Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room To Christians

Jeffrey:
I understand your points about racism and how it equates to homosexuality. But I don't agree with them.
I am not making any statement or judgment other than that it is unfair to equate being black with being gay. Again, no emotion in that statement, just the observation that they are not to most people analogous.

Dwain has made his case quite clearly that he does not view homosexuality in the way that you would have us believe he does.
He has been more than clear about his beliefs on an "ideal", and that all groups of Man fall short of it. He has done his best to not single out one group as being above another. I understand that you do not, and most likely will not agree with his conclusions, but at least read what he is saying and understand that he had made it clear that there is no group better than another. All ARE created equal.
His last post really rated this issue, and should dispel any thoughts you have on Dwain's ideas as being bigoted or prejudicial.
He has said his views on this topic as they pertain to religious are relative only to other people looking at it from a religious perspective.
He has made it clear that this plays no part, and should not, in political process. Please don't make it appear as though Dwain would vote that Gay men should be held as slaves, or that they shouldn't have the right to vote.

You are both simply in different worlds when it comes to the fundamentals that govern your moral process.
Dwain believes that there lies the possibility in this Universe that not all that a person desires is healthy for them. That there may be an absolute ideal that applies to ALL of creation, and that we are ALL in conflict with it in different areas.
You believe that this is not the case, and that basically as long as nobody hurts anybody else, not only is anything OK, but it is healthy, and ideal. Expression of self is ideal. Self...

Fundamentally two ideas are at work here, and I understand why you see Dwain's view as bigoted, I really do. But I don't agree. I don't think you understand the fundamental issues at work here. Not in the sense that you can't grasp the idea, but in the sense that your world is built up on your logic, not Dwain's.

I'm sure that sitting around a table, able to discuss things in real time, we would better understand each other. ALL of us.
This medium however lends itself to thrust and parry as we are always responding to the last post, rather than ever helping the other to understand the foundation of our own understanding.

I pray (hope) that all of us may have tolerance for one another, and more importantly, Love.

I don't want to put words in Dwain's mouth, but I know that I for one don't want to dissolve any healthy expression of Love between two people. I do though, have a different set of ideals than you. I can respect your position, but you are saying that logically I am a bigot, and there's no way around it.
I suppose that's where it will have to lie for now. But I wish you could see my heart, and understand my feelings regarding this.

Even if most people do not find being black and being gay analogous, why do you think it is unfair to equate being racism against blacks with discrimination against homosexuals? Is it simply because you are not convinced that being gay is the natural state for the homosexual and therefore opt that it is not?

KB: "is unfair to equate being black with being gay."

To Dwain, KB, ivory, Jolly, etc.: Why not??

Some analogies just don't work in the public forum -- for instance drawing analogies between the Holocaust and abortion in America, or between the crimes vs. raised consciousness about sexuality with Kinsey and the crimes vs. raised consciousness about racism and genocide with the Nazis.

There is no doubt that race is genetically determined, there is no proof the sexual orientation is. A significant difference coupled with an explosive and emotional issue make the analogy dismissible by some.

yours,

Steve

Well as I said I was speaking stricltly on observation.
Homosexuality as has been discussed in this thread is as an act, not a state.
While there have been logical arguments that one can be born predisposed to a certain sexual identity, there is no gay gene. There is however a black one.
A homosexual man can wake up one morning and however unjust and damaging it is to his personal identity can choose to not appear or act gay. A Black man or woman can not do this.
Please don't take what I'm saying out of context. RZ, I am not making a judgement on homosexuality, or making a statement about discrimination.
Simply put if I am a homosexual male (which you have no evidence to the contrary now that we know most gay men aren't gay, but are married heterosexual men), I can appear to not be if I'm in a "dangerous" area that isn't sympathetic to my plight.
However, if I am a Black man in an unsafe, racist neighborhood, there is little I can do for myself. Simply obervationally (if that's even a word) these two are not fair comparisons... that's all I'm saying.

Now please don't everyone read something into my statement that was neither said, nor implied.
With all the scientists in this thread it should be easy enough to see what I'm saying in an objective fashion.

To make it more obvious what I'm saying from a scientific point of view based on observation:
Everyone post a picture of themselves... with no names attached.

We will then make guesses as to who is Black, and who is Gay.

We can then scientifically look at the numbers, and see which is easier to tell by appearance alone.
This one difference is enough to say that at least on some level these two things are not analogous is it not?

Because there is not one single scriptural verse that says that being black is contrary to God's ideal.

While it may be dismissable by some as not scientifially proven, is there not enough anecdotal evidence from homosoexuals themselves that they simply are who they are that your Christian belief in the dignity of all human beings demand you opt in favor of providing them equal treatment rather than opt against it?

Do you think that Jesus would argue that He did not have certain scientific evidence as to the genetic cause of homosexuality and others might reject his reasoning without it, therefore He would deny homosexuals the same rights He would afford heterosexuals?

So are you arguing that the validity of discrimination is based on whether or not the group being discriminated against is visible to the eyes?

I can accept (though not agree with) your reasoning within a religious community, but what about civil law, Dwain?

RZ: You simply asked why some might think the analogy unfair, and I answered it. If the analogy works for some based on anecdotal evidence but not others, then it is not helpful in the public forum. What ever Jesus might have known about "scientific evidence" seems completely not germane to the question (and I can not even make heads or tails of what your Jesus supposition is really trying to indicate). The teachings of Jesus are not about "rights" but about obligations and methods to love God and your neighbor.

Yours,

Steve

deleted

what? No....

I'm sorry, but I asked very clearly that you not put meaning into my words that was not there. I said multiple times that I was making an observation, with no value attached.

I was asked to explain a difference between being Black, and being Gay ... from an observational point of view I did. You can either find it valuable, or not. But I did not suppose anything about Jesus' teachings, or make arguments as to the validity of discrimination or anything of the sort.

Dwain: "Because there is not one single scriptural verse that says that being black is contrary to God's ideal."

Does this mean that if there were scriptures supporting discrimination against blacks you would be a racist? The problem with a Divine Command Morality is that it makes moral rules arbitrary. Cruelty would be good, if only God commanded it.

KB: "A homosexual man can wake up one morning and however unjust and damaging it is to his personal identity can choose to not appear or act gay."

Translation: Gays can hate themselves and pass, so discrimination and prejudice against them is ok. By the way, many Jews and some very light-skinned blacks can "pass" as well. So by your logic, preaching hatred against them is ok as well. I don't think being gay is totally genetic, because I don't think any human behavior is totally genetic. Being Jewish is also not genetic. But being gay is not a passing preference like eating ice cream. It is a sexuality central to the human personality - whatever its ultimate cause - of those who are gay (and that requires only voluntary consensual actions to consummate). (I add this last comment only to stop Ivory from making his usual idiotic Straw Man objections and analogies.)


KB - I really wish you'd stop saying those who criticize you "don't understand". Believe me, I and others do fully understand your position and all its subtlies and ramifications in every tiny detail. It is because of this full understanding that you are being criticized. You can't use the words "faith" and "God says so" to wiggle out of a clear-cut case of sadistic discrimination.

Again, I will withdraw my accusation of sadistic discrimination only if you also agree to castrate yourself, for your love of your god. That is morally equivalent to what you urge on others who are gay: the permanent and complete rejection of your own sexuality and the possibility of its expression.

(Yes, I read Dwain's comment above about how there are other ways to control one's sexual desires. But for himself only (and not for gays) Dwain allows himself some sort of regular sexual connection to another person within his lifetime, however many other desires of his he restrains. For gays, however, his moral code forbids them ever to reach sexual connection to another person. Therefore, castration is the fully accurate and fair analogy.)

Then this is your translation... and be clear about it. Because it is not my translation, nor the intended translation.

Also....
So homosexuality is a human behavior? Being Black isn't a human behavior. Isn't this enough of a difference to validate my original observation without all of the values you have since attached to it?


Those two paragraphs have really solidified for me that you do not understand.
You consistently make your own rules for what something means... you make logical rules that "if A, then B." And there is no other way around it... only the set of rules you provide.

Well I am now going to do the same. Based on my rules, your speech indicates to me that you don't have the same understanding of what I'm saying that I do.

Enough said about it really....

You're wrong in your assumptions, and you honestly don't understand where I'm coming from, or you wouldn't make the logical absolutes that you are regarding what you understand my belief to be, and what it means in the real world.

KB: "So homosexuality is a human behavior?"

Yes, a behavior based on biology in some complex way we don't fully understand but that probably can't be reduced to a "gay gene". In fact, there is probably some continuum of sexual desire, as Sid said above (in one of the recent threads).

If your religion does not allow gays ever to reach sexual expression with another human being, then it is bigoted against gays. There doesn't need to be a lot of subtle theological gobbledegook about "faith" on this topic. It is very clear and black and white. You choose to participate in a religion that preaches discrimination against gays. If it works for you, nothing more I can do. I will try to follow Matt G's recommendation to hate the idea, love the PW member.

You may have the last word. I have Pete Johnson cds to listen to.

This question indicates why I once told you that long before anyone should try to prove the existence of God, they must first define God.

Part of my definition of God is that God is the ultimate in perfection: perfectly good, perfectly merciful, perfectly just, perfectly true. Conversely, God cannot be in the slightest non-good, unmerciful, unjust, or false. Any being that could have those attributes would be less than perfect, and therefore, not God. Therefore, God could not make a statement such as you suggest. Your hypothetical is the same as saying, "suppose God could be 'Not God.' " The only thing that God cannot do is to be "not God," to be something other than God's actual essence. "A" cannot be "not-A." As such, the impossible hypothetical is also impossible to debate. What might be more interesting to consider is why God says nothing about the sinfulness of the color of a person's skin, or of a person's actual sexual identity (even as Paul points out that there were homosexual believers within the congregations of the early church), but does comment on the sinfulness of various heterosexual and homosexual sex acts.

The problem, as you term it, with "Divine Command Morality" is not that it makes all morals arbitrary, but rather that it eliminates arbitrariness.

Jeffrey said:
But this is at the core of what you do not understand. You're making an illogical jump between what is considered ideal, and what is allowed.
My Church (can't speak for every other) makes no case that homosexuals can not be homosexuals, or that discrimination is OK, or accepted, or condoned.
I do appreciate that you will at least attempt to still accept me, as I am still accepting of you and your ideas. But please make no mistake, I do not practice discrimination, condone discrimination, or consider homosexuals in anyway beneath myself. If you continue to logically arrive at the conclusion that I am a bigot, want to disallow some behavior, or in some other way practice discrimination, it is not supported by my ideas, or the facts.
Nowhere has the corrolation been made between my considering most sexual behavior (straight or otherwise) in some way selfish, and me thinking that it should be disallowed. This jump is not only huge, but illogical. Again, I think it only works logically with your own set of rules... one I am not privy to.

For now, I'm off to Dialysis to get a couple 14 gauge needles in my arm. I'll try to post more when I get there, though I hope you all understand if I don't.

Jeffrey, I do enjoy discourse with you, and I think we have a civil understanding at least, in which we are not developing hatred for each other personally.
That would in my opinion be most unfortunate.
I simply feel a bit hurt that regardless of what I tell you I feel, you will still call me a bigot to my face, eventhough I have made it clear that there must be some sort of misunderstanding. Your response is essentially: "No, I understand everything completely, and you're a discriminating bigot".

Essentially you are either calling me an idiot (I don't understand what I think), or a liar (I understand it, but continue insisting that I love all equally).

Jonathan, I don't mean to speak for Jeffrey, but no matter what you two discuss, and no matter how civilly, in Jeffrey's eyes you (and I) will always be considered bigots - sometimes even sadistic bigots, no less. As I know that I'm not, it doesn't bother me when Jeffrey calls me such. You're a tough guy, you've been through a lot in your life. But in this regard, since you know the claim to be untrue in your own life, you just need to toughen up a bit and let the epithet roll off your back - and then continue to have insightful, civil conversations. Sticks and stones, you know?