The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
There is a difference between:
define - to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of.
judgement - a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion, an opinion or estimate so formed discerning and comparing.

Judgements are evaluations, both quantitative and qualitative. All thinking is evaluative, hence judgemental. We'd be better off to stop perceiving "judgement" so negatively, though, and instead see it simply as contextual thinking.

Most judgements are unconcious and we don't even notice we made them. We take them for granted. We assume.

All opinions are judgements. Period. If you borrowed your opinion from another source, it is still a judgement only the moment of decision is further down the line, prepared in advance, if you will.

To say homosexuality is a sin is to have evaluated the lives of homosexuals. Less sin is better than more sin. Then it follows that to choose the sin of homosexuality is to make one's life worth less than it otherwise would be, or maybe even worth less than one's own life; homesexuals would be better if they were not homosexuals. Calling it a sin says that.

To say "I think..." is the same as saying "My opinion is...," "My assesment is...," "I have evaluated the situation and believe..."

And there is nothing bad about this. Embrace and rejoice in your sublime ability to evaluate. And don't hide behind a veil of non-judgemental-ness.

Judgements definitely happen in a higherarchy. Making a few general judgements can save you a lot of effort down the road; these kind of judgements are what separates religions, "philosophies," or lack thereof. They can also be called preconceived notions; phiolosphers call them a priori ideas. One good general judgement I make is that there is no prescription for being a good person (not even the Bible), and claiming to not be judgemental serves nobody and is dishonest.

If a man is gay and suppresses that by following the hetero precription for "the good (moral) life," then he is dishonest, is deceiving everybody, not least of all himself. And I'd like to think this makes god sadder than said gay man getting poked in the poop-chute; at the end of the day it is the sexual act that defines one as homosexual (e.g. same sex).

 

[Der Alta]

Milefile posted:
If a man is gay and suppresses that by following the hetero precription for "the good (moral) life," then he is dishonest, is deceiving everybody, not least of all himself. And I'd like to think this makes god sadder than said gay man getting poked in the poop-chute; at the end of the day it is the sexual act that defines one as homosexual (e.g. same sex).

I'll agree with the first portion of this sentence, but I do believe that sexual act has little to do with being gay. Even you should think that. After all, your friend knew he was gay before he had any contact with another human being. I knew I was straight before I lost my virginity. So the act does not define the lifestyle, the emotions are what define it.

I can say that homosexuality is a sin, because it is written in the word of God. I have not nor cannot evaluate the lives of anyone who chooses that lifestyle.

Milefile stated:
One good general judgement I make is that there is no prescription for being a good person (not even the Bible),

You're wrong on that part. There has to be a preconcieved prescription for being a good person. Without this preconception, our freedom would run amok, and we'd have naked people smeared with green jello running around our streets. And probably a few other wierd occurances.

So, is there middle ground, and what might you suggest I need to change in my life?

AO

 

[Pako]

Defining an action as expressed in the Bible is not passing judgement by man. God has already passed judgement on that action, we are just recognizing that action (what ever it may be). In the Bible it says that murder is sin. If I know that some has commited murder, and I say that they have sinned, I have not passed judgement on that individual, but recognized their actions as a sin as described in the Bible. Now if I catch someone eating an apple on the third tuesday of March and condem them for their actions, I would be judging their actions as wrong because I think it is wrong to eat apples on the third tuesday of March. Sorry for the bad apple example, but I think you get the idea.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Der Alta
I'll agree with the first portion of this sentence, but I do believe that sexual act has little to do with being gay. Even you should think that. After all, your friend knew he was gay before he had any contact with another human being. I knew I was straight before I lost my virginity. So the act does not define the lifestyle, the emotions are what define it.

Chicken or egg. What outrages moralists is sodomy, not emotions.

I can say that homosexuality is a sin, because it is written in the word of God. I have not nor cannot evaluate the lives of anyone who chooses that lifestyle.

This is the center of the flame of this argument. Still as hot as ever.

You're wrong on that part. There has to be a preconcieved prescription for being a good person. Without this preconception, our freedom would run amok, and we'd have naked people smeared with green jello running around our streets. And probably a few other wierd occurances.

I have more faith in humans than you I guess. I don't believe that Judeo-Christian morality is all that's holding civilization together... not anymore.

So, is there middle ground, and what might you suggest I need to change in my life?

Just think like me and everybody'll be happier

But seriously... All I would suggest you change is to recognize a few things about your faith. You have a fundementalist streak in you, albeit a thin one. You lean ever so slightly toward the "god hates fags" type; face value, literalist interpretation of scripture was their first conceptual step, too. Not to say you will end up like them (I don't think you will), but you seem to maybe stand at the fork in the road and gaze down their path and wonder without going yourself; fundementalism without action, or, fundementalism with a conscience.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
Defining an action as expressed in the Bible is not passing judgement by man. God has already passed judgement on that action, we are just recognizing that action (what ever it may be). In the Bible it says that murder is sin. If I know that some has commited murder, and I say that they have sinned, I have not passed judgement on that individual, but recognized their actions as a sin as described in the Bible. Now if I catch someone eating an apple on the third tuesday of March and condem them for their actions, I would be judging their actions as wrong because I think it is wrong to eat apples on the third tuesday of March. Sorry for the bad apple example, but I think you get the idea.

I get it. But being gay is much closer to eating an apple than it is to murder. No?

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by Der Alta
*huge snippage*
There is not a place in the Bible that gives anyone rights to hate another person.
*More huge snippage*
AO

Exactly, it even says in there about how people shouldn't hate others for differences, for "how do you know you are correct?" I forget the verse and the markings, but it was just on some random page I opened it to(I occasionally open my Bible to a random page and look at a random verse to see what it says)

Basically, it was talking about how if somebody doesn't eat meat, you should let them in your house and treat them well, even if you eat meat. The eating meat is basically a huge metaphore for saying "has a difference from you."

 

[Pako]

I don't know....I honestly can't make that kind of comparison. I think that all three situations are very different in origin and action.

Sorry for entertaining this Off-Topic discussion of "Passing Judgment" as a generality. So what was the first question? Oh yeah, if it feels good do it ,as long as your not hurting anyone, then it's ok. So is it a question of morality then? I suppose that bestiality is morally acceptable as well? Shall we teach that as a morally acceptable action which is ok in the privacy of our own home? There are some fundamentally natural characteristics of our race that are being skewed. As stated, given free will, our actions are all choice driven. Acting on a emotion or feeling is a choice to act on that. Just because it is a feeling, does not make it morally acceptable. We can minimize it if we like, we can desensitize ourselves so that it doesn't bother us, so we can see the actions of extruded emotions manifested in our society as socially acceptable behavior. As stated before, I think not, it's not natural...., and I disagree with that lifestyle of choice. I think it's a bad choice, but lets not let my opinion persuade the masses or change the course of human history.

As far as homosexual parents having kids? I think not. Wonna raise a kid even more confused than the rest of 'em? Is that fair to force that kind of lifestyle on a child? I won't say that the child will be less loved or taken care of in comparison to a heterosexual family as I think it's a per situation basis. I think that homosexual parents are scrutinized more in the public's eye than anyone else, as they are on display, with people just waiting for them to screw up so they can take the kid(s) away. In the family of various tribes, a child is raised by the entire tribe, and is nurtured by all the elders, so yes that child can have several different fathers, as well as many different mothers as well. The tribe becomes a family unit. The point is there becomes a moral dilemma in our society today. As a society, we are choosing to move that line of morality as we see fit, I just personally hold myself to a different standard of living and a different set of moral standards.

Sorry for the abstract thinking there, kinda just rambling..., but there it is anyhow.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
I don't know....I honestly can't make that kind of comparison. I think that all three situations are very different in origin and action.

Sorry for entertaining this Off-Topic discussion of "Passing Judgment" as a generality. So what was the first question? Oh yeah, if it feels good do it ,as long as your not hurting anyone, then it's ok. So is it a question of morality then? I suppose that bestiality is morally acceptable as well? Shall we teach that as a morally acceptable action which is ok in the privacy of our own home?

Do you think more people would engage in beastiality if it was not specifically forbidden? On the other side of the same coin, I doubt it being forbidden stops anyone who wants to do it to begin with. I'm inclined to think it's the same with being gay.

What if to every one you know you look straight and that's what everybody thinks. But you secretly are attracted to men, you can't help it, just like other men are automatically attracted to women. But you never comsummate your lust. Is that a sin? Because if the sex act doesn't define being gay, and being gay is a sin, then I guess it would be. But what is to become of this poor gay guy who just likes men and never asked to and can't help it?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

I didnt know it was possible to use the terms morallity and decensitize in the same paragraph when speaking about present day society, LOL,.......... j/k

 

[Red Eye Racer]

BTW,... this topic can never end,....... if it does,... world peace will have arrived, LOL


Sorry to point out the obvious,....

I feal as though I may need an army helmet by the end of this page, LOL.

Kinda like campin out in the basement watchin CNN during war times, LOL.

 

[Der Alta]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Der Alta posted:
You're wrong on that part. There has to be a preconcieved prescription for being a good person. Without this preconception, our freedom would run amok, and we'd have naked people smeared with green jello running around our streets. And probably a few other wierd occurances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have more faith in humans than you I guess. I don't believe that Judeo-Christian morality is all that's holding civilization together... not anymore.

You missed the subtle note in there. I did not state that it had to be a Judeo-Christian morality, only that there needed to be morality. I have seen many happy couples of all sorts. Church goers and not, and I'd like to think that I do have faith in humanity, but sometimes....

I try not to lean that way, as it teh fundamentalist does aggravate me. I will stand by my beliefs though. Fundamentalism with a conscience. That sounds good.

Now we've worked this over talking about gay men, where do lesbians fit into the picture?

AO

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Exactly, it even says in there about how people shouldn't hate others for differences, for "how do you know you are correct?" I forget the verse and the markings, but it was just on some random page I opened it to(I occasionally open my Bible to a random page and look at a random verse to see what it says)

Basically, it was talking about how if somebody doesn't eat meat, you should let them in your house and treat them well, even if you eat meat. The eating meat is basically a huge metaphore for saying "has a difference from you."

You are fundamentally correct. The scripture actually is interpreted to mean that if your friend doesn't eat meat. You shouldn't eat meat while you are with him. So as not to tempt or offend him.

 

[Der Alta]

Red Eye:

I have great respect for Milefile, which gives rise to very good discussions. One of the great things you learn in life, is that friends have differences but it doesn't change the kinship.

AO

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Der Alta,...... do you enjoy lesbian porn? (there's a point here, trust me, LOL)

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Oh no,. dont get me wrong guy,... I mean,.... if there is a god,... he'll be tossin lightning bolts at my ass before I'm outta here, LOL.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by milefile
Do you think more people would engage in beastiality if it was not specifically forbidden? On the other side of the same coin, I doubt it being forbidden stops anyone who wants to do it to begin with. I'm inclined to think it's the same with being gay.

What if to every one you know you look straight and that's what everybody thinks. But you secretly are attracted to men, you can't help it, just like other men are automatically attracted to women. But you never comsummate your lust. Is that a sin? Because if the sex act doesn't define being gay, and being gay is a sin, then I guess it would be. But what is to become of this poor gay guy who just likes men and never asked to and can't help it?

In talking about sin, God knows your heart (Man is not judged by their deeds alone). Lets use a example that I can personally relate with. Being married, I have made a decision to be commited to my wife. Lusting other woman (man she's hot) is a natural feeling. I can choose to either entertain that thought, or dismiss the thought and work on not letting those thoughts to enter my mind. I choose to not let those thoughts entertain my conscience, and being a guy, it's something that I'm constantly working on. Let's face it, most guys are horndogs. To throw some psychology into the mix, our actions are preceeded by a thought first. If I continue to entertain such thoughts, it will just be a matter of time before I'm cheating on my wife. I believe the same is true in regards to our current topic. Am I lying to myself by dening my natural feelings? No I am not, I am choosing a lifestyle, and I'm sticking with it.

 

[Der Alta]

Red Eye:

That's a pretty straightforward question. So why don't we use you for an example. Do you enjoy Lesbian porn?

AO

 

[Red Eye Racer]

ahh,.. nice try ,.. seriously though, I asked you first ......ROFL!

 

[Pako]

Red Eye Racer:

I think I appreciate your attempt at lightening up the mood in this thread with some humor, but could you stay on topic? The enjoyment of porn is not relevant to this thread.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Der Alta,...... do you enjoy lesbian porn? (there's a point here, trust me, LOL)

---------------EDIT---------------

Damn it,.. "there's a point here, trust me" is supposed to be bolded in the quote,.......

BTW,... there's a point here,... TRUST ME


EDIT2

though,.. you'd be a fine candidate for my example,.. Pako,... answer the question YES or NO please.......


EDIT3
found the dit button BTW,. no more double posting ,lol

 

[Pako]

I'll answer:

No

And the point is?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

My point will be geared towards the next bible thumper who say they enjoy it,... thanx for the chance though,.. I respect your opinion.

Anyhow,.. you foiled that opportunity,.. good work.

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by milefile
Chicken or egg. What outrages moralists is sodomy, not emotions.

I have just finished reading Genesis Chapter 19. I noticed a funny thing. The actual words that Sodomy is sin aren't there. However, if you will note the things that I got from the Chapter:

1. The men of the city saw the men (actually angels) that came to visit Lot and they wanted Lot to send them out so that they might "know them" (Have sexual relations) (vs. 5)
2. Lot asked them to "do not so wickedly" (vs 7).
3. When Lot refused to bring the men out, he offered his OWN daughters (who have not known men). With the stipulation that they could do unto them as they would. (vs. 8) This leaves some question to Lot's "fathering skills". Or did he KNOW that his daughters were "safe" from the men of Sodom?
4. The men gathered around Lot's house were NOT interested in Lot's daughters and threatened to "deal worse with thee, than with them." (the men that came to visit) And they pressed in on Lot to break down his door. Ostensibly to forcibly have sex with Lot and his guests.
5. Lot was saved from this by his visitors. Who also (miraculously)struck the men of Sodom blind so that they could not find the door to break it down.

Later in the chapter, God destroys Sodom and Gomorah, due to the wickedness of the inhabitants.

Is it because of their general wickedness?
Is it because of their sexually predatory behavior in relation to the angels?

I'm not going to "pass judgement" on any class of people. The Bible says that God destroyed the cities.
It also says that the inhabitants were wicked.
It further states that the inhabitants of the cities wanted to "know" the men/angels that came in to visit lot.

Was homosexuality the event that got the cities destroyed? I don't know. But it is what is mentioned in the context of "wickedness". But then we are also talking about forcible rape of persons that happen to be the same sex...
And in my book forcible rape also qualifies as wickedness.

As an aside: Earlier in the book of Genesis, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply". I got a "C" in biology, but if that is to be taken as a command, and not a "suggestion" Adam and Eve are way more likely to "multiply" than Adam and Steve.

Read Gen. Chap. 19 and come to your own conclusions.

 

[Sage]

Red Eye Racer-- If you make the decision to post in this thread, can you at least make it legible and keep it on topic? I do not enjoy reading a very thoughtful thread, and then coming upon sudden "breaks" per se.

So, to sum things up, I'm getting the general concensus that among the religious folk, you do believe that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't change/skew your views on their character, correct?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako: So is it a question of morality then? I suppose that bestiality is morally acceptable as well? Shall we teach that as a morally acceptable action which is ok in the privacy of our own home?

It's not the same thing at all, and you're missing my point if you think it is. Does your dog have the ability to consent? How about your hamster? No. It's the same reason child molesting is immoral in all forms. When one party is in control and the other party is not, it is immoral sexual contact. A person can be as submissive as they wish, beyond the point of masochism - so long as it is willing and consentual.If both parties willingly agree, then there is no immorality involved in the act itself.

There are some fundamentally natural characteristics of our race that are being skewed.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. It all depends on what you consider man's position in nature. Mankind does a million things every day that are not found elsewhere in nature. Should we give up written language, just because "it ain't natural"? What about making tools? What about reason? All those things are not found anywhere else in nature...

Just because it is a feeling, does not make it morally acceptable. We can minimize it if we like, we can desensitize ourselves so that it doesn't bother us.

Agreed with the first part. But what if we think it is morally acceptable and are not sensitive to it in the first place? How am I making myself accept homosexuality, if I never thought it was an issue to begin with?

As far as homosexual parents having kids? I think not. Wonna raise a kid even more confused than the rest of 'em? Is that fair to force that kind of lifestyle on a child?

Why not? Christians and other religious parents do it every day. No one bats an eyelash at the concept of Sunday School, where young minds too inexperienced to filter ideas for themselves are rigorously and purposely made to fit a given set of beliefs. Why is that not forcing a lifestyle upon a child? Sorry, Pako, but that's one you haven't thought far enough through. Why would a kid raised by caring, supportive homosexuals be inherently more confused than any other?

As a society, we are choosing to move that line of morality as we see fit, I just personally hold myself to a different standard of living and a different set of moral standards.

Which is perfectly acceptable and in fact totally supports my argument. Individuals are always welcome to hold themselves to a stricter standard than society does. Don't want to be gay? Don't be gay - if you can help it. Don't want to smoke pot? Don't. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. The problem comes when those with stricter standards attempt to enforce that morality onto others (and I'm using 'morality' here to mean rejection of otherwise victimless 'crimes', not in terms of violence or theft). Just because my morality is more tolerant than yours (not necessarily weaker) doesn't mean I am forcing anything upon you. This is a favorite party line among the religious moralists. Quite the opposite is true - I'm declining to force anything upon them. They are free to hold themselves to the most Puritan standards they feel to be appropriate. But by the same token I will refuse to have their morality forced upon me.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Read Gen. Chap. 19 and come to your own conclusions

would that be the NAS95, RSV, NRSV, NLT, anglocan, hebrew, new world, baptist, prodistant, catholic, or king james version?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by youth_cycler
Red Eye Racer-- If you make the decision to post in this thread, can you at least make it legible and keep it on topic? I do not enjoy reading a very thoughtful thread, and then coming upon sudden "breaks" per se.

me are a english major.............


BTW,.... some of you can be pretty ruthless (I've been called and idiot and been critisized about my gramar in a matter of 24 hours).

Did it ever occur to you to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

 

[Gil]

The posting above was taken from the KJV, and nominally from the Contemporary English version. Why?
My RSV and NIV say fundamentally the same thing. They are however, easier to understand.


And what exactly is your point with the question re: lesbian porn?

You are probably going to say that men are much more accepting of lesbians and women much more accepting of Gay men.
That is true in that women are much more comfortable with men that don't look at them as a "potential conquest". What does that say about Heterosexual men?
Men being comfortable with lesbians is a ALSO about conquest, and a desire/dream of being "man enough" to "convert" one.

A lot of the lesbians that I know are in a relationship with a woman because the men they have known have been little more than predators with little compassion and caring. Back to the question asked above. What does it say about men when women are running to other women for nurturing, caring relationships?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

I was just wondering,... why are there different versions? Does one speak of the Lot story any different than another?

 

[Gil]

The different versions are an attempt to make the Bible more "accessible" to all. It also addresses the perceived need for translations in more contemporary english.