Jerusalem bans Gay Pride

[segovius]

The authorities in Jerusalem have banned a Gay Pride March (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4618465.stm) scheduled to take place in the city on the grounds it would be "provocative" and set off unrest although what sort of unrest is unclear - perhaps sleepless nights for any bigots in the vicinity.

It wouldn't be right to authorise the march and the related festivities in Jerusalem out of the concern that it would be provocative and hurt the feelings of the broader public living in and visiting the city," the municipality said in a public notice to the organisers.

Clearly there are some bigots at work and as usual, the focus inevitably turns to those of a religious variety. This being the rabidly pro-Israel BBC however, and coupled with the Jerusalem focus of the article, it is of course absolutely necessary to shift the focus onto the 'barbarian Muslims'.

Under the (admittedly entertaining) headline of Sodom Fears the situation is clarified, the Israeli authorities absolved and Islam suitably underlined as a barbaric 'evil™' that encompasses all levels of bigotry as an (un-named) 'Mulsim cleric' was given the spotlight to voice his opinion that:

gay events in Jerusalem would attract divine wrath similar to that which destroyed the biblical city of Sodom.

Which seems rather a strange thing for a Muslim cleric to say as neither Sodom or Gomorrah are mentioned in the Qur'an and represent a tradition that is purely Judeo-Christian and completely unknown in Islamic tradition.

But I digress. It is the Jerusalem authorities that are banning this - not the most noted authority for supporting either Gay or Muslim concerns - ostensibly on the grounds that it will 'cause violence'.

Anyone any thoughts ?

[Protostar]

Originally posted by segovius
The authorities in Jerusalem have banned a Gay Pride March (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4618465.stm) scheduled to take place in the city on the grounds it would be "provocative" and set off unrest although what sort of unrest is unclear - perhaps sleepless nights for any bigots in the vicinity.



Clearly there are some bigots at work and as usual, the focus inevitably turns to those of a religious variety. This being the rabidly pro-Israel BBC however, and coupled with the Jerusalem focus of the article, it is of course absolutely necessary to shift the focus onto the 'barbarian Muslims'.

Under the (admittedly entertaining) headline of Sodom Fears the situation is clarified, the Israeli authorities absolved and Islam suitably underlined as a barbaric 'evil™' that encompasses all levels of bigotry as an (un-named) 'Mulsim cleric' was given the spotlight to voice his opinion that:



Which seems rather a strange thing for a Muslim cleric to say as neither Sodom or Gomorrah are mentioned in the Qur'an and represent a tradition that is purely Judeo-Christian and completely unknown in Islamic tradition.

But I digress. It is the Jerusalem authorities that are banning this - not the most noted authority for supporting either Gay or Muslim concerns - ostensibly on the grounds that it will 'cause violence'.

Anyone any thoughts ?

I've never understood these gay pride marches. If you're gay then so be it, why does anyone else care? Why do you find it necessary to shove it in everyone else's faces? As for the bigot remark, are you not a bigot for being intolerant of other's views that homosexuality is wrong?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Protostar
I've never understood these gay pride marches. If you're gay then so be it, why does anyone else care? Why do you find it necessary to shove it in everyone else's faces? As for the bigot remark, are you not a bigot for being intolerant of other's views that homosexuality is wrong?

According to WordNet, the definition of the word bigot is as follows:

A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

I would understand this as referring to someone who objects to any opinions that differ from his own on principle rather than someone who objected to an opinion that happened to differ.

In any case, if it is the latter, we are all bigots as there is no-one who ever lived who had not a single objection to even one solitary contradictory opinion. I would cite characters such as Jesus, Buddha and Mother Theresa here - all of whom had some objections to something.

But I won't. I'm far more interested in the Freudian implications of your choice of expression contained in the phrase 'shoving it in your face'.

Is Gay related expression (as opposed to being hidden away) perhaps something you find 'hard to swallow' ?

[Protostar]

Originally posted by segovius
According to WordNet, the definition of the word bigot is as follows:

A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

I would understand this as referring to someone who objects to any opinions that differ from his own on principle rather than someone who objected to an opinion that happened to differ.

In any case, if it is the latter, we are all bigots as there is no-one who ever lived who had not a single objection to even one solitary contradictory opinion. I would cite characters such as Jesus, Buddha and Mother Theresa here - all of whom had some objections to something.

But I won't. I'm far more interested in the Freudian implications of your choice of expression contained in the phrase 'shoving it in your face'.

Is Gay related expression (as opposed to being hidden away) perhaps something you find 'hard to swallow' ?

Expression is fine. If your gay fine. If your proud of being gay, fine. But I don't understand the need to have an entire parade to celebrate your attraction to the same sex. It just makes no sense and is a waste of money.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by segovius
I'm far more interested in the Freudian implications of your choice of expression contained in the phrase 'shoving it in your face'.
What are you, 12? Grow up.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't understand the need to have an entire parade to celebrate your attraction to the same sex.
I agree. I guess we should have straight pride parades. Or how about baseball cap pride parades. "I love wearing baseball caps! Whoohoo!"

:err:

[CosmoNut]

Hey, I thought of a chant at our straight pride parade:

"We're great! We're straight! Let's get pregnant!"

For the baseball cap pride parade:

"My hat...is phat....I'll wear it!"

[hardeeharhar]

I honestly don't understand parades at all...

What the hell is the point of the Christmas parade?

We know you're Christian, we don't need to be reminded of it every year, multiple times a year....

[Aurora]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
I agree. I guess we should have straight pride parades. Or how about baseball cap pride parades. "I love wearing baseball caps! Whoohoo!"

:err: Isnt that the truth, how about a straight pride parade! Look at me im with someone of the opposite sex! Its like look at me im disfunctional as heck and want everyone to know so perhaps there will be more so i dont feel so bad about my screwed up life style.

[segovius]

.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
I agree. I guess we should have straight pride parades. Or how about baseball cap pride parades. "I love wearing baseball caps! Whoohoo!"

:err: Maybe because there is discrimination against gays and not against straights or baseball cap wearers? :err:

[segovius]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
Hey, I thought of a chant at our straight pride parade:

"We're great! We're straight! Let's get pregnant!"

For the baseball cap pride parade:

"My hat...is phat....I'll wear it!"

Great - if that's how you define yourself, go for it.

Start a parade.

I'll start posting support if any fascists try to close it down.

Meanwhile, maybe we could address the issue ?

[Protostar]

Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe because there is discrimination against gays and not against straights or baseball cap wearers? :err:

There is a difference b/t a gay rights march and a gay pride parade. Gay pride parades, IMO, promote homosexuality which why I feel there is such deep opposition to them. This parade isn't about rights, it's about showing off their "gayness."

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe because there is discrimination against gays and not against straights or baseball cap wearers? :err:
Try going to the symphony wearing a baseball cap.

Try going to many restaurants and bars wearing a baseball cap.

We baseball cap wearers are discriminated against every day, and we're not doing anything wrong. We're just being who we are, and some people are intolerant of that. It's not right.

[segovius]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
Try going to the symphony wearing a baseball cap.

Try going to many restaurants and bars wearing a baseball cap.

We baseball cap wearers are discriminated against every day, and we're not doing anything wrong. We're just being who we are, and some people are intolerant of that. It's not right.

Like I said - start a parade.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Protostar
This parade isn't about rights, it's about showing off their "gayness."

So what ?

[Protostar]

Originally posted by segovius
So what ?

Some might find that offensive. Plus, most gays don't need to showcase their "gayness", it is easily recognizable.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Protostar
Some might find that offensive. Plus, most gays don't need to showcase their "gayness", it is easily recognizable.

Then what about your attitude that Gays might find offensive ?

Why do you assume you are 'better' ?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
Try going to the symphony wearing a baseball cap.

Try going to many restaurants and bars wearing a baseball cap.

We baseball cap wearers are discriminated against every day, and we're not doing anything wrong. We're just being who we are, and some people are intolerant of that. It's not right. Yeah that's really cute. Meanwhile, gay kids are kicked out of their homes, just about every leading politician and religious figure says that who they are is wrong and immoral, and they are beaten up and mocked daily by their peers in schools. But why are they complaining, it's really no different than wearing a cap.

[Protostar]

Originally posted by segovius
Then what about your attitude that Gays might find offensive ?

Why do you assume you are 'better' ?

My attitude won't spark riots around the city, such as might happen over there. I think it must be a pretty offensive and controversal issue for three leaders from all three major religions to agree on not letting the parade happen. Like I said, I don't understand why they need a parade to celebrate theri pride in being homosexuals.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Protostar
My attitude won't spark riots around the city, such as might happen over there. I think it must be a pretty offensive and controversal issue for three leaders from all three major religions to agree on not letting the parade happen. Like I said, I don't understand why they need a parade to celebrate theri pride in being homosexuals.

It won't spark riots around the city because the society you live in has advanced past that stage.

It advanced because of the work of Gay activists.

Are you advocating a return to more primitive times ? Sure sounds like it.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by BRussell
But why are they complaining, it's really no different than wearing a cap.
My point is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet is discriminated against in one way or another.

You have a funny name.
You're too fat.
You're too ugly.
You're the "wrong" skin color.
You're gay.
You're male.
You're female.
You're too young.
You're too old.
You're too religious.
You're not religious enough.
You're too liberal.
You're too conservative.
You don't make enough money.
You don't wear the "right" clothes.
You're not cool enough.

Gays are discriminated against? Cry me a friekin' river, Sally.

[Protostar]

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah that's really cute. Meanwhile, gay kids are kicked out of their homes, just about every leading politician and religious figure says that who they are is wrong and immoral, and they are beaten up and mocked daily by their peers in schools. But why are they complaining, it's really no different than wearing a cap.

Boohoo. Gay kids are being kicked out of their homes as a result of a lifestyle choice, so what. If I came home and told my father I was a homosexual, I'd be kicked out too. And I don't blame him because if it was me I'd do the same thing. A parent reserves the right to kick their kid to the curb if they don't agree with what they are doing. As for every leading politician and religious figure thinking it's wrong, most people do. I don't understand what's right about being attracted to someone of the same sex. Kids are beaten up and mocked for other things as well so don't make it seem like it's only the homosexuals who suffer.

[Protostar]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yes, the less humane parts of humanity, which the ideology contained in several of your posts arguably represents, discriminate more than others. I mean comparing sexual orientation discrimination to wearing a baseball cap is more than a bit offensive and for obvious reasons. The fact that negative discrimination exists in so many objectionable forms (race, gender, age, class, etc) should heighten your sensibility to any individual instance-- not muddle it. Yet that's the conservative response here.

"But cultural hegemony is so tough!"

:no:

I love how you look down on other people just because their views differ from yours. "less humane parts of humanity" listen at that liberal elitist atttitude in action.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
My point is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet is discriminated against in one way or another. I'm curious: Do you really believe that there are no types of prejudice or discrimination that are systematic and severe enough that they are more of a problem than clothes or some of the others on your list? What about discrimination against blacks pre-civil rights era? Would you have said "cry me a river" to MLK Jr.?

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
Which seems rather a strange thing for a Muslim cleric to say as neither Sodom or Gomorrah are mentioned in the Qur'an and represent a tradition that is purely Judeo-Christian and completely unknown in Islamic tradition.
It was my understanding that there's a fair amount of overlap between the Old Testament and some of the teachings of Islam. I've been trying to Google something related to that idea, but there's a lot of crap to wade through. The closest I've come to finding something to support this overlap was a list of the Arab versions of names of prophets from the Old Testament. At any rate, it wouldn't be surprising to me if the lovely story of Sodom or Gomorrah is part of Islam as well.

Anyone here with some expertise on this topic?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Protostar
I love how you look down on other people just because their views differ from yours. "less humane parts of humanity" listen at that liberal elitist atttitude in action.
Wouldn't it be really nice if everyone was really nice to each other?

No, really. Wouldn't it be great if bad stuff like racism and sexism was frowned upon, and harmless stuff like homosexuality was tolerated, and good stuff like volunteering in sub-Saharan Africa and teaching was celebrated?

Wouldn't that be great?

Don't mean to look down on you or anything, but wouldn't that rock?

:)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by shetline
Anyone here with some expertise on this topic? I believe segovius has about as much expertise as anyone here. :) I think he had mentioned that he studied Islam in an academic setting pretty intensively.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by shetline
It was my understanding that there's a fair amount of overlap between the Old Testament and some of the teachings of Islam. I've been trying to Google something related to that idea, but there's a lot of crap to wade through. The closest I've come to finding something to support this overlap was a list of the Arab versions of names of prophets from the Old Testament. At any rate, it wouldn't be surprising to me if the lovely story of Sodom or Gomorrah is part of Islam as well.

Anyone here with some expertise on this topic?

The Gods of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all the same God, the God of Abraham. If I am not mistaken, all three religions recognize the old testament as being valid.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
Try going to the symphony wearing a baseball cap.

Try going to many restaurants and bars wearing a baseball cap.

We baseball cap wearers are discriminated against every day, and we're not doing anything wrong. We're just being who we are, and some people are intolerant of that. It's not right. I agree, i was in my bank the other day wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses and they pointed to a sign. Teller said its for my safety:lol: paper:lol: I think we should have baseball cap rights!:mad: if non Baseball cap wearers can go in why cant I:mad: :lol: edit we do need a parade:lol: Next:smokey:

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by MACchine
YOU ARE A NAZI !!!

YOU ARE BANNED !!!

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by segovius




Which seems rather a strange thing for a Muslim cleric to say as neither Sodom or Gomorrah are mentioned in the Qur'an and represent a tradition that is purely Judeo-Christian and completely unknown in Islamic tradition.


Really? I thought the quran contained a story about Lot (Lut) and Lot's people and their homosexuality leading to their destruction by God. But, I a could be wrong, I'm no expert. Thought the ridgid Muslim stance against homosexuality originated from somewhere in their sciptures.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Aurora
I agree, i was in my bank the other day wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses and they pointed to a sign. Teller said its for my safety:lol: paper:lol: I think we should have baseball cap rights!:mad: if non Baseball cap wearers can go in why cant I:mad: :lol: edit we do need a parade:lol: Next:smokey:


Ha ha ha ha !! It's just like those goofy negroes! Always whining about "rights". Always whining about "lynchings" and "pistol whippings" and "fire hoses". Making a big show of their so called "solidarity".

And yet life is unfair! I, myself, have not always gotten what I want! Therefore, it follows that their is no such thing as discrimination, since everyone is a victim!

[BRussell]

I consulted my favorite religious website and found this (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm):

The Qur'an and Homosexuality:

There are five references in the Qur'an which have been cited as referring to gay and lesbian behavior. Some obviously deal with effeminate men and "masculine women." The two main references to homosexual behavior are:

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165
Both references relate to gay sexual activities; lesbian practices are not mentioned in the Qur'an.

Lut is referred to as "Lot" in the Hebrew Scriptures. This passage is an apparent reference to the activities at Sodom and Gamorah. It seems to imply that there was no homosexual behavior before it first appeared in Sodom. This is a uniquely Islamic concept; it does not appear in Jewish or Christian beliefs. The passage also links the sin of Sodom (the reason for its destruction) to homosexuality. That linkage is contradicted by other verses in the Hebrew Scriptures.



The Hadith and homosexuality:

The Hadith are collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad. Many Hadiths (ahadith) discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between males). Two examples are:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."
"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

There is at least one mention of lesbian behavior mentioned in the Hadith:

"Sihaq (lesbian sexual activity) of women is zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) among them."

Traditionalist orthodox Muslims generally claim that the Hadith literature contains the authentic sayings of Muhammad. Many liberal Muslims doubt the authenticity of at least some of them. The latter might point out that during the times of the first Caliphs, Muslims did not know what to do with individuals guilty of "liwat/lutiyya". No sahabi (companion) of Muhammad could quote a saying or decision of Muhammad relating to this question. The Lot passage in the Quran is linked even more directly to homosexuality than it is in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, where it is unclear why S & G got the treatment.

My favorite: "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes." Is that anything like "God kills a kitten?"

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by BRussell
Do you really believe that there are no types of prejudice or discrimination that are systematic and severe enough that they are more of a problem than clothes or some of the others on your list? What about discrimination against blacks pre-civil rights era? Would you have said "cry me a river" to MLK Jr.?
Last time I checked, a gay man could use the same restroom as me. Last time I checked, a gay woman could go to the same school as me. I can see the connection you're trying to make, but it's just not there.

[Protostar]

Originally posted by Aurora
I agree, i was in my bank the other day wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses and they pointed to a sign. Teller said its for my safety:lol: paper:lol: I think we should have baseball cap rights!:mad: if non Baseball cap wearers can go in why cant I:mad: :lol: edit we do need a parade:lol: Next:smokey:

I don't wear baseball caps but I were top hats and don't understand why places, particularly schools, are so adament about you not wearing them about the building.

[johnq]

Originally posted by segovius
According to WordNet, the definition of the word bigot is as follows:

A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

I would understand this as referring to someone who objects to any opinions that differ from his own on principle rather than someone who objected to an opinion that happened to differ.

In any case, if it is the latter, we are all bigots as there is no-one who ever lived who had not a single objection to even one solitary contradictory opinion. I would cite characters such as Jesus, Buddha and Mother Theresa here - all of whom had some objections to something.

You're glossing over the word "prejudiced" for whatever reason.

Since, in my opinion, Jesus never existed, and considering Mother Theresa is just an extension of that myth's world view, I won't comment further on them.

But as for the Buddha, I'd offer he is the antithesis of "pre-judging". He "retreated" to observing and careful inspection - he did not "stand firm" and presume things to be truly as they (arbitrarily) initially seemed to him, having found that the various distractions can pull our beliefs to and fro to nearly any false, incomplete, dishonest, stubborn and arbitrary conclusion.

"Opinion" is equally useless, as they are only shades of the same Ignorance.

"Own/self" wouldn't pertain to the Buddha (or any of us when made aware), ultimately.

"Intolerant" would be irrelevant if there is no self or other.

The Buddha first tried to "tell" his found truths but the person laughed and disbelieved, which is why he instead developed a path identical to the one he followed, so as to let others see for themselves as he did - if they are so inclined.

Disbelievers (or really, those-that-believe-too-much as opposed to knowing), to the Buddha, are just people that are addicted to the status quo and there is no particular desire to "save" them nor rip apart their beliefs for the sake of making them feel bad.

(That's something I'm actively working on, being so modernized, it's hard not to overbearingly spew opinion, no matter how calm or balanced I might try to be.) ;)

Anyway, I daresay the Buddha had no "objection" to anything in particular. His is an open and welcoming philosophy but by no means mandatory. It's a simple: patient:"Doc, it hurts when I do this"; doctor:"Don't do that." advisory kind of thing - not dictatorial.

One can teach "best practices" without objecting to your doing it your (perhaps unhealthy and foolish) way.

I think it's mostly when one's stubborn illogic or harmful actions interferes with others that it becomes objectionable.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Really? I thought the quran contained a story about Lot (Lut) and Lot's people and their homosexuality leading to their destruction by God. But, I a could be wrong, I'm no expert. Thought the ridgid Muslim stance against homosexuality originated from somewhere in their sciptures.

It doesn't mention Sodom though does it ?

Personally I do not dispute that there are anti-gay bigots in the Islamic fold, nor that they may find Scriptural passages to justify their prejudice.

They, as with all bigots, should be opposed.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
It doesn't mention Sodom though does it ?

Personally I do not dispute that there are anti-gay bigots in the Islamic fold, nor that they may find Scriptural passages to justify their prejudice.

They, as with all bigots, should be opposed.

Just out of curiosity...in your view (or anyone else I suppose), does believing that homosexual behavior is wrong make one a bigot?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just out of curiosity...in your view (or anyone else I suppose), does believing that homosexual behavior is wrong make one a bigot?

No. Hating gays a priori is bigotry.

[BRussell]

Of course it's bigotry. The idea that it's about "behavior" is really a canard, IMO. We're talking about "behaviors" - expressions of love and attraction - that are central to who people are as human beings.

[edit] A question for Chris: If people use religious justification for racism (say, separation of races, being against interracial marriage, etc.), would they be bigots?

[hardeeharhar]

I think that the average american has a great deal of wrong behaviors, but I am not a bigot because I don't hate them for it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No. Hating gays a priori is bigotry.

If someone believes that the behavior is wrong, do you assume that they also hate the people engaged in it?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
Of course it's bigotry.

So holding a belief that something is wrong is bigotry?

Originally posted by BRussell
The idea that it's about "behavior" is really a canard, IMO. We're talking about "behaviors" - expressions of love and attraction - that are central to who people are as human beings.

Hmmm...well there is a sexual component as well.

Originally posted by BRussell
A question for Chris: If people use religious justification for racism (say, separation of races, being against interracial marriage, etc.), would they be bigots?

Well, a bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

It probably hangs on the "intolerant" piece here. Are the people that believe what you suggest (however they justify their belief...religious justification is irrelevant here)...unwilling to tolerate the views and beliefs of others that disagree with their position on race?

( This debate has happened here before with the conclusion that it's "okay" to in intolerant of some things...but what things is the issue of debate. ;) )

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If someone believes that the behavior is wrong, do you assume that they also hate the people engaged in it?

No.

No, I don't.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No.

No, I don't.

I'm so glad. This sort of reasonableness is rare here.

It seems a common assumption that if I (or someone else) finds a certain thing (attitude, belief, behavior) objectionable or disagree with it that I (or someone else) must hate the person or people that hold the attitude/belief or engage in the behavior.

[JimDreamworx]

Back to Jerusalem...

Considering the historical nature of the city in regards to the religions that hold the place important, why worry about holding a parade there?

There are plenty of other places more populous that you can use to get a message out. Is pushing an agenda the most important thing about a parade?

Wouldn't things work better if you could have a parade everywhere else and show Jerusalem for being "backwards"?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Is pushing an agenda the most important thing about a parade?

It seems that it might be, and further, to be very "in your face" about it., and...to get headlines of course.

[JimDreamworx]

That's odd. I thought being proud of something was completely different from being politically motivated. But I guess this is where political correctness came from: being proud of the right things.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
That's odd. I thought being proud of something was completely different from being politically motivated. But I guess this is where political correctness came from: being proud of the right things.

Well, I think it is a just a tad disingenuous to suggest that there is no agenda or political motive at all.

[JimDreamworx]

Sorry. I was hoping that there was something noble about a parade.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Sorry. I was hoping that there was something noble about a parade.

I think their can be. Wasn't implying differently. But let's also not be naive either.

[JimDreamworx]

I know what you mean, but we're talking about Jerusalem.
Really... is there a gay political agenda there?
And does such an agenda feel it will get somewhere... anywhere?

They have more important things to worry about.
Even if some folks feel their reasons are based on "mythical" stories.
Peace first, then they can sort out sexual orientation.

[addabox]

I think the argument that a parade is "pushing" an "agenda" is just a recasting of the old "I have no problem with homosexuality as long as they keep it to themselves and have the decency to pretend like they don't exist" line.

The attitude seems to be that any public display of "gayness', be it individual or en mass, represents an aggression against heterosexuality (or public decency, or family values, or whatever) , with the odd corollary that public gayness amounts to "recruitment" or an incitement to be gay, hence the menace (I particularly like this part since it implies that there is something so compelling about being gay that simply seeing homosexuals on display is enough to "turn" little Billie or Susie, which doesn't say much for the inherent sturdiness of heterosexuality).

So you get this horseshit about how gays are all up in everybody's face all the time, forcing us all to confront their disgusting "lifestyle" by insisting on not being invisible, and surely there must be a sinister motive beyond just being "proud" since we all know that isn't really possible and anyway they won't be happy till everybody's gay.

Just totally crap, and the rankest kind of bigotry, and profoundly ignorant about gay people and who they are and how they live their lives.

By the way, in my experience some of the most virulently reactionary "gays make me sick" types turn out to be big ole closeted fags. Just sayin......

[tonton]

Originally posted by BRussell
My favorite: "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."

That proves not only that God approves of homosexuality according to the Q'uran, but that he himself is a homosexual and uses people for his pornographic pleasure (think about it).

Scriptural interpretation is just that... interpretation. Maybe this passage means God is gay.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
I think the argument that a parade is "pushing" an "agenda" is just a recasting of the old "I have no problem with homosexuality as long as they keep it to themselves and have the decency to pretend like they don't exist" line.

The attitude seems to be that any public display of "gayness', be it individual or en mass, represents an aggression against heterosexuality (or public decency, or family values, or whatever) , with the odd corollary that public gayness amounts to "recruitment" or an incitement to be gay, hence the menace (I particularly like this part since it implies that there is something so compelling about being gay that simply seeing homosexuals on display is enough to "turn" little Billie or Susie, which doesn't say much for the inherent sturdiness of heterosexuality).

So you get this horseshit about how gays are all up in everybody's face all the time, forcing us all to confront their disgusting "lifestyle" by insisting on not being invisible, and surely there must be a sinister motive beyond just being "proud" since we all know that isn't really possible and anyway they won't be happy till everybody's gay.

No one said all gays. No one said anything about "recruitment" being a motive. No one is suggesting any specific conspiracy either...some organized agenda pushing. Again, I think it is disingenuous and naive to assume there is no other motivation that merely pride. There are a lot of things I am proud of...I don't need to join a parade for any of them. The public display is designed to prove something (minimally) and (possibly) to say something (possibly about those being paraded around in front of).

The agenda is acceptance...or even celebration of...something that some (many?) people believe to be wrong...possibly by those people.

[tonton]

You say "agenda" like it's a slur.

What's wrong with having an agenda, if that agenda is for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals to eventually be considered a normal part of society and to be afforded all rights equally to heterosexuals?

Agendas are a good thing. I have an agenda of promoting tolerance and equality and condemning hatred and bigotry. And I'm willing to shove it down any bigot's throat.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just out of curiosity...in your view (or anyone else I suppose), does believing that homosexual behavior is wrong make one a bigot?

No, not at all. It only couches your interpretation of reality. If you believe that man is capable of validating his sexual existenz in any way, then you can get on board with the gay movement -- and logically many other, less salient, movements.

Otherwise, you have "arbitrary" [by Kanitan or any other humanistic] distinctions to make, regarding sexuality, with equally divisive repercussions. It's only a question of zeitgeist, and where you draw "the line".

[tonton]

My new slogan:

"The 'gay agenda' is an agenda of understanding, acceptance and equality. Got a problem with that?"

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
You say "agenda" like it's a slur.

Your interpretation. I just said I think there is an agenda.

Where the "wrongness" (in my opinion) of agenda comes in (for anyone) is when it is surreptitious.

I can still disagree with a given agenda. For example, I might not like very much an agenda that takes our country to war unnecessarily.

Originally posted by tonton
Agendas are a good thing. I have an agenda of promoting tolerance and equality and condemning hatred and bigotry. And I'm willing to shove it down any bigot's throat.

That just cracks me up.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just out of curiosity...in your view (or anyone else I suppose), does believing that homosexual behavior is wrong make one a bigot?

No, it does not. But to treat someone negatively or deny them rights because their views differ from your own, or because you don't approve of their actions, is bigotry.

When you say, out loud, from the pulpit, "I do not approve of homosexuality. You should not be homosexuals," you are not a bigot.

When you call someone a "faggot", intending to demean or insult them, you are a bigot.

When you deny them rights, like to rent a home or to hold a parade, you are a bigot.

When you (as a lawmaker) pass a law that denies them rights, you are the worst kind of bigot.

When you, as a parent, kick your kid out of the only home he can have, and the only family he will ever have, you are a reprehensible bigot with neither conscience nor any idea whastoever about "what Jesus would do".

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No one said all gays. No one said anything about "recruitment" being a motive. No one is suggesting any specific conspiracy either...some organized agenda pushing. Again, I think it is disingenuous and naive to assume there is no other motivation that merely pride. There are a lot of things I am proud of...I don't need to join a parade for any of them. The public display is designed to prove something (minimally) and (possibly) to say something (possibly about those being paraded around in front of).

The agenda is acceptance...or even celebration of...something that some (many?) people believe to be wrong...possibly by those people.

You don't have to join parades for random things you are proud of because those things aren't stigmatized or put you in danger of getting your ass kicked or fired your from job or denied housing. Christ. You couldn't possibly not notice the difference, so why the tedious obtuseness?

And yes, "gay pride" has a public component because gay bigotry would precisely seek to silence and make invisible. It means saying "I reject your ugly, inhuman characterization that I live a lonely and desperate life, or that my shame should keep me behind closed doors."

And your phrase "being paraded around in front of" perfectly makes my point about the mere existence of homosexuals being taken as an aggression by, among others, religious bigots.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
You don't have to join parades for random things you are proud of because those things aren't stigmatized or put you in danger of getting your ass kicked or fired your from job or denied housing. Christ. You couldn't possibly not notice the difference, so why the tedious obtuseness?

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by addabox
And your phrase "being paraded around in front of" perfectly makes my point about the mere existence of homosexuals being taken as an aggression by, among others, religious bigots.

I don't take it as an aggression.

[segovius]

Originally posted by tonton
That proves not only that God approves of homosexuality according to the Q'uran, but that he himself is a homosexual and uses people for his pornographic pleasure (think about it).

Scriptural interpretation is just that... interpretation. Maybe this passage means God is gay.

I think I've already stated elsewhere that there is a large tolerance for homosexuality in Islamic tradition - the bigotry (which undoubtedly exists) is tied up with the idea of men being effeminate and is strongly linked to the issues that the more extremist Islamic interpretations unfortunately have with women.

Being a 'macho' gay is not only accepted, it has a kind of cachet.

But to Chris Cuilla's question, I do not think that believing that wrong exists makes one a bigot.

Clearly if I commit a 'sin' such as stealing say, I may (in Chris's view) be sinning and he would certainly not be a bigot for criticising my actions.

However, when the 'sin' focuses on what someone actually is as opposed to what they might do as in the cases of skin colour or sexual orientation then yes, I would call that bigotry.

Of course there are two answers to this that the religious usually employ:

1) to claim that being gay is a 'choice' and relegate it thereby to the level of stealing or some such

2) to wheel out the old standby 'God hates the sin but loves the sinner'.

Maybe so, but we are talking about God - we are talking about people far removed.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Last year, the Jerusalem City Hall miserably failed to gain sufficient public support to prevent the annual gay pride parade from taking place, and so claimed the power to decide laid with the police.
The ultra-religious mayor, Mr. Uri Lupoliansky of the Deggel ha-Torah (“Banner of the Law”) party, was very embarassed in front of his main constituency, and quite a sight it was.
The city's politics are quite complicated, as no segment of the voting public: secular and moderate Jews, ultra-religious Jews, Arab Muslims and Christians (most of whom tend to be what is called “socially-conservative” Stateside) can hold a majority, but one can say with certainty that while seculars still weild significant electoral weight (when and if they bother to vote, that is) there are more religious conservatives (all persuasions combined) than seculars.

And this year, City Hall was better prepared, and was able to gather sufficient support from conservative groups of the three main religious communities, in a show of interfaith cooperation uncommon in the land.
The parade organisers already appealed to the High Court (equivalent to the Supreme Court in the U.S.) and have more than a probable chance to win there.

I understand the many reservations local religious traditionalists have about such extravaganzas, it's not all that bothersome though. It's not like participation was compulsory. I heard they have those in Rome too, and see no reason why we mustn't have some in Jerusalem, or in Qom, or Mecca and Medinah for that matter.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
It's not like participation was compulsory. I heard they have those in Rome too, and see no reason why we mustn't have some in Jerusalem, or in Qom, or Mecca and Medinah for that matter.

Got to love your style Immanuel, it truly is of a higher class altogether (do I detect minute traces of an English-style education somewhere in the dim distant past ?) but I'm afraid that everyone knows there are no Gays in Qum or the Peninsular....

I think it's something to do with the climate.

:devil:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa decided that black people had souls around the turn of the century, I think, and admitted them to their congregations within the last thirty years.

It's all in the Bible in black and white.

edit: no, I'm not saying that Christianity inevitably leads to bigotry, merely that their Book has demonstrably been used by homophobes and racists to lend them licence to act on their prejudices.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
edit: no, I'm not saying that Christianity inevitably leads to bigotry, merely that their Book has demonstrably been used by homophobes and racists to lend them licence to act on their prejudices.

This is most certainly true. But isn't this kind of things true about other texts? The Koran and "Jihad" for example. Many claim that "jihad" is a "spiritual" war (intended to be individual in nature as in some kind of personal struggle)...but some have used it as a license to act out their prejudices (and violence).

I think everyone should be more careful...and seperate things a bit. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I am like all other Christians...or, in particular that I (or any other particular individual) "hate gays" (or anyone else for that matter). Just because I believe the Bible and some have used (and still do) use the Bible as a license for bigotry doesn't make me (or any other particular individual) a bigot.

Something else that needs to be kept in mind too is that often the people railing against "bigotry" and "intolerance" are demonstrating the very same sins they decry.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by segovius
Got to love your style Immanuel, it truly is of a higher class altogether (do I detect minute traces of an English-style education somewhere in the dim distant past ?)
More like an exposure to antebellum cultural styles, some of it of British, some of it of Central-European nature, most of it not formal (long story).

but I'm afraid that everyone knows there are no Gays in Qum or the Peninsular....
Just as Queen Victoria knew there were no lesbians in the Empire.

And for reasons of self-preservation, individuals of the above-mentioned orientation in Persia and Arabia, make it so it stays the way everyone knows.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
More like an exposure to antebellum cultural styles, some of it of British, some of it of Central-European nature, most of it not formal (long story).


Just as Queen Victoria knew there were no lesbians in the Empire.

And for reasons of self-preservation, individuals of the above-mentioned orientation in Persia and Arabia, make it so it stays the way everyone knows.

Immanuel, are you familiar with the Arabic work alf layla wa layla ?

I'm sure it is better known by its famous Orientalized European title but you know I'm a purist in these matters :D

In relation to the topic under discussion it contains some very interesting vignettes for those of a certain taste and is a bit of an eye opener on the middle eastern view of matters sexual. I can heartily recommend it.

I believe Richard Burton was particularly interested in this aspect and devoted almost a book of footnotes to the topic which is a goldmine for those whose interests incline in this direction.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Just as Queen Victoria knew there were no lesbians in the Empire.


**coffee noser**

:lol: :lol:

**goes off to clean keyboard**

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by segovius
Immanuel, are you familiar with the Arabic work alf layla wa layla ?
Less so than with Yanbu al-Hayat or Dalalat al-Hayirin, but I'm quite familiar nonethless, as it's rather inevitable where I come from, like with the Knights of the Round Table elsewhere.

In relation to the topic under discussion it contains some very interesting vignettes…
It tells of the time when it was the Fertile Crescent, which was more libertine and less pious than the barbaric kingdoms which stood on the ruins of the former Roman Empire of Occident. These days much of the region seems to be experiencing some mini Middle-Ages (as in “mini ice age”).

I believe Richard Burton was particularly interested in this aspect and devoted almost a book of footnotes to the topic which is a goldmine for those whose interests incline in this direction.
As I recall he translated the actual book into English and included much commentaries and explanations to make it more accessible to his countryfolks.

[Protostar]

Agendas are a good thing. I have an agenda of promoting tolerance and equality and condemning hatred and bigotry. And I'm willing to shove it down any bigot's throat.

Then what makes you any different than any other bigot, Tonton? Because what you feel you are promoting is "right"? I feel that homosexuality is wrong and I believe that I am right but I'm not going to shove it down another person's throat, as you have said here.

When you call someone a "faggot", intending to demean or insult them, you are a bigot.

Agreed

When you deny them rights, like to rent a home or to hold a parade, you are a bigot.

Well if you don't want them in your house because you donot like that lifestyle that they choose to live then I feel you are well within your rights not to rent them the house. As for the parades, if their proud to be gay fine. But I don't
a parade of "gayness" is necessary.

When you (as a lawmaker) pass a law that denies them rights, you are the worst kind of bigot.

Some wish to have the definition of marriage remain an agreement between a man and a woman, and I see no problem with this. If you want gay marriage, it is legal in Canada so you're welcome to go there.

When you, as a parent, kick your kid out of the only home he can have, and the only family he will ever have, you are a reprehensible bigot with neither conscience nor any idea whastoever about "what Jesus would do".

Again, if a parent doesn't like the lifestyle you're living they have every right to kick you out. If the parents don't like you drinking, smoking, etc. (all lifestyles choices) then they have every right to kick you to the curb. The same goes for homosexuality. Also there is embarassment as well. Do you know how embarassing it would be for a parent, especially if its the father, to find out that their child is a homosexual? I wouldn't only kick my kid out, I'd disown
him. He would no longer be my son, and I would force him to change his last name (if possible).

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I am like all other Christians...or, in particular that I (or any other particular individual) "hate gays" (or anyone else for that matter). Just because I believe the Bible and some have used (and still do) use the Bible as a license for bigotry doesn't make me (or any other particular individual) a bigot.

Something else that needs to be kept in mind too is that often the people railing against "bigotry" and "intolerance" are demonstrating the very same sins they decry.
Couldn't have said any of that better myself.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Protostar
If the parents don't like you drinking, smoking, etc. (all lifestyles choices) then they have every right to kick you to the curb. The same goes for homosexuality. Also there is embarassment as well. Do you know how embarassing it would be for a parent, especially if its the father, to find out that their child is a homosexual? I wouldn't only kick my kid out, I'd disown
him. He would no longer be my son, and I would force him to change his last name (if possible). I completely agree. I mean, what are people going to think of you if your own kid is a homosexual? Best to just cut your losses.

Alternatively, you could send your progeny off to a camp (http://www.loveinaction.org/) to cure the homosexuality. It's run by an ex-gay, so he obviously knows what he's doing. And I'm sure that investigation (http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=1264) into the fact that they're unlicensed will blow over soon enough.

[tonton]

Careful, there's a chance he may not realize you're being ironic.

In other words, Protostar, what he's hinting at is the question: What's a worse reflection of a parent? That their child is gay, or that they have turned away their own child? The answer is obvious.

There is no gay "lifestyle" in this question. It's gay or not gay, and it's not a choice. Religious fundies and homopobes just don't understand this.

[Protostar]

Originally posted by tonton
Careful, there's a chance he may not realize you're being ironic.

In other words, Protostar, what he's hinting at is the question: What's a worse reflection of a parent? That their child is gay, or that they have turned away their own child? The answer is obvious.

There is no gay "lifestyle" in this question. It's gay or not gay, and it's not a choice. Religious fundies and homopobes just don't understand this.

Whatever, tonton. :rolleyes: I refuse to believe homosexuality is not a choice. Smoking is a choice. Drinking is a choice. SO is homosexuality. I don't care about the reflection on me. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of my child if he ever chose the homosexual lifestyle. I would no longer deem him worthy to carry the family name.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
There is no gay "lifestyle" in this question. It's gay or not gay, and it's not a choice.

And this is a belief.

I realize than many people want to believe that this could not possibly be a human behavioral choice (even sub-conciously) it is much easier to accept that it is genetic or in-born.

And, if it is genetic or in-born, then it is wrong to, well, say that it is wrong. Much like it would be wrong to say it's wrong to have blue eyes or red hair or freckles or have dark skin or be a certain gender. This very reasoning is what causes supporters of "gay rights" to link themselves with the civil-rights movement.

I have heard all of the arguments before, the two primary ones being:

1. When did you choose to be a heterosexual?

2. Why would someone choose a "lifestyle" that sets themselves up for such hardship?

Both are fallacious arguments and themselves do not offer a proof of the genetic or in-born nature of homosexuality.

First, even if you can prove that someone has never "chosen" to be heterosexual, doesn't prove that someone else has not "chosen" to be homosexual.

Second, people choose to do lots of things that lead to hardship, ridicule and other ill-effects in their lives.

But, for the moment, let's go with this (unproven) assertion. Let's break this down.

1. People are born with certain traits.

2. People engage in certain behaviors.

The general argument is that there are certain things in #2 (let's homosexual behavior) that are unavoidable or uncontrollable due to certain things in #1.

- Is this true?

- Is is a correct assumption about anything else?

- If it is true, is the behavior made "right" by virtue of the fact that it derives from an in-born trait of some kind?

Let's try some examples:

- Stealing
- Lying
- Violent behaviors
- Sexual predatory behaviors

Let's say that any one of these behaviors derived from some in-born trait. If this is true, would that behavior be "okay"? If so, only for people with that trait?

Now...before anyone gets inflamed...I picked these specific examples exactly because they are behaviors that most people commonly agree to be "wrong".

There are some (many?) that also believe that homosexual behavior is "wrong" also (regardless of any in-born, genetic pre-disposition to it).

We can argue until the cows come home (when is that by the way?) But it all boils down to different beliefs about what is "right" and what is "wrong". Christians (and Jews and Muslims I suspect as well), would say that there is an absolute and independent (of our own personal feelings, ideas and wisdom) source of "rightness" and "wrongness"...God...revealed through scripture.

Now you may not agree with it, but it is superficial and simplistic to dismiss it simply because you don't. All you are saying is that "your view doesn't matter because I don't agree with it."

It is quite interesting to note that those that hold that "homosexuality is just a natural, normal expression of human love, and there is nothing evil, sinful or wrong with it", hold this view/belief with the same fervor and zealousness as do those that hold the opposite view. The certainty that they are absolutely "right".

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And this is a belief.

I realize than many people want to believe that this could not possibly be a human behavioral choice (even sub-conciously) it is much easier to accept that it is genetic or in-born.

And, if it is genetic or in-born, then it is wrong to, well, say that it is wrong. Much like it would be wrong to say it's wrong to have blue eyes or red hair or freckles or have dark skin or be a certain gender. This very reasoning is what causes supporters of "gay rights" to link themselves with the civil-rights movement.

I have heard all of the arguments before, the two primary ones being:

1. When did you choose to be a heterosexual?

2. Why would someone choose a "lifestyle" that sets themselves up for such hardship?

Both are fallacious arguments and themselves do not offer a proof of the genetic or in-born nature of homosexuality.

First, even if you can prove that someone has never "chosen" to be heterosexual, doesn't prove that someone else has not "chosen" to be homosexual.

Second, people choose to do lots of things that lead to hardship, ridicule and other ill-effects in their lives.

But, for the moment, let's go with this (unproven) assertion. Let's break this down.

1. People are born with certain traits.

2. People engage in certain behaviors.

The general argument is that there are certain things in #2 (let's homosexual behavior) that are unavoidable or uncontrollable due to certain things in #1.

- Is this true?

- Is is a correct assumption about anything else?

- If it is true, is the behavior made "right" by virtue of the fact that it derives from an in-born trait of some kind?

Let's try some examples:

- Stealing
- Lying
- Violent behaviors
- Sexual predatory behaviors

Let's say that any one of these behaviors derived from some in-born trait. If this is true, would that behavior be "okay"? If so, only for people with that trait?

Now...before anyone gets inflamed...I picked these specific examples exactly because they are behaviors that most people commonly agree to be "wrong".

There are some (many?) that also believe that homosexual behavior is "wrong" also (regardless of any in-born, genetic pre-disposition to it).

We can argue until the cows come home (when is that by the way?) But it all boils down to different beliefs about what is "right" and what is "wrong". Christians (and Jews and Muslims I suspect as well), would say that there is an absolute and independent (of our own personal feelings, ideas and wisdom) source of "rightness" and "wrongness"...God...revealed through scripture.

Now you may not agree with it, but it is superficial and simplistic to dismiss it simply because you don't. All you are saying is that "your view doesn't matter because I don't agree with it."


It is quite interesting to note that those that hold that "homosexuality is just a natural, normal expression of human love, and there is nothing evil, sinful or wrong with it", hold this view/belief with the same fervor and zealousness as do those that hold the opposite view. The certainty that they are absolutely "right".

Wow. What a lot of fake logic dancing around, all to protect yourself from the obvious (to anyone who knows any gay folks).

Of course, you sort of have to do that dance, since by your own admission to acknowledge the obvious would mean your prejudice is wrong.

Your prejudice is wrong. All the genetic, medical, experiential and common sensical evidence tells us that sexual orientation is as much a part of our genetic makeup as hair color or handedness.

I know dozens of gay people, and the simple, straightforward manifestation of their sexuality is so obvious, so easily in sync with who they are that the idea that they are "choosing" their orientation, for whatever bizarre motivations, is laughably ignorant.

Of course, in the bosom of your Jesus loving peoples, it may be that you are making any homosexuals in sight so fucking miserable that you regard their sadness as evidence of their debased nature. If so, better pray harder. I suspect God really really hates it when you do that.

You are in precisely the same position as the racist of the earlier part of this century who is at some pains to explain the "rational" basis for his blind prejudice.

"I have nothing against the Negro", he explains. "I wish him well, and hope that he make seek his betterment. However, it is simply an undeniable fact, both medically and scripturally, that the Negro is not blessed with the same faculties of reason and judgment as the Caucasian races. Though he may strive in earnest, he will never be capable of marshaling the powers of civilized discourse and behavior on which this great society is founded. Therefore I say with no animosity that the Negro can never participate in the larger business of the nation, lest we find ourselves brought down to his level"

Doesn't that sound appalling to the modern ear? Isn't it made all the worse by its tone of pseudo-earnestness and rationality? Its specious appeals to fake science and a highly selective reading of the Bible?

Precisely the tack you are taking. I just hope you have the breadth of character to be embarrassed by your nonsense, in 20 or 30 years, when this sad, foolish and pointless bigotry is broadly understood to be lie that it is.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
Wow. What a lot of fake logic dancing around, all to protect yourself from the obvious (to anyone who knows any gay folks).

Of course, you sort of have to do that dance, since by your own admission to acknowledge the obvious would mean your prejudice is wrong.

No fake logic. And you offer no logic at all...merely conjecture and opinion.

No dancing. And, yet, this is all you appear to do.

Originally posted by addabox
Your prejudice is wrong.

Which definition of "prejudice" do you refer?

1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
1b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

Originally posted by addabox
All the genetic, medical, experiential and common sensical evidence tells us that sexual orientation is as much a part of our genetic makeup as hair color or handedness.

When in doubt...wave your hands wildly and assert unproven "facts" as indisputable "truth".

Originally posted by addabox
I know dozens of gay people, and the simple, straightforward manifestation of their sexuality is so obvious, so easily in sync with who they are that the idea that they are "choosing" their orientation, for whatever bizarre motivations, is laughably ignorant.

Again...can you say conjecture?

Originally posted by addabox
You are in precisely the same position as the racist of the earlier part of this century who is at some pains to explain the "rational" basis for his blind prejudice.

You could not be more wrong (though I am reasonably confident that your future posts will attempt to disprove this assertion of mine.)

Originally posted by addabox
"I have nothing against the Negro", he explains. "I wish him well, and hope that he make seek his betterment. However, it is simply an undeniable fact, both medically and scripturally, that the Negro is not blessed with the same faculties of reason and judgment as the Caucasian races. Though he may strive in earnest, he will never be capable of marshaling the powers of civilized discourse and behavior on which this great society is founded. Therefore I say with no animosity that the Negro can never participate in the larger business of the nation, lest we find ourselves brought down to his level"

Doesn't that sound appalling to the modern ear? Isn't it made all the worse by its tone of pseudo-earnestness and rationality? Its specious appeals to fake science and a highly selective reading of the Bible?

Precisely the tack you are taking.

If you'd like to see a parallel between that and what I have said, so be it. I cannot cure your own blindness or irrationality.

Originally posted by addabox
I just hope you have the breadth of character to be embarrassed by your nonsense, in 20 or 30 years, when this sad, foolish and pointless bigotry is broadly understood to be lie that it is.

You have accused me of bigotry...but where? How? I have stated a belief about behavior and its rightness or wrongness. How is this any different from your stating your belief that my opinions are wrong? If I am a bigot, then so must you be.

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
Precisely the tack you are taking. I just hope you have the breadth of character to be embarrassed by your nonsense, in 20 or 30 years, when this sad, foolish and pointless bigotry is broadly understood to be lie that it is.

No, it has nothing to do with the tack that Chris Cullia is taking. This is about living with a knowledge of reality that is revelatory. There are no anti-negro passages in the Bible to be gleaned -- quite the opposite. Chattel slavery is also prohibited in no uncertain terms. The blatant disregard the American South had for the Black man was fueled less with the Bible and unfortunately primarily with the same ideal that allowed the Smithsonian and many other "Scientifically Minded" people to hunt down Australian Aborigines and kill them for study in America.

It is a fact that homosexual behavior was removed from the DSM for political reasons. But like other scientific, and psychological flights of fancy --- such as evolutionists and their belief in "subhuman creatures", the facts don't have to be there before the zeitgeist at large lines up at the pop-culture through. The public at large is doing the gays among us a disservice as they encourage the effacing of their creator's image.

Yes, we all sin, but why call a failure in judgment or an unjust desire healthy, or good? But then sexual license of copulation as divertissement, love as lust, romance as sexual fulfillment, and done at large, for any reason, with anyone, needs to be reexamined.

Yes "the Bible is a fake, God is dead and there is no one to tell you what to do" --- but at the same time once you unplug any overarching principles as "bigoted" we are left to believe you, at you word, with no authority other than yourself -- with nothing more than SETI logic and selectively-sourced material backing you up.

Not good.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by addabox
All the genetic, medical, experiential and common sensical evidence tells us that sexual orientation is as much a part of our genetic makeup as hair color or handedness.
Interesting. I saw a talk show not too long ago where the guests were identical twin women. One was straight, and one was gay. Now, if homosexuality is genetic:

1) Who does it get passed down from?
2) Why weren't both of those twins gay?

I don't think gays "choose" to be homosexual. I also don't believe men who were beaten as children choose to beat their wives. Child molesters, for whatever reason, probably don't choose to do perverse things to children.

I'm not equating homosexuality to spousal abuse or child molestation. The point I'm trying to make is that -- for whatever reason -- all the elements of a person's life comes together to make them who they are. Our genetics, family, friends, education, clothing, food, etc. etc. all come together to form and shape our very beings.

Why are gays gay? I have no idea, but I don't think it's genetic or born into a person. Do I think homosexuality is right? No, but I don't think that a gay person is likely to be turned straight.

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Do I believe this because I don't want gays to marry? Not really. It's more because marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. There's a reason for that. Call my opinion bigotry if you'd like.

[BRussell]

On the twin issue, a number of studies have replicated a genetic effect: About half of gays' identical twins are also gay (which is about 10 times higher than the population at large), whereas about 20% of gays' fraternal twins were also gay. Look up studies by "Pillard." Those numbers are in line with other traits or diseases said to be heavily genetic, like schizophrenia or IQ.

But as Cosmonut indicates, the genetic issue is a bit of a red herring. Even traits that are pure nurture over nature may not be a choice. For example, things acquired in the womb: Having a healthy vs. an alcoholic mom influence a baby a ton, and yet are not genetic. And there is some evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by the prenatal environment.

[dmz]

There is also the business of a growning ex-gay community to consider.

[Stoo]

What are they growning about?

[frezal]

Let the gays have a parade. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

[Chris Cuilla]

I thought better of it.

[Frank777]

The various Gay Rights arguments have been beaten to death here at AI, so I'll defer to past threads.

But I do have one question: Does this particular part of the world really need this?

I mean, the Mideast is a powder keg on its good days. It's got bombings and stonings on a daily basis, oil supply political factors along with religious and cultural resentment and hatred on a scale that is wildly out of proportion with the region's size and population.

By all means, let's duke this out in Western Civilization. But maybe we could deal with all that other stuff before we add any more to Jerusalem's plate.

[Gene Clean]

What you call Western Civilization comes from those places, Frank.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
No, it has nothing to do with the tack that Chris Cullia is taking. This is about living with a knowledge of reality that is revelatory. There are no anti-negro passages in the Bible to be gleaned -- quite the opposite.

The OT is itself in one view, a racialist tract. It tells the story of a racial group that believed itself to be superior to all other racial groups it encountered, that 'God' was unique to them, and that they had the right to slaughter members not of their racial group and protect those that were.

Just because people who are not of that racial group have bought into that belief proves nothing.

But I digress. Here is a question: were Adam and Eve black, white or belonging to some other racial group ?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius


But I digress. Here is a question: where Adam and Eve black, white or belonging to some other racial group ?

Hi there. - They were white. look at the forms of the word "dhm". But you knew that already :D

[SpcMs]

Let's try some examples:

- Stealing
- Lying
- Violent behaviors
- Sexual predatory behaviors

Let's say that any one of these behaviors derived from some in-born trait. If this is true, would that behavior be "okay"? If so, only for people with that trait?
Let's try.
I steal from you, so you suffer from that.
I lie to you, so you suffer from that.
I hit you in the face, so you suffer from that.
I rape or molest you, so you suffer from that.
I engage with you in consentual homosexual behavior, so ... euhm ... God gets really pissed and you want to go a second time?

Nice try, i guess.

[MarcUK]

I was just wondering, if straight people held a parade flaunting their heteroness, would there be homosexuals who found that to be mocking their homoness?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Let's try.
I steal from you, so you suffer from that.
I lie to you, so you suffer from that.
I hit you in the face, so you suffer from that.
I rape or molest you, so you suffer from that.
I engage with you in consentual homosexual behavior, so ... euhm ... God gets really pissed and you want to go a second time?

Nice try, i guess.

And you are layering your own definition of "rightness" and "wrongness" (i.e., "if it hurts another person it is wrong, if it doesn't it isn't") onto the question. If there is an absolute and independent (of our own opinions, feelings, beliefs and wisdom) source of right and wrong (which many people do believe)...such as God...then our definitions are meaningless.

And just because you do not agree with or believe that there is a God or that He has revealed himself (and His definitions of rightness and wrongness) in a way that some (many) people have come to recognize, doesn't mean it all doesn't exist. "Some things have to be believed to be seen."

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
The OT is itself in one view, a racialist tract. It tells the story of a racial group that believed itself to be superior to all other racial groups it encountered, that 'God' was unique to them, and that they had the right to slaughter members not of their racial group and protect those that were.

Okay, just don't tell Rahab and Nahman or "all Nations".
Originally posted by segovius

Just because people who are not of that racial group have bought into that belief proves nothing.

Less really is more. Gotcha.
Originally posted by segovius
But I digress. Here is a question: where Adam and Eve black, white or belonging to some other racial group ?
On the 'race' thing -- first of all "race" is hair color and skin color and nothing else. Culture is the difference, not something as superfical as skin pigmentation. Since we know the the gene pool is getting shallower as the centuries pass, if you exptrapolate back any length of time you would probably would have some sort of amalgamation. Unless you think that mankind evolved in triplicate, there is one couple in history with a all the DNA that we share today, and quite frankly who really cares what thier skin color was?

[the cool gut]

The only thing Jerusalem has going for it is a cool sounding name. They are just as far behind the times as any of the other fucked up nations in the region.

Just take a look at the area - that isn't the land of God - it's God's crapper.

[dmz]

Originally posted by SpcMs
I engage with you in consentual homosexual behavior, so ... euhm ... God gets really pissed and you want to go a second time?

Nice try, i guess.
No, the gay lifestyle, like other forms of unethical sexual expression as a lifestyle, is a rebelling against the social order. Its about NOT living in a context as a man or a woman as God-created beings with a specific place and function in History.

Life, and reason, and yes, order, are derivative of God -- they aren't abstractions or things-as-such. Gays live in a context of God-given responsibilities to the culture around them, responsibilities that rest in 'go forth, be fruitful, take dominion, etc. Gays reject that charge when they choose to legitimize that lifestyle. A fundamental abandonment of the desire to reproduce, as rebelling against being mature creatures of God.

And this mentality is not limited to the Gays, by any means.

[the cool gut]

"Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone" Whatever happened to that?

[hardeeharhar]

dmz, ethics requires reasons, the word you are looking for is 'immoral'...

[the cool gut]

And by the way, there are Christian religions with Gay clergy - so that blows your argument out of the water, DMZ.

[dmz]

Originally posted by the cool gut
And by the way, there are Christian religions with Gay clergy - so that blows your argument out of the water, DMZ.
No, that is a essentially a bunch of Barthians masquerading as Christian clergy.

You can't logically allow the gay lifestyle if you hold with the Bible as revelatory; you have to depart for it in some fashion, either by deconstructing the text, or by philosophically tampering with it, or changing the nature of sin, etc.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
No, that is a essentially a bunch of Barthians masquerading as Christian clergy.

You can't logically allow the gay lifestyle if you hold with the Bible as revelatory; you have to depart for it in some fashion, either by deconstructing the text, or by philosophically tampering with it, or changing the nature of sin, etc.

But don't Christians do that already, how else do we get a bajillion 'True' faiths derived from it?

[soulcrusher]

I was taught to respect people's beliefs and for the longest time I tried.

Later on I just realize that there are certain beliefs that I should not tolerate, beliefs that arise from the misuse of logic and the assumption of false premises.

So, in matters like these I often don't know if I should avoid discussion or be openly mean. I have in the past done the former.

Today is different.

Fuck god.

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But don't Christians do that already, how else do we get a bajillion 'True' faiths derived from it?
Not in that sense, you can go to the Greek Orthodox and get subordination of the Holy Spirit, or differing views of the Eschatology, etc, but you'll have search high and low for anything like this.

Historically, Christianity has gone from a fairly primitve faith to what we have to work with today, but the common theme until recently is "Solo Scriptura" and even the Roman Chruch is feeling this. It's always been, generally speaking, a quest to get closer to Scripture, and not to deconstruct it. I'm not certain that even a guy like Bishop Robinson would describe himself as fully orthodox.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by dmz
No, the gay lifestyle, like other forms of unethical sexual expression as a lifestyle, is a rebelling against the social order. Its about NOT living in a context as a man or a woman as God-created beings with a specific place and function in History.

Life, and reason, and yes, order, are derivative of God -- they aren't abstractions or things-as-such. Gays live in a context of God-given responsibilities to the culture around them, responsibilities that rest in 'go forth, be fruitful, take dominion, etc. Gays reject that charge when they choose to legitimize that lifestyle. A fundamental abandonment of the desire to reproduce, as rebelling against being mature creatures of God.

And this mentality is not limited to the Gays, by any means.
Excellent, now it's not only right to discriminate against gays, but also against anyone who doesn't follow your God. I mean, can't you see how stupid this is? Everybody's God is 'absolutely' right and everybody else's absolutely wrong. Frankly, you are in no way better than your average terrorist. Actually, you are worse, because you have no excuse for turning to religious extremism other that to excuse your bigotery.
Here's a question for you: if they discover a 100% authentic scripture by whoever it is you worship that states you should respect all sexual orientations as equal, would that change your view on homosexuality?

Anyway, it's nice to see this quote
And you are layering your own definition of "rightness" and "wrongness" (i.e., "if it hurts another person it is wrong, if it doesn't it isn't") onto the question. If there is an absolute and independent (of our own opinions, feelings, beliefs and wisdom) source of right and wrong (which many people do believe)...such as God...then our definitions are meaningless.

And just because you do not agree with or believe that there is a God or that He has revealed himself (and His definitions of rightness and wrongness) in a way that some (many) people have come to recognize, doesn't mean it all doesn't exist. "Some things have to be believed to be seen."
I guess I don't have to make a list of wrongs that were excused by religion. And I guess you don't have a way of differentiating between right and wrong other than your very personal interpretation of some very old and arguable random collection of texts? Lets just say i prefer my definition.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

The Jerusalem magistrate court (and not the High Court as I mistakenly wrote earlier) ruled today in favour of the gay pride organisers, to whom mayor Lupoliansky has been ordered to pay the amount of thirty-thousand shekels (of his own money, not City Hall's). The parade will take place as scheduled: next Thursday.
So I guess “Jerusalem un-bans Gay Pride” would make it more exact thread title.

Not that I expect these few bits of information to bother those not-so-familiar with the actual city of Jerusalem, its inhabitants, and the surrounding region, to sound self-righteous judgements about the lot; likewise the other high and mighty judgments common on this thread.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
No, the gay lifestyle, like other forms of unethical sexual expression as a lifestyle, is a rebelling against the social order.[/I].

species - % homosexual - % bisexual - % heterosexual

silver gulls (females) 10 11 79
black headed gulls (both sexes) 22 15 63
Japanese macaques (both sexes) 9 56 35
bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) 0 100 0
galahs (both sexes) 44 11 44

source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35.

Outrageous animal faggots in rebellion against God (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The Jerusalem magistrate court (and not the High Court as I mistakenly wrote earlier) ruled today in favour of the gay pride organisers, to whom mayor Lupoliansky has been ordered to pay the amount of thirty-thousand shekels (of his own money, not City Hall's). The parade will take place as scheduled: next Thursday.
So I guess “Jerusalem un-bans Gay Pride” would make it more exact thread title.

Not that I expect these few bits of information to bother those not-so-familiar with the actual city of Jerusalem, its inhabitants, and the surrounding region, to sound self-righteous judgements about the lot; likewise the other high and mighty judgments common on this thread.

Hold on - we can't know the future before it happens. Your re-title is therefore clearly wrong.

Perhaps the correct one would have been:

Jerusalem bans gay pride march pending legal appeal which may overturn the ban if it is not upheld at some point in the near or distant future but dependent on further appeals or the withdrawal of the parade by the organisers or possible assassination of the same by the anti-gay protesters unless there is an earthquake in the region which militates against the march, providing all those associated with it (either pro or con) are still living and not sadly deceased in some calamitous event such as the outbreak of WW3.

[tonton]

Originally posted by dmz
There is also the business of a growning ex-gay community to consider.

Which is about as factual as the "growning" support for American troops in Iraq.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=21942

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section10.html

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
Not in that sense, you can go to the Greek Orthodox and get subordination of the Holy Spirit, or differing views of the Eschatology, etc, but you'll have search high and low for anything like this.

Historically, Christianity has gone from a fairly primitve faith to what we have to work with today, but the common theme until recently is "Solo Scriptura" and even the Roman Chruch is feeling this. It's always been, generally speaking, a quest to get closer to Scripture, and not to deconstruct it. I'm not certain that even a guy like Bishop Robinson would describe himself as fully orthodox.

Your use of the word primitive reveals a lot here.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
mayor Lupoliansky has been ordered to pay the amount of thirty-thousand shekels Haha. The Israeli courts are quite, um, activist, aren't they?

Do conservatives hate them as much as our conservatives hate our courts?

[segovius]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Your use of the word primitive reveals a lot here.

Also bear in mind that 'get closer to scripture' in fact decodes to 'rigidly adhere to a man made construct that was invented in the 17th century and almost exclusively based on the King James Version.'

In fact 90% plus of what passes for current 'Christian' theology is based on the KJV and clearly it is a work of deliberate obfuscation. And that's before you get to the bits they left out and altered - not to mention the books they 'demonised' and burnt or otherwise destroyed during the 'revelatory' process.

Vaguely interesting link (http://www.aoreport.com/200503_stdy-wrongKJVonly.htm)

[addabox]

You know, one thing that never seems to come up in the "christian" rational for Why Gay People are Bad And Should Stop is any sense that any of ya'll actually know any gay people.

It's so much easier to spin your little notions of God's boundless ugliness when you can keep your ignorance pristine, don't you think? It must be so clear, with your subscriptions to Nasty Oiled Leather Boy Agenda Weekly, that "gayness" is all about images of the most flamboyant, most politically aggressive queers that some miserable, closeted old bastard of a "man of the cloth" can find on his frequent visit to gay porn sites.

I wish some of ya'll could meet some of my friends. My queer friends. They're, you know, folks. Amazingly enough, they have jobs, enjoy movies, purchase homes, hang out, ride bikes, love their families, worry about aging, fuck up, make amends, get sentimental about funny things, have regrets, get sad, get angry, seek peace of mind and hope for the best. Some of them are Christian, though I can't imagine why, some of them are Buddhist, atheist, haven't thought about it much, etc.

None of them have the sense they are creeping around in defiance of God. The idea would make any of them laugh, hard, because that idea is so silly and really very very insane. Most of them are in committed long term relationships, and have been for longer than a lot of my straight friends.

I can promise you that none of them lie awake at night wondering if they should make an effort to "be straight", an idea with all the plausibility of any of you wondering if it's not time to "go gay".

All of them have known were gay since at least early adolescence. None of them came to that understanding because a scary fag boogie man lured them into fag ally from whence they could never escape. They came to that understanding because they were attracted to their own sex.

Depending on where they came from, those feelings were, variously, horrifying, deeply shameful, dangerous, to be kept secret at all cost, not acted upon till much later, or, in very rare cases, pretty much OK, which just meant my friend got to have a merely confusing roller coaster ride of adolescence like everybody else, instead of having the added attraction of wondering if she was going to be outed and shunned or beaten.

To believe, as has been constantly asserted here, that these friends of mine "chose" to be gay, out of animosity to God, or some profound antisocial streak or willful perversity, I believe you would have to either not know any gay people, or if you do be willfully blind to them, or possibly be just a complete fucking moron.

I know people who are living with crippling moral compromises. I used to be one. It makes you hooded, and secretive, and cuts you off from the joys of community. I know exactly what it feels like to know you are "doing wrong" and not be able to come to terms with that.

Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, petty thieves, people who hurt other people through the agency of their sexuality (straight or gay), chronic liars.... it fucks you up in ways that are apparent to those around you.

Homosexuality is not that. Anyone who knows anyone who is not being tortured for being gay can see that. Well, anyone who isn't grimly determined to cling to their medieval belief system.

Yes, it's just my opinion, based merely on my personal experience as human being who has encountered a fair number of human beings in his life.

I'm in the position of a guy who's been to France, saying "Say, those French aren't all a bunch of assholes, as I had been told. They are actually a lovely peoples" arguing with people who have never left their home town saying "Nope, got this book right here, says the French are assholes. You don't have a leg to stand on".

Any-who, it's all good. The queer cat is out of the bag, and history is taking its course. The worst of you will learn to keep your bullshit to yourself, and more and more gay people who don't have to keep it secret will gradually wear down the ignorance that surrounds them. Once Mom and Pop Kettle realize that cute little Jones boy is a big old fag (and yet, oddly enough, he never wears butless chaps or stalks little boys or praises Satan) they'll have to consider that maybe a lot of things they have been told are stupid, slanderous lies.

As goes Mom and Pop Kettle, so goes America. Have fun with your yellow highlighters and Bibles kids.

[tonton]

Originally posted by addabox
You know, one thing that never seems to come up in the "christian" rational for Why Gay People are Bad And Should Stop is any sense that any of ya'll actually know any gay people.

Oh, they know gay people. They just might not know they know gay people. Also, many of them might be gay people. And their dads and moms and sisters and brothers and pastors and babysitters might be gay people too. Some practicing in secrecy. Some repressed. Some tortured by their homoerotic dreams. Some travelling to the next city or the next state to go to gay bars in secrecy. Some with huge internet gay porn collections. And still screaming that gayness is evil the whole time.

But of course you knew all that...

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by segovius
Hold on - we can't know the future before it happens. Your re-title is therefore clearly wrong.

The ban has been ruled out today. So it is in effect un-banned.

Perhaps the correct one would have been:

Jerusalem bans gay pride march pending legal appeal…
Has City Hall or any other person or group made any appeal to a higher court that you know of? If not, I'd advise those interested to do so, to make haste.

…which may overturn the ban if it is not upheld at some point in the near or distant future…
It would have to be not too distant, before next Thursday, that is.

…but dependent on further appeals or the withdrawal of the parade by the organisers or possible assassination of the same by the anti-gay protesters unless there is an earthquake in the region (…) WW3.
Not to mention some completely different future event after next Friday, through some completely unknown space-time occurence to cause the whole thing (act of God, WW3, et al) to have happened last February; and we all are presently too busy jubilanting about those new lines of shiny G7 multi-core multi-processing PowerBooks and PowerMacs launched at the most recent WWDC (whither Marklar?).

[segovius]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The ban has been ruled out today. So it is in effect un-banned.


Has City Hall or any other person or group made any appeal to a higher court that you know of? If not, I'd advise those interested to do so, to make haste.


It would have to be not too distant, before next Thursday, that is.


Not to mention some completely different future event after next Friday, through some completely unknown space-time occurence to cause the whole thing (act of God, WW3, et al) to have happened last February; and we all are presently too busy jubilanting about those new lines of shiny G7 multi-core multi-processing PowerBooks and PowerMacs launched at the most recent WWDC (whither Marklar?).

Exactly, that sort of thing , yeah :D

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by BRussell
Haha. The Israeli courts are quite, um, activist, aren't they?
Quite so.
They never had to intervene in the matter of general elections though.

Do conservatives hate them as much as our conservatives hate our courts?
I don't know enough about the U.S. situation to make a valid comparison, but the Israeli judiciary (the High Court of Justice, particularly) is quite resented by sizable swaths of the right-of-centre, religiously-leaning public.

[dmz]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Excellent, now it's not only right to discriminate against gays, but also against anyone who doesn't follow your God. I mean, can't you see how stupid this is?
...and you discriminate against those who don't follow the all-holy self. You are ready to state absolutely that certain absolutes are not possible. You have no authority except the self, and you have no systematic from which to proceed. We have your word for it and nothing else.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
...and you discriminate against those who don't follow the all-holy self. You are ready to state absolutely that certain absolutes are not possible. You have no authority except the self, and you have no systematic from which to proceed. We have your word for it and nothing else.

just come out the damn closet.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
...and you discriminate against those who don't follow the all-holy self. You are ready to state absolutely that certain absolutes are not possible. You have no authority except the self, and you have no systematic from which to proceed. We have your word for it and nothing else.

And what words are you following?

The exact words of humans who had no authority except the self, with no systematic from which to proceed, you take those words for it and nothing else - except that this is what humans thought morality should be like 2000 years ago.

Unless you can provide evidence otherwise.:lol:

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
...and you discriminate against those who don't follow the all-holy self. You are ready to state absolutely that certain absolutes are not possible. You have no authority except the self, and you have no systematic from which to proceed. We have your word for it and nothing else. Which is more relativistic: The notion that prejudice and bigotry are wrong, period, or the notion that one interpretation of one religion says that homosexuality is a sin?

[CosmoNut]

Though it may be hard for some to understand or believe, it IS possible for Christians to be against homosexuality yet know and be friends with gays. We do not *agree* with homosexuality, but we are comfortable knowing and interacting with gays.

As a Christian, I do not agree with gay clergy. As a person who believes in the teachings and instruction of the Bible, I feel it's incredibly contradictory for a minister to openly admit to a lifestyle that is contradictory to the scriptures.

But I acknowledge that all are sinners in the eyes of God. I'm not discounting all the other sins that everyone else participates in. I'm not making homosexuality a worse sin than others.

What I struggle with, along with many other individual Christians and entire denominations is this: Are there "lines" that must be drawn in the sand regarding clergy and what sins are acceptable to be a member of the clergy? If so, how do we justify some sins being okay and others not?

I'm not expecting answers from any of you, but that's something you all should be aware of.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MarcUK
just come out the damn closet. My favorite study ever: Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8772014)
Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

[dmz]

Originally posted by BRussell
Which is more relativistic: The notion that prejudice and bigotry are wrong, period, or the notion that one interpretation of one religion says that homosexuality is a sin?
One is consistent reasoning from an initial evidentiary premise, the other is not coherent in any way.

Also, you guys should listen to CosmoNut, he has some good points.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
, I feel it's incredibly contradictory for a minister to openly admit to a lifestyle that is contradictory to the scriptures.

Assuming that the proportion of people displaying homosexual behaviour hasn't changed in the last 2000 years, 5% of the people Jesus supposedly hung out with were gay, 5% of the people Jesus showed uncompromising love towards were gay, 5% of the 5000 who ate the bread were homosexuals.

what did Jesus say about homosexuality anyway?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
One is consistent reasoning from an initial evidentiary premise, the other is not coherent in any way. I couldn't agree more. :)

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
...and you discriminate against those who don't follow the all-holy self. You are ready to state absolutely that certain absolutes are not possible. You have no authority except the self, and you have no systematic from which to proceed. We have your word for it and nothing else.

DMZ, are you absolutely sure you're not this guy?

http://www.nndb.com/people/483/000026405/gene-scott-sized.jpg

You know, Dr. Gene Scott, available now on some cable access station somewhere, broadcasting from what appears to be a concrete bunker, filling white board after white board with elaborate parsings of scripture, underlining greek roots in red and making arrows between syllables, weaving an intricate and impenetrable web of secret associations and hermetic arcana from, you know, Christ's message of love.

I like to tune in whenever I need a refresher course on "missing the forest for the trees".

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
One is consistent reasoning from an initial evidentiary premise.

which is what exactly?

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
what did Jesus say about homosexuality anyway?
He pointed them back to the Torah as regards to the fundamental nature of loving God and each other. Probably not as definitve of the fundamental nature of the Law of God, but indicative, or derivative of it.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by BRussell
My favorite study ever: Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8772014)

exactly - people at ease with their sexuality dont care what other people get up to in their beds.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
He pointed them back to the Torah as regards to the fundamental nature of loving God and each other. Probably not as definitve of the fundamental nature of the Law of God, but indicative, or derivative of it.

link or quote please.

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
DMZ, are you absolutely sure you're not this guy?

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/09/07/inside-grover.jpg

You know, Dr. Gene Scott, available now on some cable access station somewhere, broadcasting from what appears to be a concrete bunker, filling white board after white board with elaborate parsings of scripture, underlining greek roots in red and making arrows between syllables, weaving an intricate and impenetrable web of secret associations and hermetic arcana from, you know, Christ's message of love.

I like to tune in whenever I need a refresher course on "missing the forest for the trees".

That may be your problem, addabox, you need to be reading good apologetic writers like Schaeffer instead of watching TV.

[MarcUK]

you changed the picture link - suggests you hold that guy (I dont know who he is) in some respect.

Who is he then?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
As a Christian, I do not agree with gay clergy. As a person who believes in the teachings and instruction of the Bible, I feel it's incredibly contradictory for a minister to openly admit to a lifestyle that is contradictory to the scriptures.

But I acknowledge that all are sinners in the eyes of God. I'm not discounting all the other sins that everyone else participates in. I'm not making homosexuality a worse sin than others.

What I struggle with, along with many other individual Christians and entire denominations is this: Are there "lines" that must be drawn in the sand regarding clergy and what sins are acceptable to be a