Dr Rick

There is an accumulating body of scientific evidence suggesting that God made them that way so that they can scrub the floors and push the vacuum cleaner.

Rick

Bracer

Ooookaaay... I'm going to try to lift this thread up just a hair...

Personally, and with all respect to GeoTheo, I think this latest round comes across like answering a GE Minigun blast with a Nerf arrow.

Scigirl posted a metric ton of links and documented evidence of how major Christian organizations single out homosexuality as a target of discrimination -- even to the point where otherwise mostly secular organizations like the BSA follow their lead when pushed, a connection that she also documented. (And on a related note, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/04/MN159435.DTL" target="_blank">here's a late-breaking news flash</a>.)

Geo’s only response to the numerous points she raises is 1) anecdotal evidence of his personal (and by his own admission, limited and having occurred many years ago) experience with scouting, and 2) a repeat of his “No True Scotsman” fallacy from the opening round of the debate:

His overall point seems to be that True Christians™ should be condemning a host of other “sinners” equally. To his credit, he himself holds to a doctrine of “embracing” sinners, forgiveness, and bringing them back to Jebus rather than ostracizing, legislation, and/or stoning. However, he’s done nothing to show that Christianity isn’t prejudiced against homosexuals -- whether or not True Christians™ should also be carping about slanderers and drunkards with equal fervor is quite beside the point.

In fact, slight digression here: is there any organized resistance to gay rights in this country that isn’t based on biblical objections? I mean, I know there are many groups who try very hard not to couch it in those terms, and even the AFA prefers to harp on (utterly erroneous, as Scigirl showed) old saws such as linking homosexuality with pedophilia, or a more generalized “it’s bad for American Families™.” But off the top of my head I can’t think of a single, secular organization or group that actively works to deny gay rights. Anyone? (“Bueller? Bueller?”)

Anyway, I’m also a bit put off by Geo’s hand waving of why the prohibitions found in the OT, and specifically Leviticus, against homosexuality still “reflect God's moral character on the issue,” yet Christians can safely ignore so many other Levitical laws (like not eating shellfish). He simply asserts that such laws “specifically appl[ied] to the nation of Israel” without offering any proof, or any yardstick by which we can determine which Levitical laws still apply and which don’t, although he later offers a couple of quotes from Paul which also condemn gay sex. Fair enough, but this in turn makes me curious about Geo’s take on, for example, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (which says Christians should in no way associate with and never, ever marry non-believers -- which is another thing Scigirl brought up), his views on circumcision (Galatians 5:1-12, et al), or his many diatribes against women (1 Corinthians 11:1-15 et al) including the shunning of “young widows” (1 Timothy 5:11-15).

In other words, does Geo agree with everything Paul preaches about/against, or are there statements by Paul that Geo believes no longer apply to modern Christians? If so, how do those passages differ from Paul’s stance on homosexuality -- once again, what yardstick do you use to measure which verses still apply and which do not?

I actually think Geo brought up a more interesting line of argument last round. If it could be proven that homosexuals are (or have been) universally discriminated against across all cultures, regardless of local religious beliefs, he might be able to get Christianity “off the hook” if his line of reasoning were elegant enough. Granted, I don’t think such a premise can be remotely supported, and his initial example of modern Japan was especially problematic for many reasons (personally, I think modern Japan is a difficult country and culture to point to as an example of almost anything, but I digress). However it would have been interesting to see where he went with it, and I’m sort of disappointed he seems to have dropped it so quickly.

So, that’s my two dinars.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bracer ]</p>

GeoTheo

I could still develop that line of thinking when arguing the topic of Gay marriage which I hold to be a seperate issue. I can make a good case that human culture in general reject the concept.
As far as "proving" dietary laws don't apply to Christians what would satisfy you? It is really not a matter of proof in the impirical sense, but a matter of interpretation.
As far as all the links, I agreed with her premise that these political activists were singaling out gays. What is there to respond to?

Bracer

Go right ahead. Personally, as regards the topic I think gay marriage is a red herring, but I am nonetheless extremely interested in what both of you have to say.

I think you’ve missed the point. Leviticus isn’t just a bunch of dietary laws plus “homosexuality is wrong.” It also goes on at length about (among other things) how to treat menstruating women and the handicapped (in general, they’re dirty and shouldn’t even be looked at), what kind of clothes and hairstyles are OK, who you’re allowed to see naked, a long list of capitol crimes and which methods of execution are best, a nearly as long list of who it’s OK to enslave and when it’s OK to beat them, how much a human life is worth in monetary terms, etc, etc.

If you think modern Christians can safely ignore these “helpful guidelines,” or even the whole of the OT under the rubric of “we now live under Grace” or somesuch, that’s fine by me. However, you’ve made it quite clear that at least one of the OT proscriptions still applies (specifically, gay sex). And along the same lines I am still curious what you think of the other statements by Paul regarding unbelievers, circumcision, and (especially) women as I outlined above. Whatever your answer, the question still remains, “By what yardstick do you interpret which bible passages should (still) be obeyed and which can be ignored?”

Well, if you’re just going to concede the point, then I guess nothing. From where I stand this doesn’t exactly help your position though -- in fact I was genuinely surprised you didn’t even offer a single counterexample. And, like I said, the argument that Christians should also be condemning slander, drunkeness, and so on, as well as homosexuality (whatever form that condemnation takes) isn’t really helping you out either. However, this is a debate between you and Scigirl, not you and I, and neither am I one of the (formal) judges. Probably best if we just agree to disagree on this, at least for now.

I am still keen for you to answer my other question above though, since it’s a subject I have a great deal of interest in. One caveat is that I realize it might be better off in its own thread, and if you wish to defer such a discussion to a later time as well (perhaps once you and Scigirl are through), that would also be fine. No biggie; no rush.

(Edited 'cuz I kant format or spel)

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bracer ]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bracer ]</p>

Bree

I think you're also forgetting that one need not be a political activist to be potentially damaging.

You may think that if you're not actively participating in a picket of a gay man's funeral (or something similar) you're not doing anything damaging or bigoted. But when your son asks what the big deal is about gays in BSA, you tell him that it's because God has condemned these people to hell and Christians must also condemn them and stay away from them - isn't that just as bad? Just on a different level?

Amos

But Amos understands that our sexuality is an illusion and that therefore homosexuality is potentially in every male and female. If society condones this behavior it is likely to increase and if it is a social taboo is is likely to decrease for the simple reason that our acceptance and exposure to it will artificially stimulate this inclination (yes which resides deep within each human being).

If hormone therapy can change our gender identity psycho therapy can do the same and if you don't believe this ask yourself how hormone therapy can be effective.

Science is not behind the times but scientists are always behind the eightball because they observe what happened in the past and based on this can they predict the future.

The key to understanding our research findings is to understand human nature even before we do the experiment and this is what the Church is needed for.

Bree

Do you have any scientific evidence which shows that homosexuality is present in every individual?

Hastur

Wouldn't that more accurately be bisexuality?

GeoTheo

There was a guy who got his weiner stuck in a 5 lb. barbell plate and ended up in the ER.
I guess he would be classified as an iron-sexual.
Does the capability for "iron sexuality" exist in all of us?
The point is anybody can do whatever they wish.

Amos

I am not a scientist Bree and please be careful because I wrote "potentially" present. The proof of this is that hormone therapy will affect our gender identity, and next, if artificial hormones can do this so will the stimilation of our natural hormones do this--and the proof of this is that female body builders and push-up girls often fail to ovulate.

If we place this on a slippery slope the fertility of both males and females is affected by it and that is my only beef against our modern gender equal society (most men like to 'get laid').

The philosophical argument here is that two stands are needed in the rout of creation and one of them must be positive and the other negative while both must be serious contenders before creation can take place.

The religious argument is that woman was taken from man to be the womb of man (Tree of Life)while in admiration of the mind of man (Tree of Knowledge) because that is from where she can bud and bloom (gain wisdom, beauty and truth).