 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 9 2005, 04:53 PM)

I wish I was the guy doing the kissing. Then its me in the bedroom, not him.

I can certainly relate to that. If I am every imagining sex, it is not about another couple, it is about me and another man. (Or woman in your case)

Perfectly human. (And we are both probably "jealous" bastards too.

)

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 9 2005, 02:41 PM

Sorry for stormin' outta the thread disgusted.

This might help you understand a little bit:

I worked in a very sick work environment several years ago. The place was full of backstabbers and liars. I tried to do my best at my job but I ended up getting laid off while incompetent boobs kept their jobs -- in large part my layoff was due to trying to be honest about some on the job problems.

Don't get me wrong, I was glad to be out of there -- when I was first called into the office I thought for sure this one girl was gonna be in there cryin' and claiming I 'grabbed her' or something. She would make stuff up and frame people to get them canned and we'd had a run in so I thought I was next.

So my perspective is skewed a bit. When it comes to my job I don't care if you've got a picture of a Scotsman raping sheep on your desktop I'm not going to bat an eye. I might immediately begin looking for a job elsewhere but until I leave everything is rosey as it gets.

I know that's cold but I'm there to earn a check, not change society.

I come here to change society.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Mar 9 2005, 02:47 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 02:41 PM)

See...I knew you wouldn't just stand by and not do anything. Good for you.

By the way, I'm a competent boob!

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 02:49 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 9 2005, 05:41 PM)

Sorry to hear about some of the bullshit you had to deal with. Its hard sometimes to know what the right thing to do is in life. We all struggle in tryin to be fair without getting screwed.

Posted by: quicksand Mar 9 2005, 02:53 PM

Damn Gerbil, that sucks. Regardless, I can understand your frustration.

QUOTE

...Scotsman raping sheep...

Everyone, and I mean everyone knows, that only a true scotsman uh, hmm, well, damn... can't think of anything funny.

Posted by: Euthyphro Mar 9 2005, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 9 2005, 05:26 PM)

QUOTE (Euthyphro @ Mar 9 2005, 01:23 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 9 2005, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (Zach @ Mar 9 2005, 08:58 AM)

Bruce-

There may also be an http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

I am predominantly left handed. I feel sorry for the left handed generations before me who were forced to use thier right hands in school due to superstitious bullshit.

I hear you man. At least there are plenty of left-handed Standard Phillips screw-drivers now for you poor bastards.

Dang! I'll use these next time the subject comes up. Right on.
I know I can be abrasive sometimes. I usually do shoot from the hip and get only gut shots instead of >head< shots.

Ex-Christian.net is a good resource for me. Thanks quicksand!

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Mar 9 2005, 04:54 PM

Well, I didn't mean to share that in order to get sympathy.
I learned from the experience.

Dealing with being gay would be considerably worse, I should think, as far as stress goes. I wasn't a saint myself through the whole thing and much of the flack I caught was well deserved.

I only brought it up to point out that when IBF brought of the question of the work environment my reaction was emotional but not about the gay issue but more along the lines of what an absolute death trap the phobias of others can be in the work place. At the job I work now I made it a point to not let anyone even know if I was conservative or liberal in my leanings for my first two years on the job. Someone could walk in and say, "You know, I'm for the death penalty for gays" and I'd say, "really? oh that's nice" and the next guy could come in and say "You know, I don't think a person is a real human until they've had gay sex" and I'd be like "really? oh that's nice".

Notice a pattern there?

So when I advise IBF not to bring the issue up it isn't because I'm a homophobe (I am a homophobe but that wasn't the reason) but more because the truth is that on the job the more people know about you the more they'll use it against you. Failing that, they'll make stuff up for crying out loud.

Posted by: bporopatich Mar 11 2005, 08:05 AM

This is the type of so called 'debate' that really amuses me. First we come on board as newly enlightened former christians but fail to acknowledge the fact that some still maintain and carry the prejudices taught to them by religion year after year, day after day. Just because the title of 'christian' is gone, sometimes the hatred endures.
Cerise was right in saying that homosexuality is no more immoral than heterosexuality. Sexuality is sexuality. If you get all hot for a girl, then guess what....you were born heterosexual. If you are a girl and fantasize about hot monkey love with a man then you too were born heterosexual. If you are a man or a woman and get the hots from the same sex, then you were born homosexual.
There is no brainwashing, there is no recruiting, there is no natural method of conversion. If you claim to be a straight man, then fine, you won't be messing around with another man any time soon. So what do you want, a medal. That's your thing, what's your point.
You free yourselves from one form of restrictive thought but maintain its hatreds and prejudices. I am amazed how intrigued straight men are with homosexuality and it never fails that those who condemn and yell the loudest are the biggest closet queens in the world.
And don't think that marriage(straight) is a sure sign of 'being normal'. I've had many a 'straight married' man in my day. And they never want to maintain their masculine "TOP" role in any sexual practice. Usually they are the first ones on their backs with their legs in the air. And you know what???? That's fine, who cares? If it's not you then it's just not you. Straights get into every sexual perversions that any other sexual preference gets into.
We are truly all the same. A sexual partner should not identify who you are.
Your heart and mind and your regard to humanity are all that matters.
Do you 'opinionated' straight guys think that all gays want every man just because he's a man? Believe me, we are just as selective as any of you. And more than not, it's the so-called straight man who drops inuendo and clues when he knows that another guy is gay or open to that love which dares not speak its name.
I myself was married and even have a daughter, but I realized at an early age that this was just not right for me. Sex was mechanical with absolutely no interest in the female anatomy. But I was doing what I was taught to do. Grow up, meet a nice girl, get married blah, blah, blah, blah. Growing up I never looked at women, never desired a woman, never masturbated with the thought of a woman, but always looked at men and never knew why! It was natural. It was who I was and who I am. I do not define myself by my bed partners or my sexual proclivities.

Posted by: bporopatich Mar 11 2005, 08:24 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Mar 4 2005, 05:21 PM)

QUOTE (quicksand @ Mar 4 2005, 10:19 PM)

Actually, its pretty easy. Homosexuality exists, has always exist, and it part of the human condition. It's only religion that has maligned it as so, thus adding/grafting a supposition upon it.

Ah, well murder has always been a part of the human condition as well -- so I guess murder is of no moral consequence either. I suppose you feel the same about rape as well?

Maybe your religion shouldn't look down on rapists and murderers?
Believe me Gerbil, you ain't gonna die from a blow job.
Besides, there is consentual sex and then there is rape.
Consentual 'murder' is assisted suicide, once again, consentual and agreed upon.

I amazing that you would compare murder and rape to being homosexual

Posted by: kemeticpoet Mar 11 2005, 07:24 PM

QUOTE

I amazing that you would compare murder and rape to being homosexual

Read the entire thread. That aspect has already been discussed. He clearly stated that he was simply making the statement that the existence of something spanning back thousands of years does not justify it morally. He is correct in that. There was no comparison made.