People voting with their feet

[Sotha]

Unless most straight men are happy to be in close proximity of each others' dongs and I'm just a weird anomaly with... penile aversion? or Ithyphallophobia?

 

(Sorry to be so crude but someone had to say it...)

 

Hm.. As seen in the scientific community quotes, homosexuality is probably affected by a genetic factor, make no mistake. It has also been concluded that upbringing does not affect sexuality.

 

Nbohr's statement above tells us that there is a cultural effect too.

 

In Finland it is entirely normal for guys to pack in a small hot room (sauna), naked, sitting shoulder to shoulder. And maybe whack each other with a bath whisk (an object made by several thin branches bound together.) while drinking beer, having fun and pouring water on the sauna stove.

 

There is nothing homosexual in this activity, even that the guys are in close proximitiy of each others' dongs. It is really rare (but not impossible) to find a finnish guy who would feel uncomfortable in this kind of situation.

 

So culture is certainly affecting how close two naked persons of the same sex can get to each other.

 

While this tells nothing about the origins of homosexuality, I think it's safe to say that it occurs due to many, many factors. It is absolutely certain that sexual preference is is not a choice. It's kind of lame not to accept groups people with qualities they cannot do anything about.

 

I'll throw in some interesting (at least for me) questions:

Why does nature exhibit occurences of homosexual qualities? What's the evolutional benefit of homosexuality? There must be some kind of benefit for such a variation. Exciting, huh?

[nbohr1more]

Well sure, locker-room nudity is no big deal.

 

I suppose I was not crude enough, I was trying not to directly state "penetration" or physical contact. I presume that even in Finland, straight men are not making physical contact with each others' erections.

 

As for the utility for homosexuality, I like to believe it is a vestigial remnant of our former ability to switch genders when the supply of opposites is low. Similar to frogs. It would be interesting if they could re-enable the mechanism somehow... Some lady could yell at you and say "you have no idea what it's like being a woman" then you could switch into one and go "been there, done that, I survived, now stop nagging me."

[Baddcog]

Fat is genetic.

 

In the wild, we must scavenge and battle for even the smallest amount of food. Our genetic makeup is designed not to waste these calories. Only over the thousands of years of civilization have we begun to evolve higher metabolism to represent the new model of "fit" for a world with plentiful food through agriculture. If civilization and agriculture fail all the thin "high metabolism" folks will be truly fucked. I have a co-worker who has such a high metabolism he has to eat constantly throughout the day or he gets sick. I suspect that he would not last out in nature... The fat folk will be fine if society crumbles because they can live on crumbs and fumes. Fat folk don't have wasteful gas-guzzling metabolisms. Does this let fat folk off-the-hook for not controlling their temptations? No! But that is an entirely other topic.

 

 

Gay? C'mon it's gotta be genetic.

 

I simply can't see any scenario where I would want another male's genitals near me.

 

Even if I were the most rebellious teen, that would not be on my list of options. No "peer" could convince me that another man's wang is the cool thing to "try". I had the worst father in the world, that does not make a protruding genital sound like fun in my book. I simply can't see any way someone can be into same-gender genitals unless it was programmed from birth. Yes, there are sexual gray areas but I'd say the bias towards one gender verses another seems pretty clear to me. Unless most straight men are happy to be in close proximity of each others' dongs and I'm just a weird anomaly with... penile aversion? or Ithyphallophobia?

 

(Sorry to be so crude but someone had to say it...)

 

I can't fathom any scenario that would make me change that preference. I don't buy any "nurture" explanation of the phenomenon.

 

Oh jeez, come on.

 

OK, yes, fat is genetic, fat cells are part of the human body. But the human body has a limited number of fat cells. But 'fat people' fill the cells to the brim of exploding because of eating too much, excerising too little. Thus the fat stores fill up. Some people aren't born with more fat cells, people have no understanding of how it works.

Fat cells don't increase, they get full.

 

And sure, storing fat is the reason the cells are there. But you think obese people would make it in the wild? You're crazy. They can't move as good as someone fit, they are weaker, less endurance, etc... It's exactly why there weren't overly obese societies in the past, people had to work hard to survive.

Now everything is easy, people are sedentary, sit around and eat alot.

 

Believe me, I've exercised, lifted weights, read alot about nutrition, etc... being fat is not genetic.

--------

And what you're saying is gay absolutely genetic 'cause you don't like it?

 

So does that make homophobia genetic as you obviously are?

 

That still isn't scientific proof, even if scientists are 'speculating' that it's genetic. Until they find the specific gene it isn't proven.

[jdude]

Springheel you fail to separate religion and culture.

 

If I act as you do, all groups are responsible for what any deviants in any subcategories of them. Basically you're stereotyping one group for the actions of a smaller deviant group. If you want to keep living a live of like that it's fine but I think it's unreasonable.

 

About Badcog's post:

I agree. Saying it's strictly genetic as many are here is actually detrimental in my opinion. If we can only justify being gay because we think people are born that way what will happen if we learn the opposite is true? Are people who choose to be gay less valuable than those that are genetically gay? So far all the evidence I've seen points to the possibility of both environment and genetic factors playing a role, even from Sotha's post. It's far to large an assumption to make imo.

 

@Orbweaver:

I remember discussing that in my class. But I don't remember what was said about it Lol

[nbohr1more]

I have no fear of homosexuals precisely because I can't comprehend ever "being converted". It is as outlandish a concept to me as "being converted" to like drinking sewer water.

 

Neither will happen so I have no fear of hanging out with or associating with gay people.

 

(Other than having to visit my wife's BORING gay friends' house and talk about interior decor and antiques for hours... ...but I presume that "being boring" is not a typical gay trait so that is not really applicable to the discussion).

[Springheel]

all groups are responsible for what any deviants in any subcategories of them. Basically you're stereotyping one group for the actions of a smaller deviant group. If you want to keep living a live of like that it's fine but I think it's unreasonable.

 

You're either not reading or not understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say all Christians hate homosexuality. I said that Christianity provides the only socially acceptable justification of hatred towards homosexuals. If you are already predisposed to hate homosexuals, you will find that hatred supported by Biblical scripture.

 

You seem to missed the point of my post. It does say it is an abomination, that's ALL it says. It doesn't say to go kill, attack, or judge homosexuals.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Jdude, do you even READ your Bible?

 

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

 

Maybe you should try "googling a couple words" next time before you start "feeling sorry for me". You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[jdude]

If a religious person is raised to disagree with homosexuality, that doesn't mean they hate homosexuals.

[Springheel]

The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are a covenant between God and Israel

 

Yeah, yeah, I've heard the "the Old Testament doesn't count" apologist argument before (though ironically the same people will still claim the Ten Commandments are meant to obeyed).

 

However, that has nothing to do with this discussion. You said that Bible said nothing about killing homosexuals. You're wrong.

 

Let me break it down:

 

1. The Bible does indeed say that homosexuals are an abomination and deserve death.

2. Someone who hates homosexuals can therefore find plenty of support for his hatred in the Bible.

3. Hatred of homosexuals results in the bullying, beating and murder of gay men and women worldwide.

4. Anything that provides encouragement or support for that hatred is therefore dangerous.

 

Therefore, your view that "Even though the religious view of homosexuality is technically bigoted I don't think it is dangerous" is wrong.

[jdude]

Again, you're viewing the world and religion through a microscope.

 

The whole problem you have with religion vs homosexuality is people just like you who read it with a microscope. Your interpretation of the Old Testament is micro-analytical misinformed, therefore your arrangement against my argument is wrong.

[Fenn]

By the way, if the Old Testament doesn't count anymore, is homosexuality still an abomination? Perhaps it was an abomination then but it isn't now...Yahweh became more liberal as he got older.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Fenn

[Sotha]

Again, you're viewing the world and religion through a microscope. And I can completely understand how you fail to comprehend the full message of things using this method.

 

The whole problem you have with religion vs homosexuality is people just like you who read it with a microscope. Your interpretation of the Old Testament is micro-analytical misinformed, therefore your arrangement against my argument is wrong. Spring's arguments are crystal clear.

 

Would you have preference I said 'it doesn't say [for us, meaning people of existence now in modern times as opposed to people existing in Isreal 6000 years ago,] to go kill homosexuals?' or do you lack the ability to infer that?

 

BTW: if you're going to dismiss what I say with a pompous statement like 'yeah yeah yeah your argument doesn't count' then I'm not going to respond to you. There's no reason to be such a jerk.

 

I've read this several times now, but it makes no sense to me. I wish I could understand.

I suspect it is due to the fact I sit on the other side of the spectrum and I cannot understand what you're saying from the other side of the barrier.

 

Basically Spring's arguments do not count because he is paying attention to the details (ie. using a microscope?)

Without examining the details anyone could feed you all kinds of lies, without you detecting it. It's from the details where the disparities are observed.

 

Also:

BTW: if you're going to dismiss what I say with a pompous statement like 'yeah yeah yeah your argument doesn't count' then I'm not going to respond to you. There's no reason to be such a jerk.

 

Excuse me, but didn't you, yourself, just do that here?

The whole problem you have with religion vs homosexuality is people just like you who read it with a microscope. Your interpretation of the Old Testament is micro-analytical misinformed, therefore your arrangement against my argument is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, if the Old Testament doesn't count anymore, is homosexuality still an abomination? Perhaps it was an abomination then but it isn't now...Yahweh became more liberal as he got older.

 

It kinda sucks that back then when these books were written they didn't have the technology to provide a steady stream of updates and patches... So people built their own hacks in. And this is the result.

[Springheel]

The whole problem you have with religion vs homosexuality is people just like you who read it with a microscope.

 

You mean people who pay attention to what it actually says, instead of just picking the "nice" bits?

 

Your interpretation of the Old Testament is micro-analytical misinformed

 

Ah, so when you make a false statement about what the Bible says, and I correct you, I'm "micro-analytically misinformed". That's a good one.

 

I think your problem is that you're trying to argue what the Bible really means, as opposed to what it actually says. That's completely irrelevant here (and ultimately fruitless). I'm saying (over and over again) that someone who hates gays will find clear support for that belief in the Bible. You may disagree with their interpretation, but so what? The fact is that the verses are there (and the New Testament has plenty of anti-gay verses as well; it's not all the Old Testament). The homophobe will feel bolstered by the verses, and feel that their hatred is justified.

 

That's not to say that someone who accepts homosexuals can't find verses to support that view as well (though it's harder). Ultimately the Bible can be used to support just about any view you have, if you cherry-pick enough.

[jdude]

If we can agree it all comes down to perception then what are we arguing about? There's obviously no right or wrong just gray.

[Springheel]

 

I'm not saying it all comes down to perception. If the Bible didn't have verses that were blatantly hostile to homosexuals, it would be much harder to use it to justify an anti-gay position. As it is, it's very *easy* to justify an anti-gay (even violently anti-gay) position.

 

About the micro analytical: It's one way of interpretation but it's old and relatively out-dated.

 

Yeah, paying attention to words is SO yesterday.

 

Foucauldian, post-modern and Laclauian approaches are thought, currently, to extract more accurate and deeper meaning from texts.

 

Oh please. We've been over that already. Post modernism has nothing to do with getting at meaning.

 

Interestingly, as I type this, there is news story playing about yet another gay teenager who committed suicide because he was bullied about his sexuality. That's four in the last couple weeks. Hmm, that makes me think of something....

 

3. Hatred of homosexuals results in the bullying, beating and murder of gay men and women worldwide.

4. Anything that provides encouragement or support for that hatred is therefore dangerous.

[jdude]

That's not to say that someone who accepts homosexuals can't find verses to support that view as well (though it's harder). Ultimately the Bible can be used to support just about any view you have, if you cherry-pick enough.

 

Post modernism has everything to do with interpretation, I guess my professor with a PHD in philosophy and English has been lying to me for the last 6 months..

 

Again, if you don't see it for the big picture, I don't think you can extract the true meaning and intention. There's people, like you, who will miss this and use parts out of context of the big picture to support their agenda. Fox News regularly does this. So it is possible it could be used by some people to 'support' their anti-gay agendas, but it being miss used like this by a minority of misguided people, does not make it dangerous imo. A gun can be mis used to, so can television, music, newspapers, radio etc.

 

 

But you think it does, what-evs. Just out of curiosity. What would you suggest the government or people do about it?

[slavatrumpevitch]

I find it very interesting how even a group a people who I imagine are largely in agreement about what the thread started out being about can still find ways to disagree so vehemently.

 

having said that, and I hate to be rude, as I have a great deal of respect for the people on both sides of the debate here, but, Jdude, I don't understand why you can't just admit that springheel has rigorously proved you wrong on a factual issue.

 

it is as simple as this:

 

person A says: the bible offers no verses to support violence towards gays.

 

person B: Yes, it does, to paraphrase: "homosexuality is an abomination should be punished with death"

 

Person B is right, and person A is wrong. and there's nothing gray about this. This is simply the factual matter regarding what is and what is not present in holy scripture.

 

Jdude, you may indeed be right in your views in many aspects of this discussion, but this is not one of them.

 

to say that religious hatred of gays is not dangerous is simply fallacious. and beyond that, I find it personally offense that one could even argue this point, and I don't think I'm the only one.

 

 

 

 

Having said that: I just want to make sure I understand your point from earlier. would it be fair to paraphrase you as "I will not take a stance on whether or not bigotry is morally acceptable, however, bigotted views are without question in someone's legal rights to have and express freely. (so long as it does not resort to violence)"?

 

if this is your point, I agree. but.... there's a difference between what an individual has the right to think, and what laws the government should be allowed to make. There are certainly bigots who think anyone of african ancestry should have no protection under the law, and that's that's "fine" (meaning legal) for them to think as such. However, the state should not have the right to revoke the rights of black citizens.

 

I see this as isomorphic to the gay debate. I get that there are people who think homosexuality is a sin. and I beleive in their right as individuals to think this. but, the government does not have this right, and must protect it's people's rights regardless of sexuality, this includes the right to be legally "married".

[jdude]

He is right.

 

How can I say 'let's pick and choose what the Bible says about harming gays? The verse regarding death is directed to Ancient Israel only according to scholars. Logically if these laws were to apply to everywhere else why aren't people who work on Sundays being protested against?

[Springheel]

I might well consider causing happiness to be preferable, as would presumably the majority of the thinking population, but it would be difficult to prove that it is objectively "better". No matter how rational one is, ultimately most statements about how the world "should be" have to be accepted as unprovable axioms, which makes reasoning about their truth values impossible.

 

Yes, I know what you're saying and it's a valid argument that is hard to assail. I think there's a case to be made for side-stepping that problem altogether, though.

 

We make an unfounded presupposition in order to use rational thought--that our senses provide accurate information. Ultimately, it's a premise that can't be objectively proven. But assuming you're not a solipsist, we accept the assumption because NO rational discourse of any kind is possible without it.

 

Likewise, moral discourse of any kind is impossible without some appeal to moral "objectivity". I think it can be argued that we can accept an unprovable premise (that such objectivity actually exists) in order to actually have meaningful discourse on the subject.

 

The best "objective" morality I've been exposed to is a kind of Contractarianism similar to John Rawls'. Essentially, that what is "objectively" moral is behaviour that a rational person would agree to if he/she had no knowledge of his relationship to the behaviour. In other words, you don't know whether you're the perpetrator or the victim. We can agree that random murder is objectively wrong because no rational person would agree to being the victim of random murder.

 

I realize that position is open to the criticism of side-stepping your argument entirely.

 

(btw, are you familiar with "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris? It just came out and tackles this very issue.)

[Summer]

If we remove the artificial hatred from Biblical religion, how can we conclude that religion is dangerous to homosexuals?

 

Religion is more than some abstract construct floatingsomewhere above us. Religion is composed of spiritual, ethical and behavioraltenets that people believe in – i.e. faith. The Bible has writings that condemnhomosexuality in the harshest terms. It is the people, however, who twist thewords they read and use them to excuse their own bigoted behavior.

 

 

In that sense it’s not religion per se that isdangerous to homosexuals – what is dangerous to them is the hatred carriedwithin by those Christians who believe they are in the right because the Biblesays so in this or that point. Religion as faith is not dangerous (unless youwant to take this topic into the secularism vs. religion discussion,psychological impact of religion, etc.). Religion as a community of spiritualpeople CAN BE dangerous to homosexuals: People have always used the words ofothers to justify their own (bigoted) behavior, as though someone else sayingwhat they think makes them right somehow.

 

 

So, it’s not quite as simple as saying that religionis not dangerous to homosexuals. The point is that homosexuals, straights andanyone really should NOT be excluded from the communal part of faith – the church– just because a group of priests somewhere argue that the Bible says gays arean abomination. People are social animals. Sometimes a person wants to sharehis or her faith in the company of others – in the mass or service or ritual or whatever.That becomes physically hard (threatening) and mentally exhausting when thespiritual community you belong to, lead by the priesthood, says you are anabomination ‘cause you’re gay. That you’re not welcome. That you’re going tohell.

 

 

Religion and faith are not dangerous. It’s people whoclaim to know THE truth who are.

 

 

 

 

[Springheel]

Religion and faith are not dangerous. It’s people whoclaim to know THE truth who are.

 

That's exactly what religion is...faith that you know "the truth" because someone told you that you do.

[Summer]

That's exactly what religion is...faith that you know "the truth" because someone told you that you do.

 

Unless faith is your parents' faith or a family/community thing, people who choose their own religion at adulthood or at a mature age usually claim they were drawn to it by a spiritual tenet or ritualistic aspect which gave them a so-called mystical experience - they felt a bond or a connection to it. That does not always include someone telling you something and accepting it at face value.

 

People would be much better off if they could just say "that's my truth which may not be your truth - which is fine".

[Mortem Desino]

Oh boy, I sure missed out on a party!

 

Not differentiating the Pentateuch big three: moral law, ceremonial law, and civil law; using all three appropriately to help reveal God's "attitude" toward homosexuality.

 

Asserting that the law is no longer valid in the new covenant. If God's moral law and threat of damnation is not valid, how could Christians ever see their need for a savior from sin?

 

The observation that cherry-picking from the bible can be used to support almost any argument. You bet! Don't feel like working on my research paper? Ecclesiastes 12:12! "Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body." Sorry professor, but Solomon knew better!

 

The world is full of hatred, and humans (God's confused and lost crown of creation) are becoming more confused, more lost, and more rebellious. Like an angry toddler wrestling his arm away from the parent's protecting hand.

::descends shyly from soapbox::

[ungoliant]

The observation that cherry-picking from the bible can be used to support almost any argument. You bet! Don't feel like working on my research paper? Ecclesiastes 12:12! "Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body." Sorry professor, but Solomon knew better!

 

 

As i understand it, this is correct. You can make the Bible say just about anything once. The way I was taught, the concept of "sound doctrine" is when you can backup a principle/idea with multiple verses or references from the Bible, and the more, the better. Also helps if you don't take those references way out of context.

[OrbWeaver]

The best "objective" morality I've been exposed to is a kind of Contractarianism similar to John Rawls'. Essentially, that what is "objectively" moral is behaviour that a rational person would agree to if he/she had no knowledge of his relationship to the behaviour. In other words, you don't know whether you're the perpetrator or the victim.

 

I've seen that as a definition of "fairness" -- a situation is considered fair if a random observer would be equally happy to take the part of any individual in the situation. A system of ethics based on this definition plus the axiom "The system should maximise fairness" would be one I would be completely happy with, not least because it totally destroys the ridiculous notion of a "victimless crime" and provides no justifications for interfering with people's private lives.

 

We can agree that random murder is objectively wrong because no rational person would agree to being the victim of random murder.

 

I would prefer not to describe it as "objectively wrong", but yes, it is clearly given a strongly negative weighting by the aforementioned ethical system.

 

(btw, are you familiar with "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris? It just came out and tackles this very issue.)

 

No, I'm not familiar with it. Sounds interesting though.

[Tudor]

I have no personal run-ins with relgious homosexual-hate, so the world as I've seen it hasn't given them any bad rep here. personally I think it has to do with gender attitudes.

 

Men are quite often fascinated by masculinity, probably because it symbolises a greater chance to get a partner. Since sex drive is quite natural it is therefore a highly encouraged trait to "be a man".

 

but what is masculinity really? It seems to be about being able to make drastic decisions, to be able to defend yourself, and to gain power. Another mportant aspect is "to not be feminine" This seems to be the main reason for gay hate where I live. You simply aren't a man if you don't want to have sex with women. Complications arise since you are not a woman, so you are not worthy of their affection, and you are not a man either, since your masculinity is flawed. You will be looked down on by the other men, as being "the better man" is something they've always been told to be, they genuinely believe they are of more worth than the more "feminine" gay man. The same way men often seem to belive they are of more worth than women.

 

 

I don't know if I make much sense here, but it's what I think. Masuclinity is revolting.