That’s an interesting theory, Rook. I guess you would then support the incestuous gang-fucking of a 12-year-old girl by her father and (male) siblings as long as she’d gotten her period. What a strange, archaic little world you live in…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by KellyM *
**
KellyM, I think you’re my new favorite person. You kick ass!
Let’s start off with this item of discussion:
Rook, I take it for granted that most scientific researchers in the world of science are heterosexual and religious. That doesn’t bother me one bit. I don’t care if a researcher is heterosexual or homosexual, and I don’t care if a researcher is atheist or religious. That is utterly immaterial to me.
What matters is whether or not the researchers produce legitimate, good science. Did they do their research in accordance with proper Scientific Method? Have the proper protocols been followed? Are the results verifiable and replicable? Is it good science?
The anti-gay research that is posted on church websites is typically and routinely “junk science.” It doesn’t follow proper Scientific Method. It isn’t verifiable and replicable by other scientists outside the church using proper scientific protocols. That is my problem with the science posted on church websites.
If the research done by gay researchers routinely turned out to be “junk science” too, then I wouldn’t pay any attention to that research either. But so far, the research done by gay researchers appears to be good science. So I pay attention to it.
Let me say it again for you, Rook. I don’t care if a researcher is heterosexual or homosexual, and I don’t care if a researcher is atheist or religious. That is utterly immaterial to me. What matters is whether or not they produce legitimate, good science.
(That’s all I have to say for now on this issue. I will address the issue of morality/homosexuality in a separate post as soon as I can type something up on the subject.)
By the way, I don’t even mind if a researcher starts on a piece of research with a particular agenda in mind, or with the hope that the research will justify a certain belief. As long as the researcher follows proper Scientific Method, then the science will be legitimate. (Proper science frequently takes scientists in directions they didn’t expect to go, and gives them results they didn’t expect to obtain. It’s called serendipity.) The main point is that the scientists must do their research honestly and report their results honestly. If they do that, then I don’t care what their agenda is or what they believe or practice in their private life.
Rook–Do you understand the distinction I’m trying to make between the “junk science” on church websites as opposed to legitimate research done by scientists of whatever belief system or sexual orientation?
My, this is an awfully long train wreck. I hope nobody gets hurt.
Once again, please - sexual orientation (hetero, homo, bi and a) is theorized to be caused by a complex combination of both nature and environment, which is both incomprehensible and uncontrollable. Repeat as necessary.
We are equally surprised how long it took for you to entertain the notion that sexuality is comprised of so much more than procreation.
Why is homosexuality a moral issue for you?
And, as has already been pointed out, your beastiality questions are disingenious and divisive at best. By your own “biological reasoning,” having sex with animals is more “natural” than homosexuality.
Esprix
Rook:
Okay. Time to address this whole “homosexuality versus morality” thing that you talked about last night. Here is your argument, according to what I gather from your posts last night.
-
Homosexuals don’t follow conventional morality because they do something that is contrary to religious instruction.
-
Since conventional morality is out the window, then some other means of evaluating behavior must be constructed, because otherwise there would be no rules at all and even murder and bestiality would be okay.
-
So you’re suggesting that we apply a principle that says we should only act in ways that are compatible with the design of our bodies. Since penises and vaginas are designed to go together, then sex should only consist of putting penises and vaginas together.
Is this more or less your thinking, Rook? I’m trying my best to figure out your philosophical approach to homosexuality and express it fairly and honestly, so that I can rebut it fairly and honestly.
Assuming that I have it right, I’m going to divide it into two parts. First I’m going to post a message on the subject of homosexuality and conventional morality. Then I’m going to post a separate message on the body-design-compatibility idea.
See the next post for the first message on the subject of homosexuality and conventional morality.
On the subject of homosexuality and conventional morality
From what I gather, you seem to assume the following:
*1) Homosexuals don’t follow conventional morality because they do something that is contrary to religious instruction.
- Since conventional morality is out the window, then some other means of evaluating behavior must be constructed, because otherwise there would be no rules at all and even murder and bestiality would be okay.*
I picked this up from the following passage in one of your posts:
So then, let’s look at the nature of religion and morality.
First–and very important. MORALITY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONNECTED TO RELIGION!
I have a big, thick Webster’s dictionary in front of me, opened to the entry for “morality.” The entry for “morality” has seven different possible definitions, depending on the context the word is used in. NONE OF THEM SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT RELIGION!
Loosely speaking, morality (in the sense we are discussing it) pertains to commonly-accepted beliefs and principles for acceptable behavior. The religious instructions of this or that church or this or that preacher have nothing to do with conventional morality in American society.
Think about it. If we accepted religious instructions as part of morality, then which church or preacher would we have to obey? The Muslim church down the road which says that all women should wear veils over their faces when in public? The Orthodox Jewish Church which says that people should not work on the Sabbath? Your own friends seem to assume that homosexuals are immoral because homosexuals disobey the instructions of your friends’ preachers. However, the Metropolitan Community Church says that homosexuality is just fine.
Do you get my point, Rook? We don’t accept religious instruction as part of conventional morality because there are too many conflicting instructions.
Instead, we rely on ideas of conventional morality that are commonly and generally accepted in our society. Do not murder. Do not commit bestiality. Do not steal. And so on. Meantime, in areas of love and sexual relations, society commonly and generally accepts the idea that two consenting adults are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (excluding things which result in mutilation or murder) without society having to watch over them and police them. You said it yourself in one of your posts: “[Homosexuality has] since been [ac]cepted by the general population as ‘normal.’”
According to ideas of conventional morality that are commonly and generally in our society, homosexuality is NOT immoral. Certain specific individuals may consider it to be contrary to the teachings of their religion, and that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But morality has nothing to do with the personal religious ideas that a given preacher teaches from the pulpit. Morality is NOT about what YOUR own preacher tries to tell you about veils or beards or yarmulkes or prohibitions against masturbation or homosexual or birth control or pre-marital sex. Morality IS about beliefs and principles for acceptable behavior commonly accepted in secular society.
Getting back to the subject of gays and lesbians:
Almost all of the gays and lesbians I have ever met (and almost all gay and lesbian literature I have read) agree with the beliefs and principles for acceptable behavior commonly accepted in secular society. In other words:
-
The prohibitions against homosexuality that are promoted by some churches have no standing in conventional morality.
-
Gays and lesbians believe in the SAME CONVENTIONAL MORALITY as heterosexuals.
-
Gays and lesbians are just as moral as heterosexuals.
-
There is no reason to assume that gays and lesbians live according to some kind of alternate morality.
-
There is no need to construct some alternate morality based on “body-design-compatibility.”
Do you get it yet, Rook? In one of your posts, you said, “It’s no big secret that many heterosexuals have a different idea about morality then homosexuals…” You are WRONG, Rook! Gays and lesbians believe in the same conventional morality as heterosexuals!
(Okay, I’m done on the subject of morality and gays. See my next post on the body-design-compatibility idea.)
On the subject of body-design-compatibility
Rook
As I read your posts from last night, you seem to be suggesting that conventional morality doesn’t apply to gays and lesbians, so therefore we need to come up with some other means of evaluating behavior. You suggest that we apply a principle that says we should only act in ways that are compatible with the design of our bodies. Since penises and vaginas are designed to go together, then sex should only consist of putting penises and vaginas together.
First off, I’ve already demonstrated that homosexuality falls within the bounds of conventional morality. You said it yourself: “[Homosexuality has] since been [ac]cepted by the general population as ‘normal.’”
Therefore there’s no need to come up with some other means of evaluating behavior. Gays and lesbians believe in the same conventional morality as heterosexuals. Let me state it again. GAYS AND LESBIANS BELIEVE IN THE SAME CONVENTIONAL MORALITY AS HETEROSEXUALS. There is no need to start dreaming up new rules for behavior based on body-design-compatibility.
Second, the very principle of body-design-compatibility (let’s call it BDC for short) is utterly ridiculous. There’s no way it could be applied in real life as a means of evaluating behavior.
Consider the question of common kissing. The mouth is for eating and breathing. It’s not a very clean place. At any particular time of the day, it is loaded up with plaque and rotting food particles and billions of bacteria. Kissing is one of the primary means of spreading colds and other illnesses. So we would have to consider kissing to be improper behavior under your system. Kissing involves using the mouth in a way it wasn’t designed for. It is anti-BDC. So do you intend to go around telling heterosexuals that they can’t kiss any more?
Consider the question of typing at a keyboard. Clearly the human body wasn’t designed for this, because when we do it too much we get carpal tunnel syndrome. Typing at a keyboard is anti-BDC.
Consider the question of driving down the road at 60 miles per hour. Clearly the human body wasn’t designed for this, because our bodies squoosh and splatter when we hit a stationary object at this speed. Clearly our bodies were meant to travel no more than 5-10 miles per hour. Driving cars is anti-BDC.
So, Rook, do you see the problems with the BDC concept? It’s laughable. It’s completely unrealistic. It can’t be implemented in real life. If you try to apply it uniformly, then it makes no sense. Or maybe you only intend to apply it to sex, and only to gays and lesbians. If that’s the case, then it’s nothing but bigotry.
In any case, I want to return to what I already said. Therefore there’s no need to come up with some other means of evaluating behavior. Gays and lesbians believe in the same conventional morality as heterosexuals.
Okay, I’m done posting for the day, Rook. I’ve tried to take your points seriously and debate them seriously. Will you consider the points I’ve raised and consider them seriously?
One more note on the morality issue. (Just tying together some loose ends from my dissertation, above.)
Religious beliefs and conventional secular morality hold certain values in common, such as “Do not murder” or “do not have sex with animals.” But they also diverge considerably on many other points. Society pays no attention to Old Testament prohibitions on wearing certain types of mixed cloth. Even the instruction about taking the Lord’s name in vain (one of the big Ten Commandments) is pretty well ignored.
If you want a good measure of the shape of conventional secular morality, then look at our legal system. Our legal system is built on the concepts of conventional secular morality, not religious instruction. And the legal system accepts homosexuality as legal and acceptable in pretty much every jurisdiction in America. (There are some jurisdictions where some outdated prohibitions remain, but they aren’t enforced. If they were enforced, they would almost certainly be struck down by the courts.)
Religious beliefs are separate and distinct from conventional morality. Conventional morality is guided by the most common and general personal beliefs held by secular society, and secular society enforces these beliefs through the legal system. The religious beliefs of individual churches simply aren’t taken into account. In fact, the Constitution states that they should be kept out of the legal system as much as possible.
In summary, I’m just reinforcing what I said earlier: Morality is not about following the instructions of your church or my church or the Muslim church down the road. In this day and age, and in most of the nations of the Western World, morality is something distinct and separate from religious instruction.
You punched one of my buttons.
First off, let me set my bona fides. In the 26th year of marriage to the girl I’ve known since age 11, devout Episcopalian, active Christian, ready to argue the value of my faith with all and sundry. Transformed ten years ago by the (Platonic, if it’s any of your business) love of a young man who became my and my wife’s ward and who changed my emotional makeup and maturity immensely as I was helping him get a handle on his.
For a Christian, there is one key argument to be used – are you complying with Jesus’s summary of the law, or are you not? If your actions are in keeping with radical, total love of God and love of your fellow man as you love yourself, then you are not sinning. If not, then you are. (Though I don’t view sin in penal-law terms, as “breaking the law,” but rather as falling short of the mark God sets as the ideal way of life for you.)
What’s the purpose of sex? Well, as you’ve continually noted, Rook, one main purpose is reproduction of the species. But we are not geared (and I believe this is the work of our maker) to desire sex always and only when in the presence of a fertile member of the opposite sex, but rather on a continuous (though not continual) basis. Further, I note that in healthy non-neurotic individuals it is the concomitant of romantic and marital love, and plays an important role in keeping strong the bonds into which people voluntarily enter as a result of such love. And that, I believe, is why God created us with the sex drives we have.
Okay, now there are people who desire sex with selected people of the opposite sex. (It’s the rare heterosexual who gets horny for Mother Teresa, just as it’s the rare gay man who gets horny for Rush Limbaugh.) There are people who desire sex with selected people of the same sex. There are people who desire sex with a selected group of people, some of whom are of the opposite sex and some the same. And, as you have noted and ired people for doing so, there are people who desire sex only with fetishes, with children below the age of puberty, with adolescents, with animals, with corpses… you name it.
In general, we as a society accept sexual behavior from two groups of people: two consenting adults, and two adolescents of approximately the same age (active sex acts between the latter being discouraged for social reasons but not condemned as sex with a sheep or a 4-year-old would be).
Now, IMHO, the ideal for sex is in a committed relationship. That is what it is “for” – to cement the bonds of such a relationship, and, of course, where possible and appropriate to give them children. Such a relationship involves the mature commitment and informed consent of two adults. Anything else falls short of this.
This is not to say “all unmarried sex is sinful.” Sometimes it is the kindest act of love which two friends can share with each other. (I’m aware of a recent instance of this sort of mutual kindness – though the participants are “trying to change”:D) But often human rationalization can see something as “showing love” when it is just indulging lust, using others as sex objects rather than sharing love as people. This is definitely less than the ideal situation. But we are, of course, human, and we are commanded as Christians not to judge the acts of others – I am speaking here of how one evaluates one’s own acts in moral terms.
Now, insofar as my opinion as to the morality of another’s acts is of any value, I find it very hard to see two people who are attracted to each other and have engaged in such a committed relationship in immoral terms – regardless of whether they have formalized it in the eyes of church and/or state, and regardless of their genital equipment. In fact, there are two regular posters to this board whom I see far too little of who have precisely that sort of relationship – and happen to be both male and gay. (There are of course several couples who happen to be “mixed doubles” that fit the definition too.) And I know of one case in which a “mixed double” couple reaches out in love to certain third parties, in the “compassionate sharing of bodies” subset I said is an OK less-than-ideal situation above, and I refuse to judge their actions as immoral. IMHO, they are not – and this is one case where IMHO is appropriately given! 
In sum, there is a very clear sexual morality defined, with right and wrondoing specified. It does not happen to agree with the legalistic and judgmental moral code of the past. But I believe it is the one God intended. And I believe each of us is supposed to apply it to his or her own life, not judge others’ behavior on it.
[Addendum to above rant: My apologies to moderators and anyone else who might be offended by religious posting in the Pit. However, Rook brought up morality, and I felt bound to answer. If you feel this should bounce back to Great Debates as a result, I would have no problem with that.]
I’m going to add to my sins that of committing a “bump” because I’m still a little bit boiling on the “morality” issue, and want Rook to read the above.
I believe the relevant saying is “Don’t teach a pig to whistle - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
Well Rook, my girlfriend likes anal sex.
We rut like pigs, howl like wolves, and sing
“Old McDonald Had a Farm” at the top of our lungs.
I guess that just ain’t natural.
Before I continue, please realize that I am not a religious fanatic what-so-ever. I’ve been expressing arguments against homosexuality that I’ve heard before but personally I do feel a person has a right to do whatever they want. I’ve never had the opportunity to ask my questions before and I do find this extremely interesting. I leave most of my personal feelings out of this discussion.
Now, what I believe has been happening to morality is it is molding to the general consensus of society. Where as Rock & Rock was “Satan’s music” when it was started, of course now it’s relatively tame. A strange thing happened. The boys who loved this new form of expression and the girls who loved Elvis’ penile gyrations are running our country now. On a religious stance, is morality supposed to be altered in the eyes of God? I personally don’t think so. I also admit to committing fornication regularly. It’s not that I don’t think it’s wrong, it’s that society has changed the view of morality so much, it doesn’t seem “as bad” anymore. I feel the bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. I also believe this is what stemmed society’s original description of homosexuality as being “against nature” and “perverted.” In the bible, Fornication: Sex before marriage, adultery, bestiality, incest, and homosexuality are all serious sins against God. (Leviticus 18:6; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) Since they are ALL serious sins against god, is it fair to say premarital sex is equally as much a sin as incest and bestiality? I think so. But it’s been accepted in our society as “normal”. My question before was, “in 30 years, is bestiality going to be accepted by the general consensus of society?” It’s possible. Then it would only leave incest to be introduced into our homes as “normal”. When I was younger, homosexuals were looked at as distressed individuals who were extremely confused about their sexuality. Politics didn’t even want to touch the issue. In a matter of 20 years, it’s now viewed as “normal” because of it’s common and of it’s genetic similarities. Did you know genetic similarities also occur in child molesters, serial rapists, and psychopaths. I read about a genetic sequence that is thought to suggest overly aggressive behavior. Does that mean that argument should be used when someone is charged with a hate crime? His genetic make-up shows he’s a violent person by nature. Many abusive husbands have had abusive fathers, who had abusive fathers. This is also genetic but the fact it’s in your genes and feels natural doesn’t always mean it’s the right way to act. What is the right (moral) way? We know what it is now. But what about 20 years from now?
Good point Rook!!! I am in total agreement with you on your last comment.
Quote from JTR:
“Do you get my point, Rook? We don’t accept religious instruction as part of conventional morality because there are too many conflicting instructions.”
Lets eliminate the difference between religions and go strictly by the most widely sold publication in the world…….the Bible. Now what conflicting information does it have regarding homosexuality?
Re: Biblical condemnation of sexual sins:Quite so, Rook, and a worthwhile point. However, several questions arise:
-
Should the USA or any state regulate behavior on the basis of the Biblical proscriptions? While there are those (“the Reconstructionist Movement” and a number of sincere Christians who have not thought the issue through) who say it should, I trust you can see good reason for not doing so.
-
If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Bible doesn’t say anything; readers of the Bible extract from it what they would consider important or which makes their case. If this were a poker game, I’d say “I’ll see your Leviticus and raise you Galatians.” Hey, buddy, we’re free from the Law. And the absolute last thing I would accept would be a “grocery list” shopping through the Law: hmmm, don’t eat pork, Naah! don’t wear clothes made of two mixed fabrics, Naah! don’t have sex with another man – I’ll take that one! That offends both God and man. Finally, there is one excellent reason for a Christian to avoid enforcing the Biblical laws on others: Jesus’s own teachings. Read the stuff he had to say to the Pharisees.
-
The final point, which does not seem to have come clear to you, is that what everyone else here has been referring to as gay sex means specifically consensual sex between two adults. As such, it is conceivably their private business and not the concern of others. Pedophilia, bestiality, and all the remainder of your other behaviors involve someone or something other than consenting adult participants. Adultery (as a crime – cheating) involves the violation of the marriage contract, and incest is considered to have significant problems both from a reproduction and a social standpoint.
-
Most of those other behaviors are considered to be psychologically aberrant, the product of some mental disorder of one form or another. While at one time, as you note, psychologists considered homosexuality to fall into the same group of disorders, that is generally not the case today. With due respect to our gay participants, I think the case could be argued, but I would tend to take the “con” side on any such debate – that it is not a disorder, except insofar as social condemnation causes emotional turmoil and makes it one.
-
You do, I hope, realize that in drawing these analogies you are by implication insulting other posters. That is why you’ve gotten such hostile responses. It would be like suggesting that since male horses have penile-vaginal sex with female horses and you have penile-vaginal sex with your significant other, you are at risk for bestiality with mares, or your significant other really desires to have a non-metaphorical stallion ram her. I don’t say this to specifically insult you or her, but to give you a sense of the sort of slam any gay poster feels from having what he/she does in bed with his/her beloved compared to the old shepherd deriving solace from his ewes, or Chester the Molester eating brownies, to revive a worn-out joke.
Hannah, I note your first post ever simply agrees with Rook. That is your privilege. However, you will shortly get attacked as a “sock puppet” and you should know why. In the past, posters have signed on under other names to simply express agreement with themselves, trying to give the impression of having a lot of support. This has led the board management to insist that every member use one and only one name, and to ban anyone caught doing that sort of thing. There is, certainly, nothing wrong with agreeing with someone. Often, though, those of us who post regularly will either deal with issues the post with which we agree raises, note some minor point that is not quite on target in the post with which we generally agree, or something else of the sort.
A “sock puppet” is like Shari Lewis’s Lamb Chops – and the only voice heard in a discussion between Shari and Lamb Chops is Shari’s. Get the metaphor?
Nope, I guess not.
I hadn’t seen your response to JTR.
Davis, Sqrl, thanks for the advice. Sorry I’ve wasted bandwidth on this, Lynn/John/Gene.
Actually, the most widely sold publication is ‘Valley of the Dolls’ by Jacqueline Susann. Nice try though.
I think you may find something in the Bible though about not laying down judgement, which you are doing, oh He-Who-Is-In-Denial.