Goodness, no. Nor do I follow all of the other Levitical laws. I haven’t even burned any witches. (If I did, I’d never get to meet Falcon.) Being the fundamental type that I am, I’m going with Paul in the New Testament here.
Just on basic principal… ewwwww!
Don’t tease me. I’d love to, but I’m pregnant.
Who???
Lissener said:
Point taken. However, distinguish between three kinds of “Christians” – (a) liberal Christians like myself, Tris., and Lib. who are effectively on your side in any dispute over the morality of your sex life and sexuality; (b) conservative Christians who feel that they should not engage in gay sex, even if they feel desires towards it, on account of the Bible, but are not attempting to regulate your life, just their own; © what Lib. calls “religion politicians” who feel that “the only decent society is one founded on Biblical principles” and would legislate their view of the Biblical standard of morality. Group © are whom you are enraged at; group (b) has views inimical to yours but are not interested in harming you and your life.
Understood. And I for one am very much opposed to that. Any so-called “Christian” who attempts to sit in judgment on your life is going completely against the teachings of Jesus, and should be called to task on it by his co-religionists. Unfortunately, homophobia has a long and dark history in this country, and it ain’t gonna be that easy.
Check. And you will find me campaigning alongside you for the freedom you deserve. For somewhat different reasons: IMHO, God did not give us free will in order to run each other’s lives, but to choose to follow Him as and when each of us ends up being called to do.
Nope. Rage against injustice, and most of us will be standing beside you as you do. But accept that people can differ on what they find moral, and so long as they’re setting their own standards, it ain’t gonna hurt anybody but possibly themselves.
Example from a less controversial realm: Phil and his wife are vegetarians, and though we haven’t discussed it in any detail, my distinct impression is that they have chosen that on moral grounds. That Phil chooses not to eat meat because to him it is immoral to do so does not affect my ability to do so or to make the opposite choice (as it happens, I eat meat about twice a week, and am a eggs-and-cheese vegetarian the rest of the time, for my own dietary reasons). If, on the other hand, they began a campaign to declare groceries selling meat illegal, closing down steakhouses and such, then we’d be at odds.
Nor should you. Just be aware that there are several grounds for differences of opinion, and that not everybody who disagrees with you is necessarily your enemy.
Lauralee, Anne Heche is the woman with whom Ellen DeGeneres fell in love, a quite pretty and willowy blonde. In bringing her up, I was saying something to the effect: “Though as far as I know N. (you in this case) does not have any desire for women, she has resolved that -sexual relations with another woman are immoral on the basis of her Biblical beliefs.” Probably something not necessary to say, but I needed to make the point that what you were saying was a judgment for yourself, not in judgment of others’ morality. Illustrating it by raising (and at the same time denying, since it’s pretty evident to me you are not interested in gay sex) a hypothetical example struck me as a good idea to bring the point home. I hope it wasn’t offensive.
To repeat myself, I’m not enraged at any group; I was momentarily enraged at the individual Lauralee for diverting the discussion to force me to repeat myself for the Nth time on a well beaten hank of horse jerky.
And my issues are with your groups (b) and © insofar as the promulgation of their beliefs chips away at the effectiveness of any attempts to change the status quo. To repeat myself, the statements “If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem” and “Silence = Death” mean exactly the same thing. And the only issues I would have with group (a) would be to the extent to which they support the promulgation of the opinions of groups (b) and ©. I would not challenge their rights to support such promulgation, but I would consider them a part of the problem insofar as they did.
Exactly. Please try to understand that this “campaign” of mine (and others’) consists entirely of working to change people’s minds. Since when did that become such a bad thing? Since when did that become synonymous with trampling on their rights? Since when is the only acceptable response to a campaign to change people’s minds about an issue “you should just be more accepting of their viewpoint”? I am on a campaign to change the minds of people who believe my existence to be immoral. I just continue to be astonished at how unacceptable this is to you.
And if they refuse to consider changing their minds, as many of them do, I call them wrong and move on (or try to, at any rate; if they call me back to debate the point, I tend to take them at their word and engage in the debate in good faith. Which often proves naive). And since the opinion on which we disagree is about my own basic humanity, my own, I don’t accept that it’s wrong for me to call them wrong. Perhaps they should be more accepting of my viewpoint. . . .
For reasons previously stated I disagree with this statement; I feel it exhibits a naivete about where political power comes from, if not the perceived will of the people.
Except of course that while seeking a parallel that is less controversial may seem a worthy goal, it may not be entirely appropriate here: non-vegetarians are not subject to political discrimination at the hands of the powerful vegetarian majority. So while the story you outline has certain plot points in common with the one at hand, it has an entirely different context, not to mention ending. By trying to apply the vegetarian analogy, you strip the issue of all political significance and further illustrate the gulf between my real life situation and your intellectual abstraction.
I’m gonna leave it alone – our points have definitely been both done to death by now.
In case it hasn’t come clear – I agree with you that changing people’s minds is the primary goal. And, as I meant to say by the “it ain’t that easy” remark, that can be a long, slow process. I’ve been trying to do what I can to help – check out the three “Christianity and Love” threads, buried on this board (set your view posts from to something like 90 days to find them, and look on high-numbered pages). Let me know what else I can do.
My one final comment on the issue that divides us here would be, it’s much easier to change minds when you are starting where they are, rather than rejecting totally a point of view that doesn’t quite fit your own. But we can agree to differ on how much someone else’s opinions hurt.
In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), in reversing the conviction of Cantrell for disturbing the peace by passing leaflets and having listeners listen to a record, Justice Douglas wrote:
“The offense known as breach of the peace embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts, but acts and words likely to produce violence in others. No one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot, or that religious liberty connotes the privilege to exhort others to physical attack upon those belonging to another sect. When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.”
Justice Stevens wrote in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), more succinctly in the majority opinion:
“The First Amendment does not protect violence.”
If it can be proven that the thoughts and rhetoric incite the violence, then the thoughts and rhetoric can be legislatively prohibited and judicially sanctioned.
Thanks goes to the Cornell Supreme Court Collection.
Here’s another cite: in Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974), Blackmun wrote for the majority:
The principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action, applies to state regulation burdening access to the ballot…"
No! I was just curious.
Regarding the “campaign to change people’s minds” thing.
Sure, go ahead and try, it’s a worthy goal. And I know you are aware that it may sometimes prove futile. However, you might be able to appeal to some people’s sense of fair play. They may never personally find homosexuality a “moral” thing, but they might be persuaded to vote for and support laws that promote equality to all human beings, including gay people. Would that suffice?
I can think of a few religious friends of my aquaintence that might be “liberal” enough to be persuaded to think “It’s not fair that gay people cannot have the advantages of marriage, so I’ll support a law that gives them that.” Yet, these same people might never concede that homosexuality would fit into their personal moral code. I sometimes suppose (perhaps I am dreaming here) that rather than trying to change people’s minds about “morality”, it might be easier (at least on some people) to try to change their minds about basic fairness to all human beings.
Lauralee wrote:
Don’t tease me. I’d love to, but I’m pregnant.
Bartender, whatever the lady wants!
I suspect it’ll be IBC and a slice of pepperoni, right, Lauralee? 
yosemitebabe I dont think thats what lisseners trying to do because he just wants to switch places with homophobes. He doesent want people to recognize rights of humans just enlightened ones.
Asmodean, that is not fair. (Though funny.)
From what Lissener has said on his numerous posts on the subject – and I don’t blame him for getting tired of repeating himself – the traditional Christian attitude about homosexuality has contributed strongly to a homophobic social attitude that has caused him great pain. Therefore he objects to anyone saying “homosexuality is sinful/wrong/disgusting” even if they are solely talking about their own opinions, not what they would see society have or do.
Lauralee, who would not herself ever condemn anyone for what they think, feel, or believe, is a Christian who believes in the Scriptural prohibition of homosexuality. I cannot speak for Saint Zero’s life, but he gave me the same impression. (“Not for me, even if I wanted to, because it’s against God’s laws, and I’m more interested in pleasing Him than anything” would be their stance.)
However, because this interior motive leads in less decent people to wanting to see their points of view that of the public, the net result is the homophobia that has plagued American society – and seems to continue to, outside rather limited social circles and a few large metropolitan areas. To this Lissener, quite reasonably, objects strongly.
And on that note, having defended both parties to the best of my ability, I’m gonna shut up on the issue – until the next time somebody decides to throw it out for one reason or another, as did pepperlandgirl in the Thread That Would Not Die.
Eeps…what was missing from that last post was a paragraph in the middle explaining that for LL and SZ, their personal views on what is right for them do not lead to the egocentric rule that “I know what’s right for everybody.” Please insert that mentally, and see if it makes more sense that way.
… and in determining the severity of the crime. If I drive my car past a pedestrian at 60 mph, missing that person by two inches, is that a serious felony? You don’t know. It could be attempted murder, premeditated. It could be careless driving on my part. It’s up to the jury to decide (if it comes to that). What is the difference? Look at the words - “premeditated”, “careless” - they describe states of mind. So thoughts are already a part of many criminal statutes.
I’ll argue that no statute attempts to ban a thought - it would be impossible, as well as wrong. But I still make these distinctions:
It is impossible to ban specific thoughts.
It is wrong to ban the expression of those thoughts.
It is imperative to distinguish crimes from non-crimes and less-severe crimes, using evidence about thoughts.
Naturally, the latter is difficult. How many premeditated murders have been plead as second-degree crimes because the prosecutor knew it would nearly impossible to prove that the killer was planning it? I don’t know but my guess is “oodles”. So I’m not saying “mental evidence” is easy to come by.
So my feeling about “hate crime” statutes: they are really no different than other statutory provisions which define a specific state of mind as a mitigating or aggravating circumstance. They are not Orwellian, they do not make thought a crime. The crimes we are talking about are stuff (most) people already see as terrible and punishable, mainly killing and maiming people on purpose. Let’s not kid ourselves: attempts to “outlaw racism” would be laughed out of committee. Under the actual legislation, hate simply increases the severity.
The only question is, is racism a fouler, more immoral motivation than another motivation? My uncertainty about the answer is why I’m uncertain about “hate crimes” in general. I’m not convinced that killing someone because you were paid to do so, or because you wanted to steal their wallet, is any better than killing someone because you hate their race or their sexual orientation. Frankly, I vacillate on this issue: sometimes I think racism is much worse than greed, sometimes I think, well heck, a racist is standing up for his beliefs, a contract killer is just out to make a buck.
Ha! You learn pretty fast! (Although I’m really not a big pizza fan. They didn’t ask me for ideas when they started that board up!)
BorisB: *The only question is, is racism a fouler, more immoral motivation than another motivation? My uncertainty about the answer is why I’m uncertain about “hate crimes” in general. I’m not convinced that killing someone because you were paid to do so, or because you wanted to steal their wallet, is any better than killing someone because you hate their race or their sexual orientation. Frankly, I vacillate on this issue: sometimes I think racism is much worse than greed, sometimes I think, well heck, a racist is standing up for his beliefs, a contract killer is just out to make a buck. *
Good point, Boris, but I’ll counter it with one I made on an earlier hate-crimes thread, which I’m too tired to go look up now: I believe the rationale for increasing penalties based on hate motives takes into account the intent not just to kill or hurt the victim, but to terrorize and intimidate other people who resemble the victim. A robber or contract killer is indeed committing a heinous act for, at best, despicable motives, but it’s an act directed solely at the individual victim. A hate crime is considered to be a heinous act that’s also meant as a threat to others besides the particular victim, so in a sense it’s more of a crime, or more crimes than one.
That’s a good point to. The needs of society as a whole are not always easy to balance against the specific person who has been wronged. I mean, in some ways careless driving, which ends up in a wreck on the freeway, which delays 5000 people on their way to work, is worse than a lot of things with much greater penalties.
In any case I think the “racial terrorism” factor is the best justifiction for hate crime legislation.