Jerusalem bans Gay Pride - Page 3

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.

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.


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.


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


Again...can you say conjecture?


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


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

What are they growning about?

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

I thought better of it.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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."

Okay, just don't tell Rahab and Nahman or "all Nations".

Less really is more. Gotcha.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Your use of the word primitive reveals a lot here.

Haha. The Israeli courts are quite, um, activist, aren't they?

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

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.

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...

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?).

Quite so.
They never had to intervene in the matter of general elections though.


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.

...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.