Re: Sexual immorality

[SquirleyWurley]

I wish you had been around the last mionth or so.

I did check out part of it, which is why I branched off of the atheist/agnostic forums.  I'm here now. 

[Acumen]

Wow.  For anyone to say that incest has nothing to do with homosexuality seriously needs to reevaluate the issue.

First off, please explain to me why I shouldn't see this as slander of the lowest kind?  Do you really not understand the difference between consentual sex and non-consenting sex, between the abuse of a position of trust/authority/guardianship and a peer relationship, between the taking advantage of someone who is in a vulnerable position and being decent?  If you do understand these differences, WHY do you put incest in the same sentence as homosexuality?  Your own Bible has your God telling the ancient Hebrews to kill all the men women and boys, but to keep the virgin girls for themselves, in their destruction of their enemies in warfare -- it is NO basis for the 'moral high ground' on the subject of sex slavery, forced concubinage of little girls as 'war spoils', etc., and yet you compare homosexuality with incest on the most ridiculous pretexts?

For starters, it is not an abomination to be gay or for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man.  The Bible is wrong on that.  I am not an abomination.  My sexual actions with men are not abominatinable.  Torture and rape and sexual slavery are evil.  Several of the commands of the god of the Bible ARE abominations (see above)

I'm not going to get into this again -- not now.  If you are interested, you can preview the homosexuality thread.

[SquirleyWurley]

I did preview some of it.

Again, if you don't know the differences between these things, then you have NO clue about morality.  So I can educate you about ethics and such.  I'm happy to oblige if your religion has failed you on these matters.

And if you do know of these differences, my immediate reaction is that it is either a cheap shot, or slander.

I'd really like to see you respond to either charge, or if neither is true, please educate me.  Otherwise I'd have to conclude you are ignorant or don't care to avoid slandering homosexuals.

[Acumen]

I did preview some of it.

Again, if you don't know the differences between these things, then you have NO clue about morality.  So I can educate you about ethics and such.  I'm happy to oblige if your religion has failed you on these matters.

And if you do know of these differences, my immediate reaction is that it is either a cheap shot, or slander.

I'd really like to see you respond to either charge, or if neither is true, please educate me.  Otherwise I'd have to conclude you are ignorant or don't care to avoid slandering homosexuals.

You can conclude what you will.  No amount of arguing on this issue will change your mind.  I have no interest of getting involved in an emotional discussion about homosexuality with someone as deeply invested as you for obvious reasons.  Like I said, everything pertaining to the topic was discussed on the aforementioned thread.  Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.   

[SquirleyWurley]

All I'm asking for is a clarification:

Is homosexuality EQUIVALENT to incest, in your view?

Is homosexuality an ABOMINATION in your view?

Are homosexuals ABOMINABLE, in your view?

People who feel these ways about homosexuality are THEMSELVES deeply emotionally invested, and may not wish to deal with the reality, but people like me are certainly willing to correct their error.

[Acumen]

Take a hint already.  I enjoy discussing a whole range of topics with you because you are an intelligent poster, but I'm not going to get in a tussle with you.  Pick another topic.

[jacknky]

El,
"Love is not sex and sex has nothing to do with Divine love."

But sex is very much a part of many married relationships. It is mine. And when it's good it's "divine".
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The call for chastity has nothing to do with "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals" it has to do with fulfilling the greater purpose of all mankind."

I think it's sad the way Christianity has turned sex into something evil to be feared and avoided. Sex is a part of human existence and the attempt to repress the sexual part of our nature leads to much pain, in this case the pain of homosexuals.

[jacknky]

Squirley,

"I have no interest of getting involved in an emotional discussion about homosexuality with someone as deeply invested as you for obvious reasons."

You might as well give it up. I'm not a homosexual and I couldn't even get these folks to address the real pain and suffering of homosexuals. All they could do was speak in very removed, intellectual, academic terms using analogies to incest, adultry and appliance cords. (Don't ask). With one exception, they were pretty much incapable of addressing homosexuals as real human beings. Now you're here and I'm sure that's way too personal.

[SquirleyWurley]

I do think that periods of ascetic withdrawal can be useful in many ways, for an individual.

In reality, we relate to others in a myriad complex ways, and sexuality is one component of who we are, not the full picture of who we are or of how we relate to any given person.  Even when it comes to sexuality, there are myriad degrees of expression, from hand holding to a hug to intercorse.

If someone relates to others, they bring their whole self to the relationship, whatever it is.  There may or may not be expression of various levels of themselves, but they do bring their whole self to it, nonetheless.  Intimacy is a very very good thing, and part of it may be expressed sexually.  There is nothing to feel guilty or lacking about a sexual relationship with someone who you are deeply in love with, although there are other aspects of expressing our relationships, our whole selves.

As a human being, I mention the aspects that bother me the most, the non-challant grouping of my sexuality with things that really are monstrosities.  If someone does not care to deal with that human level of the effects of their intellectualization/rationalization/expression, that is their evasion.  I don't see how I'm evading anything.  I'm honestly expressing what I feel to be the ROOT issue in such exchanges.

[jacknky]

Well said, Squirley. Thank you.

[Acumen]

Squirley,

"I have no interest of getting involved in an emotional discussion about homosexuality with someone as deeply invested as you for obvious reasons."

You might as well give it up. I'm not a homosexual and I couldn't even get these folks to address the real pain and suffering of homosexuals. All they could do was speak in very removed, intellectual, academic terms using analogies to incest, adultry and appliance cords. (Don't ask). With one exception, they were pretty much incapable of addressing homosexuals as real human beings. Now you're here and I'm sure that's way too personal.

This is the very reason why discussions about homosexuality typically don't pan out well, especially when people are emotionally invested in the topic.  Those who take an analytical approach are labeled as callous or "very removed", which ultimately is an ad hominem tactic designed to bully or insult posters.  And this only validates my reason for not continuing the topic.

As far as not addressing the "real pain and suffering" of homosexuals, your statement is a bold-faced lie.  We most certainly addressed it many different times.  If you recall, we assented that homosexuals indeed are discriminated against on the basis of prejudice, and anybody can visit the thread to confirm what I'm saying.  What you didn't like, in particular, was that we pointed out suffering is not a valid standard for justifying human conduct for the reason that other minority groups suffer on the basis of legislative prohibitions, however their conduct is still considered immoral.

You, on the other hand, never grasped the full force of this point.  If suffering on the basis of legislative or cultural prohibition cannot be used as a valid criteria to justify behavior or change the law, then you're incessant focus of arguing from emotion is not a valid argument, but rather a propaganda tool to deface posters taking a more academic approach.  Telling us over and over again ad nauseam that homosexuals are real people with real feelings misses the point that "so is everyone else."  No, we didn't refuse to address that homosexuals are real people.  You refused to recognize that you didn't present much of an argument from the start, so you attacked those who disagreed with your opinion.

If you continue down this road of telling others that we are inhumane, then you are violating our TOC.  Thank you.       

[jacknky]

"If you recall, we assented that homosexuals indeed are discriminated against on the basis of prejudice, and anybody can visit the thread to confirm what I'm saying.  What you didn't like, in particular, was that we pointed out suffering is not a valid standard for justifying human conduct for the reason that other minority groups suffer on the basis of legislative prohibitions, however their conduct is still considered immoral."

What I don't like in particular is that, after a perfunctory nod to suffering, the discussion remained on incest. The comparison of homosexual love and committment to incest is, in my judgement, despicable.


"If you continue down this road of telling others that we are inhumane, then you are violating our TOC.  Thank you."

Are you one of the monitors? If so I think you should withdraw from these discussions as it is a conflict of interest to say inflammatory things and then punish someone for objecting. Comparing homosexuality and incest is inflammatory and needs to be confronted.

BTW, I never said you or anyone is inhumane. I said that you seem to have a difficulty speaking about this topic except in a removed academic way. I don't think that removed and academic is necessarily superior in speaking about human issues.       

[WorldWarrior]

"If anyone is really interested in what REAL Christianity teaches about sex read, "Theology of the Body" by JP2."


Actually JP2 had some really odd ideas about women--which makes snense since his mother died when he was very young and he didn't really know any womenin his entire life in any significant way.

His "Theology of the Body" shows some very weird ideas about women and sexuality and what "women are made for."

His point of view and attitude towards women is not something that many Catholics ascribe too--much less most Christians.

[Acumen]

"If you recall, we assented that homosexuals indeed are discriminated against on the basis of prejudice, and anybody can visit the thread to confirm what I'm saying.  What you didn't like, in particular, was that we pointed out suffering is not a valid standard for justifying human conduct for the reason that other minority groups suffer on the basis of legislative prohibitions, however their conduct is still considered immoral."

What I don't like in particular is that, after a perfunctory nod to suffering, the discussion remained on incest. The comparison of homosexual love and committment to incest is, in my judgement, despicable.


"If you continue down this road of telling others that we are inhumane, then you are violating our TOC.  Thank you."

Are you one of the monitors? If so I think you should withdraw from these discussions as it is a conflict of interest to say inflammatory things and then punish someone for objecting. Comparing homosexuality and incest is inflammatory and needs to be confronted.

Boy, you got some nerve.  You created the topic of homosexuality on a Christian Debate board asking the question "Are there any Christians here who believe that God wants us to discriminate against homosexuals and deny them certain rights?"  You must have known what Christian theology teaches on the matter, or else you wouldn't have designated to locate the thread on that specific board.  If you were truly concerned about "inflammatory" statements, and you consciously chose to create on a Christian board, one would have to conclude you were probably looking for a reason to call someone's view point "inflammatory." 

During the debate, it's pretty clear that the only poster who made it personal was you.  None of us lost our cool during the length of the discussion.  In fact, you had pointed out on more than one occasion that our responses were too academic for such a "real" issue, and you had also admitted this was a sensitive topic for you.  Again, isn't that a conflict of interest? 

And when we gave you our opinions, you claimed they were inflammatory.  No, they're not inflammatory.  These Christian teachings have been established and survives for over 2000 years, they are nothing new to the public eye.  You cannot logically conclude they are inflammatory unless you know a priori that homosexuality is morally justified and correct.  And you don't know this, from what we can tell, because you haven't been able to demonstrate this clearly in a debate format.

Concerning a conflict of interest, I sense a bit of hypocrisy here.  First, I refused to debate with a person who had previously admitted to being gay for the distinct reason there was a conflict of interest which may have led into a disrespectful dialogue.  This was my choice to make because I'm well aware how these discussions typically end, and I didn't want to degrade the forum with that sort of ad hominem debris.  Second, you suggest I need to withdraw from these conversations after I made a deliberate point of withdrawing from this one? 

You admitted this on the homosexuality thread:

"I admit that I am passionate about this topic. I think some of that is because I see the unfairness of such a rigid doctrinaire view. But a lot of my passion is because I did grow up in probably the most racist city in the South, Birmingham, Alabama, in the 50's and 60's. My father was one of the cops who hosed the Civil Rights protesters. I've seen first-hand how discrimination against a minority can so throughly permiate a society, including the churches, that most of us don't question the assumptions upon which the discrimination is based. I was young and I didn't challenge segregation at the time. I'm old now and more aware and I vow I will challenge the assumptions upon which this discrimination against homosexuals is based."   

And then this:

"I may have slipped but I have consciously tried to use language that opposed the ideas you were presenting. If not, I apologize. Yes, we have had good discussions and in this case I think I have kept the vast majority of my comments about the ideas you were defending and not you personally. I did get miffed with your use of what I consider to be off target and demeaning analogies. Again, I apologize for getting miffed."

And at one point, Thorolf said this to you:

"After all this, you just don't understand the point. NOBODY is painting homosexuals with the same brush as "incesters" in a prejudicial manner. There is a CLEAR and UNAVOIDABLE logical link when you argue that love and commitment should be the standard for allowing marriage. It's a weakness in your argument, not ours. And I would recommend that, rather than try to attack Acumen and I personally in order to provide an excuse to ignore what we say (which you have been doing by continually misrepresenting the connection), you consider the implications of what we are saying..."

And your response to him was:

"I aplogize if I've ganged up on you, Acumen and others. I think I have responded to your posts as they have been received. My motivation and ability to reason has constantly been called into question. I have merely shown the illogical nature of laws based on homophobia which I guess can be taken personally by those who agree with homophobic laws."

The problem is that you crossed the line in a few different places on the homosexuality thread making things personal as you had admitted.  Take note that I never made personal pot-shots at you.  I did everything in my power to keep the conversation intellectual and academic as a way of avoiding the emotional pitfalls all too common when discussing this topic.  So no, there is no conflict of interest here.  None of your posts were removed or modified in any way as retaliation for your personal remarks.  You were able to express your aggression toward us in an uninhibited fashion.  We are very fair and conscientious on this forum, and we do this to separate ourselves from one particular forum that over-practices in censorship.  All we are asking is that you stick to the terms of the forum when discussing this topic, and that you refrain from inciting diatribes.  If you are unable to do this concerning the homosexual topic, then perhaps debating this issue isn't particularly wise for you.

[WorldWarrior]

Acumen says--

"You must have known what Christian theology teaches on the matter, or else you wouldn't have designated to locate the thread on that specific board"


You must know there is NO specific single "Christian teaching" about homosexuality. There are a number of different teachings on the matter.

To present the many different teachings as monolithic is not appropriate because it paints an incorrect picture of the many forms of Christianity.

[Acumen]

Acumen says--

"You must have known what Christian theology teaches on the matter, or else you wouldn't have designated to locate the thread on that specific board"


You must know there is NO specific single "Christian teaching" about homosexuality. There are a number of different teachings on the matter.

To present the many different teachings as monolithic is not appropriate because it paints an incorrect picture of the many forms of Christianity.

Oh please, you don't know what you're talking about.  The largest denominations within Christianity regularly denounce homosexuality and refuse to bless it as a union which include Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Lutherans and the list goes on.  Nobody really cares what rogue churches like the Unitarian Universalists think about the matter. 

[SquirleyWurley]

Re: homosexuality being an abomination, homosexuals being abominable...

[/quote]On the last 2 questions that you posted yes.  That is what the bible says.  Homosexuality doesn't make sense.  It is also corrupt.[/quote]

Well, let me ask you, do you think it is 'abominable unto Yahweh' or do you think it is abominable in the sense that a human being would judge another human being to be a monster?  And for that matter, do you consider any of your own 'sins' to be 'abominable' also?  (Such as not eating kosher?)

Not to mention that the homosexuals go after our children and teach them that it is right for them to like members of the same sex.  Why do you think that they broadcast the gay pride parade during time where children are up.  That makes me puke.

I am not in control of what the media and broadcasters do.  I also am not flamboyant, personally.  My Issue is when children or adolescents are taught that some other people are monsters, when in fact they are not monsters, and when children get the mistaken impression that THEY THEMSELVES are monsters.  That is abusive and is associated with bullying.

[SquirleyWurley]

Yet I, being gay, am trying to reason with those who consider me an abomination.

[SquirleyWurley]

I understand that when one translates the Bible from Hebrew into English, the word commonly used is 'abomination', but I suggest an attempt to have a deeper understanding of the Hebrew terms used, in context with how the term was used in other passages, the culture and time period, etc.

Just googling it quickly, I came up with this (I don't claim to understand Hebrew well enough to vouch for it, but I've seen these sorts of comments in many places and it does seem to be based in some understanding of Hebrew language, the context and culture, so it should factor in to some degree if one wishes to UNDERSTAND what was written and what it meant at the time.

"Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality." (this came from http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html, again I don't vouch for the site or the argument so much as I point it out, not being an expert myself.  In my opinion, it should play SOME kind of role in interpreting ancient Hebrew texts, but this does not mean that I support any particular radical agenda, and when it comes to theology, I do not particularly support Liberation Theologies any more than I support Dispensationalism or  Canon Law)

One of the biggest problems I see with religious judgmentalism on this and other matters is when, applying a standard which is said to be 'beyond human imperfection/limitation/natural depravity', one then judges as if one were themselves 'beyond human imperfection/limitation/natural depravity'.

When it comes to someone saying homosexuality is 'icky', all I can say is that lots of things are 'icky' to me, too.

When it comes to WHY I'm homosexual, well, simply, it's because I have an attraction to certain men which has the potential to be romantic and sexual, and this happens often enough that it's a part of my 'sexual orientation', and I'm sure there are plenty of causal factors, ranging from perhaps a combination of genetic factors (I do have genes), to environment (I do live in an environment and I was raised in one, too), to neuroses and issues of various kinds (I along with most people, do have my neuroses and issues).

I don't see how this makes me all that different from other people, except for the fact that homosexual sex doesn't lead to procreation, and that many people consider it taboo.

[SquirleyWurley]

Understood.  I'm trying to bring out the nuances of the subject which MAY help further a more fruitful and civil discussion, without ignoring the sticking points and the hard issues.  It's a difficult line to walk, but I do have some practice under my belt, so I figure the effort isn't entirely futile.