No, I read the entire post. It is because you were not specific I asked you for clarification. . . . . I was curious enough to want to know. I could just read into it I guess. . . .
I thought the thread was "Homosexuality a doctrinal discussion" ?? I did not realize I had to be one to speak about that doctrinal issue.
Since I am interested in the topic and have a great deal of interaction with people who are either gay. . . . or practice homosexuality within the confines of incarceration. . . . "gay for the stay" as they say. . . . I was naturally curious.
No, I read the entire post. It is because you were not specific I asked you for clarification. . . . . I was curious enough to want to know. I could just read into it I guess. . . .
I thought the thread was "Homosexuality a doctrinal discussion" ?? I did not realize I had to be one to speak about that doctrinal issue.
Since I am interested in the topic and have a great deal of interaction with people who are either gay. . . . or practice homosexuality within the confines of incarceration. . . . "gay for the stay" as they say. . . . I was naturally curious.
I didn't say you had to be one to see what it is from the inside.
It's made a doctrinal issue for various reasons I suppose.
But it isn't, a clear approach would be more open don't you think?
Been awhile since I visited... It's interesting to see all of the different ideas on the nature of the original question in this thread.
It could be a really novel idea, trying to move beyond the hot-button question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. What if, instead, we critically think about what it IS, rather than what it is supposed to be. What it is supposed to be usually involves some dreary quote from some human cactus with perpetual indigestion. Unhappy people say unhappy things. Then there is the question of whether it's natural -- which sounds like a valid expression of a biological urge but often really means morally acceptable. I don't pretend to understand this tendency in human beings to declare what is and isn't natural, usually without reference to the natural world around them for clues.
As far as abominations go, try watching a Pauly Shore movie... though, I'd recommend a dose of Gravol first.
geisha779, I really liked your post discussing politicalization. I thought about it for a bit, and I think that many political movements begin the same way. A group of people organise around an idea or identity, sharing a common trait or common desire, a sense of persecution, political or social exclusion, or discrimination at the hands of a larger group within which they exist. Just as quickly as one group forms and begins to exercise its voice calling for rights, still other groups consisting of people of contrary opinion will form, some committed to maintaining their priveleged position, some out of vague fears, some out of unvarnished hate.
I see a parallel in the women's sufferage movement: the polical resistance THAT movement met was just as vehement and ridiculous as the one faced by gay folks in many places these days. The same ludicrous arguments used to oppose giving women the vote (it's unnatural; it will destroy traditional roles; our civilisation will crumble) sound eerily similar to the ones being used today to argue the legitimacy of homosexuality, or, more recently still, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. The Christian right is a political movement.... not a Christian movement.... it pushes an agenda and takes no prisoners. That's a pretty astute statement.
soul searcher wrote a really interesting post too: I think many individuals, cutting across all political persuasions and cultural groups, are revolted by and/or afraid of homosexuality. It's uncomfortable to have to explain to your kids why those two men are walking hand-in-hand, or why little Johnny in my class has 'two daddies.' That's sharp. It seems that most of the discomfort is on the parent's side, not the kids'. I think kids are pretty easygoing. Of course, they react to the emotions and behaviour of their primary role models. If I were to blame parents for anything, it would be for teaching homophobia, sexism, or racism... To be fair, I don't always think that people give a lot of thought to what they say, and they'd be horrified if you were to accuse them of being, say, homophobic... but there they are with their kid, and they get all uptight and mutter with disgust if they see two men holding hands. Or they say "I don't understand why those people can't just be happy. Why do they want to get married too?" And that might say a heck of a lot more than they may think it does, but it doesn't actually encourage understanding or critical thought. Disapproval, discomfort, judgement, et cetera, but not consideration, not discussion. I'm glad to see more discussion here than reactionism. It's refreshing.
Strangely, that reminds me of the words of some crazy hippie type guy who said something about doing unto others...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
17
16
Popular Days
Jun 11
47
Jun 9
16
Dec 22
14
Jun 10
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 15 posts
rhino 17 posts
cman 17 posts
DrWearWord 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
47 posts
Jun 9 2008
16 posts
Dec 22 2009
14 posts
Jun 10 2008
11 posts
Popular Posts
rhino
No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of applicat
rhino
It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forwar
rhino
I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by
geisha779
No, I read the entire post. It is because you were not specific I asked you for clarification. . . . . I was curious enough to want to know. I could just read into it I guess. . . .
I thought the thread was "Homosexuality a doctrinal discussion" ?? I did not realize I had to be one to speak about that doctrinal issue.
Since I am interested in the topic and have a great deal of interaction with people who are either gay. . . . or practice homosexuality within the confines of incarceration. . . . "gay for the stay" as they say. . . . I was naturally curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I didn't say you had to be one to see what it is from the inside.
It's made a doctrinal issue for various reasons I suppose.
But it isn't, a clear approach would be more open don't you think?
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
One of my old acting coaches used to say,"You don't have to fall down a flight stairs to play the part of a character with a broken arm."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yes, waysider, that's what I'm talking about.
Instead of looking at it from the outside,
it can be done from the inside without being homosexual.
The ability to do it is in us,
not only with that but any thing we choose to take on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cake
Been awhile since I visited... It's interesting to see all of the different ideas on the nature of the original question in this thread.
It could be a really novel idea, trying to move beyond the hot-button question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. What if, instead, we critically think about what it IS, rather than what it is supposed to be. What it is supposed to be usually involves some dreary quote from some human cactus with perpetual indigestion. Unhappy people say unhappy things. Then there is the question of whether it's natural -- which sounds like a valid expression of a biological urge but often really means morally acceptable. I don't pretend to understand this tendency in human beings to declare what is and isn't natural, usually without reference to the natural world around them for clues.
As far as abominations go, try watching a Pauly Shore movie... though, I'd recommend a dose of Gravol first.
geisha779, I really liked your post discussing politicalization. I thought about it for a bit, and I think that many political movements begin the same way. A group of people organise around an idea or identity, sharing a common trait or common desire, a sense of persecution, political or social exclusion, or discrimination at the hands of a larger group within which they exist. Just as quickly as one group forms and begins to exercise its voice calling for rights, still other groups consisting of people of contrary opinion will form, some committed to maintaining their priveleged position, some out of vague fears, some out of unvarnished hate.
I see a parallel in the women's sufferage movement: the polical resistance THAT movement met was just as vehement and ridiculous as the one faced by gay folks in many places these days. The same ludicrous arguments used to oppose giving women the vote (it's unnatural; it will destroy traditional roles; our civilisation will crumble) sound eerily similar to the ones being used today to argue the legitimacy of homosexuality, or, more recently still, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. The Christian right is a political movement.... not a Christian movement.... it pushes an agenda and takes no prisoners. That's a pretty astute statement.
soul searcher wrote a really interesting post too: I think many individuals, cutting across all political persuasions and cultural groups, are revolted by and/or afraid of homosexuality. It's uncomfortable to have to explain to your kids why those two men are walking hand-in-hand, or why little Johnny in my class has 'two daddies.' That's sharp. It seems that most of the discomfort is on the parent's side, not the kids'. I think kids are pretty easygoing. Of course, they react to the emotions and behaviour of their primary role models. If I were to blame parents for anything, it would be for teaching homophobia, sexism, or racism... To be fair, I don't always think that people give a lot of thought to what they say, and they'd be horrified if you were to accuse them of being, say, homophobic... but there they are with their kid, and they get all uptight and mutter with disgust if they see two men holding hands. Or they say "I don't understand why those people can't just be happy. Why do they want to get married too?" And that might say a heck of a lot more than they may think it does, but it doesn't actually encourage understanding or critical thought. Disapproval, discomfort, judgement, et cetera, but not consideration, not discussion. I'm glad to see more discussion here than reactionism. It's refreshing.
Strangely, that reminds me of the words of some crazy hippie type guy who said something about doing unto others...
Edited by cakeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.