FreeToThink

oneofshibumi, thanks! I figured there was something I was missing. Appreciate the clear-up.

F2T

______________________________
"Talk of a peaceable kingdom"

oneofshibumi

What ever happened to GeoTheo? He hasn't posted anything since August 6, 2002 at 9:30 am.

SciGirl, have you heard anything?

Well, GeoTheo, if we do not hear from, I wish you well in your path. Perhaps you have been enlightened.

SciGirl, if my posts have ended this debate I am sorry. I realize that it was your debate and I kinda just jumped in. But, I always get frustrated when people make statements without doing their research fist.

Sincerely,

scigirl

He's around. He's been posting in E/C.

FYI - the formal debates are a bit "slower" than the other forums. I think a post once a week is sufficient. I don't expect Geo to post once a day there, because there is no way I have time to reply once a day.

I have a reply almost ready to Geo, then I'll be gone for a week or so (moving to Denver, will be without the internet for a while).

Don't be sorry - the debate is still there. Be patient with us!

I found your posts and your links to be helpful and I plan on using them in some of my arguments. Thanks.

scigirl

Dr Rick

oneofshibumi:

First of all, let me welcome you to the IIDB. Secondly, let me add to the accolades you've already been given on the quality of your posts. Far from ending the debate, comments from knowledgeable posters such as you enhance the exchange for all of us. This side thread was opened specifically for the type of posts you have made, so thanks for doing so.

Don't worry about the slow paced posting rate in the debate itself; the forum for the topic is deliberately "isolated" from the others to give the primary participants time to formulate their replies without having to respond to the other 7000+ members here.

Rick, moderator of the Formal Debates and Discussions forum

Bluenose

"oneofshibumi:.... Homosexuality was common practiced among Christians (there were no penalties), well into the Victorian times."

Sodomy or "crime against nature, with mankind or beast" went from church to British criminal law under Henry VIII [25 Hen. VIII, c.6] around 400 years ago and was part of both U.K. and all 50 US states' law until around 40 years ago. QV Wolfendon Report (UK).

Illinois was first state to adopt 'consenting adults in private' in early 1960s and promptly made more arrests for immoral or deviant solicitation in the first year than ever before.

Around 200 years ago Napoleon dropped sodomy from the 'Code Napoleon' and applied it all over the French Empire, with most areas of continental Europe retaining much of his 'Code' after 1815.
So most of Europe had no sodomy laws until late in 1800s, as they had before the 'Code'.

The legal history of each English speaking country will trace back to Henry VIII and each French speaking country to the 'Code'.

Sowthistle

Something I find interesting about scigirl's recent post. When Dr. Hyman states that having a lesbian nurse in a gynecologial office is like "putting a drink in front of an alcoholic", is he not admitting at some level that he feels that the vaginas he treats are primarily sex objects?

Many bigots project themselves onto the object of their bigotry, so I have to wonder...

Anyone feel that that having a rabidly-fundamentalist gynecologist to be about the most creepy thing ever? I'd hate to be the one to ask him for a rape-exam or to treat rape-related trauma.

ST

Agnos1

I'm not sure if this has been missed, but here goes, SciGirl:

Theo is following two typical Chistian precepts which are dead wrong and should be dismantled as soon as possible in your argument IMO.

1) The idea that Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or "viewpoint." Science has advanced far enough that even most Christians know this to be untrue. Problem is, then they have to figure out why God created a certain "class" of humans that he intended to despise [ ]

2) The old Christian ploy of attacking a "viewpoint" and pretending that they are not in fact attacking the person. This separation of viewpoint from the individual is specious, because even if Homosexuality was a viewpoint (which it's not) viewpoints are, after all, what make up the total psychology of a person. Attack the views and you are attacking the person. If you set up a policy by which Christian behavior is not tolerated, where Christians cannot go to church, cannot exercise their freedom to pray, to be baptized, to obtain a Bible and pertinent literature, then you would be creating a climate that persecutes not only Christian behavior, but any Christian as well, including Theo.

RogerLeeCooke

A few random comments on the debate, which is well-argued from both sides.

First, the Hebrew Scriptures very definitely condemn *male* homosexuality. I find it interesting that masturbation is not condemned anywhere, even though the (male) writers must have known about it. Female homosexuality may not have been known to them at all, since there was a rather strict segregation of the sexes, except in marriage, where a woman's sexuality was controlled by the family. One can easily imagine the writers taking it for granted that there was nothing women *could* do among themselves, since they didn't have the equipment to do it.

Second, when it comes to human rights, the vast majority of people take the objectivist position. Christians say that human rights come from God, and that our Declaration of Independence asserts this belief as an essential component of Americanism. But the advocates of gay marriage speak equally of being denied their rights, as if it were obvious that the words "created equal" imply such rights. Despite my having helped to finance the suit that brought civil unions to Vermont (since one of my colleagues was a party to the suit), I have to say that I don't believe in any abstract concept of civil rights. The rights anyone has are defined by the law. There are rights that I *want* people to have, but to talk as if those rights already existed and are being unjustly withheld would be an error. I didn't even like the fact that Vermont's civil unions were mandated by its Supreme Court interpreting the state Constitution. (When the Constitution was rewritten in the 1970s, no one thought they were writing civil unions into it.) I would have preferred to lobby the state legislature to pass this law, as it finally did, when commanded by the Court. As for the issue of spousal health care, etc., I have long advocated that each person should be given a salary commensurate with his/her performance and allowed to choose among fringe benefits up to a certain dollar amount. I don't want single people to subsidize married people, whether same- or opposite-sex, and that is what happens when everyone at a company shares a family health plan.

scigirl

RogerLeeCooke,

Interesting points, especially about the bible.

I think there is a passage in the OT about how a man got in trouble for "spilling his seed." Some Christian churches use it to condemn masterbation, and I think the Catholic church uses it to prove "every sperm is sacred." However, I do not believe the Jews interpret it that way.

Heh the current laws against gay sex technically exclude lesbians too. Except that doesn't stop states from using sodomy laws against lesbians!
Interesting points. However, my argument is that G&L are currently being denied the same rights that heterosexuals get. If heterosexuals shouldn't get those rights either, than that is a different argument, I think. And I tend to agree with you - society places too much importance on marriage. I am perfectly happy not being married, and plan to stay that way for a while! But at least I have the luxury of choosing that situation.

If I was told by the state that I absolutely could *not* marry the person that I loved, maybe I would feel differently.

Also, denying gays the right to marry is only one of the discrimination examples. Denying gays jobs, and the right to assemble at a public university, in addition to just being treated like crap (see my recent post), is just, well , wrong!

scigirl

RogerLeeCooke

I think we're in essential agreement here, except for our way of expressing it. Discrimination has a non-legal meaning, but "rights" don't. I make it a point only to speak of rights that are explicitly guaranteed by the law. But I agree that discrimination against homosexuals does occur, and I'd like to eliminate it. I just don't phrase that desire as if some oracle had declared that there is a right not to be disciminated against. But perfect symmetry between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not my goal. In particular, because of my own experiences as a child, I am not in favor of letting homosexual males be scoutmasters, any more than I'd let a heterosexual male take a bunch of girls on an unchaperoned camping trip. Rather than arguing some abstract concept of fairness based on symmetry, I'd ask what policy makes most sense for society as a whole. For that, I still favor the traditional family, just as I have no qualms about taxing everyone to pay for the education of the younger generation. That puts a burden on the non-breeders for the benefit of the breeders, but I think it's necessary to the continuation of a civil society.