posted
Here's a letter to the editor that was printed in today's Bryan-College Station Eagle
quote: According to the news broadcasts the homosexuals are moving in force demanding they be given a marriage license. One of those people with their debased mind even stated they want to be married and adopt a child so that they could be a family.
Those poor perverts don't seem to understand that a child needs to grow up in a family situation in which they can experience both a mother and a father. What would have happened to the human race if Adam an dEve had been homosexual? Same-sex marriage is a wrong and certainly does nothing to create the family God blesses.
One of the homos standing at the courthouse rally said she is a Christian. I can't believe she is devoted to Jesus or believes the scripture. If she were she would know that God has said in the Old Testament that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, in short they will not be in heaven.
And Jesus himeself made the statement that it would be as in the days of Noah and in the days of Lott just before he returns. If she were really a Christian she would know that all this homosexual movement taking place in so many cities is just like it was in the days of Lott. Unless Jesus Christ lied, the days of Noah and Lott are upon us.
Your days are coming to an end for you perverts.
Milton Pack Bryan
Now, the reasons I have for sharing this with you are two fold, but first let me say that I didn't post it so we could make fun of Bryan/College Station. I do not believe that this man is in any way indicative of the attitudes in our community. In fact, over the weekend there was a long editorial by a local minister (Elizabeth Brown, Unitarian/Universalist Church) that basically explained her thoughts on the issue and those of her church. It was wonderful and scriptural. And several letters to the editor were written in support of her cogent views.
The reasons I wanted to post this letter were:
1) It is illustrative of what many of us think of when we hear about religious objections to homosexual marriage. That deep down inside, the Christian conservatives are all pretty much aligned with this guy. I have learned from posts here at Hatrack that my fears are unwarranted. I now believe the attitudes like those expressed above are far on the fringe of Christianity. And basically don't derive from a Christian perspective except in that they make use of the Bible.
2) I thought it was interesting that my local paper would run this letter. It is inflammatory and uses derogatory epithets. I would think that they could probably have decided not to print it on that basis alone. On the other hand, I'm more interested in free speech than stifling obvious ignorance and bias.
What would you prefer though? We were talking about it in the office a bit and most people just wished the letter hadn't been printed. Or at least that the epithets had been edited out.
posted
You know the old saying, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt?"
I want to know who the fools (or worse) are, so I'd like to see stuff like this (and similar on the oppossing side) printed sometimes. I'm just wondering if there was a thoughtful letter that was kept out to print this - that bothers me a little.
Dagonee PS, this is why I love smaller newspapers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it wouldn't be surprising to me (if it's even possible to know the truth of it) if the decision were made to run the letter "as is" because of the open hatred. In reality, it works for the cause of homosexuals because it makes it less attractive for middle-of-the-road Christians to align themselves with this mentality. To the degree that public perception of the "religious arguement" for restricting gay's rights to marriage can be equated with such hatred and negative feelings, the majority will cease to accept those arguements (or at least they won't publicly express them.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd...that was much the reasoning behind my recent call for religious folks to write the Congressmen to express what they REALLY felt. That they didn't want discrmination, for example, and didn't want Congress working on a Constititutional Amendment would be a good message for our elected representatives to hear right about now.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think my point was more in the OTHER direction. That it takes someone who misquotes/misunderstands Scripture to so easily find hate in it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not christian so I can't say anything about the views of "conservative christians" as the thread leader stated it, I am Islamic, and I would like to say before I say anything else, that my views in no way whatsoever represnt my religion as a whole, each person must make up their own mind for themselves.
Though I do not agree with the wording of the man who wrote the letter, I do agree with his point, the days of Lott are upon us, and think of it this way, god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
These are my views and not refelctive on anyone else.
Rhaegar
[ February 23, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
God didn't make any black or Asian people, either.
Or anyone with Down's Syndrome.
I have to say, that's one of the least intelligent posts I've read by you so far, Rhaegar. And that includes all the pro-Bush stuff.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying anything pointless or stupid, I am simply stating my opinion, I am not trying to convince anyone, or insult anyones intelligence, as I said, it is each perosn choice, and thiers is not mine.
posted
Rhaegar, in my view, God did make Adam and Eve, but he also made Steve, and his love Bruce. They were not created from thin air. To say that "God did not make Adam and Steve" is to imply that the Devil did. To say that "God did not make Adam and Steve." opens Adam and Steve up to being seen as lesser than human.
If God did not make Steve and Bruce then who did?
If God did not make Steve and Bruce then what should we do when Steve and Bruce love each other? Hide it? Lie about it? Force them to change?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rhaegar is just young and energetic. Also not a forum view.
I think "Lott" only has one "t".
I think the shortened form of "homosexual" used qualifies as a slur. "Pervert" I am iffy on. Since I don't think of all homosexuals as being perverts. There are too many heterosexual perverts as well.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If you're going to quote this tripe, it's a good thing to save it to the end of your post because once you've uttered it everything else you say plays in my mind in the voice of a loud Jerry Springer-esque trailer trash woman standing, with one hand on her hip, wagging the finger of the other hand in my face.
posted
I don't think Rhaegar's mentally challenged. I think he's young, hasn't thought things through very well, and has more than a bit of sheer contrariness in him, which all result in making him act very much like his namesake, the fool.
He is, however, fairly intelligent, and when he eventually chooses to apply that intelligence will be much better off for it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I know. I was just trying make an "I don't mean to offend you, but you're the ugliest person I've ever seen" reply.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rhaegar...Adam & Eve is a story. A metaphor. Humans evolved from protohuman species over the course of a few million years.
In every age, there are those who proclaim it to be the dark times before the 2nd coming...or the dark days before God ends it all...or the dark days leading up to our ultimate punishment. So far, every one of them has been wrong. That doesn't mean you are wrong. But I've learned to discount such prognostications as being based mostly on people's wishful thinking (the desire to see others punished seems to run strong in humans) and perhaps the desire for something exciting to happen to break the monotony.
Humanity's endless spiral downward has been bemoaned by every generation since Adam & Eve. Suffice it to say that were this really the truth, I imagine we'd all be living in mud huts and killing each other on site for food.
People who spend a lot of time and energy looking for signs of the Apocalypse are bound to find them, whether they are there or not.
Answer me one question about your religious beliefs, if you would. What is the greatest sin in God's eyes? I'm wondering if it's the same in your faith (or your version of it) as it is in others we've explored on this board.
By the way, thanks for appointing me "thread leader." I don't deserve this honor, but I will endeavor to live up to the awesome responsibility that has been thrust upon me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, those are amusing straw men. The first ignores the issue of consent, and the second the issue of personal compacts.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Humanity's endless spiral downward has been bemoaned by every generation since Adam & Eve. Suffice it to say that were this really the truth, I imagine we'd all be living in mud huts and killing each other on site for food.
On the other hand, people have been placing great faith in the "progress" of humanity from an ethical perspective for almost as long. (Not saying you said this, BTW.) I see that view as just as flawed as the "ever-downward spiral" view.
Dagone *My God! Is there a penny on the track. Watch out, we're going to derail!
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing about "mankind's great progress ... blah, blah, blah" is that those statements always sound so dated after only a few years. I mean, look at the "Carousel of Progress" at Disney for a great example of this. I think they finally closed it because the exhibit was constantly in danger of becoming a museum of out-of-date stuff instead of the cutting edge it was supposed to show.
I think the rah-rah progress talks are as insufferable as the "The End is Near" type of talks.
But the progress ones have the advantage of empirical evidence. I mean, how many people do you know who ride buggies, light their house with natural gas or whale oil lanterns, or die from minor infections.
It's only in the area of social institutions that our progress is really illusory. We're still the same shaved apes we were 50,000 years ago, apparently.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Bob. That's why I included "from an ethical perspective."
Of course, there's no denying that technology allows great harm as well. I'm not a Luddite, but the Holocaust was the application of modern industrial theory and technology to a 2000-year old prejudice.
But I think the harms of technology come from putting bigger stones in the hands of the shaved ape, not from technology itself.
Even if one assumes an evolutionary pathway to our existence, there is some debate over whether we all could be descended from one woman.
At any rate, there was a proto mammal that in my evolution textbook all mammals had to come from, because apparently molar-type teeth could only have evolved once. This is the kind of thing evolutionists must take on faith, however. Flight was considered to be such an evolutionary one way street until recently as well.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
If Michael Jackson truly loves a 10 year old boy, then he would not do anything to hurt that boy, including making any sexual advance. Further, its doubtful that a 10 year old boy is mentaly and emotionally mature enough to return that love.
If a person falls in love with another person, and either, or both, are already married, then what is healthy and most important for that other person should be primary. Having a secret affair is healthy for no one. If I loved Jane, but Jane has a husband and two kids, I would not have sex with her, because there is no way that could end without hurting her.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".
That's true. And we all know how well that pairing went down. Wasn't it Eve who got us kicked out of Eden? If Adam and Steve were in the garden, they would be too busy fighting for the remote control to care about any forbidden fruits.
I find it hilarious that some Christians would use the "Adam and Steve" line to challenge homosexuality. For centuries the Church has blamed women for mankind's fall from grace. Women have been systematically marginalized by organized religion since day one. And now the Church wants to bring out Eve as if she is some kind of holy relic.
I really cannot understand why any women would support religious persecution of homosexuals after having suffered centuries of religious persecution themselves.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but perhaps that is the problem, because I suspect those who oppose homosexuality do so in part because they view it as lust, not true love. And I don't think it's entirely fair to fault them too severely for this, if you are going to automatically label the relationships in my examples as lust rather than love in the same way.
I mean, why is it socially acceptable to call Michael Jackson a pervert (it's been done on this forum), but considered downright stupid to say the same about homosexuals? I understand you all have arguments as to why one is okay and the other is terrible, but the person in this article (and many others) most likely has semi-coherent reasons why he believes homosexuality is just as terible - and I'm sure to him they seem just as correct as your distinctions seem to you.
My point is not that homosexuality is wrong, or that pedophilia should be acceptable, or that cheating on your wife is okay, or that the person in this article is correct in his claims. My point is that the difference between him and many posts on this forum is little more than a disagreement on the fine distinction between right and wrong, or the distinction between love and lust. His anger towards homosexuals should not be that surprising or difficult to understand, given the way he views the lines of morality, and given how common angry reactions are both on this forum and elsewhere towards people percieved as doing terrible wrongs. And the suggestions that people should try to change their fundamental nature when that nature pushes them to do wrong is not a very rare idea.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I mean, why is it socially acceptable to call Michael Jackson a pervert (it's been done on this forum), but considered downright stupid to say the same about homosexuals?"
That distinction works for you, just as "because God say so" works for some anti-homosexuality types. But what happens when a bunch of liberals come around claiming consent isn't a good enough reason? Is it then okay for them to think you're a terrible person for thinking Michael Jackson is a pervert?
Besides... what if the child consented? Then what is the difference?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the progress ones have the advantage of empirical evidence. I mean, how many people do you know who ride buggies, light their house with natural gas or whale oil lanterns, or die from minor infections.
I live in Amish country. Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No logical person would state that a person who has sex with a child is NOT a pervert. Furthermore this is not ancient Greek or even ancient Japan. Children are children. There's a reason why there are laws against inappropiate actions with minors. Mainly because of the damage it does... But that is an interesting point considering groups like ACLU defending child molesters -_- Which is just wrong, but the ACLU defends pretty much everyone.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Xap, are you saying we should be ashamed of ourselves for judging this man who so hatefully is busy judging another?
I disagree. There is a difference between me and the man who wrote this article. That difference is in tone, respect, and degree.
I say he is wrong. He says that all homosexuals are wrong. Yet if I were to meet him on the street, I would not seek him out to debate this. I certainly would not get abusive. I would allow him to have his own opinoin up to the point where he would try to force it on others.
He, on the other hand, seems to want to seek out all the homosexuals he can find, and verbally abuse them. He will not allow any disagreement.
If you say that I judging him is wrong, and that caring, open minded individuals should refrain, then you may convince the caring open minded individuals from refraining, but you won't stop people like him. And if no one is judging people accept for the reactionary fringe, then they will win.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Besides... what if the child consented? Then what is the difference?"
As a society, we have arbitrarily decided that ten-year-old children are not capable of granting informed consent.
However, if you want to start from the premise that a ten-year-old child CAN properly consent to sex, I would say that there IS no problem. Of course, I'm willing to dispute your premise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let's remove the consent issue, if that's the only thing that makes a child molester a "pervert" (though I personally avoid using that word for anyone). What about simply lusting for children, but never doing anything about it that could harm or violate an unconsenting child? Should those feelings, when coupled with the selfless love and good judgment that it would take to restrain oneself from acting on them, be considered healthy, natural, or normal? Or is there something inherently bad about lusting for a young child that is not bad about lusting for a member of your same gender?
I'm just curious, here, because so many of you throw consent around like it's a trump card, and I'd like to see what you really think about the subject.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my question really is, is there something in this world that is an inappropriate target for lust?
Let's say that I come to you and tell you that X (whether it be a woman, a man, a child, a helpless victim, an animal, an alien, an open wound, or an office chair) really turns me on, and I want to have sex with X. Is there anything in this world that we can fill in for X that should be considered a warning sign that something is wrong with me, or that I have a psychological issue that ought to be resolved somehow?
And if so, what kinds of things should be on the list of inappropriate or dangerous X? What is it that makes them unhealthy or wrong?
[ February 23, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
children for obvious reasons. animals, because that's just wrong and cruel. Animals can't concent to that! But if one wants to adore inanimate objects in that way... why not? as long as they don't do it while I'm there.... Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I'm asking you to ignore the consent issue for a moment. Pretend that I'm not going to act on any of these urges, so no one will be affected by these feelings except me. Is there anything we could fill in for X that is inherently a sign of an unhealthy mind?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes... preying on children even in your mind is not a healthy thing...It's either a sign of pasth abuse or something else.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
So, in your estimation, there is at least one sexual fantasy or desire which is unhealthy even to want ... or which, if wanted, serves as a clear sign of a much deeper problem. When someone feels this way, it makes you wonder what makes the image of a little child, or the idea of a vastly inferior sexual partner, arousing to this individual. We assume that something terribly traumatic and scarring must have happened to him to cause him to feel this way.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had this human sexuality textbook and the only fetish they were willing to say is definitey unhealthy is the urge to be dismembered. I think when it gets to that point, I chuck the text book and go back to Adam and Eve.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rat, if you are driving at some point, I would be curious what it is. Socratic dialogue is pretty boring. Can you please just say what you think.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ARND is simply saying that the bad effect on children is not the only reason we condemn pedophelia. That being the case, he wants to know what are the criteria for properly condemning a particular sexual attraction.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
's advocate.
