posted
Karl, I am aware of the JST for that portion. But there is also the story in Judges to consider. It is pretty much identical.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, even if Paul was a misogyist blinded by the culture of his day, how does that mean that everything else he said is wrong? Not that I necessarily believe myself that he was a misogynist blinded by his culture. I think it is entirely possible that he was responding to the needs of the culture at that time. Could you even conceive the possibility that one was because of the culture of the day and the other was based on something much more eternal?
I think I did a decent job of explaining *why* it is an eternal principle. I am not asking you to believe me, just understand how I see it.
And why this word "homophobia"? If I think pre-marital sex is a sin does that make me "pre-maritalsex-o-phobic"? If I believe that God does not want us to use substances that are detrimentally addictive does that make me "alcoholic-o-phobic"? I honestly don't see the purpose in using the word except to be offensive. Some people truly are "homophobic". I am not one of them.
posted
Bev, I have a book by Kevin Aucoin that calls men "homophobic" if they don't like to wear eyeliner. It gets waaaay overused.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I understand the religious view, even though I reject it. And I don't think you are homophobic, bev. I agree the term gets over-used.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, christ. Bev, did you not read my posts on the previous page?
I do you the honor of citing your every question/assertion, then addressing it. Could you please do the same for me? I'm sure you'd be far less repetitive if you addressed my questions with points that weren't what I had questioned to begin with.
quote:Bev, I have a book by Kevin Aucoin that calls men "homophobic" if they don't like to wear eyeliner. It gets waaaay overused.
An excellent point, PSI. Does this mean, therefore, declaring homosexuals "sexually immoral," perpetuating bigotry against homosexuals by citing whichever passages from whichever religious text confirms (but cannot substantiate) anti-homosexual beliefs, and moving to keep homosexuals from having equals rights with heterosexuals isn't indicative of homophobia? Declaring homosexuality immoral without any substantial arguments behind it -- much less picking and choosing which religious points to believe -- has nothing to do with pre-existing bigotry?
Gah.
quote:Also, even if Paul was a misogyist blinded by the culture of his day, how does that mean that everything else he said is wrong? Not that I necessarily believe myself that he was a misogynist blinded by his culture. I think it is entirely possible that he was responding to the needs of the culture at that time. Could you even conceive the possibility that one was because of the culture of the day and the other was based on something much more eternal?
This quote has exceeded my recommended daily intake of irony.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and moving to keep homosexuals from having equals rights with heterosexuals..."
Eddie, I HATE to play Devil's Advocate in this situation, but you're setting up a straw man here -- if only because the people here who oppose same-sex marriage do not consider it an "equal right." You don't do your argument any favors if you argue from premises that the people on the other side don't already concede.
Which is why I now focus on demonstrating why religion is silly, instead of trying to persuade the religious that their specific religious beliefs are unjust and/or dangerous. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Lalo, you don't see any difference between stating an opinion about homosexuality, and taking drastic action on it?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am only making a case that according to the Bible, {homosexuality is a sin}.
The trouble with that argument, is that the same one has been used to affirm things that turned out to be wrong. Just replace the words in brackets with things like the following:
{the earth is flat}
{the sun revolves around the earth}
{slavery is God's judgment on the Negro}
{women shouldn't braid their hair}
It's not that many of us don't believe there is wisdom in the Bible, just that literal interpretations have tended to cause religious people much embarrassment.
Are we sure we want to talk about the Judges account? I mean, that's way squickier. The guy tosses a woman under his protection to a rape gang to literally save his own @$$, because we all know men's orifices are WAY more sacred than women's. The repeated anal and vaginal rape of a female is seen as somehow less sinful than the rape of man. (I admit I assume she's anally raped, too. She dies, which seems more likely to happen from severe rectal tearing (there have been cases where the rectum has actually been actually torn completely free during that kind of assault). Considering the context, though, it seems unlikely the mob would refrain from violating her that way).
Either way, it's obvious that women were not valued so highly as men.
*sigh* I think I'll go hug my kids now. This type of discussion can only serve to make me angry and sad.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, generally what happens is that there is a discussion about homosexuality where everyone is stating their opinions, but those who are dissentors get called upon repeatedly to explain why, and to prove it, prove it, prove it. THEN they get bashed because they are "perpetuating bigotry against homosexuals by citing whichever passages from whichever religious text confirms (but cannot substantiate) anti-homosexual beliefs".
Would you prefer it if they gave their opinions, but then kept silent when everyone asked them to explain why they feel that way?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think "declaring" homosexuality "immoral" isn't really out of place in a discussion that by its very nature started out as a religious discussion about homosexuality. Were this a secular discussion about homosexuality or a political one, I might be more inclined to combat the religious view insofar as it is used to justify governmental discrimination, but we're not talking about those things in this discussion.
BTW, "declaring" seems way to strong a word for this discussion. It's not like Bev has cried from the rooftops "Change your ways o ye sinners!" She has defended her religious beliefs against an arguement that has been waged on religious terf. How is she expected to respond?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do you the honor of citing your every question/assertion, then addressing it. Could you please do the same for me? I'm sure you'd be far less repetitive if you addressed my questions with points that weren't what I had questioned to begin with.
I apologize. I am really pressed for time today, so I haven't been able to devote as much time to this discussion as I would like. I am going to read some more now to see if I missed anything--including the rest of your next post.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting choice of words, Lal. Reflex action, I know.
As to homophobic - it can take on a number of meanings, but the most basic is "a fear of homosexuals."
And I think most men suffer from this on occasion and to varying degrees - although what can be construed as homophobic might, in some instances, be more accurately attributed to a fear of appearing weak or somehow less than masculine. It's a straight guy thing.
My bestest bud in the whole world is gay, although he defies most, if not all the usual stereotypes. In fact, it amuses me endlessly to be out with him and watch women ignore me (the straight one) completely while falling all over him.
And PSI - yes, it does get used overmuch. But that's true of almost any phrase or expression and certainly not limited to "homophobic." And that in no way mitigates the impact of the word - just like racism. It's become almost commonplace to hear someone yell "you're treating me like dirt because I'm black" or insert relative color here.
That's entirely possible - of course, you could just be an ass who happens to be black.
posted
Mike and Olivetta. I tried to limit the discussion to the Bible. But I have sources beyond the Bible. You see, LDS doctrine contains additional scripture just as the New Testament is additional scripture beyond what the Jews believe in. We also have modern day prophets.
Now these prophets don't go around saying "homosexuality is bad!" "homosexuality is wrong!" It usually isn't mentioned at all. The word "immoral" is usually used in LDS discussion to refer to the use of sexuality outside of the bounds God intended. We believe God intended sex to bring husband and wife together and bind eternal families, that sex and pro-creation continue into the eternities. It is just understood that homosexuality is not within the bounds God intended sex to be used for. That there will not be any homosexual relations in the eternities.
So just as homosexual relations are outside of those bounds so are any other extra-marital sexual relations. The problem with homosexual union is that there is not a place within God's plan where it is appropriate. (All of this in accordance with LDS doctrine, I am not trying to put it forth as fact.)
Synesthesia (and Lalo): I am a firm believer that it is possible to *not* fall in love with somebody by choice. If I followed my heart rather than my head, I probably would be married to a certain Filipino man rather than Porter (see our joint landmark for the whole story).
I certainly looked for more than "love" in a choice of a mate. I looked for someone who had similar values and beliefs as I do. I do think that it is probably not possible to stop being *attracted* though. You simply don't act on that attraction. A homosexual individual could choose to apply these same principles if they are capable of being attracted to the opposite sex. Not so simple if they aren't capable of it though.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's true in both respects. I'm reasonably secure in my masculinity - not that I understand the urge of some men to wear eye liner, but it doesn't bother me.
On the flip side, people who are insecure or worried can react badly to things that may challenge their concerns.
It's kinda like the joke about men who have massive gun collections or drive flashy cars are compensating.
Yeah, they might be - they might also like guns and/or really like cars.
Does this make any kind of sense, or am I rambling again?
posted
On the subject of the JST translation of the Lot episode, I have considered that somewhere along the line the story was changed to be more like the Judges story (which, admittedly, is pretty ugly), thus making a stronger case against homosexuality for that particular situation. (The image of offering your daughter to avoid a homosexual rape is pretty poignant.)
If I take the JST translation to be literal on this case, then Lot did *not* offer his daughters but instead showed concern for them as well.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Heh! Really? So what makes homophobia an eternal, unchanging principle of God and the declaration that we kill those that work on the Sabbath a "certain law" that applies "to specific times according to the needs of that time"?
You're pulling at straws, Bev. Is this how you excuse inconsistency in belief in the Bible? I'll believe this because it's an eternal unchanging principle of God, but that, oh, He can't believe that, and hmm, I'm sympathetic with this so I'll believe that, and oh that looks perfectly ridiculous! God wouldn't want us to do that!
No, Lalo, I believe in the doctrine of the LDS church and the words of modern prophets and additional scripture. How is that any more arbitrary than believing in the Bible?
quote:Well, no. I'm trying to provide some reasoning for the homophobia you declared is an "eternal, unchanging principle" of your faith and beliefs. You declare people can't (or shouldn't) fall in love with their same gender, but have yet to provide any reasoning why aside from a truly monstrous (and bizarrely interpreted) story from the Old Testament about a man giving his daughters to a mob.
So I'll ask again. What reasoning do you have for your anti-homosexuality? What, exactly, makes homosexuality immoral? You can shoot up all the Bible passages you want, but I can shoot up others I doubt you'll declare are also "eternal, unchanging principles of God." (Your argument that your beliefs are what God actually wants and He didn't mean all the rest of that in the Bible is interesting, but hardly a new twist, and I remain somehow unswayed.) Can you provide any sort of reasoning which makes homosexuality immoral? Or will you rest with the I-believe-homosexuality-is-immoral-so-it-is argument?
Covered that already, as well as the next question which was mostly misunderstanding.
quote: Oh, my mistake. You don't care that heterosexuals can't have children, since that'll work out anyway. But homosexuals that can't have children (which is only half the homosexual population, btw), they're incapable of being "family units that may last eternally" -- why, exactly?
Tom did a fine job of answering this, so I didn't feel the need to. I don't follow your reasoning that homosexuals are "incapable". I think most everyone is capable. It might be a sacrifice, but since when has religion shied away from the idea of sacrifice for a greater good?
posted
Not rambling, Trevor. But I wouldn't be able to tell you where Jes fits. He's the kind of guy to let me french braid his hair when we're watching a movie, and he tried all my funky Mary Kay cleansers and lotions even though he didn't really like them, because I wanted some feedback on them. But I have a feeling you'd have to tie him down to get him to put on eyeliner.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument which has been framed in the first post and continues on here is a very good example of why agreement is rarely reached between Christians and others on this issue. As soon as the argument has been framed in terms of the philosophy of secular humanism as Eddie did there can be no agreement. Eddie said
quote: And while I have profound pity for whoever believes homosexuality is intrinsically wrong (unless there are particularly convincing arguments I haven't heard),
Eddie will never hear a convincing argument because what he wants is something stated in terms of his own philosophy which he finds compelling. The first and perhaps only doctrine of secular humanism is "anything is permissible as long as it doesn't hurt someone else". This appears to be the basis of morality for many Americans, and many on this forum appear to agree.
However, there is certainly no reason why any of the rest of us must accept this as the "correct" basis for morality, Indeed, all one needs to do is read three or four posts and it is clear that those who think that homosexuality is wrong behavior aren't using the secular humanist definition of morality at all.
It seems to me that much of Christianity is simply designed to establish a strong community. The injunctions to serve one's neighbor, the shared rituals and beliefs, the code of morality, all of it is geared toward establishing a community on a certain pattern. The basic building block of the Christian community is the family, and any influences which serve to weaken this building block are clearly poison to the continued existence of the community. That is why adultery, homosexuality and fornication are all anathema to communities built on this pattern. A person is only a full member of this model of community once they are married and have children of their own. Families are the bedrock of this type of society. Certainly there is room for those who are unable to live up to that ideal due to circumstances beyond their control (ie death of a spouse etc.) However, if the community embraces behavior which deviates from the model then the community can simply no longer exist.
And that is what it really comes down to. The family as the foundation of the community is the pattern which has dominated throughout history. Some people think that a different model will work better. Religious people and othe r"conservatives" don't think that there is a better model, indeed most religious Americans think that the family is divinely ordained and established. Those who don't think so see the world through a different lens, and I don't see that there is really any way to reconcile the two views. If one comes to dominate it must be at the expense of the other. These two different viewpoints cannot coexist.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Eddie will never hear a convincing argument because what he wants is something stated in terms of his own philosophy which he finds compelling.
I am not trying to convince anyone. I am merely trying to explain my beliefs and hoping against hope to be understood.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's safely in the "secure in my sexuality" camp, PSI.
He's not wearing eyeliner because he wants to, any more than he's using cleansers and lotions because he likes them but because you asked him to.
I started using a face cleanser as a means of keeping my oily patches under control and so far it works - and I use oatmeal-based shaving cream because my ex recommended it.
Which is a far cry from wearing lipstick and eye liner anywhere but on stage.
posted
I just cannot comprehend the notion that there is "heterosexual rape" and "homosexual rape." Rape has nothing to do with actual sexual attraction. It's about power and violence, and should have no part in a discussion about sexuality (except inasmuch as it affects the victim's sexual self-identity).
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The common theory suggests rape is about power, not sex.
I would submit that at least some sexual desire factors into some rape scenarios, although I couldn't provide definitive proof one way or the other.
Man-on-man rape in prison is relatively common, but it's about power, not sex. Similar to a dog establishing dominance over other dogs.
However, if the aggressor is homosexual in a man-on-man scenario, I find it difficult to believe that a sexual component could not exist, just as a man-on-woman assault could also consist of sexual intent.
quote: Actually Jac - they can co-exist. It's when people on either side of the fence start thinking they can't, trouble starts.
I wonder why you think that this is the case. Certainly they can coexist in that persons with differing phiosophies needn't kill each other off. However, they cannot coexist in that people generally may only give their allegiance to a single community- that community helps define them as a person and they in turn help define the community. I do not believe that the community I have called the Christian model can coexist with the secular humanist model. A person cannot give their allegiance to both of these communities.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that a rejected sexual desire can be part of a motivation to rape. But, still, it comes down to power. At least, in the vast majority of cases - I won't make absolute statements about other peoples' motivations, that would be foolish, of course.
However, I still think the idea of "homosexual rape" being worse than "heterosexual rape" is extremely flawed.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you adopt an extremist view point, this is true.
"Suffer not a witch to live."
And so on.
However, while you may disapprove of someone and certainly never choose to adopt a similar lifestyle, you certainly aren't required to hunt them down and terminate the offender.
Unless, of course, you decide to go the extremist route.
posted
Then we have people who say, "The Bible says this" and others who say , "No, it says THIS. That's what that means" and you have the rest of us going "We don't really care."
So there's no way for meaningful discussion to take place, because there's no common basis.
MOOT. Pointless.
I am curious, honesly curious, about one thing. Is it the act that is immoral or the fact that it's two people of the same sex doing it? What if a married couple has anal sex or engage in prostate massage or some such? Would that also be immoral for LDS? And whose business would THAT be, exactly?
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olive - eh. It's an issue of Church driven morality. Do they kick in doors to investigate a couple's sexual practices? I don't think so. Do they set up hidden cameras? I doubt it.
But as the morality is derived from the Church, the Church makes it Church-business. As to how well or how effectively the moral values are or are not enforced will vary.
quote: I am curious, honesly curious, about one thing. Is it the act that is immoral or the fact that it's two people of the same sex doing it? What if a married couple has anal sex or engage in prostate massage or some such? Would that also be immoral for LDS? And whose business would THAT be, exactly?
Assuming that my discussion of communities is correct then the answer is simple. Two men cannot be husband and wife, therefore they cannot attain to forming a family therefore it is the fact that they are the same sex rather than any particular sex act which is the problem.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you adopt an extremist view point, this is true.
"Suffer not a witch to live."
And so on.
However, while you may disapprove of someone and certainly never choose to adopt a similar lifestyle, you certainly aren't required to hunt them down and terminate the offender.
Unless, of course, you decide to go the extremist route.
I already said that the two different communities can coexist as in the members of one needn't be violent with the members of the other. However, I don't see how one can hold to, for example, the secular humanist view that everything is permissible except that which hurts others AND believe that the formation of a strong family is the number one priority of society. A person simply cannot givehis highest allegiance to two incompatible philosophies.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I forgot to say: Nobody's business.
I do, however, draw a distinction between being an advocate for heterosexual marriage and being of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, and physically going into a house and stringing up men who are having sex, unless children or people who cannot defend themselves are involved, which is less common.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, vana: Yes, I believe that SEX is vaginal intercourse. However, I still think it's possible to act in a sexual way without having vaginal intercourse.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was allso wondering what the LDS position is (if there is one) on limits of sexual practices between marriage partners? Would anything a married couple does together, in private, matter?
That's the part 2 of my question. I wondered if, since LDS focusses on healthy family relationships to the degree that they separate the couplse for part of their church service (where the wives learn how to better wives and mothers and the husbands learn how to be better fathers and husbands-- or so the missionaries told me in their ominously vague way), the subject of sexual practices is ever discussed.
I'm not seeting you up for some cutting remark. I really want to know.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jac - Ah, I thought you mean a society, rather than a personal conflict of two masters.
In which case, I grant it can be difficult - but that's a personal struggle and not one I can really comment on.
PSI - I tend to define acceptable sexual practices as follows "the only participants are consenting adults." Violate either basic stricture, consenting or adults and we have a problem.
Other than that, float your boat how you please. It kinda ties up all the loose ends in describing what I feel is and is not acceptable.
quote: I was allso wondering what the LDS position is (if there is one) on limits of sexual practices between marriage partners? Would anything a married couple does together, in private, matter?
There is certainly no official doctrine delimiting specific acts, though some leaders may give personal views from time to time. The principle which is taught is that each spouse should respect the other.
quote: That's the part 2 of my question. I wondered if, since LDS focusses on healthy family relationships to the degree that they separate the couplse for part of their church service (where the wives learn how to better wives and mothers and the husbands learn how to be better fathers and husbands-- or so the missionaries told me in their ominously vague way), the subject of sexual practices is ever discussed.
The splitting up of wives and husbands into different groups is completely due to historical forces rather than doctrinal ones. In the early days of the church there was an aid group formed called the Relief Society. Essentially their aim was to help the poor and improve the skills of its members. The membership of this aid group was made up of the women of the church who wanted to join. Later I think it became pretty much expected that any adult female who joined the church became a part of the relief society.
At the same time there were completely unrelated meetings for members of the church who held the priesthood wherein they were taught their responsibility as priesthood holders.
On Sundays the members of the church met to take the sacrament and have worship service. Also on Sundays there was Sunday school to study the doctrines and scriptures etc.
Time marched on and then at some point in the recent past someone came up with the idea of combining these separate meetings into a single block of time on sunday. As the men had priesthood meeting and the women had relief society it was convenient for them to divide up and attend these meetings at the same time while they were at church anyway.
quote:Oh, vana: Yes, I believe that SEX is vaginal intercourse. However, I still think it's possible to act in a sexual way without having vaginal intercourse.
So, giving oral pleasure does not count as premarital sex? Anal penetration doesn't count as having premarital sex? Amazing.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I agree the term gets over-used.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
