Elton john wants....

[Ormus]

Let me know what you find out.

I shall publish it in every scientific journal that no one will read.

When in doubt, use sarcasm.

What sarcasm?

You want so badly to label me as a hater. Is that what this disccusion has boiled down to? You shouldn't let emotions get into a good debate. Again, as I've said repeatedly, I'm just seeking to understand it before I support one way or the other. I think that's the case for most people. There's no hatred here or homophobia or whatever you want to throw at me -- just understanding. And yes, we do vote on this matter. It's called the amendment to ban gay marriage. It's been passed in nearly every state that's put it on the ballot. Some people might've voted it down out of hatred or fear. Not me. I need to understand it before I vote for it. Right now, there's not a lot out there for me to form a conclusive opinon. That's all I'm seeking. If it's such a big issue, why isn't there a healthy debate going on on TV, in print and elsewhere? Gay people saying "I'm born this way," isn't good enough for me, personally. (Again, to stress that, it's just me. One person.) Of course, the sad thing is that there may not be healthy dialogue or discussion or an open study on it because it's all political. And yes, I'm sincere when I say it's sad.

It sounds like you've made your mind up. That's how you've written it, at least. The kind of proof burden you're expecting is far beyond the proof needed to sentence a criminal suspect to death. So with such purposely unrealistic expectations, how is anyone supposed to reach them?

Your mind is essentially made up.

If I told you you were "abnormal" and that, in absence of "conclusive scientific studies" that you were not allowed to get married, what would you say? Would you want to wait the 50 years it might take to adequately decipher the human genome? By that time, you'll be old and most of your life will be gone. But hey...we don't want to be hasty here.

Even then, we have plenty of studies regarding sexuality. Those arguments about sexual abuse and distant fathers are several decades old, and every credible scientist abandoned those positions 35 years ago. They're disproven and unrelated, just, as I said before, you're apt to find numerous heterosexuals who've experienced sexual abuse or distant fathers in a packed arena setting.

But that isn't enough for you. No, we need "more studies."

Like I said, your mind is made up. Even if you don't wish to admit it.

What's sad about all of this is that you see a debate, and I see people who are genuinely hurt by your positions. But excuse me for being an uppity minority.

And, by the way, the "amendment to ban gay marriage" (hey...I thought it was about "defending marriage"?) failed in Arizona. I know, I know. That isn't worthy of front page news.

 

[coemgen]

Ah you misread me. I just love spending $4000 trying to immigrate to Canada, so I can be with the love of my life. You know, since the Bible says that same-sex immigration is a form of marriage rite.

Oh sorry...there hasn't been a conclusive study telling me that I can love yet. I guess I'll have to wait to see what the study says before I know what I actually feel.

Listen, I can't imagine what it's like being gay. My heart sincerely goes out to those who are (including you, if that's the case). I mean that with all of my heart. However, I'm not gay, so I try to understand it as best as I can. That's what all of us here are trying to do on these big issues. In no way do I intend to judge someone who's gay. I know there's others here who are gay whom I've discussed this stuff with, and I'd like to think they've found my side respectful at least, despite the differences in opinon.

As a Christian, my faith and the example of Christ calls me to love gay people as much as the next person. If we're going to bring up the idea of sin, which I haven't until now, I would have to confess I'm with the worst of them. That's why I haven't brought up faith. I don't even consider homosexuality the biggest issue spiritually. It will always be whether someone has entered a relationship with Christ or not.

If I'm wrong for seeking to understand homosexuality, especially if I happen to be starting from a different perspective than you, then that's your call. I've never equated seeking to understand with hatred though.

 

[Ormus]

If I'm wrong for seeking to understand homosexuality, especially if I happen to be starting from a different perspective than you, then that's your call. I've never equated seeking to understand with hatred though.

I cannot expect everyone to understand what it is like to be gay. But I can never really understand what it is like to be black either. It doesn't mean that I support segregation until science conclusively tells me what it is like to be black.

At the very least, remember that you're dealing with real people here, not politics. Not a Bible verse. Not a psychiatric condition. By ignoring them, they do not go away. If you dehumanize your subject, you're going to end up saying a whole load of offensive and condescending things, even with the best and most innocent of intentions.

The best advice I can give you is to put yourself in the shoes of "the Other." Empathy is sorely lacking in today's world.

 

[coemgen]

It sounds like you've made your mind up. That's how you've written it, at least.

Then you need to go back and read my posts again. Especially, the first sentence of the first post where I said I'm not ready to support gay marriage -- yet. I've posted that sentenece three times now.

If I told you you were "abnormal" and that, in absence of "conclusive scientific studies" that you were not allowed to get married, what would you say? Would you want to wait the 50 years it might take to adequately decipher the human genome? By that time, you'll be old and most of your life will be gone. But hey...we don't want to be hasty here.

What if I got married and studies showed the opposite? What if there was a chance I could exeprience relationships the way I was intended to expereince them? I'd have to go with that route. That's just me though.

Even then, we have plenty of studies regarding sexuality. Those arguments about sexual abuse and distant fathers are several decades old, and every credible scientist abandoned those positions 35 years ago. They're disproven and unrelated, just, as I said before, you're apt to find numerous heterosexuals who've experienced sexual abuse or distant fathers in a packed arena setting.

I've also said a couple times that I know sexual abuse and distant fathers doesn't equate to everyone becoming homosexual. I just find it funny that that happens to come up in the stories I've heard. Of course, you probably think those personal stories weren't credible because they don't support your side.

What's sad about all of this is that you see a debate, and I see people who are genuinely hurt by your positions. But excuse me for being an uppity minority.

Again, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I haven't attacked you personally though, I just disagree with you.

And, by the way, the "amendment to ban gay marriage" (hey...I thought it was about "defending marriage"?) failed in Arizona. I know, I know. That isn't worthy of front page news.

I'm fully aware of that, but I don't live in Arizona.

 

[Ormus]

What if I got married and studies showed the opposite? What if there was a chance I could exeprience relationships the way I was intended to expereince them? I'd have to go with that route. That's just me though.

Yes, that's just you. And you wouldn't feel this way if those "studies" didn't come until you were alone and 95 years old...and then told you that your "abnormality" was actually genetic all along.

Even then, if someone came to me and would give me a magical cure to make me lust after women, I still wouldn't take it. I would lose out on the love I currently feel for my partner, which is as deep and selfless as any opposite-sex mating ritual.

You deal with the life you have, not the life you wish you had. Well, that's what I get for taking some advice from Rummy.

I've also said a couple times that I know sexual abuse and distant fathers doesn't equate to everyone becoming homosexual. I just find it funny that that happens to come up in the stories I've heard. Of course, you probably think those personal stories weren't credible because they don't support your side.

And, as I've demonstrated many times, the logic of those stories have no larger correlation if they can be demonstrated in the larger heterosexual population, as well. You might as well say that red hair makes you gay.

 

[coemgen]

I cannot expect everyone to understand what it is like to be gay. But I can never really understand what it is like to be black either. It doesn't mean that I support segregation until science conclusively tells me what it is like to be black.
]

Again, I personally don't equate a lifestyle to a race.

At the very least, remember that you're dealing with real people here, not politics. Not a Bible verse. Not a psychiatric condition. By ignoring them, they do not go away. If you dehumanize your subject, you're going to end up saying a whole load of offensive and condescending things, even with the best and most innocent of intentions.

I understand it's real people. That's why I've expressed that I mean not to judge. In fact, I'm called to love gay people. I know it's not easy for gays and I try to empathize with you. Just because I have a differnet opinion though, doesn't mean I'm against you as a person. It's just where I'm coming from. You have to admit this isn't an easy topic to discuss, especially in this format.

The best advice I can give you is to put yourself in the shoes of "the Other." Empathy is sorely lacking in today's world.

I agree with you, and I can admit I'm in need of more.

Listen, Ormus. This is good stuff. Being able to talk like this. I appreciate your perspective and everything. I'm sorry if I appeared cold. That wasn't my intention. Had I known more about you to begin with, I might've approached it differently. Unfortuantely, this format isn't the greatest for a more relaxed talk. It's easy to get caught up in the debate or discussion on one topic. I'm sure your the kind of person I could go have a drink with and have a cool discussion on any number of things. I'm sure we both agree that there's more to us than our opinions on a matter, and our sexuality.

On that note, I hope you have a good night. You're in my prayers. I mean that.

I'm going to get some work done now.

Good night.

coemgen

 

[Ormus]

Bon soir.

(Melon)

 

[coemgen]

Melon? Wow. Why the name change? Are you in a rock band now?

I've always appreciated your perspective. I hope you know that. I think you've got a great mind.

If you can put differences aside, I'm always open to more discussion. I'm at www.myspace.com/coemgen17 or coemgen17@hotmail.com. And no, I'm not going to try to convert or change you. Like I said, it'd be cool to discuss other things, especially knowing you're melon.

later,

Kevin

 

[INDY500]

Don't many lesbian feminists deny that their homosexuality is rooted in biology but instead view their sexuality as a political and empowering choice? A choice, as they see it, not to be victimized under traditional male patriarchy and by the societal objectification of women.

In fact, don't many lesbians resent the search for a "gay gene" or is that soooo 1990's?

 

[BVS]

Don't many lesbian feminists deny that their homosexuality is rooted in biology but instead view their sexuality as a political and empowering choice? A choice, as they see it, not to be victimized under traditional male patriarchy and by the societal objectification of women.

In fact, don't many lesbians resent the search for a "gay gene" or is that soooo 1990's?

Extreme extreme feminists, homosexual or hetero, the ones that usually will make the headlines or stereotyped in movies may think this way but it's a minority stance.

 

[INDY500]

Serious problems arise when scientific inquiry is obstructed, as in the inflated myth of the "gay gene", by an excessive concern for gay sensitivities. The self-policing by the indulgent major media on these matters has come perilously close to censorship. True gay intellectuals should encourage open discussion of the genesis of homosexuality, a complex subject that has been in limbo, a political blackout, for 20 years. We must demand equality before the law, but that does not excuse us from the philosophic obligation of self-knowledge. Heterosexuality and homosexuality need to be objectively studied by psychologists and historians as interrelated dynamic systems that change from culture to culture.

--By Camille Paglia 2002

 

[maycocksean]

If religion inherently created anti-gay prejudice there would be something inherent in religiosity that makes it antagonistic to homosexuality. No one has yet been able to demonstrate what aspect of religiosity is inherently antagonistic to homosexuality. We’d be looking for something like “the nature of spirituality is inherently heterosexual, or the nature of God or gods is whole only by combining male and female characteristics, homosexuality is a denial of that” or something to that effect. And this would have to be universally accepted as a “baseline” for all organized religions (which in itself is absurd, as there’s hardly a single belief that all organized religions share in common—not to mention the “unorganized” ones, animism and such).

What is far more likely is that religion is a convenient cloak for basic human prejudice. Irvine has made the argument in the past, and I’ve come to agree with him, that the danger in religion is that sense of having access to the Absolute, in being able to take the Absolute Authority of God and apply that to your personal prejudices thus making them unassailable and impervious to reason. And when one’s prejudice is particularly illogical, I’ll grant you that religion with i’s Absolute Final Word can be very useful. But that is not the same as religion giving rise to the hatred itself. One need only look at the atheistic regimes around the world such as China, where religion is by and large banned, and yet homosexuality is still frowned upon to see that prejudice does not need religion’s help. Even here on FYM we’ve had a staunch atheist arguing against gay marriage, and on this very thread, we’ve had folks making the argument that it’s just “unnatural.” That’s code for “it’s really, really weird and gross and I don’t get it.” One does not need a religion to make a person feel that way.

The bottom line is that homosexuals are in the minority in the earth’s population, and human history shows that the majority has always viewed any kind of minority with a mixture of fear, hatred, ignorance, and disgust. Minorities of any stripe have never fared well in this world. Period.

Secular countries such as those in Western Europe may be more tolerant of homosexuality than theocratic ones like Iran, but this has less to do with the “lack of religion” per se and more to do with a general attitude of tolerance found in open, democratic societies. Strongly authoritarian atheistic countries—which by their very nature are NOT very tolerant or open—are easily as hostile to homosexuality as more religious ones.

Finally, religious faith, can be helpful in the struggle for equal rights just as it was in the fight to end slavery and in the civil rights movement by appealing to values that while not necessarily universal to all religions, nor limited to just the religious—values such as compassion, mercy, justice, and the intrinsic value and worth of each person—are certainly embraced by many of the world’s religions. In the struggle for equal rights for blacks Martin Luther King didn’t point to the religion of white southerners and say—“Here’s your problem. If you’d just abandon your religion racism would end. Instead he said, “Here’s your problem. Our faith teaches this—all created equal in the sight of God—and you’re not living up to it.”

Elton John’s comments, like a lot of what gets passed around as truth in our culture, sounds true on the face of it, but really lacks any logical, rational underpinnings.

 

[maycocksean]

Don't many lesbian feminists deny that their homosexuality is rooted in biology but instead view their sexuality as a political and empowering choice? A choice, as they see it, not to be victimized under traditional male patriarchy and by the societal objectification of women.

I'd actually like to hear more discussion on this topic. I know this whole topic is sensitive for many posters but I'd like to hear more perspectives, if people are willing. I notice too that most of the posters who are gay that have addressed this issue are men. Would lesbians have a different perspective?

Based on the people I know, I've come to the conclusion that homosexuals are born that way. But I have wondered about people, particularly women, who appear to be "choosing" their orientation. A few months back, I read an article in a women's magazine (Redbook, maybe or Marie Claire) about how more and more women are "experimenting" with same-sex relationships, some women saying that other women are just more in tune to what they need than men are etc. How does this fit in to the debate?

To me it would seem to suggest that the issue is more complex than some of us--on either side of the debate--might like to admitt.

 

[BonosSaint]

Maycocksean, loved your post above the last one. Too long for me to quote, but every word rang true for me.

 

[maycocksean]

Maycocksean, loved your post above the last one. Too long for me to quote, but every word rang true for me.

Thanks. It was one of the few posts that I actually typed out and revised a bit seperately before posting it in here.

 

[Ormus]

Don't many lesbian feminists deny that their homosexuality is rooted in biology but instead view their sexuality as a political and empowering choice? A choice, as they see it, not to be victimized under traditional male patriarchy and by the societal objectification of women.

In fact, don't many lesbians resent the search for a "gay gene" or is that soooo 1990's?

One study that's been noted is that women are more likely to be bisexual than men, who are typically either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. So it's very possible that some militant feminists are doing just that. However, every lesbian I know doesn't have this above attitude. It still does not negate the concept of sexuality being natural.

I think that most of us here can agree that you can't just fake feelings for someone (unless you're part of the ex-gay crew). You either have them or you don't. Bisexuals are just fortunate enough to have more options than the rest of us.

 

[Ormus]

A few months back, I read an article in a women's magazine (Redbook, maybe or Marie Claire) about how more and more women are "experimenting" with same-sex relationships, some women saying that other women are just more in tune to what they need than men are etc. How does this fit in to the debate?

To me it would seem to suggest that the issue is more complex than some of us--on either side of the debate--might like to admitt.

See what I just wrote. Now you might get the impression that there are no studies into sexuality. Yes, there are. The Kinsey Institute is one of the oldest institutes having studied this issue:

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/

But there's a huge, huge disparity in the types of groups doing the studying. Many conservative Christian groups "studying" this issue are doing it with a clear anti-gay bias, and their religion precludes them from ever coming to a pro-gay conclusion. This type of "science" falls under the same faulty logic as "intelligent design." Coming up with a predetermined conclusion, and then searching for evidence to back it up is the same logical fallacy that St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians engaged in.

The idea of homosexuality being a mental illness was an avenue discovered from the 19th century to the 1970s. It was ultimately disproven by the scientific community in the early 1970s, and they haven't regretted their conclusions. There's a big difference between studies of sexuality done by the Kinsey Institute and ones done by Focus on the Family. You can basically know the conclusion that FOTF will come up with ahead of time. It's just a matter of how offensive and stereotypical FOTF chooses to be at any given moment.

 

[Ormus]

Melon? Wow. Why the name change? Are you in a rock band now?

I've always appreciated your perspective. I hope you know that. I think you've got a great mind.

If you can put differences aside, I'm always open to more discussion. I'm at www.myspace.com/coemgen17 or coemgen17@hotmail.com. And no, I'm not going to try to convert or change you. Like I said, it'd be cool to discuss other things, especially knowing you're melon.

later,

Kevin

I had a hunch that knowing who the messenger was would affect how you'd see my message.

No, I don't hate you. And I've enjoyed your perspective on many topics here. I just really disagree with your perspective here, plain and simple.

"melon" happens to be on 9999 posts right now, and I want to write something fairly substantial for post 10000. I used to write fairly substantial things here, but, as time has marched on, I've become a lot busier and now I'm pretty much just replying to existing topics now. I figured I'd write something for old time's sake.

Take care...

Melon

 

[coemgen]

I noticed melon was at 9,999. I'm looking forward to your big 10,000th post.

God bless,

coemgen

PS -- what are the three pics at the bottom of your posts from?

 

[The Tonic]

If religion inherently created anti-gay prejudice there would be something inherent in religiosity that makes it antagonistic to homosexuality. No one has yet been able to demonstrate what aspect of religiosity is inherently antagonistic to homosexuality.

How about this: Religion, as a formalised, structured system of beliefs, is designed to control people, similar to the way laws are designed to control people. The difference being, laws are designed to preserve order, but the beliefs religion espouses and the behaviors it encourages are not designed to preserve the peace, but to preserve the power of the people who are doing the talking.

One of the simplest ways to control people is to divide them, and turn them against each other. Create a hegemony, and brand anyone who steps outside it a heretic or an infidel. Sex - not just gay sex, but premarital sex, extramarital sex, cohabitation, sodomy (this means oral and anal sex between heteros, too), promiscuity, sex with birth control, abortion, masturbation, and even - unbelievably - being a victim of rape and not fighting back - these are all forms of sex that religion has labelled sinful, in an attempt to control people's behavior. Hell is the stick, and Heaven is the carrot. The transparency of this system is patently obvious to anyone without a vested interest in preserving it.

In short - religion is a system of beliefs not handed down from God (sorry to disappoint you) but created by men, to control others. Controlling sex is just one tool in the arsenal.

There. I've proven how homophobia is inherent in religion. Do I get a prize?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Burn the witch!

 

[coemgen]

How about this: Religion, as a formalised, structured system of beliefs, is designed to control people, similar to the way laws are designed to control people. The difference being, laws are designed to preserve order, but the beliefs religion espouses and the behaviors it encourages are not designed to preserve the peace, but to preserve the power of the people who are doing the talking.

One of the simplest ways to control people is to divide them, and turn them against each other. Create a hegemony, and brand anyone who steps outside it a heretic or an infidel. Sex - not just gay sex, but premarital sex, extramarital sex, cohabitation, sodomy (this means oral and anal sex between heteros, too), promiscuity, sex with birth control, abortion, masturbation, and even - unbelievably - being a victim of rape and not fighting back - these are all forms of sex that religion has labelled sinful, in an attempt to control people's behavior. Hell is the stick, and Heaven is the carrot. The transparency of this system is patently obvious to anyone without a vested interest in preserving it.

In short - religion is a system of beliefs not handed down from God (sorry to disappoint you) but created by men, to control others. Controlling sex is just one tool in the arsenal.

There. I've proven how homophobia is inherent in religion. Do I get a prize?

Actually, a lot of this is handed down by God. It's in the Bible. Yes, it was written by men, but inspired by God. And it's not meant to control people, but set them free. When kids play a game of soccer, they have boundaries to stay in and rules to follow. If there were no rules, it'd be an all out fight. Kids would get hurt. It'd get nasty. However, when the rules are followed, the game is more enjoyable. The kids have fun and it's seen as fair.
To the things above, (aside from the not fighting back against rape -- in no way is that a sin), there's a consequence, too.
I'm a Christian, yet I had premarital sex. We got pregnant and had to go into a marriage (we were planning on getting married anyway) with a child right off the bat, unprepared. It took its toll on our marriage. Abortion: my wife had an abortion before she met me. She still deals with the guilt and pain years later -- and no, it's not brought on through our "religion". Along with loving friends and family, her faith is the only thing that gives her peace. She knows she's forgiven. It's still tough though.

Also, sex with birth control and masturbation are sins if you're from the Catholic church, but not many other denominations.

Many denominations, including mine, don't have "religion." Our church doesn't have set beliefs, except accepting the Bible as God's word and developing a relationship with Christ. It's a relationship with God, not an empty set of beliefs. No other person is in control of me either.

And your argument doesn't prove homophobia is inherent in religion, either. As a Christian, the last thing I'm afraid of is homosexuals. In fact, I'm called to love them.

 

[AEON]

Actually, a lot of this is handed down by God. It's in the Bible. Yes, it was written by men, but inspired by God. And it's not meant to control people, but set them free. When kids play a game of soccer, they have boundaries to stay in and rules to follow. If there were no rules, it'd be an all out fight. Kids would get hurt. It'd get nasty. However, when the rules are followed, the game is more enjoyable. The kids have fun and it's seen as fair.
To the things above, (aside from the not fighting back against rape -- in no way is that a sin), there's a consequence, too.
I'm a Christian, yet I had premarital sex. We got pregnant and had to go into a marriage (we were planning on getting married anyway) with a child right off the bat, unprepared. It took its toll on our marriage. Abortion: my wife had an abortion before she met me. She still deals with the guilt and pain years later -- and no, it's not brought on through our "religion". Along with loving friends and family, her faith is the only thing that gives her peace. She knows she's forgiven. It's still tough though.

Also, sex with birth control and masturbation are sins if you're from the Catholic church, but not many other denominations.

Many denominations, including mine, don't have "religion." Our church doesn't have set beliefs, except accepting the Bible as God's word and developing a relationship with Christ. It's a relationship with God, not an empty set of beliefs. No other person is in control of me either.

And your argument doesn't prove homophobia is inherent in religion, either. As a Christian, the last thing I'm afraid of is homosexuals. In fact, I'm called to love them.

Well put.

 

[BorderGirl]

Finally, religious faith, can be helpful in the struggle for equal rights just as it was in the fight to end slavery and in the civil rights movement by appealing to values that while not necessarily universal to all religions, nor limited to just the religious—values such as compassion, mercy, justice, and the intrinsic value and worth of each person—are certainly embraced by many of the world’s religions. In the struggle for equal rights for blacks Martin Luther King didn’t point to the religion of white southerners and say—“Here’s your problem. If you’d just abandon your religion racism would end. Instead he said, “Here’s your problem. Our faith teaches this—all created equal in the sight of God—and you’re not living up to it.”

Elton John’s comments, like a lot of what gets passed around as truth in our culture, sounds true on the face of it, but really lacks any logical, rational underpinnings.

Thanks for your post emphasizing the difference between faith/humans on the faith road.
We are called to embrace the journey.
I find Elton self serving, gay or not.

 

[The Tonic]

Actually, a lot of this is handed down by God. It's in the Bible. Yes, it was written by men, but inspired by God.

...

And your argument doesn't prove homophobia is inherent in religion, either. As a Christian, the last thing I'm afraid of is homosexuals. In fact, I'm called to love them.

That's great for you, but you must realise what a huge and impossible step it is for some of us to believe that God handed down the contents of the Bible to us. Not to open a whole can of worms or anything, but virtually everything in the Bible was plucked from a pre-existing religious text. Like a language evolving from century to century and continent to continent, religion doesn't spring fully formed from the prophet's lips. Just one example - water into wine. Dionysus supposedly did it centuries before Jesus took his first step.

You know the official explanation for that? Satan retroactively rewrote the texts, duplicating Jesus's future miracles. Think how that looks to people not raised Christian. Pretty irrational. I'm sorry but that's just not going to cut it, especially when we're talking about beliefs that shape the culture we all share, and the laws that govern it.

My argument doesn't prove that homophobia is inherent in all religion, no. Just the religions that try to control people's behavior, generally, and their sexuality, specifically, which is about 90% of them. Or another way of looking at it - any religion with rules probably has rules about sex, and gay sex. If you want to hold up Unitarianism or Satanism or Raelianism as proof that not all religion cares about this stuff, fine. Stretching that far to make your point only proves mine.

An aside - homophobia has more to do with straight people than it does with gay people. Suppressing gay people is really an attempt to control women. Women and their wandering uteri are a huge problem for men, and keeping their sexuality under control is in men's interests. Men who don't support the status quo (that is, who don't want a subservient wife) are betraying their fellow men. The whole idea of rigid gender places a divide between male and female that justifies and enables misogyny. People who blur the divide of gender and male dominance of women threaten the whole system, and have to be eliminated.

DON'T tell me you don't think your wife has to be subservient to you. I don't care about your opinion - I'm describing the pattern of thought that homophobia sprang from, at the same time as describing where marriage came from. You know as well as I do that women were for millennia considered property, marriage was conceived as a financial transaction, and women were only granted personhood in your grandmother's lifetime. The effects still linger to this day (count the women in Congress, look at the stats on the richest people in the country, or how much women earn on the dollar compared to men). The residue of these centuries of misogyny still taints our culture, no matter how much you love your wife.

Similarly, keeping women under men's thumb led to the suppression of homosexuality. This was sometimes codified into law, but the way these beliefs were inexorably ingrained into our culture was religion.

Finally, don't confuse homophobia with the fear of homosexuals. Homophobia isn't like arachnophobia. It's most often a subconscious depersonification of gay people, a double standard, and nothing more. Parsing words with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric means nothing when your actions (and your vote) remove or withhold rights from your fellow humans.

 

[Ormus]

We are called to embrace the journey.
I find Elton self serving, gay or not.

Care to elaborate? It's an interesting statement that I'd like to understand before I try to comment.

 

[AEON]

That's great for you, but you must realise what a huge and impossible step it is for some of us to believe that God handed down the contents of the Bible to us. Not to open a whole can of worms or anything, but virtually everything in the Bible was plucked from a pre-existing religious text. Like a language evolving from century to century and continent to continent, religion doesn't spring fully formed from the prophet's lips. Just one example - water into wine. Dionysus supposedly did it centuries before Jesus took his first step.

You know the official explanation for that? Satan retroactively rewrote the texts, duplicating Jesus's future miracles. Think how that looks to people not raised Christian. Pretty irrational. I'm sorry but that's just not going to cut it, especially when we're talking about beliefs that shape the culture we all share, and the laws that govern it.

My argument doesn't prove that homophobia is inherent in all religion, no. Just the religions that try to control people's behavior, generally, and their sexuality, specifically, which is about 90% of them. Or another way of looking at it - any religion with rules probably has rules about sex, and gay sex. If you want to hold up Unitarianism or Satanism or Raelianism as proof that not all religion cares about this stuff, fine. Stretching that far to make your point only proves mine.

An aside - homophobia has more to do with straight people than it does with gay people. Suppressing gay people is really an attempt to control women. Women and their wandering uteri are a huge problem for men, and keeping their sexuality under control is in men's interests. Men who don't support the status quo (that is, who don't want a subservient wife) are betraying their fellow men. The whole idea of rigid gender places a divide between male and female that justifies and enables misogyny. People who blur the divide of gender and male dominance of women threaten the whole system, and have to be eliminated.

DON'T tell me you don't think your wife has to be subservient to you. I don't care about your opinion - I'm describing the pattern of thought that homophobia sprang from, at the same time as describing where marriage came from. You know as well as I do that women were for millennia considered property, marriage was conceived as a financial transaction, and women were only granted personhood in your grandmother's lifetime. The effects still linger to this day (count the women in Congress, look at the stats on the richest people in the country, or how much women earn on the dollar compared to men). The residue of these centuries of misogyny still taints our culture, no matter how much you love your wife.

Similarly, keeping women under men's thumb led to the suppression of homosexuality. This was sometimes codified into law, but the way these beliefs were inexorably ingrained into our culture was religion.

Finally, don't confuse homophobia with the fear of homosexuals. Homophobia isn't like arachnophobia. It's most often a subconscious depersonification of gay people, a double standard, and nothing more. Parsing words with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric means nothing when your actions (and your vote) remove or withhold rights from your fellow humans.

I suppose I can see how you can think like this. But I think many people confuse "Christendom" with "Christianity." Christendom has a ton of a historical baggage. But I think it would be difficult to prove that Christ taught such an attitude toward women.

Regarding the miracles: the simple fact that other deities were believed to perform miracles doesn't negate the uniqueness of Christ. Make two columns and place any “god” in one column and Jesus in the other and then list all of their attributes. You will soon see that while there are some similarities – there are VAST differences.

Also, other men were performing “miracles” before and after Jesus – but there must be “something” different about Jesus that separated Him from the others. I encourage you to investigate that avenue – why Jesus? Why not any other? Why anyone?

 

[BVS]

But I think it would be difficult to prove that Christ taught such an attitude toward women.

I think this is the point where you lose many people in here, because you aren't consistent. Of course Christ never taught such things, but Paul, Leviticus, etc did.

And this is a subject you have talked AROUND ever since you've been in here. But Paul and the OT were very misogynists. Why is it Paul was still preaching veils in the NT?

You aren't consistent in your followings, you quote Paul on one page but ignore his teachings in another...

 

[AEON]

I think this is the point where you lose many people in here, because you aren't consistent. Of course Christ never taught such things, but Paul, Leviticus, etc did.

And this is a subject you have talked AROUND ever since you've been in here. But Paul and the OT were very misogynists. Why is it Paul was still preaching veils in the NT?

You aren't consistent in your followings, you quote Paul on one page but ignore his teachings in another...

I don't think Paul was misogynistic at all. He only comes across that way when people fail to read the entire letter or they fail to understand the context and circumstances of the letter.

We are called to serve another, to submit to each other, and to honor one another above ourselves. We are to treat everyone this way.

 

[Ormus]

I encourage you to investigate that avenue – why Jesus? Why not any other? Why anyone?

Because Christianity is the only religion that bothered to evangelize Europe, more or less. Muhammad ended up being more "successful" in the Middle East and Africa, because it was tailored to their cultural customs, rather than being a foreign imposition.

Rest assured, though, had you been born in Saudi Arabia, instead of America, you'd probably be a fervent Muslim like everyone else there. Something to think about.