Comments on The Last Debate: On Gay Pride

A few thoughts:First, great post. Very "eye-openi...

2006-03-25T11:20:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts:

First, great post. Very "eye-opening" in many respects.

People are right to be annoyed with LD for his unsupported assertions. However, do understand that both sides appear to be presuming. LD seems to be assuming that homosexuality is not innate without support. On the other hand, the opposing side assumes that homosexuality IS innate, is furious with LD for saying otherwise, and then gives no support except personal experience or the big "is." I'm not saying you're wrong or LD's right; what I am saying is that your personal experiences are no more empirical than his wild assertions. Neither side has presented any proof because I'm not sure there is convincing empirical proof either way.

Basically, I'd say there needs to be more consistency on both sides. Coming from a terribly conservative Christian family and environment, I've gotten to see how much conservatives bitch about liberals when it turns out that the conservatives are often guilty of the same things... We all have our own double standards, and we tend to get most annoyed by things present in our own lives as well...

I'd also like to caution using the genetic evidence discovered so far as support for the inherency of homosexuality. The problem is that all that has been *proven* at this point is a higher genetic **tendency** than others... I'd caution you to avoid that as a defense like the plague because, genetically, scientists believe some people have a higher genetic tendency for alcoholism, violence, drug addiction, etc. If you try to use the current gene findings as evidence, you will most likely have the Jerry Falwell's of the world throw that right back at you. It's a very dangerous support that I would suggest avoiding.

A note on judging: Paul demands that Christians judge those inside the Church while refraining from judging those outside. His basic opinion appears to be: "Who gives a shit what those outside the Church do? Kick the wicked people out of the Church!" (check out 1 Corinthians 5) Granted, if you don't hold Paul as a reliable source, that won't make any difference to you.

Lastly, the Ecclesiastes verse is taken out of context, of course. The next verse (Ecc 7:14) clarifies that the crooked/bent refers to times of adversity (versus times of prosperity), not to an inherencies in people. It has to do with what you face. The basic point seems to be: if you're facing adversity, trust God to pull you through since He's allowing you to go through it in the first place.

"I did not say that homosexuality is not necessary...

2006-03-16T20:17:00.000-05:00

"I did not say that homosexuality is not necessary, but for goodness sakes, no sexual activity that does not result in reproduction is unneccessary."--LC

Are you asexual? That's the only conclusion I can come to after that statement.

DJRainDog: Thank you! I am trying.I'd like to gi...

2006-03-15T14:32:00.000-05:00

DJRainDog: Thank you! I am trying.

I'd like to give LC some credit: it sounds like he is trying, too. This can't be the easiest time he's had on this blog ...

kr pdx: You rock. In your last post, you've incl...

2006-03-15T13:42:00.000-05:00

kr pdx: You rock. In your last post, you've included many of the points that others (including myself) have tried to express to l-c, and you've done so in a far more gentle fashion than those of us who are frankly just sick of his uneducated babble are inclined to do. You obviously think often and well, and it's easy to see why Andy's fond of you. Brava!

OK. Your language suggests that I am finally star...

2006-03-15T10:34:00.000-05:00

OK. Your language suggests that I am finally starting to hit home.

I assume Andy and others have tried running you through the sarcastic Leviticus mangle in the past.

I object to your Leviticus "defense" for the same reason I object to Andy's Gospels one. You are completely ignoring all of the textual, religious, and historical context. Which doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. As I very uncomfortably stated, with caveats etc., in my first long post in this string, at this time I believe, with my Church, that homosexual activity is, at some level, inherently immoral. I don't know why it is. But it's not simply because the OT says, even clearly, that it is abomination. The OT, especially Leviticus, is pretty famous for a whole bunch of declarations of uncleanliness and evil. Being "a book of Moses for goodness sake" doesn't excuse it from the squeaky-clean charge of being pre-Jesus'-Revolution! (Mosaic uncleanliness, by the way, has some resonance with "holiness" that I have never managed to piece together--but the whole menstruating women thing is partly because the mystery of life/birth/creation was too holy for the Levites to touch, similar for sickness and death ... I've read this in a couple of different sources. Yes, pork being unclean seems more how we would use "unclean" ... . A nuance to keep in mind, though--interesting in its suggestion that to be ritually "clean" required conscious admission that they were lowly. The writers of the Gospels sure didn't see that attitude by their time!)

As we've seen before, Jesus chucks specific sections of OT "uncleanliness" teachings, as well as the concept of uncleanliness itself. Perhaps some of those teachings were in the nature of nation-wide, millennia-long fasts, to spiritually soften His people. Some were probably the result of overzealous theologians taking God's will to what they thought were logical extensions. My mom, who grew up on the coast and has a civil engineering degree, suggests that a ban on shoreline seafoods was, whether mortal or divine, a pretty smart disease-control measure before sewers. In any case, Jesus dumped some stuff. If you accept Acts and the letters, the Apostles chucked a bunch more. I'm pretty sure the Gentiles/circumcision question was really a bigger religious scandal to the Jewish Christians than the "(some? most? all?) Gentiles accept homosexuality" one, being a question of the very identity and dedication of God's People instead of a behavior of God's People. (Homosexuality is consistently portrayed in the Bible as a behavior and not as a state, other folks, so don't tweak me for portraying it as such in the thought-milieu of 33 BCE-100 CE). So something being "in Leviticus" doesn't theologically bind Christians just because it exists.

Also, the Bible is not one big monolithic work. Not only do different writers have different valuations on different sin-sets, but the entire thing is DEVELOPMENTAL. An example: the Mesopotamian culture out of which the Israelites were Chosen, as far as I know, was a blood-feud culture (you kill my son, I kill your cousin's family, our clans try to eradicate each other, etc.) ... the OT teaches "an eye for an eye," which must have seemed ridiculous and revolutionary ... Jesus teaches "turn the other cheek," which still today strikes most of us as ridiculous and revolutionary. (And, his "seventy times seven" suggests what many now sense--that really enlightened people would not even include striking back in their options. MLK Jr, Ghandi ... not me yet ... .)

So! Ignoring the plain speaking in Leviticus is not totally unjustifiable on the part of homosexuals. But basing a belief only on those passages is unjustifiable, if you are going to try to be a Thinking Christian. Which it appears you are determined to be. (YAY!)

I understand, but do not "empathize" with, your "love" assertion. My heart aches if you are hurt ... but my understanding of "love your neighbor" includes not letting a neighbor who clearly wants to be thought of as an intellectual make himself the laughingstock idiot of this blog, which is the function you seem unaware that you have fallen into. I have talked to two people today who stopped reading Andy's comment strings (or at least the ones in which you show up) because of you, as I had considered doing. Zillions of times other readers have called your arguments idiotic. It never before seemed to cross your mind that they were, at least sometimes, being accurate and not bigotted.

I am very very glad, and terribly relieved, you conceptually base what you argue on "love." It is a start. An important base. Now add more learning, and present more substantiation. If God exists, and God is Truth, and you are right, you will find support, because Truth will be consistent. But it might take years of listening and looking (and praying!). If God is Truth, and you are wrong, obviously you (and I) will run into an unclimbable wall. That might also take years of listening, looking, and praying!

Practically, though: if you now say unsupported things and I read them, I will just ask, "Why?" You will know how much demand for intellectual honesty, self examination, and breadth of inquiry is behind my query. If you start including your Becauses in your original posts, so I don't have to ask, I (and probably others who have bitched you out for your past posts) will be happy. Really truly in the sense of Joy and Satisfaction, happy, even if your Becauses aren't too solid to start with. Because then, my friend, substantive discussion can happen, and we all might learn something for our life-journeys. (Including how to be kinder, eh? Sorry for any hurt I've caused that was not necessary ... .)

This crowd should keep you challenged. Especially nice that there are folks at all levels of intellectual inquiry on Andy's side, too.

:)?

Oh, and this is the 92nd comment, so HOORAY FOR AN...

2006-03-14T21:15:00.000-05:00

Oh, and this is the 92nd comment, so HOORAY FOR ANDY!!!

First of all, I hope that this reply does not offe...

2006-03-14T20:27:00.000-05:00

First of all, I hope that this reply does not offend you, as it is meant in the most dispassionate manner possible.

I did not say that homosexuality is not necessary, but for goodness sakes, no sexual activity that does not result in reproduction is unneccessary. That being said, in response to what I think you meant by that statement, that something is a psychological condition would not make it "unneccessary" any more than if it was genetically caused. At an adult stage, it would be just as irreversible, so I would not be so idiotic as to say "Oh, you're gay-just cure yourself and quit complaining!". Homosexuals are homosexuals, and should be allowed to engage in whatever activity they wish to engage in.

I have never set out to show Andy the err of his ways- that is what I said in the last comment. I was simply saying that, if I was pointing out the immorality of homosexuality, it would be out of love, not hate, though I believe it is insensitive to do so. Is that so hard to empathize with?

As far as the presumed immorality of homosexuality, Leviticus is a book of Moses for goodness sake! Whether or not there were faulty transliterations concerning the passages condemning homosexuality (I find it hard to believe that it is punishable by death) it is clear that God is telling Moses that it is immoral (abominable to use biblical language). There is a lot I do not and can not know on this subject as it pertains to God's will, but what I do know is that, as Leviticus is valid, it is immoral. I'm sorry, but I take the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 before yours or my own beliefs (which are disgusted by the prospect of capital punishment for homosexuals).

1) You do that. 2) Hey, wait, has Andy been gett...

2006-03-14T16:12:00.000-05:00

1) You do that.

2) Hey, wait, has Andy been getting Action lately? I'm pretty sure that's not been a topic for at least a little while ... .

Your underlying assumption that homosexuality is not necessary judges these folks by every implication I can think of. You are not judgng "actions"--or rather, you are judging every possible action that will ever occur to them as vaguely honest and desirable, you are impugning therefore their moral character. You are judging what they firmly believe to be their existence, you are judging their psyche; how much you may not believe homosexuality to be fundamental to their existence is really beside the point unless you get at least a few Facts (and I mean hard science ones) to back you up. Years of heterosexual disgust, argubly based primarily on the pre-Christian OT, are not admissible evidence on this one. (In fact, they tend to support the inevitability of homosexuality!)

I believe it is possible to judge actions and not the person. I DON'T think you've managed it.

And your "dull knife" _doesn't_ just cause pain and do no good. It _damages_. (This is a surgical metaphor--think about it!) Every time you put up an apparently bigotted statement without any support except your own intellectual-self-satisfaction (which is how you come accross), there is one less reason for homosexuals to listen to any related voices on the issues you claim to care about. (Which I largely disagree with, so far, but maybe I'm just so irritated at the delivery ... !) You _hurt_ your own cause. (Not that folks here can be too sad with that result.)

When I was 23 I worked with a high school junior who had been so browbeaten and abused by "Christians" that the sight of a cross was enough for him to almost vomit. (I wore my cross inside my shirt for him--a tiny tiny act of Christian mercy.)

His testimonies made me want to vomit too.

Yes, if one believes that homosexuality leads people to Hell, at some level it is theoretically "compassionate" to try to lead them (shove them? beat them? slice at them with a dull knife?) into Heaven, but it is an immature compassion. It would be wiser (and more compassionate) to let Jesus lead them. That's his job!

If indeed your entries are a "Christian" effort, please get with the program. God knows all. We don't. Nor do our elders-in-the-faith (whatever denomination), and the more vehmently they declaim, the more you should look into the accuracy of the declarations.

Jesus met people where they were at instead of Preaching From On High. He encouraged us to wash one another's feet; servant to all, and all that. Pride seems to me the deepest of the Cardinal Sins; homosexuality didn't even make the list. You have demonstrated that you clearly DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH to speak with the authority you assume. You can speak. Just be open about your frailties.

This was incredibly written. I can certainly see ...

2006-03-14T09:52:00.000-05:00

This was incredibly written. I can certainly see some of my own experiences (though I was never fortunate enough to fall into the popular crowd anywhere ;)) reflected in your story. It's always nice to be reminded that we've all "been there" in one way or another.

To kr pdx, I will try to make clear my ignorance i...

2006-03-14T08:06:00.000-05:00

To kr pdx, I will try to make clear my ignorance in the future. True wisdom is acknowledging that we know nothing. That is not to say that I don't know anything, but I suppose that without solid stats and studies I am simply attempting to cut into this homosexual audience's audience with a dull knife- it hurts more but doesn't get the job done!

To Anon: I do not judge Andy, I simply believe that his actions are immoral. There is a difference- even if I were to actively discourage him from acting immorally, which I haven't the audacity to do, I would not be judging him- I would simply be preparing him for God's judgement. This is an act of love, not judgement.

I find it sad that religious idealogy is so oppres...

2006-03-14T03:40:00.000-05:00

I find it sad that religious idealogy is so oppressive that a person would rather kill themselves than be rejected or hated by God, just for being the person God created them as.

Andy, did you want to kill yourself because you were gay, or because God would reject you?

God sent Jesus to die on the cross for all, for we are all sinners. And if God can forgive, what right do mortals have to judge others.

It seems Andy has come to beleive this and can now live in peace with his God.

Societies disapproval, parental rejection, vanishing friends; only help to push a person to a dangerous and wrong decision.

Sadly some reject God, live in mental pain, or kill themselves.

Judge yourself little cicero, let God judge others.

I did read the words, the first time ... and I tho...

2006-03-13T23:47:00.000-05:00

I did read the words, the first time ... and I thought it was an interesting thing, and funny ... but then I got irritated again because it was interesting because it was substantive information, which reminded me of everything before.

Yes, there are assumed "facts." I'll go for that. You frequently treat your assumed facts as so universally assumed that we will all understand exactly which presumed "fact" or "facts" you mean to include simply by "obvious" implication with your conclusion(s). I can't usually guess them. It sounds like many others can't, historically. _State_ your "facts" and _build_ your argument and I will respect it.

I went to a liberal college; plenty of those liberals weren't comfortable with homosexuals, and, per all sorts of stuff on this string, people struggling with gender identity can be caught gay-bashing as a cover. A "fact" is not a Fact. It is a generalization or an assumption. OK to use, but use them openly and honestly. Just _stating_ them will help you sound less like a conservative campaign parrot when you then state your conclusions.

Sorry I was so cheesed off. Your post before my explosion was the epitome of everything I object to about your writing, though.

Thank you for not being excessively offensive in y...

2006-03-13T22:41:00.000-05:00

Thank you for not being excessively offensive in your comments. I usually don't give up on these things, and it hurts me to do so, but let me tackle one or two of your points.

1) On my "facts" statement, I was saying that I didn't have any statistics to support my conclusions in a sort of rhetorical apology. I was not saying that logical speculations WERE facts, but that they might be construed in the context of accusations that my conclusions are based on no facts whatever. Andy probably has not statistics to suggest that gay-bashers are primarily conservative, but he, as I, would assume such due to obvious circumstances. It is unlikely that such statistics exist, but you can still make logical progressions based on the "fact" that gay bashers are conservative.

As far as "putting me in a world of hurt" I am not hurt by words so much as by coming to the understanding through persuasion that my conclusions were faulty. I honestly don't see why you would want to offend me, but don't treat me differently based on my age- I'm sure that I've taken much worse.

Now that I have opened this option to you, you might take my advice and read the song I posted before doing so, just to put things in perspective! After all, a smile is just a frown that's turned upside-down!

Damn, I guess it didn't work.Oh, well, let's give ...

2006-03-13T22:13:00.000-05:00

Damn, I guess it didn't work.

Oh, well, let's give up on each other then. At least nobody will think I agree with you just because we both don't agree with them. Not that the regular readers of this blog were probably prone to that anyhow. Wasted my time on that one.

Is this not the greatest citcom in history?I just ...

2006-03-13T22:11:00.000-05:00

Is this not the greatest citcom in history?

I just have neither the time, energy nor the patience to respond intelligably tonight, so there it is! Not many people have heard the theme song with the words, so that might have been the greatest contribution I've ever made to this blog!

Boy, Kirsten, he sure told you!

2006-03-13T22:06:00.000-05:00

Boy, Kirsten, he sure told you!

I have given up on you kr pdx, so instead of using...

2006-03-13T22:01:00.000-05:00

I have given up on you kr pdx, so instead of using sarcasm:

THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW THEME SONG
(Music by Earle Hagen / Lyrics by Morey Amsterdam)

So you think that you've got troubles?
Well, trouble's a bubble,
So tell old Mr. Trouble to "Get lost!".

Why not hold your head up high and,
Stop cryin', start tryin',
And don't forget to keep your fingers crossed.

When you find the joy of livin'
Is lovin' and givin'
You'll be there when the winning dice are tossed.

A smile is just a frown that's turned upside down,
So smile, and that frown will defrost.
And don't forget to keep your fingers crossed!

hi i think that your argument is awesome i think t...

2006-03-13T21:57:00.000-05:00

hi i think that your argument is awesome i think that people is so afraid to recognize that homosexuality is a real thing and that we are real people living the same way that straight people do they just sign us and identiffy us like perverts or sinners we ain't sinners we are humans just like all of us theyre just afraid to see the truth i live in mexico and here if u come out is living hell for ya i also knew since i was a kid that i am what i am it was hard but its true u just have to accept urself i've been moved by ur argument i wish there could be more people like u who have the guts of sherin experience like this with the world... hope ya'll have a good day and week hugs and for people like u i would be proud of been gay.. thanks...

ACK!!!!!! Please please please! LC, you are kill...

2006-03-13T21:24:00.000-05:00

ACK!!!!!! Please please please! LC, you are killing me!
I hope for your sake everyone else doesn't read down this far.

"Life observations and understandings" are NOT FACTS, they are perceptions. Your. Personal. Perceptions. You are welcome to present them as such, as corroborating or at least explanatory (but non-factual) evidence for your OPINIONS. You can even call them "theories," if you would just SUPPORT the damn things. (There's that swearing again--doh!) "Rationalizing on your own behalf" is NOT good enough. Offer your observations about real things that have really happened, recognizing that your interpretations, especially with this crowd, might be thrown back at you radically reworked to present how another (also subjective) viewer might have "seen" said real thing or event.

Example: "I saw (x), and I have friends who have told me (y) and (z) because they have (a,b,and c) pertinent experience. To me, this suggests (j random conclusion that this crowd will find offensive but at least it is not an offensive rhetorical soapbubble)."

"Tell you specifically where your facts are lacking"????? Have we seen any? I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but I remember being irritated by every one of yours (as I have been for a while), so I'm pretty sure there weren't many. "Facts," that is. Nor even justifications. (Except in defense of Esther--see? Real world = pertinent! Yay! And substantive argument resulted! A miracle!)

You are a frequent countervailing voice on this blog (I have been back-reading some), and your insistence that your ideas are supportable without actually offering coherent supports stains other countervailing voices by association. GRRRRRR.

"It is logical" is NOT a rhetorical support, it is a rhetorical copout. If you feel the need to say that, I guarantee you'd better lay out the logic instead, or why the freakin-frabbitz (there, that wasn't swearing) should anyone read your stuff?!? It's frequently not substantive. It is (to many) almost always offensive. I appreciate that by the end of a string you usually manage to do something resembling supporting yourself because you have been badgered into it by other (extremely impatient) readers ... maybe try to add the defenses and justifications FIRST. Please? (And that "you have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex" argument was the gorram stupidest(!) argument sallied forth by the anti-gay-marriage campaigners here in Oregon. It's so stupid it pushes people to the pro- side. That one just can't go by. Don't use it again PLEASE. "You have the right to marry any person of the same race as yourself, same as everyone else." "You have the right vote if you are a man over 21 who owns land--same as any other person has that right." See? Whether or not man-woman-2-person marriage is defensible or right, that "defense" is merely bigoted or mentally hopelessly weak. I'm about to take a liberal feminist columnist to task via email letter for the same intellectually insupportable construction re: abortion and comparative rights.)

And(!), I DO understand satire. I only use it when I have really given up on someone, though. (Please note that all of the above is dead serious, except the end of the Esther bit. Although over the last weeks I have been tempted to really take you down ... but Andy says you are younger, so I've refrained. If you were 30-something, though, boyfriend, you would be in a WORLD of verbal hurt and disrespect right now ... . Maybe I earned points in Heaven. More likely I just didn't earn Hell-points. And obviously, this is more specific criticism since the gentler stuff above in this string didn't "catch." I did try--hoping that another (partially-)conservative heterosexual might get through to you where crowds of liberal homosexuals have failed repeatedly. Really, they aren't just biting back, my young and defensive blogger. You actually don't reliably support your "arguments.")

And I _am_ more offended by being called stupid (or by blemished by association!) than wrong (which to me only means we don't agree: eh, so what, I have no friends who agree with me on the majority of my opinions, however well researched and thought out they are or aren't). I am not sure whether I will read Andy's comment-strings anymore, since Andy's posts are so well-written in the first place that positive comments don't add reams, and the negative ones ... well, then. I'll probably keep on, since I would like to see more of what Esther has to say. I hope your responses grow to measure up to Andy's writing. Watch how Esther marshals her contributions. And whatever school you have access to, please find an English or rhetoric teacher and get extra practice, so they can help you find where you go wrong, in person and line by line.

After giving it much thought, I can say only that ...

2006-03-13T18:19:00.000-05:00

After giving it much thought, I can say only that I apologize for the manner in which I responded, but I cannot in good conscience apologize for the content. The underlying premise of Esther's contribution was that gay people don't suffer any worse than anyone else. I beg to differ, and I have a right to do so. My right to say so does not infringe upon her right to disagree, which does not necessitate an apology from me.

By facts I mean statistics/data/academic findings....

2006-03-13T16:48:00.000-05:00

By facts I mean statistics/data/academic findings. Of course facts can include life observations and understandings, so in that sense, I do have "fact" to support my theorum, but as I've said, this is an area I need to work on. Tell me though, specifically where my facts are lacking and I'll be happy to rationalize on my own behalf!

I apologize if they are offensive, and am sorry th...

2006-03-13T15:24:00.000-05:00

I apologize if they are offensive, and am sorry that I haven't got any facts to support me right now, but there are also no facts to rebut my theories

A theory without any facts to support it is just a person's random speculations. If you're going to state a theory, you have the burden of proving it. The burden is not on other people to disprove your speculation.

Andy, I know you didn't mean to offend her, and yo...

2006-03-13T15:17:00.000-05:00

Andy, I know you didn't mean to offend her, and you are sorry that this offended her, but saying that you're sorry that someone's perception was such that they found it offensive is not the same thing as being sorry for saying the thing that was offensive. Maybe that's just my definition of an apology, but I personally didn't think that was a real apology- it was more like something a politician would say.

Point taken, Little Cicero - though I'd be incline...

2006-03-13T13:36:00.000-05:00

Point taken, Little Cicero - though I'd be inclined to wonder why you brought up the matter of same-sex adoption in the first place. That said, I trust you found the article Andy emailed us of interest and hope it will not prevent you from commenting on it on your own blog, as I shall be doing (on mine, not in the form of an unsolicited comment on yours!) ere long.

Did you miss that part where I wrote, Esther, I'm ...

2006-03-13T09:17:00.000-05:00

Did you miss that part where I wrote, Esther, I'm sorry if my sarcasm offended you?