| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2008 08:09:53 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The hard fact of the matter is western religion, at some level, does not agree with homosexuality. |
That is so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuality is not mentioned in any of the scriptures of any of the Western religions. Occasionally, you'll see "a man should not lie with a man" next to "do not touch a woman when she is unclean," but most such laws have been tossed out. They are the archaic rules of an extinct society and have nothing to do with core theology. The word "homosexual" was not coined until the nineteenth century or so. |
Don, I'd politely suggest you are in over you head there...
Homosexuality and Islam
Christianity and homosexuality
Judaism and homosexuality
Message edited by author 2008-10-16 20:14:49. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:11:32 PM · #277 |
| No, he's right there with Harris. Makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:29:20 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The hard fact of the matter is western religion, at some level, does not agree with homosexuality. |
That is so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuality is not mentioned in any of the scriptures of any of the Western religions. Occasionally, you'll see "a man should not lie with a man" next to "do not touch a woman when she is unclean," but most such laws have been tossed out. They are the archaic rules of an extinct society and have nothing to do with core theology. The word "homosexual" was not coined until the nineteenth century or so. |
Don, I'd politely suggest you are in over you head there...
Homosexuality and Islam
Christianity and homosexuality
Judaism and homosexuality |
And I'd politely suggest you actually read those links you just threw at me: vague references to "Sodom," practices of Greeks and Romans that are no longer relevant, scant references to actual scripture, no connection to theology.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:31:16 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The hard fact of the matter is western religion, at some level, does not agree with homosexuality. |
That is so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuality is not mentioned in any of the scriptures of any of the Western religions. Occasionally, you'll see "a man should not lie with a man" next to "do not touch a woman when she is unclean," but most such laws have been tossed out. They are the archaic rules of an extinct society and have nothing to do with core theology. The word "homosexual" was not coined until the nineteenth century or so. |
Don, I'd politely suggest you are in over you head there...
Homosexuality and Islam
Christianity and homosexuality
Judaism and homosexuality |
I'll admit that I just skimmed these, but the takeaway is that the issue of homosexuality is debated within these religions. I also found reference in the Judaism article to homosexual marriage in Ancient Egypt. This would predate Judaism (and obviously Christianity) and weakens your historical argument. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:33:37 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, Wiki has EVERYTHING: King and King
Our kids will probably wonder how we survived without it. |
I guess I'd like to know exactly what you object to. Do you object to seven year olds knowing that homosexuality is practiced by people in our society? Do you object to them being told that it is an acceptable practice? Or do you just object to them hearing it from the school? |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:37:32 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, Wiki has EVERYTHING: King and King
Our kids will probably wonder how we survived without it. |
I guess I'd like to know exactly what you object to. Do you object to seven year olds knowing that homosexuality is practiced by people in our society? Do you object to them being told that it is an acceptable practice? Or do you just object to them hearing it from the school? |
Let's not lose sight that I'm not expressing my own view. I was pointing out the feeling that a devoutly religious person may say, "you know, if two dudes want to get married and I never hear about it, that's fine, but I do not agree with it and I do not want my children taught this in school." I was just asking you to put yourself in their shoes and understand the perceived threat. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:38:37 PM · #282 |
| I'm not going to take more time to argue how western religion views homosexuality. If you read those three articles and cannot take away that "western religion, at some level, does not agree with homosexuality" I don't think we have much to talk about. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:41:32 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I'll admit that I just skimmed these, but the takeaway is that the issue of homosexuality is debated within these religions. I also found reference in the Judaism article to homosexual marriage in Ancient Egypt. This would predate Judaism (and obviously Christianity) and weakens your historical argument. |
Simply read the second half of Romans 1 and tell me you think Christians were "down with" people having sex with their own gender...
Romans 1
That's as far as I'm going to go with this argument. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 08:43:01 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not lose sight that I'm not expressing my own view. I was pointing out the feeling that a devoutly religious person may say, "you know, if two dudes want to get married and I never hear about it, that's fine, but I do not agree with it and I do not want my children taught this in school." I was just asking you to put yourself in their shoes and understand the perceived threat. |
So you yourself don't find it objectionable? If people want to bury their heads in the sand, that's their perogative, but to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate that is going too far. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 09:08:40 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not lose sight that I'm not expressing my own view. I was pointing out the feeling that a devoutly religious person may say, "you know, if two dudes want to get married and I never hear about it, that's fine, but I do not agree with it and I do not want my children taught this in school." I was just asking you to put yourself in their shoes and understand the perceived threat. |
So you yourself don't find it objectionable? If people want to bury their heads in the sand, that's their perogative, but to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate that is going too far. |
You are going to have to learn to ask questions in a more neutral manner if you are going to be a good debator.
So I take it you think that "to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate" is wrong? Just making sure here.
Message edited by author 2008-10-16 21:11:36. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 09:18:03 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not lose sight that I'm not expressing my own view. I was pointing out the feeling that a devoutly religious person may say, "you know, if two dudes want to get married and I never hear about it, that's fine, but I do not agree with it and I do not want my children taught this in school." I was just asking you to put yourself in their shoes and understand the perceived threat. |
So you yourself don't find it objectionable? If people want to bury their heads in the sand, that's their perogative, but to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate that is going too far. |
You are going to have to learn to ask questions in a more neutral manner if you are going to be a good debator.
So I take it you think that "to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate" is wrong? Just making sure here. |
What wasn't neutral? I'm asking if you yourself find it objectionable. As for your parsing of my statement, it's incomplete and I suspect you know that. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 09:23:51 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not lose sight that I'm not expressing my own view. I was pointing out the feeling that a devoutly religious person may say, "you know, if two dudes want to get married and I never hear about it, that's fine, but I do not agree with it and I do not want my children taught this in school." I was just asking you to put yourself in their shoes and understand the perceived threat. |
So you yourself don't find it objectionable? If people want to bury their heads in the sand, that's their perogative, but to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate that is going too far. |
You are going to have to learn to ask questions in a more neutral manner if you are going to be a good debator.
So I take it you think that "to ask society to restrict the rights of individuals to accommodate" is wrong? Just making sure here. |
What wasn't neutral? I'm asking if you yourself find it objectionable. As for your parsing of my statement, it's incomplete and I suspect you know that. |
I think I saw your second statement as a secondary part to your question. I later decided you were stating your opinion and included terms like "bury their heads in the sand" to reflect how you feel about such people.
How do I feel? It seems like an awfully controvertial subject for second graders. Social issues should be taught at home, not school. Why not go the whole nine yards and include "Janie suffers mental anguish after her abortion"? It's a real page turner.
As far as "restricting the rights of individuals to accommodate", can't you see it's a double-edged sword? Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." If one group is pro-gay marriage and one is anti-gay marriage, then either including the book or not appears to violate Article 19. In fact, one could argue that having the book interferes with the anti-gay marriage view while not having the book does not interfere (at least in the same way) with the pro-gay marriage view.
At this point we've gotten a bit off track. We can return to gay marriage if you want. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 09:27:14 PM · #288 |
I personally find the Princess and the toad more offending than King and King. First off, toads are good looking critters. The insinuation that they are disgusting, warty, ugly creatures is really not true at all. Second off, what frog would want some dirty princess hands on their skin which is so porous? The poor toad is probably getting an overload of germs since there was no Purell in those days. Though all that alcohol wouldn't be any better for the toad. Third, since most princesses in fairy tales are drawn to look like Barbie, as a toad, I'd be insulted. I (in the head of a toad) think Barbie is very unattractive.
Really - not wanting King and King in your school reminds of all the times people have tried to ban books like Diary of Anne Franke, the Phantom Tollbooth, Farenheit 451, etc. etc. etc. etc.
After reading the Wikipedia entry on King and King, I don't see what the deal about the book is. But that's just me.
Disclaimer: I never read the whole book King and King |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 09:37:58 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think I saw your second statement as a secondary part to your question. I later decided you were stating your opinion and included terms like "bury their heads in the sand" to reflect how you feel about such people.
How do I feel? It seems like an awfully controvertial subject for second graders. Social issues should be taught at home, not school. Why not go the whole nine yards and include "Janie suffers mental anguish after her abortion"? It's a real page turner. |
Personally, I would agree for the most part, not because it's controversial, but because I agree that social issues should be taught at home. I think the school should have discussed it with parents, and given them the option of participating or not. I think that's pretty standard for sex-ed these days. That said, I would have been glad to have my daughter participate in the class, but I would want to discuss it with her as well.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as "restricting the rights of individuals to accommodate", can't you see it's a double-edged sword? Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." If one group is pro-gay marriage and one is anti-gay marriage, then either including the book or not appears to violate Article 19. In fact, one could argue that having the book interferes with the anti-gay marriage view while not having the book does not interfere (at least in the same way) with the pro-gay marriage view. |
Yes, I see that it's a double-edged sword, but I think its a matter of degree. The book issue is down that slippery slope, perhaps not far, but a bit. But denying people the right to legally marry is a bigger restriction in rights than denying the right to people to disapprove of their children hearing about it. It's like somone saying that they don't care if blacks marry whites, so long as they don't have to see it. Are we responsible for making sure that their children aren't exposed to interracial books? That responsibility lies with the parent.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At this point we've gotten a bit off track. We can return to gay marriage if you want. |
I think I did. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 09:56:42 PM · #290 |
| I'll call it quits for the night. I really sometimes worry I am tarnishing my reputation on this site by participating here. I personally have Rant turned off so I can control what arguments I see come across my page. However, I forget lots of people don't have it turned off and here I am yammering for everybody to see. I do my best to remain civil but realize I'm often the only one willing to try to express an opinion that carries controversy. I also can carry on the argument for the sake of arguing (again to help form personal opinion and see the strengths of all sides of the argument), but the casual observer drops by and just sees me as "anti-gay" (ala Mick). I did appreciate Louis stepping to my defense there. I know he's a decent guy even if he now and then has to let off some steam about us "God fearin'" folk. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 10:02:16 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll call it quits for the night. I really sometimes worry I am tarnishing my reputation on this site by participating here. I personally have Rant turned off so I can control what arguments I see come across my page. However, I forget lots of people don't have it turned off and here I am yammering for everybody to see. I do my best to remain civil but realize I'm often the only one willing to try to express an opinion that carries controversy. I also can carry on the argument for the sake of arguing (again to help form personal opinion and see the strengths of all sides of the argument), but the casual observer drops by and just sees me as "anti-gay" (ala Mick). I did appreciate Louis stepping to my defense there. I know he's a decent guy even if he now and then has to let off some steam about us "God fearin'" folk. |
Fair enough. I hope you'll be back as I enjoy this back and forth. It's good for all of us to have our fundamental beliefs questioned from time to time, and I truly am interested in understanding where you and those much further right than you are coming from. |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 10:41:37 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I truly am interested in understanding where you and those much further right than you are coming from. |
Have you checked out this? |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 10:42:12 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wish I had a big red button I could push which would set off an alarm and a flashing light that says "intolerance". |
You can borrow mine ...
 |
|
|
|
10/16/2008 11:50:09 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll call it quits for the night. I really sometimes worry I am tarnishing my reputation on this site by participating here. I personally have Rant turned off so I can control what arguments I see come across my page. However, I forget lots of people don't have it turned off and here I am yammering for everybody to see. I do my best to remain civil but realize I'm often the only one willing to try to express an opinion that carries controversy. I also can carry on the argument for the sake of arguing (again to help form personal opinion and see the strengths of all sides of the argument), but the casual observer drops by and just sees me as "anti-gay" (ala Mick). I did appreciate Louis stepping to my defense there. I know he's a decent guy even if he now and then has to let off some steam about us "God fearin'" folk. |
Wait, you have a reputation? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:57:33 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll call it quits for the night. I really sometimes worry I am tarnishing my reputation on this site by participating here. I personally have Rant turned off so I can control what arguments I see come across my page. However, I forget lots of people don't have it turned off and here I am yammering for everybody to see. I do my best to remain civil but realize I'm often the only one willing to try to express an opinion that carries controversy. I also can carry on the argument for the sake of arguing (again to help form personal opinion and see the strengths of all sides of the argument), but the casual observer drops by and just sees me as "anti-gay" (ala Mick). I did appreciate Louis stepping to my defense there. I know he's a decent guy even if he now and then has to let off some steam about us "God fearin'" folk. |
Jason, I became a member of this site long before you did. I was around when the original thread on this subject began, and I've followed the discussion with great interest from the very beginning. I'd hardly say that qualifies me as being just a "casual observer". I also did not "drop by" just to pick on poor Jason. I simply posted a valid question concerning a certain aspect of the discussion. This being an open forum, I believe I am allowed to do that.
As for me seeing you as anti-gay, I direct you to a few of your own comments on the subject:
{emphasis added by me}
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"No problem. I would say my view toward homosexuality is complex. I do not condone it and ultimately I feel it to be wrong for more reasons than just "the bible says so" (although I would say that would be among the reasons). OTOH, I feel homosexuality is at least partially genetic and I do not think simply being gay means one is simply "evil". I have had close friends (read: best friends) who are gay. I didn't simply push him away when I found out, but I also can't simply just ignore it. Like I said, it's complex."
--DrAchoo 07/10/2008 01:18:13 AM
|
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"This is a hard enough discussion to have face to face when we can have the full benefit of voice inflection and body language. I'll try my best, but please recall things posted on the internet are easily misinterpreted. I realize I'm basically saying, "hey, I don't agree with your lifestyle" but I'm trying to say it with a measure of respect for you as a fellow human being.
I would place homosexuality under a larger umbrella of cultural hypersexuality. Our culture is inundated with sex. We see it everywhere in advertising and in our entertainment. Society has pushed the basic principle that "if it feels good, it must be ok". We are hedonists. This is true in the food we eat (obesity is rampant) and in the sex we engage in. I would contend that there are lines which cause personal harm if they are crossed. Some simple examples would be having sex too young or having multiple partners over your life. These things do insidious harm to an individual (some not so insidious such as STDs) over time. In other words, just because we have two consenting adults who are willing to do something doesn't make it healthy. I don't think swinging or group sex or casual sex is good for an individual. This makes it "wrong". We can even call it "sin" if we realize the term means "to miss the mark". It isn't the best way; the golden path.
Homosexuality, IMO, falls in this category. Now, it's somewhat different because most gays are likely gay as a product of genetics and environmental exposures. I doubt many gays made some conscious decision to become gay. However, even if a gay man is a product of things beyond his control, the actions produced by such "wiring" (for lack of a better word) may still be harmful. Trying my best to not invoke insult, I would equate it with being an alcoholic. Alcoholism has a genetic component. Being an alcoholic is likely beyond the individual's control. They did not choose to be alcoholic. However, we do not condone binge drinking or other harmful behaviors just because they have a predisposition to such actions. Perhaps I can say that being gay is not harmful, practicing a gay lifestyle is (at least in my opinion).
So in the end I would characterize homosexuality as an outgrowth of our hypersexualized, hedonistic society. Some societies seem to have higher rates of homosexuals than others and it may be the genetic predisposition found in some individuals is fertile ground for the environmental influences of such societies.
So at no time did I mention the Bible. Certainly it will warn against the harm of sexual immorality, but it is not necessary for the argument."
--DrAchoo 07/10/2008 12:50:56 PM
|
So, you're not anti-gay. You just think gays are hypersexualized, hedonistic, genetic freaks living in sin and you don't agree with their harmful lifestyle...
Am I simply being obtuse? Please, tell me again how that is not anti-gay.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 06:39:17 AM · #296 |
Glad to see that a new thread was started on this subject. I have the Rant section off in my preferences so I don't come here everyday. I have nothing to add but I would like to congratulate Mousie and his mate on their marriage. Hope it goes as you planned. I wish you a long life of happiness together and also hope your fellow citizens do the right thing with Prop8.
Congratulations to both of you!
As for the original question, I have to answer yes, we have the proof today. Let's hope it keeps evolving and that we no longer need to start threads about it. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:37:52 AM · #297 |
Jason,
I hope one day that one of your gay friends finds a life partner and you'll see firsthand the inherent decency of two people loving each other and making a life together, which does not depend on gender. At that point, it may occur to you that there were a lot of things that old saint Paul thought were indecent, and not all of them are relevant today. It will also occur to you that his term "indecent acts" does not apply to buying a house together, adopting a child, lifelong fidelity, etc., homosexual acts that were not even available for St. Paul to consider.
My advantage in this argument is not any sort of superior thought process, but simply that I have been lucky enough to have seen this decency firsthand, at which point your views become impossible to maintain. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 09:17:41 AM · #298 |
| It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:48:14 AM · #299 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
I think it's valuable at this point in political history to convince Christians that homosexuality is just another item on this laundry list and not a threat to the core of their beliefs. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 10:53:02 AM · #300 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's no secret that "the big three" proscribe homosexual acts in one way or another. So? Shall we bring out the laundry list of other things they proscribe, which adherents progressively ignore as they make their way out of its cultural stone age? |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think it's valuable at this point in political history to convince Christians that homosexuality is just another item on this laundry list and not a threat to the core of their beliefs. |
That's what I don't understand.....why is it such an issue for people upon who how others live is of no consequence whatsoever to them?
In no way, shape, or form does this issue threaten their way of life.
So why do they have an issue with how others live?
That's just unreasonable, IMNSHO. |
|
