homosexuality

You forgot to attack my church.

[QUOTE][B]But I respectfully disagree with you that homosexuals are (please correct me) unnatural, wrong, or any other tab you want to apply, more than any other genotype[/QUOTE][/B]Actually I'm more interested in the phenotype. I don't feel anyone should be criticized just for their genes. But for the record, I don't mean my commentary as a criticism. I'm simply defending my personal opinion.Now, what people is their own choice, it isn't causing anyone any harm, but it is simply my personal moral stance that it isn't the 'right' thing to do. Why I am taking so much flak for that is what I don't understand. Do I not have as much of a right to decide if homosexuality is immoral that Schrafinator has to decide it is moral? Am I going around criticizing anyone's opinion on the matter, aside from defending my own? I hope not.Thanks for telling me I don't normally show religious bias, I recognize that as a compliment. I try not to, and usually keep to myself until my own belief system is specifically attacked. I, frankly, would have had nothing to do with this homosexuality debate at all (it's boring and doesn't interest me, and I try to maintain a live-and-let-live attitude about that sort of thing) if the opposition had not started it off with an attack on the position of the LDS church.She's right, my participation in the church is a new thing. However, even before I joined, I considered singling out Joseph Smith/LDS highly distasteful. Schraf justified the attack on LDS by pointing out that the organization is large...but it is only the fifth largest church in the US. There are four larger organizations to attack first. If she wanted to target something why not the Catholics (that would be most appropriate, she is of a Catholic background) or the Baptists (they're much bigger than we are, and often highly conservative). We have grown, but are still a minority.True, maybe I should not let this get personal, but when another participant attacks my church, especially knowing that I am an active member of that church, and the only known member here, then it becomes very personal, and I just don't know any way around it.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-25-2002]

[QUOTE][B]I also understand that the use of the phrase "so-called" before the word "homosexual" every single time it appears in the LDS policy on gays doesn't make you think that they aren't even willing to use the word by itself because this might make people think that they believe gay people are "naturally" like that.To me, using "so-called" in this way is the way people use it to mean that whatever a group or a person is calling themselves isn't really what they are; a "so-called" artist would be a term for someone who calls themselves an artist but that the writer doesn't consider a "real" artist, for example. [/QUOTE][/B](Apologies to the moderators for the excessively long quote, but I needed all of it.)The president and prophet of the church that you pointed out uses "so-called" is 92 years old. He was my age before the Second World War. Back in those days the word "gay" meant "merry". The word was not even associated with homosexuality until 1953 and then it was slang.
Homosexuality entered the pop culture (and we all learned the new definition of "gay") much later than that.The word "Lesbian" was coined in 1703 but this dictionary uses the primary definition as "of or related to Lesbos".(Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989) [QUOTE][B]How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?[/QUOTE][/B]In reference to new slang."These so-called skaters...""This so-called metal music"Yes it can be meant in a derogatory sense but you have to look at the context, and consider the speaker.And if, as you have consistently claimed, the LDS church refuses to acknowledge that gay people are "really" gay then why does President Hinckley, in that very same message, contradict your interpretation by
pointing out that for some people, those urges are overwhelming and difficult to control? It sounds like he's admitting some people are very prone to homosexuality, by nature of their biology, the exact opposite of your claim.

[QUOTE][B]How do people deny their phenotype?[/QUOTE][/B]Through self-control. Genetic predisposition to certain behaviors does not necessarily justify those behaviors. True, brown eyes are a phenotype. But so are violent rages and sociopathic behaviors, self-destructive tendencies, etc.If simply being biologically inclined to being gay automatically makes it morally sound to be gay, then doesn't being biologically inclined to violence make whatever might happen in a violent outburst, morally acceptable as well.Now, I've already made this analogy and lots of people (perhaps deliberately) misinterpreted me to think I was equating homosexuality with murder. Please don't make that mistake, I think homosexual behavior is very very minor in importance as far as moral breaches go while hurting others is a huge breach. But the analogy still stands...if genetics justifies one behavior, then it *must* justify another or you are inconsistent.

[QUOTE][B]Cystic fibrosis is genetic (to name but a single example). Is that unnatural? Would you reserve the same feelings for these people as you would homosexuals?[/QUOTE][/B]Cystic fibrosis is not a behaviorism.With a behaviorism, you have a certain degree of free will. You can't choose to not have cystic fibrosis if you've got the right genes, and you can't choose to not have homosexual tendencies if you have those genes. But you can choose to not have sex with somebody.

[QUOTE][B]Perhaps I should have asked, WHY should they deny their phenotype, when they are harming no-one?[/QUOTE][/B]Is morality defined only in terms of whether or not it hurts anyone?
If so then your point is sound.My morality isn't so simple because I presuppose a creator who created the sexes with certain intentions. Basically I don't think homosexuality is a good idea because things are they way they are to serve as a means to an end (there's a lot of theology there I am intentionally omitting) and homosexuality is not a part of that means.As I've tried to point out, the practice of homosexuality isn't bothering me, I don't think it's going to bring about the fall of the Western world. But, given that morality is rather subjective, and given that my moral-decision structure is more complicated than just by deciding if its ok or not based upon whether it hurts somebody, I think my moral decisions make as much sense as anyone elses', and I think I am justified in choosing my own moral stance about such issues. After all, if people are allowed to decide that homosexuality is ok in their own moral views I should be allowed to decide that homosexuality is not ok, based upon my own moral views and theological perspectives. It feels very strange to have my own personal values debated in this thread for that reason. [QUOTE][B]True, but then people who have genetic disorders that harm others should be treated with understanding too, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE][/B]Huh? Well yeah if they don't hurt somebody connected to me (I'm not going to say I'm beyond vengeance or other unfortunate traits humans sometimes express). [QUOTE][B]Or are you a lock-em-up-&-throw-away-the-key kind of a bloke?[/QUOTE][/B]Most of the time, no (see above disclaimer). This is a strange tangent and I'm wondering why we've come here.If it answers your question, I try to go by a live-and-let-live philosophy. Gay people aren't bothering me so why should I bother them? After all I can accept them as people and share society with them, but nowhere is it required that I agree with them.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-26-2002]

[QUOTE][B]You know the so-called Original Sin nonsense.[/QUOTE][/B]Something I don't believe in of course but I'm still trying to omit theology.

[QUOTE][B]Wishing harm against a person is no different from 'meaning' harm to them.[/QUOTE][/B]Then you yourself stand condemned.

Anybody hear that rolling sound? It is the sound of the quality of this site rapidly going downhill.

Actually I think I read something in the NT today that seems to condemn homosexuality -- if whether or not the Bible is opposed to the practice is currently an issue here, I can look it up.

quote:

---

John...why do i get the feeling you are a devil worshiper..i get my clue from you placing an X before anity..as in CHRISTianity...are you so afraid of the true power of jesus you cant even spell his name..

---

Actually, since I'm still kicking around here, atheists didn't invent the X instead of "christ" in a word. It probably is descended from the X-like Greek letter chi, which was used as an abbreviation of Christ.Now atheists just use it because they think they think it's still clever (after over a thousand years later) and because misinformed Christians find it offensive.

quote:

---

How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?

---

Hey Schrafinator,are you still clinging to the position that "so-called" is only used in a derogatory sense, and never to introduce new vocabulary? Because I recently heard that "derogatory" term used in a documentary on plate tectonics for exactly that purpose -- introducing new vocabularly. Just like the 92-year-old president of the church was introducing the "new" meaning of "gays" and "lesbians".Just for fun I plugged "so-called" into britannica.com to see what results it would give. I got the following quotes and have emboldened the "derogatory" term:"Extracts from John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, provided as supplementary material for the Fourth Tetralogy, a study of the so-called middle dialogues of Plato. ""Information on this American novelist whose writing style and subject matter reflect the so-called punk sensibility that emerged in the 1970s. Covers her writings, texts of her work, reviews, and interviews. Includes images."There were a few uses in a derogatory sense as well, but I think this answers your question. All of these were from links to other sites on the Web, provided by Britannica's search engine.Then I plugged "so-called" into Merriam-Webster's online dictionary at Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary.There were two results, the derogatory (2) and the one our elderly president used (1):1 : commonly named : popularly so termed2 : falsely or improperly so named

BUMP

She wants to establish that homosexuality is "natural", therefore it is "morally acceptable". Sort of like, if violence is in a person's genes, then it is "morally acceptable" for them to explode in violent episodes, and anything they do in those episodes (up to and including murder) is perfectly fine and morally acceptable, just because it is in their genetic makeup.I'm still waiting on a response to her odd use of the term, "so-called".

I was feeling grouchy when I typed that, by the way. Normally I would try to be a bit more diplomatic about it.