General Wesley Clark is supposedly about to declare candidacy for president.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you could clock with an egg timer how long before he starts getting asked about “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and the entire subject of gays in the military.
PAD
• 
Rob,
Personally, I’d say no, you’re not a bigot. Everyone has his/her/its own set of opinions and justifications for them.
From your description, what sets you apart from the people I’d call bigots is how you choose to act on that belief. You don’t go around telling everyone who’s gay how horrible you think they are. You’re not attempting to get your religious belief made into the law of the land.
In short, you’re recognizing that your personal belief is just that, and not expecting the rest of the world to hold that same opinion or to let you discriminate against people because of it.
That doesn’t sound at all bigoted to me, no.
TWL
Is Homosexuallity morally wrong is the last thing i read on this page.
Morals it seems are open to debate along with everything else these days and as such, judging morallity and what can be construde as morally wrong or right always tends to be based on ‘Point of View’ and needs to move with the times as well as everything else in a so called ‘Civilised and modern society.’
I am a UK resident and not familair with Dr. laura Schlessinger who is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show, but perhaps many are.
Recently, she said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly state it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
-*-
discussion meritted i believe.
Well…First, Dr. Laura is no longer an Orthodox Jew; she’s publicly left the religion. That’s irrelevant to the question, but I thought I would point that out.
Second, is discussion merited? Religious beliefs are a person’s chocie. They cannot be debated. One person believes one thing. One person another. No matter how long we discuss our religious beliefs, this isn’t going to change.
Yes…some of the laws in leviticus seem funny today. But what useful purpose does laughing at them in public serve except offend those that hold those scriptures holy?
Whether it is appropriate to force your religiouis beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) on others — that is an issue that might merit discussion.
Some years ago, Spy magazine did an article about an unusual practice by our very own United States By GOD Navy called “crossing the Meridian.” It is a hazing process for new sailors that can be anything from a harmless prank, to simulated homosexuality, to outright rape. Did anybody else happen to read that?
Alan wrote: In this day, how can a general be stupid? Does anybody know what his education level is?
He is a Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in his class from West Point. I’d love to see a side by side comparison of his Curriculum Vitae versus George W’s.
Question for those who like the “bigot” word for those people who disapprove of homosexuality:
I do NOT believe that gay people should be held back from any kind of work (except working for a church which believes as I do). They can be teachers, soldiers, doctors, whatever… as long as they can do the job well.
As teachers, for example, should they be allowed to discuss their homosexuality? If my high school teacher is a twenty-seven year old woman, and the class asks her how she spent her weekend, can she say she went away with her boyfriend? Girlfriend?
I will NOT share my opinion with a gay person UNLESS they ask, and even then it will not be in the context of the single issue but their standing before God.
If a gay person is discussing their homosexuality – talking about apartment hunting with their partner, or recommending a romantic restaurant they went to, or talking about a painful breakup – do you share your opinion?
I do NOT believe the government should have a position in any marriages, let alone gay relationships.
But the government does. That given, should a same-sex couple be allowed to marry?
>PERHAPS something for people with kids. Civil Unions should be for anyone who wants one regardless of sexual activity.>
Again, whether you approve or not, we DO have marriage as a government licensed union. That given, should gays be excluded from that license?
I have friendships with people of every stripe, including gay people.
But I do believe it is wrong.
I don’t know if you’re a bigot or not. But your basic question seems to revolve around your right to see homosexual activity as morally wrong, which is of course your right. Talk of bigotry aside, that opinion *is* going to be unpalatable to gay people, just as the opinion that, say, relationships between people of different races is morally wrong is going to be unpalatable to a mixed-race couple. Someone holding that opinion may not, like you with homosexuals, think that those relationships should face discrimination, but the very fact that this imaginary anti-misceganist finds those relationships morally wrong would very likely cause anger among mixed-race couples. If I were gay, I’d find it hard to be friends with someone who found the relationships I was in – and relationships are, for many people at least, one of the most important parts of their lives; it is for me – morally wrong.
Yes…some of the laws in leviticus seem funny today. But what useful purpose does laughing at them in public serve except offend those that hold those scriptures holy?
To illustrate that finding homosexual behavior to be morally wrong as based solely on its being prohibited by Biblical law is an inconsistent stance to take. The point of naming all those silly laws is to point out the fact that *no one* follows them, or suggests that they should be followed.
The Blue Spider wrote:
What I mean by reputed? Lieberman…. Dean… Edwards…. Gephardt. These guys, none of whom I’ll vote for, have appeared on TV and have been running for awhile. If he wants to catch up, he has to get money fast and get off his ášš.
OK, you’ve named four of what you originally said were seven “highly-reputed” candidates. Which three of the five remaining Democrats that were in the race before Clark do you consider “highly-reputed,” and which are the two that you consider to be of ill repute?
Please keep in mind that all of the candidates do meet your definition of “have appeared on TV and have been running for awhile.” All have been in the race for some time, have appeared on TV, and have even participated in debates (though Sharpton missed one debate).
The candidates you have not mentioned are: Senator Bob Graham, Senator John Kerry, Representative Dennis Kucinich, former Senator and Ambassador Carol Mosely Braun, and the Reverend Al Sharpton. Please advise which three of these individuals you consider “highly-reputed” and which two you consider to be of ill repute.
Also, if “Lieberman…. Dean… Edwards…. Gephardt” are so “highly-reputed,” why do you take pains to stress “none of whom I’ll vote for”? Should we take this to mean that you’ll instead be voting for a candidate of ill repute?
I’m fascinated by these sweeping statements of yours, and anxiously await your response.
Actually, the New Testament take on those Old Testament laws and rules is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow them, but to be righteous before God, you must be able to. Since it is impossible, you must find a new solution, and that solution is Jesus Christ, who has taken the wrath of God upon himself so that you don’t have to. By accepting His sacrifice, you are righteous before God.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
To answer John: As long as they don’t get graphic with the students (same as straight teachers) then sure, why not? I don’t think they should preach for it during class time, and if approached after class by a student, I would recommend the teacher take care, but be open and forthright with questions. As a parent it is my job to ‘debrief’ my child.
To solicate my opinion, a person must pointedly ask for it. I have a family friend contemplating a sex-change operation. He hasn’t asked me about it, so we haven’t talked about it.
I think Civil Unions should be available for anyone. What two people do within that Civil Union is none of the government’s(or my) business. Since I think government marriage is flawed, I wouldn’t vote for any changes to uphold it. So no, CU’s for gays, not marriages. If they can find a church to recognize their union, fine. None of my business.
Homosexuality is a “big thing” only because it can be a big part of someone’s life. On a sin-o-meter it’s no better or worse than any other (sex before marriage, for example).
As for friends, don’t you have any friends who are Christians? Or Muslims? You might find some of my views “immoral”. Could we not be friends? I get along quite well with my neighbors down the street. They know my view because they asked me for it. When they asked me if I would have a problem living by them, I asked that they refrain from sex on the driveway in daylight. Otherwise, no. No problems. People are people. We’re all messed up somehow, aren’t we?
John C. wrote:
To illustrate that finding homosexual behavior to be morally wrong as based solely on its being prohibited by Biblical law is an inconsistent stance to take. The point of naming all those silly laws is to point out the fact that *no one* follows them, or suggests that they should be followed.
Well, to say that “*no one* follows them, or suggests that they should be followed” is a bit sweeping a generalization, as there are likely people that take the Bible this seriously. I don’t eat shellfish — for example — though that’s owing to being a vegetarian and not a desire to strictly adhere to Biblical law.
But your point is still a valid one. All these laws come from the same section of the Bible as the one place homosexuality is mentioned as wrong, and yet most of these are not considered moral transgressions by society as a whole. They were at one time, but they’re not any longer.
That fact gives me hope that eventually society will get past stigmatizing homosexuals, just as society has gotten past serious issues like permitting slavery and trivial matters like cotton/poly blends and stigmatizing the nearsighted. Hopefully, some day we’ll all look back on how shortsighted stigmatizing homosexuals was, and look on that in the same light as we look at other laws of Leviticus.
Rob said:
Actually, the New Testament take on those Old Testament laws and rules is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow them, but to be righteous before God, you must be able to. Since it is impossible, you must find a new solution, and that solution is Jesus Christ, who has taken the wrath of God upon himself so that you don’t have to. By accepting His sacrifice, you are righteous before God.
and
Homosexuality is a “big thing” only because it can be a big part of someone’s life. On a sin-o-meter it’s no better or worse than any other (sex before marriage, for example).
This is the most truly and honestly Christian look I’ve heard on this issue. Would that more that call themselves Christian adhere to this philosophy.
I avoid organized religion because of the rampant hypocrisy I’ve seen in nearly every sect throughout the course of my life. It’s refreshing to see such an enlightened take. This is the philosophy I would expect from a loving god — there are rules, but even if you break them, you can still be forgiven.
Thanks for posting this, Rob. You’re not going to convert me or anything (I’m too much of a deist/agnostic/borderline atheist for that), but knowing there are folks like you out there gives me hope.
Too many so-called Christians forget the adage, “love the sinner, hate the sin,” and persecute the “sinner.” I’m glad to know there are people out there that feel otherwise.
And while I don’t agree that homosexuality is a “sin” or should otherwise be seen as negative, I respect your enlightened and thoughtful opinion.
Homosexuality is a “big thing” only because it can be a big part of someone’s life. On a sin-o-meter it’s no better or worse than any other (sex before marriage, for example).
Well, in that case, I would say you are not a bigot, since you are condemning everybody equally. However, if gays are not allowed to marry one another, then sex WITHIN marriage is impossible, so there is still a certain inequality to the position. If sex between a man and a woman is not immoral if it is within the context of a permanant covenant, is sex between two men and two women immoral under that context?
And just out of curiousity, what is your position on polygamy? The Old Testament endorses it (or polygyny, at least) outright, and there is nothing in the NT to contradict that, so is it OK, from moral standpoint?
Rob wrote:
To answer John: As long as they don’t get graphic with the students (same as straight teachers) then sure, why not? I don’t think they should preach for it during class time, and if approached after class by a student, I would recommend the teacher take care, but be open and forthright with questions. As a parent it is my job to ‘debrief’ my child.
Fair enough. What I’m basically against is the notion that gays can be teachers, but that that part of their lives should be hidden from students. Graphic details are inappropriate regardless of sexuality, as you indicate. But a teacher should be able to reference his or her partner just as much a a straight teacher might reference his or her husband or wife.
I think Civil Unions should be available for anyone. What two people do within that Civil Union is none of the government’s(or my) business. Since I think government marriage is flawed, I wouldn’t vote for any changes to uphold it. So no, CU’s for gays, not marriages.
That seems inconsistent. Marriage isn’t going anywhere, so a vote against gay marriage does literally nothing to government marriage but very specifically discriminates against same-sex couples.
As for friends, don’t you have any friends who are Christians?
My wife is a Catholic; I am an atheist. 😉
Or Muslims? You might find some of my views “immoral”. Could we not be friends? I get along quite well with my neighbors down the street. They know my view because they asked me for it. When they asked me if I would have a problem living by them, I asked that they refrain from sex on the driveway in daylight. Otherwise, no. No problems. People are people. We’re all messed up somehow, aren’t we?
Indeed. Just realize that many will always take offense that you consider homosexuality a flaw – as the “messed up” part of your neighbors’. I don’t doubt that they have flaws – that they are “sinners.” But that you consider their homosexuality to be a contributer to their flawed nature, while they clearly don’t, could be a sore issue. That it’s not is nice, but not necessarily representative.
I commend your even-handed approach, and you certainly seem no bigot. But, were I gay, I might have trouble being friends with you, knowing that you found a part of me that I consider to be critical and beautiful immoral.
That said, I do wonder why you find homosexuality to be immoral – your responses have leaned heavily on even-handedness and logic, and I’m curious as to what your rationale is for labeling homosexuality immoral.
That said, I do wonder why you find homosexuality to be immoral – your responses have leaned heavily on even-handedness and logic, and I’m curious as to what your rationale is for labeling homosexuality immoral.
I think he’s been pretty up-front about his reasoning. As a Christian, he has Leviticus and the denunciation of Paul as examples.
That being said, Christianity isn’t exactly very friendly to any sexuality, honestly, at least not in my reading.
It is inconsistent with Christian dogma to not find homosexuality immoral, for many reasons. (Paul and St. Augustine, for instance, both view sexual congress of any kind not sanctified by marriage for the express purpose of procreation to be a sin…the infamous 1Corinthians 7:9-AV But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn quotation. Indeed, in Paul’s eyes, it would be better to not marry at all and remain chaste.) Paul explicitly condemned homosexuality as a sin and declared that homosexuals would not enter heaven, along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, the evil-tongued and the greedy.
Augustine went even further, in fact: before his death he actually denouced all sexual intercourse as unnatural, pointing out that Adam and Eve (and Jesus) had been created without recourse to the act. This is after his famous argument that it was immoral to take any pleasure at all in sex, and that the act should only take place for the express purpose of reproduction…Augustine argued that the ‘normal exercise of the will’ could create an erection without any desire or pleasure on the part of the male, and that the act should take place with a minimum of effort and no attempt at gratification.
The only outright Biblical reference to homosexuality which involves a direct reference to Jesus’ teaching, to my knowledge at this time, is Matthew 19:12 wherein he said: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
This from a discussion of marriage. Some interpret this to be Jesus’ understanding that sexuality is personal to the individual, and others do not accept this interpretation. It is, however, as far as I can tell the only time Jesus addressed the issue, even obliquely.
The answer I would like to hear from General Clark (or any of the candidates, for that matter) on the subject should go along the lines of “When you consider how the current administration is treating our active duty service men and women, and the way they are cutting veterans’ benefits, I think any citizen who cares enough for this country to volunteer for the military should be considered without regard for race, religion, or sexual preference.”
You considering running, Tom? I like that answer. I’d need to hear more before I decided if I was going to vote for you, though.
Me, naaah! Too many skeletons (I proudly avoided Viet Nam purely by luck — high lottery number). I just have friends in the military (one just got back from Iraq), and many gay friends and co-workers (one of whom DID serve in Viet Nam).
Paul explicitly condemned homosexuality as a sin and declared that homosexuals would not enter heaven, along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, the evil-tongued and the greedy.
Just to get technical, no, he didn’t. First of all, the concept of homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, analogous the standard male-female attraction, did not exist until the 19th century. Prior to that, the emphasis was on homosexual ACTS: buggary, sodomy, etc.
More importantly, however, the words used in the verse in Corintheans (and echoed in Timothy), which are usually translated as “effiminate” and “homosexuals”, are far from clear in their meaning. The second one (//arsenokoitai//) does not even exist anywhere in the extant Greek corpus outside of these two verses. Its componants would translate loosely as “bed men”, and while context seems to indicate that it was SOME kind of sexual sin, there is no way of knowing what he meant.
It is worth pointing out that Hellenic Greek was RICH with words for various sorts of homosexual relationships and acts (for the same reason Eskimos have so many words for “snow”…), and yet Paul chose to use NONE of them.
This isn’t to say that Paul wouldn’t have disapproved of modern homosexual relationships. As you say, he seems to have favored celibacy, and approved of marriage only grudgingly. But stricly speaking, he did not “explicitly condemn homosexuality as a sin and declared that homosexuals would not enter heaven”.
It is also worth pointing out that the sorts of homosexual acts that would have been going on in the first century Hellenistic world would have no more resembled modern homosexual relationships than selling your daughter for a bride price resembles modern heterosexual relationships. In the Greek world, sex was an act of social domination. It was considered acceptable for a (male) citizen to have sex with any of his social inferiors, whether they were boys, women, slaves or temple prostitutes. The lower classes were not given much say in who they had sex with. _I’m_ willing to condemn that.
The only outright Biblical reference to homosexuality which involves a direct reference to Jesus’ teaching, to my knowledge at this time, is Matthew 19:12
I don’t see how that relates to homosexuality at all. It is a metaphor for the ablity of people to accept that Jesus said they cannot divorce and remarry.
(Which raises the interesting question of why many conservative Protestants accept divorce, which Jesus condmened outright, but condemn homosexual relations, on which he was silent…)
Just to get technical, no, he didn’t. First of all, the concept of homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, analogous the standard male-female attraction, did not exist until the 19th century. Prior to that, the emphasis was on homosexual ACTS: buggary, sodomy, etc.
Well, yes. But that *is* inordinately technical. Paul’s focus on the act as a sin is the justification many today use for their belief that homosexuality is wrong, because one engages in sin every time one engages in those acts. It is clear that Paul did not approve of the acts, and also clear that he was fairly willing to condemn whole groups for their activities wholesale.
This isn’t to say that Paul wouldn’t have disapproved of modern homosexual relationships. As you say, he seems to have favored celibacy, and approved of marriage only grudgingly. But stricly speaking, he did not “explicitly condemn homosexuality as a sin and declared that homosexuals would not enter heaven”.
He declared that those who engaged in homosexual acts were sinning and would be denied the kingdom of heaven. If you wish to split that hair, go right ahead…it is of course accurate to say that to the Greeks, there was no such thing as a homosexual. Men engaged in specific sexual acts, they did not declare themselves straight or gay or even bi. Nevertheless, those acts were declared by Paul to be the equivilant of several others that would keep you out of Heaven. I would agree with an interpretation that Paul wouldn’t care what a person thought of himself as if that person wasn’t actively engaging in what Paul saw as a sin, but he clearly didn’t approve of the act. It’s possible he disliked the power structure you yourself mention (a holdover from the classical period, where states like Thebes and Sparta actually used homosexual sex as a training aid for military endeavours, in essence apprenticing a young man to an older man who was both his mentor and his pederast) but he never denouces that, merely the practice of male on male intercourse. (Also interesting is the near-total disregard for female on female intercourse in the Bible.)
The only outright Biblical reference to homosexuality which involves a direct reference to Jesus’ teaching, to my knowledge at this time, is Matthew 19:12
I don’t see how that relates to homosexuality at all. It is a metaphor for the ablity of people to accept that Jesus said they cannot divorce and remarry.
It may well be such a metaphor, or it may well be Jesus directly stating that some people are incapable of living according to that doctrine. As I said, many interpret it to mean that the men who are eunuchs from the womb are homosexual in inclination, and many others dispute that interpretation. (One such interpretation, and another) My point was, it’s the only time Jesus is even thought to have addressed it. His famous commentary on Sodom and Gommorah focus on the lack of hospitality of those cities, not their infamous licentiousness or sexual practices.
Actually, the question on polygomy is exactly why I think the government should keep it’s nose out of marriage. I can live with three women and enjoy sex with them and the government is fine with that. If I marry all of them, the government throws me in jail. No sense whatsoever.
Biblically, I think you’d have a hard time finding positive examples of polygomy. While it may not be a sin outright, it’s disfunctional to say the least. Not everything that is bad is a sin, sometimes it’s just stupid.
The Pauline and Levitical verses are why I accept homosexual acts as sins. That’s one reason why I don’t engage in them (little interest is the main one, though). Ultimately, what one does is between him/her and God. I think we need other people to help us be honest with ourselves, but you’ll be alone with God on Judgement Day, if you get my drift.
Augustine clearly didn’t read Song of Songs which is a celebration of sex. Paul’s concerns are, I think, to be in a relationship if you’re going to engage in activity that can produce a child, not that sex is somehow bad. From experience, though, ministry is impacted when you’re married with children, which was much of Paul’s concern.
Oh, and Julio, thank you for the kind compliments.
As the discussion has turned from politics to homosexuals to the bible as you scroll down these pages i am reminded of a verse in one of PAD’s novels I,Q
Gods exist for 3 reasons:
1. to explain that which cannot be understood at the time by the person who is asking
2. to fulfil a spiritual belonging
3. to have someone to whine to about the unfairness of life when things go wrong.
This novel was written with John De Lancie, so whether these are davids thoughts, johns thoughts or just artistic licence, i do not know, but to me, it seemed like perfect sense.
I personally do not believe in a ‘God like’ being or an ‘almighty spiritual force’ but there are many who do, and as has been stated in this blog time and again. It is INDIVIDUAL choice, it is PERSONAL belief, it is why the human race is so diverse ( and some would say perverse ) and it makes us who we are.
Another passage in the novel I,Q is so true with current events. Most ‘Gods’ (if not all) and religions promote peace, SO WHY DO WE KILL EACH OTHER IN THE NAME OF OUR SO-CALLED GODS.
if we are ever, ever to have a world peace, i do not forsee it happening in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of my children.
Final word from Bob Hope – “I’m an atheist, thank God”
The man was a genuis.
Rob wrote:
Actually, the question on polygomy is exactly why I think the government should keep it’s nose out of marriage. I can live with three women and enjoy sex with them and the government is fine with that. If I marry all of them, the government throws me in jail. No sense whatsoever.
Actually, that’s not precisely how it works. If you lived in this kind of arrangement for a long period of time, each of the women could be considered your common law wife, and as such, the state could choose to come after you for polygamy. This is the case in many of the most recent prosecutions: the husband legally marries one woman and then lives with the others in a relationship that the state eventually considers a common law marriage. The relationship is officially recognized under the religion (thus avoiding the spectre of “living in sin”) but is not recognized by the state until it becomes a common law marriage.
Even common law marriages are not entitled to the same rights as state-certified marriages, though. And the period of time for “common law” varies from state to state (about seven years of uninterrupted cohabitation is the average). There are also loopholes as to what length of time the state considers an interruption in cohabitation. In some states, as little as one uninterrupted month out of seven years spent in separate households avoids the relationship being declared a common law marriage.
All this kind of serves to prove your point, I think.
Personally, as long as everyone’s happy in the relationship, I don’t see a problem with it and don’t understand why the state does. Whatever two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should be their business and not the state’s.
Come to think of it, the Supreme Court recently upheld that notion by declaring anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional on the basis of right to privacy. I wonder if that could also be applied to the notion of “common law” marriage, and thus, to polygamy charges.
A question for some of the great legal minds of our time. Where’s Matlock when you need him? 🙂
Adam said
I feel pretty secure about my sexuality, but feel uncomfortable when people I am not attracted to come on to me and I would feel uncomfortable being in close quarters with someone of either sex who I felt was more than just casually looking me over.
So I guess, if you can’t keep your emotions in check you should not serve, otherwise you should not be denied the right, if you want to.
i am an ex-navy brat who, let’s say, enjoyed visiting the military base every chance i could get ;). understanding Adam’s comments are essential to understanding why there is such resistance to having gays in the military. however, i believe his view to be valid.
proper military personnel are able to keep their feelings/desires in check. there should be no prejudice, no discrimination, and no violating another person’s self-respect. certainly not all in the military practice this but a true soldier knows how to act and practices it in all ways. a soldier who cannot, does not belong in the military. i wanted to join when i was a kid but knew even as a teenager that i would not be able to handle the close quarters of military life. i miss being associated with the navy but in the end everyone is better off that i didn’t.
however, there are guys who CAN do just that!! they are the job and they know how to not look at their coworkers as anything but. and who they love outside of work is no one’s business. and i must say this – it is male ego that assumes that a gay man would find ANY man attractive. and i’m not just talking about looks, tho i gotta admit some men must save a lot of money by not buying mirrors.
He declared that those who engaged in homosexual acts were sinning and would be denied the kingdom of heaven.
Again, I know I’m nit-picking, but you missed my point about the language used. We don’t KNOW what the heck he meant by arsenokoitai. It isn’t a word that is used outside of these two verses in the NT. The assumption it is a sexual sin at all is entirely based on context; assuming that it was specifically a homosexual act is unfounded. Ditto for malakoi, the word usually translated as “effeminate”. The word means “soft”, and when used to describe people, more often meant something like “wimpy” or “spineless” than indicating any sexual proclivity.
The reason I split hairs in this manner is that, well, if people are going to treat the Bible as the ultimate authority on questions of morality, it’s important that they understand what it was actually saying.
(Also interesting is the near-total disregard for female on female intercourse in the Bible.)
This is possibly a holdover from the polygynous Semitic tradition. If you have 3 wives, some such contact between them is likely. Or it may simply be that they didn’t think women important enough to worry about it. The social dangers associated with heterosexual promiscuity by women, eg, questions of paternity, are not present, and women weren’t in a position to avoid marriage if they preferred women.
But there is one reference, in Romans, to women engaging in sex with women (and men with men), but, strangely, it is described as the result of a PUNISHMENT from God because of the group’s straying from proper doctrine. That is, God MADE them engage in homosexual acts because of their heresy.
This same verse also finds Paul describing such acts as atimias (dishonor), para phusin (outside of nature) and asxemosune (ugly, deformed). So again, I am not arguing of his approval of such acts–or, quite frankly, of any sexual acts.
And herein lies part of the problem: we are dealing with someone who barely approves even of marriage. It is preferable to promiscuity, but inferior to celibacy. It isn’t a big leap to assume he would also condemn promiscuous homosexual activity, but provides no clues regarding the question of COMMITTED, monogamous homosexual relationships, in part because such an idea was foreign to his Weltanschauung.
I can live with three women and enjoy sex with them and the government is fine with that.
That depends on where you live. Here in Virginia, it is a crime (albeit a misdemenor) for unmarried persons to cohabit for lude and lecivious purposes, and, in fact, fornication itself is likewise criminalized. By a strange twist of jurisprudence, since the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy laws, homosexual sex is now LESS illegal in Virginia than heterosexual sex outside of marriage.
That’s one reason why I don’t engage in them (little interest is the main one, though).
Why would you need any reason OTHER than lack of interest? This is one that truly perplexes me. There is a perception among some (not meaning you, necessarily) that the only thing keeping most people from engaging in homosexual acts are laws or doctrines forbidding them. The idea that homosexuality is a choice, that I could be gay if I tried hard enough, is silly.
Fair question, Jack. In college (before becoming a Christian) I was into ‘experimentation’ let’s say. I tried things just to try them (no need to get into what those things were…) With one of those things, I found the experience pretty darn fun… yet something I now view as wrong. I don’t engage anymore, but I would like to.
I don’t think you could “choose” to be gay, but I think it can be conditioned. I don’t know if all homosexuals are conditioned, likely not, but some are.
I would recommend a book called “Homosexuality & the Politics of Truth”. It is written by a Harvard psychiatrist with over two decades of experience in working with homosexual men. Unfortunately, most people are not going to be opened minded about what the doctor has to say (like that some of the etiologies of
male homosexuality stem from inborn temperment plus environmental factors such as the lack of love from their Dads.)
After reading the book I realized that all those people who consider themselves so compassionate that they condone and endorse a lifestyle that is harmful are not loving at all towards homosexuals. They love to think of themselves as open minded, but they are actually so closed minded to the possiblity that homosexuality is not something that needs applause, but help in overcoming it.
And which “lifestyle that is harmful” are you referring to, Rocky?
Why does this particular preference/attraction require “help in overcoming it,” while, say, a preference/attraction for redheads over brunettes doesn’t?
Nytwyng, actually there is a vast difference in health risks between heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. Here are just some facts to ponder:
Homosexual men have a 25 to 30 year decrease in life expectancy, increase risk for infectious hepatitis, increase risk for rectal cancer, higher risk of suicide, and multiple bowel problems. One of the reasons for increased frequency in bowel problems is that, frankly, the rectum is not designed for sodomy and since it is also a very vascular area bleeding is a frequent complication and it is not a good thing to have an opportunity for infection in area where the body gets rid of its waste. Now contrasted to vaginal intercourse you don’t have the same problems because the system is designed work in that fasion. NOTE: Let me emphasize that the so-called “homosexual orientation” or “homosexual identity” does not itself cause medical problems; only some typical homosexual behaviors.
To be fair, the psychological problems like depression and suicidal behavior could have a lot to do with the lack of societal acceptance. I suspect there’s more to it than that, of course, but that wouldn’t be demonstrable until acceptance is given.
Rocky,
The acts that you describe are also practiced by some – but, agreed, not all (of course, they’re also not performed by all homosexual couples, either, as you yourself imply) – heterosexual couples.
So, if we say that increased health risks incurred by consenting activity equates to a “harmful lifestyle” and is then to be considered “wrong” or “bad” and “requires help in overcoming it,” does that mean that you would say the same about, for instance, playing football or boxing?
To second what Nytwyng said: in fact, most homosexual males don’t engage in anal intercourse, and to describe homosexuality as a “harmful lifestyle” based on that is ridiculous.
Some heterosexual couples also engage in anal intercourse. Are they also leading a “harmful lifestyle,” and do they “require help in overcoming it”?
My point was simply to make aware that homosexual behaviors, such as sodomy, have an increased risk of adverse health consequences.Of course, the health consequences would be increased for heterosexuals who choose to engage in such a behavior. As far as the claim that “most homosexual males don’t engage in anal intercourse”, that is simply incorrect. Is is realistic to claim that anal intercourse is not part of the gay male life? Almost every study done has shown that sodomy is the rule and not the exception. I’ll refer you to the Sex in America study to begin, but their are numerous other studies that confer their findings. These studies also show that sodomy is drasticly less frequent in heterosexual relationships. One could in an abstract sense separate the attraction from the behavior, but this does not play out in the real world for the vast majority of homosexual couples. As far as the questions regarding whether a “consenting activity” is “harmful” or “wrong”, let me answer with this: I have a friend who is an alcoholic. This behavior my friend engages in is associated with the following consequences: a 5 to 10 year decrease in life expectancy, chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease, serious mental disabilities, internal bleeding, and much higher incidence of suicide. This behavior has been shown to be influenced by genetics and my friend may not even think he has problem. Now, what is my obligation to my friend? Do I turn my head at such a destructive behavior? Do I applaud him for standing up to society and exerting his autonomy? Do I point out to him that not every alcoholic suffers the consequences listed above? It is precisely because of these adverse consequences that I consider my friend worth receiving treatment. Some of you may feel differently.
Sorry man, but the quote “I’m an atheist, thank God” is usually attributed to Luis Bu
Point 1: Rocky, unless you can provide hard statistics showing that most homosexual males participate in anal intercourse, I don’t believe a word of it.
Do you realize that the definition of “sodomy” includes ALL sexual acts other than male-on-female, vaginal sex? From http://www.m-w.com:
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
“Sodomy” does not mean “anal intercourse,” though “anal intercourse” is a form of “sodomy.” As is any form of oral sex, no matter what gender the participants. So it may be correct to say that almost all homosexual males participate in “sodomy,” but that does not prove that almost all homosexual males have anal intercourse. (And that doesn’t even get into the fact that some homosexuals exclusively “pitch” and others exclusively “catch.”)
Point 2: Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is insulting and homophobic, exposing you as the bigot I already suspected you were. Unlike alcoholism, homosexuality is not a disease.
Julio,
Unfortunately, I see that this has gone from an intelligent discussion to baseless name calling. I believe I was clear in referring to the health consequences of anal intercourse, but let me say again in case there is some confusion: anal intercourse has numerous health consequences regardless of whether you are straight or gay. Your ignorance regarding behavioral studies ( done by pro- gay rights activists might I add) and normal health consequences of behaviors is impressive. You said alcoholism is a disease and homosexuality is not? Since you are member of the word police, Can you define disease for me? Traditionally it has been defined as impairment of normal functioning. It is sad that you result to name calling when someone challenges your beliefs. It is much easier to call someone a “bigot” or “homophobic” (=fear of same), than to try to reason with them. Especially if you have some dogmatic beliefs that risk being exposed to the light of Truth. So, instead of challenging me with some evidenced based medicine, or articulating a logical philosophical reason, you call names. If you think you are so right, prove it. Don’t give anecdotal evidence. Don’t recite baseless insults. I already mentioned the Sex in America study, you could do searches in the American Journal of Public Health, or the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, or the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. There have been so many studies that it wouldn’t take long for you to prove me wrong. I’ve already read those studies, and if you were really interested in the truth you could stop your rhetoric and have something intelligent to add.
I never understood why people use the word “homophobe”. What are they saying, “you are afraid of same things” or “you are afraid of homosexuals”? Either one doesn’t make much sense to me.
OK, Rocky. Research.
I checked the sources you name. Interestingly, none of them seem to carry the information you state they do. Nor do they support my position. They simply don’t address the issue. Yes, they do cite that homosexual men may be at greater risk to certain diseases, but nowhere in any of the research have I found evidence that the majority of homosexual men engage in receptive anal sex (because the problems you suggest would not be caused by insertive anal sex, only by receptive), nor that most homosexual men do not. If you can find proof to the contrary, please provide links to this proof — I note that while you’ve been citing sources, you haven’t provided a single link.
However, here is some interesting information from the University of Toronto that seems to support my position and to put the lie to yours, without citing numbers:
http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca/services/sec/gay.html
And gay.com weighs in on the subject, “Do all gay men have anal sex?”:
http://content.gay.com/channels/health/goldstone/17.html
But it would appear there’s no quickly-locatable empirical evidence to support either of our claims. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
However, it’s a fact that homosexuality has not been clinically considered a disease in this country for at least three decades — it was officially removed from the list of mental illnesses in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973. The World Health Organization followed suit in 1981, and even China has stopped calling homosexuality a disease (as of 2001). Based on these facts, I consider comparing homosexuality to a sickness both bigoted and insulting.
Finally, if you REALLY want to call down the “word police,” here are a few definitions from http://www.m-w.com :
disease:
1 obsolete : TROUBLE
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning : SICKNESS, MALADY
3 : a harmful development (as in a social institution)
homosexual:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
homophobe:
: a person characterized by homophobia
homophobia:
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Your attempt to play semantics was cute, but I think you were well aware of the standard definition of “homophobe.”
I did not intend to be insulting toward you; however, I think your intent was clear, and I had no problem calling you out on it.
Even if I am incorrect about the percentage of gay males that participate in receptive anal sex (and I’m willing to concede that I may be), it doesn’t change the fact that your comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism was at the least insulting, and at the worst, bigoted.
Oh, that’s:
bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Such as, for example, insistence that homosexuality is a disease despite the fact that the medical/psychological community clearly disagrees with that diagnosis.
I’ve wasted too much time on this. I’m not going to change your mind. But sometimes we tilt at windmills, anyway.
Appreciate the links I will certainly take a look at what they have to say. Unfortunately, scholarly journals are not so easy to link to. Most charge a substantial fee, and even then only keep issues on line for a limited time. Best bet would be to try a University’s library. I simply figured that if anyone really is interested in investigating this further they will do the work necessary for finding the information they are looking for. As far as your comments regarding the APA, you are very much correct, and I would recommend you read about the events that took place leading up to the changes in the DSM in 1973, and note what research was done to back-up and justify these changes.
As far as the medical community goes, there is no clear consensus. What you will find is that clinicians who seek to justify homosexuality are often the loudest and are perceived to speak for the majority. Most docs are too busy living their daily lives to take time to fight these annoying political agendas. I did find a link to an organization of clinicians who belive in treating homosexuality for those who want to be treated, http://www.narth.com/menus/statement.html
There is a plethora of information there for those intersted in learning more.
Bye
I`m pretty much against gays in the military. As well as women in the military. Because well, what`s the point?
Is the role of the military to be inclusive as much as possible, was that institution founded on those principle or the goal is to defend the land first and foremost? I`m with Bill Maher on this: you send these people oversees to be warriors to be the best fighters and killers in wars. I`m sorry but all this p.c. crap is endangering lives.
Rocky made the comparison of homosexuality results to the results of alcoholism with a one-to-one relationship.
To say that the comparison is insulting and homophobic because alcoholism is a disease is a circular argument.
If A is destructive and genetic and enjoyable and the claim is made that B is destructive and genetic and enjoyable and therefore equal to A, you must refute either destructive, genetic or enjoyably to make them dissimilar.
I also don’t think Rocky was saying homosexuality was a disease so much as it is destructive, so the claim of insult because alcoholism is a disease is baseless. He was looking at it as destructive (and many people don’t consider alcoholism a disease, either).
If you don’t want to argue his points, don’t, but it’s hardly Hoyle to invalidate his argument because it is unpleasant.
Rob, I’d be with you if Rocky hadn’t made this statement:
Can you define disease for me? Traditionally it has been defined as impairment of normal functioning.
His implication, clearly (to me) is that homosexuality is an impairment of normal function — a disease — not that both are “destructive and genetic and enjoyable.”
His arguments also clearly overlook many issues, most prominently the fact that not all gay men engage in receptive anal sex.
Put another way: is receptive anal sex his only objection to homosexuality? He hasn’t said, but I’m guessing the answer is no. He conveniently hasn’t weighed in on how he feels about individuals that solely engage in insertive anal sex or do not engage in anal sex at all, to say nothing of lesbians or bisexuals. And he only briefly skirted the issue of heterosexual anal sex.
In short: he’s claiming homosexuality is bad based on medical evidence, but he’s not providing evidence to back up his theory. At most, he’s providing evidence that receptive anal sex can be risky, and yes, that’s true, whether the party is homosexual or heterosexual.
You may be correct that “many people” don’t consider alcoholism a disease, just as Rocky may be correct that “many people” do consider homosexuality a disease. But the fact remains that current APA guidelines — the professional standards that the ethical medical community follows — consider alcoholism a disease, and do not consider homosexuality a disease. Yes, you may find exceptions to both, even on the professional level. Organizations like NARTH may exist, but that doesn’t make them correct; certainly, they’re not following the ethical standards set forth by their profession.
I’m not trying to be insulting, here. I’m actually starting to believe that Rocky didn’t intend to be insulting, either. The only reason I replied to him in the first place is that I thought to myself, “does this guy realize what he sounds like?” Now, I’m not sure that he did, and maybe my responding has made him realize this.
I simply feel that homosexuality is not a disease, and the bulk of widely accepted psychology agrees with me. And I feel that calling homosexuals “sick” or “diseased” is heading down the slippery slope of objectification and dehumanization.
As far as the questions regarding whether a “consenting activity” is “harmful” or “wrong”, let me answer with this: I have a friend who is an alcoholic. This behavior my friend engages in is associated with the following consequences: a 5 to 10 year decrease in life expectancy, chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease, serious mental disabilities, internal bleeding, and much higher incidence of suicide.
Those don’t even compare. Alcoholism is an addiction in which the person’s mind is completely affected. The disease alters his state of mind and can also result in bouts of violence. How often are car accidents caused because someone was under the influence of homosexuality? How many children live in fear that their father is going to come home and beat them because he’s gay? Comparing alcoholism and homosexuality is completely asinine.
the rectum is not designed for sodomy
While I am not condoning what you’re saying, I should point out that homosexuality isn’t just about sex; it is about an emotional connection between two people who love each other.
You say that homosexuality is harmful. My question is, how is it harmful? You might could say that it does damage to the body, but there isn’t any kind of sexual intercourse that doesn’t provide some sort of risk.
To conclude things, I also want to point out that posting studies about homosexuality are for the most part ineffective. For every study that says homosexuality is harmful, there’s another that says it isn’t.
That’s better 🙂
The emotional connection is, I think, the most misunderstood thing about homosexuality, and often the most overlooked.
Earlier someone said that HS as currently practiced is a recent thing (though, IIRC, a Roman senator in BC days kept house with his male lover). My question, for understanding purposes only, is it that the emotional connection is new but as practiced in the past it was just sex???? This is the quote:
“First of all, the concept of homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, analogous the standard male-female attraction, did not exist until the 19th century.”
I guess the question is: why is this so? Did the orientation exist before but we didn’t ‘classify’ things before?
Been afk for a while, so I apologize if my post seems a bit jumbled as I attempt to address several points that have come up all at once. 🙂
Rocky,
My congratulations on setting up a fairly solid straw man with the “alcoholism=potential health risk=must be dissuaded; thus, homosexuality/anal intercourse=potential health risk=must be dissuaded” argument which, as another poster pointed out, would seem to force respondants to either agree or disagree with both statements. However, that’s not quite the case. If we were to say that any and all activities that can potentially lead to health problems must be dissuaded, then we can logically conclude that nearly all activities, period, must be dissuaded, as there are ultimately potential health risks to nearly everything we do in life.
And, as others have done, I must point out once again, that the acts you describe are neither exclusive to either sexual orientation, nor is someone of either orientation guaranteed to participate in those acts.
Thus, we can conclude that, if you say that homosexuality is “a harmful lifestyle” and “requires help in overcoming it” because some homosexuals may engage in potentially harmful activity, then you must also say that heterosexuality is a harmful lifestyle” and “requires help in overcoming it” because some heterosexuals may engage in potentially harmful activity.
Okay, I think you guys are waaaaay reading into things on this. What I get out of Rocky’s diatribe is that simply the vágìņá and pëņìš are designed specifically for each other while pëņìš and rectum are not, therefore let nature be the guide.
Oh, I find it humorous that some one concerned about “calling homosexuals “sick” or “diseased” is heading down the slippery slope of objectification and dehumanization” has nooooo promlem with calling someone a “homophobe” or “bigot”. I guess its okay to “dehumanize” anyone YOU disagee with. It must be okay since you are on the side of the moral majority. I also find it interesting that you hold up the fact the Psychology profession agees with you, so that settles the matter. If we were having this conversation before 1973, you’d be in Rocky’s position pointing out people or groups who dissented. Anyways, that’s my opinion.
::Earlier someone said that HS as currently practiced is a recent thing (though, IIRC, a Roman senator in BC days kept house with his male lover). My question, for understanding purposes only, is it that the emotional connection is new but as practiced in the past it was just sex????::
I do not believe the emotional connection is new. From what I understand the Greek god Zeus had a male lover (Ganymedes, I believe was the name) so much that he granted him immortality.
::I guess the question is: why is this so? Did the orientation exist before but we didn’t ‘classify’ things before?::
There have been homosexuals pretty much all throughout history. In the case of Zeus and Ganymedes, there wasn’t really any classification. Zeus slept mostly with women, but he did find Ganymedes attractive; it didn’t matter back then.
As for why the classification of homosexuality only came about in the 19th century, I think we have to look at the world as it is today. When my parents were growing up, the subject of homosexuality was rarely ever discussed; here it is 50 years later and there are still many who oppose homosexuals. Back in the 1800’s, the subject was for the most part taboo; it just wasn’t talked about.
I find it humorous that some one concerned about “calling homosexuals “sick” or “diseased” is heading down the slippery slope of objectification and dehumanization” has nooooo promlem with calling someone a “homophobe” or “bigot”.
What is a bigot? “One who is intolerant of others.” Calling gays “sick” and “diseased” is bigoted. If it makes me a bigot, so be it. We should be intolerant or intollerance. Life is too short for people to have to put up with bigoted remarks. Don’t like gays? Fine, don’t, but leave them alone and let them enjoy life while they still can instead of šhìŧŧìņg on them.
I meant my third sentence to be: “If it makes me a bigot to point out bigotry, so be it.”
Dave posted:
Oh, I find it humorous that some one concerned about “calling homosexuals “sick” or “diseased” is heading down the slippery slope of objectification and dehumanization” has nooooo promlem with calling someone a “homophobe” or “bigot”. I guess its okay to “dehumanize” anyone YOU disagee with. It must be okay since you are on the side of the moral majority.
The difference is that people can grow and change and learn that bigotry and homophobia are not acceptable. It is no more dehumanizing to call someone a bigot or a homophobe (if they demonstrate themselves to be so) than it is to call them a Democrat or Republican (if they happen to be so). This is a road the indivdual has chosen to take, and something they can change if they so desire. I don’t consider it objectification or dehumanization to criticize someone for their actions and opinions.
The dehumanization comes in when you persecute someone for something they can’t change: their race, color, gender, or sexual orientation.
I’ll admit there’s some grey area in there. I do think it’s wrong to persecute (or objectify or dehumanize) others on the basis of their religion; however, people can and do convert or change their religious beliefs.
It’s a slippery slope, indeed. I think Northstar’s comment above comes close to hitting the nail on the head, that we should be intolerant of intolerance.
Put another way: Say someone had posted that blacks or Hispanics or Jews or Christians were “sick” or “diseased.” Would you be calling me out if I were to call that person a bigot?
Dave also posted:
I also find it interesting that you hold up the fact the Psychology profession agees with you, so that settles the matter. If we were having this conversation before 1973, you’d be in Rocky’s position pointing out people or groups who dissented.
Um, yeah, and before Christopher Columbus, most people thought the world was flat. Before Lincoln, it was legal to own slaves in this country. Society grows and changes, hopefully for the better. In this case, I believe the world is better for the change in standards.
There are lots of things our society approves of that I don’t think are right — the death penalty, for example. I think dissent is important, too.
And the bottom line is, Rocky’s got every right to his opinions, and though I don’t agree with him, I’d defend to the death his right to say what he wants. And I have the same right to say my piece.