This came up in Pixiests thread, but also in an interview on EXODUS programs that ran on NPR.
Does being gay equate to how macho/butch a person is?
The EXODUS program is a Christian program designed to "Cure" homosexuality. Part boot-camp, part revival, I will just say about it that those in it and those running it all are doing what they believe is best.
One major part of the male EXODUS program they spoke about is Masculinity Training--where they try to bump up the he-man-ship of their --um -- gay bretheren. They have a list of rules of things you can not due--and most of them dealing with increasing macho-ism, and decreasing effeminate behavior.
Yet from personal experience and from other ancedotal evidence, there are many really feminine lesbians and really macho, gung-ho, gay men.
So here are the questions I am unequipped to handle:
1) Is there a definate connection between effiminate behavior in men, and macho behavior in woman and there sexual orientation.
2) Is there a assumed connection, particularly by those who oppose homosexuality.
3) Is part of the oppostion to homosexuality really opposition to effeminate behavior in men and macho behavior in women?
4) Is there an irony in the heavily Christian anti-homosexual/anti-effiminate movement, while Jesus Christ himself is one of the least masculine religious icons. I mean, compared to Mohammed, David, G-d of the Old Testament, Zeus, Thor, etc Jesus and his "Turn the Other Cheek, Love Thy Neighbor" talk was a pansy.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have more thoughts on this, but I want to leave work soon. Quick answers.
1. I hope not. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more lesbians out there. How many of us grew up as rough-and-tumble tomboys but consider ourselves heterosexual?
2. Probably.
3. I don't know...again, probably.
4. You know, I'd never thought of that! How amusing!
-pH
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
1) Not at all.
2) Certainly.
3) Eh, I dunno. Although both phenomena challenge conventional gender norms, so it may amount to the same thing. And may explain why they get conflated by those who can't tell one threat from another.
4) I think I'll skip the rhetorical question this time. Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
1) Definate? no. at least I doubt it. 2) Yes, probably. Woo stereotypes! 3) That I have no idea. I mean it could be an opposition to people not fitting into their "typical roles." That gets into a lot more than sexual orientation tho. 4) heh.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
1)while there shouldn't be, I definitely think that the stigma exists. I guarantee you that if you're a boy who decides to take a ballet class, the first thing you'll be called is gay.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
[links pinkies with kojabu and says "jinx!"]
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Strider, while that may be true, that doesn't mean that effeminate behavior in males equals a gay identity.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
[To Chris]
quote: But if you're gay, you're even worse than the less-than-alpha males and females.
I don't agree with this. I think that being gay isn't as much of an issue for a lot of men, so much as 'men' acting like 'women', if that makes any sense. That is, a man who is gay but acts like a man (kicks ass, takes names, etc.) is much more acceptable to a lot of men than an effeminate heterosexual man (does not kick ass, take names, etc.).
quote: As for usefulness...
Well, I was speaking more semanticly than practically. I mean, there are issues of power in every human relationship. For instance, a man who works for another man is lower on the totem pole but is not really looked down on by other men as long as he keeps his cool. In fact, a man who follows orders well and doesn't complain is often looked up to by other men. On the other hand, I think a man who employees another man but acts distraught, weak, unskilled, is looked down upon by other men. So, I think it's not so much an issue of 'power' in general as it is an issue where a man acts weak and 'effeminate' and out of control. I checked your first post, and you actually make note of this in your use of the word 'weak'.
Perhaps some of this conversation revolves around our own hangups. For me, what really irritates me about some gay men is the lisping, 'queer' acting gay male. I can't stand it. Screwing other guys? Fine. Acting like a diva. Ugh. Power has nothing to do with it.
That said, I want to make note that I am nothing like a man's man, nor do I believe that there is an ideal that only men should live up to. When I'm talking about what many/most men believe, I am speaking from experience, and from inferred observations, at that. I've never had a conversation with another guy as to why gay men are disliked by so many men or anything.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...I think there may be a "clumping" thing going on. People who are shunned or persecuted tend to clump together (also better "hunting grounds") and we learn behavior from the people we spend time with so traits can be "contagious". Especially in a mentoring relationship which is not uncommon in the gay community.
A simliar thing happens in, for example, in the African American community. You get stereotypical "black" traits.
I am not at all bothered by "swish" (except in actors that I have to train to play straight) but I don't find a correlation between "swish" and submissive. (A correlation may exist in types of relationships I don't have with them.) Submissive people in general bring out the "bully" in my personality. I am not at all attracted to men that I can boss around.
Also, (re: Jesus) not aggressive or violent is not the same thing as submissive. At all.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The lisping style gay man behavior is annoying, just like the dumb blond girl or macho jerk guy or any number of behaviors that seem like acting. I think all of those types of people come off as false, or at least as trying too hard.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Is it really masculine to admonish the opposite virtues Jesus did?
Also is TODAY's perception of masculinity exactly the same as any other time in history?
Its my understanding that the homosexuality of Greece was that it was more masculine to be homosexual because the love between a man and another man had more substance as there was a lack of the biological incentive of passing ones genes on.
People often cite the Japanese where there was a special bond between a samurai and his page (Spare me the Foley comments). Interestingly enough in art depicting this the page is often dressed as a woman and acting womanly.
I am still not sure (artistically speaking) what clues are in the picture to help the viewer know its a boy and not a girl.
"Its value was contrasted with the love of women, which was blamed for feminizing men."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: The lisping style gay man behavior is annoying
But you are able to accurately identify them as gay. With gay men being relatively rare in the population, gay men might find it advatageous to act in such a way in order to find each other. I don't know that that is why it happens, but I suspect it is a possibility.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm a reasonably femme woman and I ping no one's gaydar. If I were a butch, maybe I would have had more luck with women when I was on the market...
But then, that wouldn't have been me...
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: 1)while there shouldn't be, I definitely think that the stigma exists. I guarantee you that if you're a boy who decides to take a ballet class, the first thing you'll be called is gay.
I think that stereotype is waning. I saw on-what is that show with John Stossel? a segment on sereotypes about gays. This one was brought up, and they interviewed men from a major ballet company, only one of whom was gay ( in the entire company).
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I have no way to evaluate this question except by referring to the gay men and lesbian women I have known personally. The truth is, I've known very effeminate gay men and very butch gay women. On the other hand, I've known gay men who were about as macho as you've ever seen, and I've known lesbian women who are as feminine as any straight woman I've ever known. And all along the continuum between. I've also known some pretty effeminate straight men and some startlingly butch straight women.
So, no, I don't believe, based on my own personal experiences, that there is any correlation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote: The lisping style gay man behavior is annoying
But you are able to accurately identify them as gay. With gay men being relatively rare in the population, gay men might find it advatageous to act in such a way in order to find each other. I don't know that that is why it happens, but I suspect it is a possibility.
I think so too, sometimes. I have a friend who the other gay guys we hung out with would never believe was gay. He speaks, dresses, looks, and acts like a heterosexual man. But he's gayer than gay.
-pH
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I've got a couple of gay friends and they all hang out. One's a butch chick, one's a pansyish dude, one is so big a blip people don't need gaydar to know he's gay, and another I assume is gay because he hangs out with them and they don't call him "the straight guy" (that's me).
I can usually tell, I guess, but I have a feeling that's only when the person in question wants to be seen as "out".
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You know, several of the guys I dated in Chicago completely set off my gaydar until they tried to kiss me.
-pH
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:One major part of the male EXODUS program they spoke about is Masculinity Training--where they try to bump up the he-man-ship of their --um -- gay bretheren. They have a list of rules of things you can not due--and most of them dealing with increasing macho-ism, and decreasing effeminate behavior.
If you do something because someone tells you it's macho, rather than because you want to do it, you're the most effeminate loser out there.
Aside from the weak-kneed father who forces his son to go to these camps in the first place so he can face his hunting buddies.
Ugh...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The whole exodus thing is really awful... it doesn't work (the founder went back and is gay again) and damages tons of people by making them try to be something they're not.
Heterosexual christians out there.. would you marry someone who went through this program? "I used to be gay but thanks to Jesus I'm not now."
Would you buy that?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
When I was in high school, the guy who had the locker next to mine was so fey that his feet barely touched the ground when he walked. He was tall (over 6 feet) and well built, but he was so gay.
But I was told by a couple of girls I knew that he was definitely anything but gay, and for years, I used to use this as a cautionary tale. You can't tell that someone is gay just because he has femmy mannerisms.
Of course, I found out a couple of years ago that he came out, so I don't know what the moral of the story really is.
When it comes to women, I have a kind of reverse gaydar. A lot of women just have something in their eyes that tells me they are 100% heterosexual. I've never been surprised by someone like that. But if I get a vibe that a woman is gay, I'm sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Try turning the other cheek for a while and see how easy it is! It *hurts*.
That is, I'd agree that our pictures of Christ are pansy-like, but the guy in the Gospels is anything but. Storming into a public place and turning over vendor's tables, knowing full well it'll get him tortured to death...telling people, you want to follow me, you got to take the same risk ("take up your cross")...it's not for the fainthearted.
So that's #4, I guess.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The whole exodus thing is really awful... it doesn't work (the founder went back and is gay again) and damages tons of people by making them try to be something they're not.
Heterosexual christians out there.. would you marry someone who went through this program? "I used to be gay but thanks to Jesus I'm not now."
Would you buy that?
Would you tell them they were mistaken?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If they came out of the Exodus program, yeah, I'd feel pretty safe in saying that they are mistaken/lying. But to be fair, that's only because every discernable success rate they've claimed has come from outright fraud of the people running it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Heterosexual christians out there.. would you marry someone who went through this program? "I used to be gay but thanks to Jesus I'm not now."
Would you buy that?
I'm not Christian, but I can still imagine the scenario. If he could find me attractive, then it wouldn't really matter that he was/ used to be generally attracted to men. Then again, I'm not so sure that sexuality is as black and white as many seem to paint it. While a person may be far more attracted to one group than the other group, I have a hard time accepting that people are incapable of being attracted to anybody of the opposite group.
[Edit: Because I'm worried about being offensive and want to be clear. I'm trying to say that I have a hard time imagining that there is no way a person could ever be attracted to a single person in a group that consists of around 3 billion people. I think this is true for any combination. I am not in any way trying to say that gay people should try to not be gay. I think everybody is better of looking for mates in whatever group they find most attractive be it nerds, jocks, women, or men. But I think given the right cirucmstances people can be attracted to a person that belongs to a group that they generally find unattractive. Hopefully I clarified in a good way instead of digging a deeper hole.]
[ October 13, 2006, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I honestly don't know.
I've known a few gay men, a few more gay women, and quite a number of people who considered themselves bisexual. I would tend to feel there was an identifiable sort of behavior to the homosexual men more than the women, but again, my experience is sufficiently limited that I'd feel foolish to make any sort of statement.
And some people feel there's more spectrum to sexuality than many people acknowledge; that someone might even be 99.99% heterosexual and then meet that one someone of the same sex who turns their head. <shrug>
As far as #3, I'd say definitely yes. I can remember not so long ago a group of parents getting up in arms about a schoolbook that showed (oh, the horror!) a boy, cooking.
And #4? I think divinities are secure enough in their own sexuality not to worry about their message being misinterpreted. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I also think sexuality is a continuum. I don't know that I'd tell someone he was mistaken for persuing women after going through that program, but I don't think I'd have much to do with him. I'd probably think it was somehow forced/coerced, which would make me uncomfortable. I did have a boyfriend who'd been into men, and I was persued by a guy who later came out as gay. I think pretty much everyone is a little tiny bit bisexual, if that makes any sense.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd should put out there that the general Exodus client is a highly motivated evangelical Christian who is exclusively gay. I also believe that there is a continuum in sexuality, but when we're talking about Exodus and most of the other ex-gay programs, we're usually talking about people who fall at one end of it. If they were bi-sexual, it's unlikely that they'd be driven to these extremes.
I'd suggest, before making judgements on Exodus and similiar programs, that people should educate themselves about them.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm a gay man. I have many friends who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight. And there is no connection with whether you are "macho" or "feminine".
And as a gay man, and a rational human being, I just have to say that Exodus program fills me with disgust.
People fighting to prove the world is flat because they are so afraid of having their religion proved wrong in any way... that their world will come crashing down. Maybe we should do what the Bible says is good and revive slavery, women as cattle, and force all the men to wear beards. These evangelicals are such hypocrits...they claim to follow the Bible to the letter but they just pick and choose like everyone else.
They take advantage of these desperate people who see religion not as philosophy but as a requirement to remain with their family.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Amen, Brother Telperion!
As for a continuum of sexuality. Yes, it is. And I should know.
But I didn't understand who or what I wanted until LONG after I stopped trying to force myself to be one way or the other. You can't root for an outcome in your quest for self knowlege. You'll get a skewed result.
You can pray to be straight all you want. (and I did.) But it won't change anything. You can try to convence yourself you like something that's really pretty blah to you... and it'll work for a while. Then one day you'll say to yourself "Ya know? I don't really like this. I never have. I'm going to stop."
And that is the danger of Exodus. It works them up in a euphoria of self deception and when it fades they realize they've wasted 10 years of their life... Maybe wasted 10 years of someone elses life... Maybe had children with this person. And now they get to watch their parents have a messy divorce.
I believe Exodus's intentions are good. But we know what road is paved with those.
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its ironic that its acceptable to be angry at the evangelicals who think they are doing a good work. But its reprehensible to be angry at homosexuals for thinking its fine to be that way.
Ok so you believe Exodus program is terrible and it does more harm then good, but its a pretty short sighted person who assumed then that all programs with similar goals must also do more harm then good.
I don't know why this thread has to turn into another debate on the ethics of homosexuality. Can we not converse on the subject of the thread without discussing the ethical merits of homosexuality in the first place? Nobody so much as responded to my post about Japanese Homosexuality. I can only assume it is because it was not interesting, fair enough, it wouldnt be the first time.
Telperion: If I was as ignorant about Homosexuality as your were about the Bible, I would probably be just mistaken individual spouting off rhetoric like, "Gays no what they are doing is wrong!" or "Everyone knows homosexuality is unnatural!"
Using Old Testament scriptures to condemn New Testament practices is one of the oldest falicies of Christian critics.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd like to quote Katerina from Enchantment in saying "Jesus Christ is my icon of manhood." Someone weaker than you cannot grant you mercy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Ok so you believe Exodus program is terrible and it does more harm then good, but its a pretty short sighted person who assumed then that all programs with similar goals must also do more harm then good.
Yes, or it could be the the person knew what he was talking about and the programs that make up the ex-gay movement deserve that description. I'd say it would be short-sighted to make judgements without knowing about the topic being discussed.
---
Could you explain why what Telp did was inaccurate. From what I can tell, he pointed out things from the Old Testament that are around the same places as the things that prohibit homosexuality that are no longer enforced. Could you explain why this would be a fallacy?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, You're Japanese example wasn't so much homosexuality as specifically pederasty in a misogynistic culture. Transferring relationships with a power relationship built right into them that take place in a highly sex-typed culture to modern day homosexuality is problematical at best.
There are plenty of people on this thread discussing the masculinity/feminity concept. I've got little to add on that, as I've also had experiences with homosexual people who have run the spectrum. The research I know of shows a mild trend towards opposite sex typed behavior in homosexual individuals, but the causal relationship is pretty much hopelessly confounded.
Of course, addressing the utter failure of the Exodus program, which was how the idea of "masculizing" gay men as a way to make them straight, is also relevant when discussing the general masculinity/feminity issue.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: Calm down, it's going to be ok. You seem to be taking this personally.
No one is attacking you or your faith, only people who heap heartache and guilt on gay people though the misapplication of compassion.
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No one is attacking you or your faith, only people who heap heartache and guilt on gay people though the misapplication of compassion.
And willful ignorance of the scientific literature and the breaking of the ethical rules regarding treatment of patients.
Is a snake oil salesman okay if he really wants to believe that he's helping people?
[ October 13, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I know a person who has one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, has a surgically-created vulva, and lives with and has sexual relations with a person who has two X chromosomes. Not even the Bible could find a saint/sinner shoebox for this person based on what I've just described.
People just are what they are and do what they do. Better to let God figure out what to do with them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky: There are passages about why homosexuality is wrong within the New Testament which is why it is still opposed within the Christian faith. Slavery, etc and all those little rules laid out in the Law of Moses were concluded when Jesus accomplished his mission. Therefore using Old Testament concepts to point out inconsistancy amongst todays Christians is a falacy.
Pixiest: Honestly I am calm, I was just slightly annoyed with the Zeitgeist of today. Where its funny if girls hit men but not the other way around, and where we are demanding tolerance and empathy to those who disagree with homosexuality, but none of those things from homosexuals themselves.
I understand that homosexuals honestly believe they are in the right, and I respect the reasoning (though I disagree with it).
Why can't homosexuals take the time to really understand why some people ardently think homosexuality is not just an alternate lifestyle?
Ill try to politely bow out of this thread, I don't want to be part of the escalation of another debate about the ethics of both sides.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh BB.. don't you see that every time you say homosexuality is wrong you're hitting us?
You're a nice man, but you've got to think about what you're really saying...
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Oh BB.. don't you see that every time you say homosexuality is wrong you're hitting us?
You're a nice man, but you've got to think about what you're really saying...
Pix
I dont understand where the hitting comes from. I am perfectly willing to treat you as I would anybody else, i.e homosexuality has no bearing on whether I am willing to cultivate any sort of relationship.
I just get riled up when people get so angry at people who think they are doing right. If they are not doing good in your opinion, at least work with them instead of railing against them.
I'm not angry at homosexuals for trying to bring their life style more and more into the mainstream of things.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I just get riled up when people get so angry at people who think they are doing right. If they are not doing good in your opinion, at least work with them instead of railing against them.
What would you suggest as an example of someone "working with" a group like Exodus, which they perceive to be using psychologically damaging and misguided practices. Are such groups open to being "worked with"? Or are they more of a mind this is a religious issue so there is no room for outside interference?
quote:I'm not angry at homosexuals for trying to bring their life style more and more into the mainstream of things.
I be very interested in exploring your concepts behind this phrase. At face value it seems so conspiratorial. I think it's the use of "lifestyle" that bugs me. What exactly is your idea of the "homosexual lifestyle". Does who you love really constitute a "lifestyle"?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thinking about all those people on Hatrack who came to Mormonism without their parents' approval, how would people feel if parents used such a program as Exodus to cure children of their desire to be Mormons?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:MrSquicky: There are passages about why homosexuality is wrong within the New Testament which is why it is still opposed within the Christian faith. Slavery, etc and all those little rules laid out in the Law of Moses were concluded when Jesus accomplished his mission. Therefore using Old Testament concepts to point out inconsistancy amongst todays Christians is a falacy.
So suddenly the Old Testament doesn't count as Christian? Looks like picking and choosing to me. Didn't Jesus say he came not to invalidate the Old Testament but to reinforce it?
And as for the gay "lifestyle"... as said many times before it is not a choice. It's biological. You can claim being gay is a choice but that holds as much water as saying the earth is the center of the universe. It's just like being born with blond hair. I guess we should have an Exodus program to make me brown.
Religion needs stay out of social planning and remain a philosophy in my opinion. Religion is based on faith, not reason, and besides the golden rule and other tenats to be good to one another has no real-world relevance. It's a book about how people lived 3000 years ago. Why do we need to live exactly like them? Your right to move your hand about ends with my nose, and visa versa.
The problem is Religion is not philosophy anymore...it's a political party and sewn into the family and dedicated to maintaning social order... so close to many people that it's under their radar... it's part of their life and never questioned. But the dogma of religion is why it fails as government...because religion will not change willingly. Remember when all those scientists were killed because the Church had dabled in science... making the early cosmology of the universe God's law. So they very well couldn't refute that when a better theory came out... they has already said God had said the earth centric model was divine! So they killed/impisoned people who tried to prove otherwise. Blind faith is no faith at all. Ever read "The Lottery"?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Ok so you believe Exodus program is terrible and it does more harm then good, but its a pretty short sighted person who assumed then that all programs with similar goals must also do more harm then good.
Yes, or it could be the the person knew what he was talking about and the programs that make up the ex-gay movement deserve that description. I'd say it would be short-sighted to make judgements without knowing about the topic being discussed.
---
Could you explain why what Telp did was inaccurate. From what I can tell, he pointed out things from the Old Testament that are around the same places as the things that prohibit homosexuality that are no longer enforced. Could you explain why this would be a fallacy?
Squicky, I seem to recall having this discussion with you a while ago, and I'm mildly annoyed at seeing such a baited question from you. It's in Acts 15, and I know you know this. Regardless, here:
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
...
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course I knew it. I, unlike many Christians, know the Bible. But Telp didn't and BB was pretty disrespectful about Telp not knowing it, without actually giving any reason for why what Telp said was wrong.
As this is something that, in my experience, many, many Christians don't actually know, I was both checking to see if BB knew it and provided him with an opportunity for him to explain why what Telp said was inaccurate, instead of merely berating him for it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Thinking about all those people on Hatrack who came to Mormonism without their parents' approval, how would people feel if parents used such a program as Exodus to cure children of their desire to be Mormons?
In Exodus, do parents force the kids into it? I was under the impression that people willingly entered the program. If this is the case, your analogy fails.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not that I know of currently, but there was a time when parents were forcing their children into anti-gay camps and programs.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Fine. If Mormons were so hated in their family and community that they voluntarily entered themselves into some program to 'cure' themselves of wanting to be a Mormon, how would that make people on Hatrack feel? Completely different, I guess, than from my previous example.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I really feel bad for any gay person who has the courage to come out of the closet, and then finds that things suck so much that they feel like they'd be better off going back in.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Of course I knew it. I, unlike many Christians, know the Bible. But Telp didn't and BB was pretty disrespectful about Telp not knowing it, without actually giving any reason for why what Telp said was wrong.
As this is something that, in my experience, many, many Christians don't actually know, I was both checking to see if BB knew it and provided him with an opportunity for him to explain why what Telp said was inaccurate, instead of merely berating him for it.
It might have been more helpful to give Blackblade a hand instead of setting him up for a failure (in your expectation, anyway). I prefer to educate people rather than make them look bad. I'm kind of disappointed that after the last time this came up, you're still doing it.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
an OT question-
"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality"
As I am more or less ignorant when it comes to the New Testament (I hang my head in shame - really - but in the meantime:) what is the meaning of "blood" in this context?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Blood. Like the red, drippy stuff that comes out when you kill animals or get a paper cut. Honest.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
in food? cuz don't christians eat meat with food? and wouldn't that constitute "picking and choosing" regarding commandments?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: I know a person who has one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, has a surgically-created vulva, and lives with and has sexual relations with a person who has two X chromosomes. Not even the Bible could find a saint/sinner shoebox for this person based on what I've just described.
Why do you think that? Do you think that such things are the sum total of a person's existence? Look at the good and evil they do in their lives if you want to know what kind of person they are. Keep your head out of their chromosomes, their crotches, and their bedrooms. None of those places are any business of yours.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
starLisa
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But Telp didn't and BB was pretty disrespectful about Telp not knowing it,
If he was disrespectful, it was in response to a charge of hypocrisy founded on factually inaccurate perceptions of the faith of the people he was levying that charge against. And right after an admonition from you that people should educate themselves about a group before judging it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, What's your point?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It might have been more helpful to give Blackblade a hand instead of setting him up for a failure (in your expectation, anyway). I prefer to educate people rather than make them look bad. I'm kind of disappointed that after the last time this came up, you're still doing it.
How, exactly, would that have been more helpful? What is it you think I'm trying to help here?
I had no idea of whether or not BB was familiar with the basics of the Bible enough to know about the Council of Jerusalem. Many Christians aren't. Telp obviously wasn't.
So I presented an oppurtunity for BB to provide information instead of insult for Telp or to expose a common ignorance of one of the basics of the Christain religion.
If it were the first case, BB had an opportunity to make up for or at least explain his previous impolite behavior. If it were the second, it gave him an opportunity to recognize a serious flaw in the way he holds his beliefs.
I'm not sure how "giving him a hand", by which I assume you mean me telling Telp (and possibly BB) about the Council of Jerusalem, would have been more helpful here. From my perspective, it wouldn't have served as well in either case.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
It would serve better than seemingly delighting in pointing out someone else's short-comings, which serves nothing but ill.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand Reiko. Are you saying that it is better that a person have a deeply flawed conception of their religion and why they believe in things than for someone to point this out?
Do you think that not knowing what the Bible says while claiming to be taking your instructions from it is okay?
If so, I disagree with you on both these things.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm amazed that a search of the archives turned up exactly what I'm remembering. I usually have dismal luck with searches.
The impression I got from this thread was that asking that question is something of a litmus test for you. And I very strongly disagree with the way you set people up. If you're telling me that your motivations in asking that question have sincerely changed, I'm delighted, but I think you still need to work on your phrasing. If they haven't, I remain deeply disappointed, because I think you do people a disservice.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have many motivations. Part of it is yes, I do like to know when people are lying to me (and often to themselves). My motivations have no changed in that regard at all. Part of it is also I regard the many Christians out there who know very little about their religion to be troublesome, both based on what I know about people like that and from what should be their perspective.
Don't you think that it is better for people to know the Bible, especially those who claim to base their lives around it?
Let me address it from a different angle. You're Catholic. One of the differences that many Protestant groups have with your conception is that they believe that the salvation is based solely on faith, as per Paul's statement from Ephesians:
quote:“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Now, I've had occasion to discuss this with various Protestants and - being a former red letter Christian - I've been amazed by how many of them haven't even considered what Jesus had to say at the end of Matthew 25:
quote:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.
32 Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand,'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.
36 I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink?
38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'
40 "The King will answer them,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand,'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
44 "Then they will also answer, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'
45 "Then he will answer them, saying,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.'
46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
When I mentioned this, they wre caught by suprise with the very idea. Is it better that I not bring this up in such a way that would encourage them to consider it?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I've done that, too. It's part of the give-and-take of inter-denominational dialogue. I say "but have you considered this?" I don't dig a hole for anyone to fall into before I enlighten them. You're talking really fast here, but things still don't add up. There are constructive ways of debating, and what you do with this Council of Jerusalem question is not one of them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How would you suggest that I handle it? You may have noticed in the previous thread you linked I specifically mentioned times were I tried the "Have you considered this?" approach and had it yield poor results.
Both in terms of changing someone's mind and in terms of adversarial debate, what I did has turned out to be a more effective tactic than what you are proposing.
We're dealing with a situation where there is a common attack made on the Christian reliance on Levitical laws as against homosexuality. Telp was by no means the first person to bring up a bunch of the other laws from Leviticus that Christians no longer follow. And, time after time, the response to this, by people who claim that the laws from the Bible say that homosexuality is wrong, lacks any sort of reference to the part in the Bible where it is clearly laid out how Christians are supposed to view the laws from Leviticus and which compeltely answers the objections raised.
If you don't know the Council of Jerusalem, you have no business talking about what the laws of the Bible say you should believe. I have trouble understanding at times why people who apparently believe that people should follow the laws in the Bible have problems with me insisting that people should know this.
Mentioning it the way you do has led to, in my experience, congitive dissonance and lies - "Oh...yeah...I knew about that all along." Setting it up the way I have creates a social and personal situation that generally precludes lying and is extreme enough to sometimes counteract the cogntive dissonance.
People who don't know the Bible but claim to are insincerely religious. Most of the time, they don't even know this. They are complacent in their ignorance and thier lack of commitment to the religion. This is a problem affecting many, many Christians. This group also tends to exhibit the highest levels of many of the bad things that seem to plague certain types of religious people (prejudice, for example).
I do try to disrupt their conplacent insincerity, but that's because I do truely believe that sincere Christianity has a large potential for good. I'd figure that this would be a goal I would share with actual Christians, but it seems I am going to keep meeting with people who are upset because my insisting on sincere religion makes people in their in-group look bad.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
In an effort to avoid bringing up my views on the Bible, I share this somewhat amusing anecdote:
I have a friend who is so homophobic that he once spazzed out when his girlfriend told him he had a cute butt.
The end.
-pH
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
<blink> That's... wow.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is important when discussing the Bible to recall the context in which it was written. The Apostles lived during certain times and their views sometimes reflected those times. And they did nhot always get things right. The reference in Acts to sexual immorality - as well as Paul's two cautions should be read with an eye to, for example, the perceived conflict between earthly things and spiritual things and the influence of the Stoics on the early Church.
It should also, most importantly, be read in the context of the whole of the Gospels. It is interesting to note that Jesus is not recorded as mentioning it even once. It always strikes me as odd that something that wasn't even on His agenda should be so high on ours.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So does that mean, by new testement laws, christians who have a rare steak are committing a sin equal to the vague, ill defined "sexual immorality"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm going to assume that you aren't asking me. If you are, let me know and I will clarify.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was refering to the actual bible verse. If you'd like to be the one to clarify, that'd be swell =)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well...the context of that verse was an argument as to whether or not gentiles who wanted to become Christians must follow the whole of Mosaic Law. This was quite a fierce argument in the early church. I think that this may have indicated a compromise position.
And, as you said, "sexual immorality" is pretty vaguely defined. It could reference all of OT Law regarding sexual behavior (not just homosexuality) or we could read it as behaving in ways that were considered sexually immoral at the time. I think it is most helpful for me to understand what "sexual immorality" means for me (let me know if it would be helpful for you to know that if you haven't already figured it out from other posts) and refrain from that behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From Mr. Squicky,
quote: Now, I've had occasion to discuss this with various Protestants and - being a former red letter Christian - I've been amazed by how many of them haven't even considered what Jesus had to say at the end of Matthew 25:
One of the best homilies I have ever heard (and I have been spoiled - I get to hear a lot of great preachers) was on this text.
The priest noted that students, upon receiving some new bit of information, always wanted to know "if it was going to be on the final". He read the text and said, " That's what's going to be on the final."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
<-- eats rare steak
Yum!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Telp: If I came across as direspectful it was never my intention. I admit that when I made my initial response to your post I was mildly caught up in my emotions. I could have more respectfully explained why your reasoning for disliking evangelical logic was flawed. You are right that Jesus did not say, "I have come to destroy the prophets and what they said," but he did say, "I have come to fulfill the law." Meaning that the Law of Moses was designed to set people up for the new law that Jesus was bringing. Jesus time and time again presented his new ideas when the pharisee presented the Law of Moses' perspective. The ideas were incompatible. Adultery was not tolerated, but you didnt need to execute the offender, it was more important to help the person and address the condition that brought about the offense. It honestly is not about picking and choosing what you believe. The Old testament is useful as showing us a history of God's dealings with His people, but it isnt useful as rule book for how modern Christians ought to live.
So in one sense the OT does count as Christian in that it was pointing the people towards belief in a Christ who would save them from their sins. But in another it does NOT count as Christian in that it does not dictate authoritively how Christians ought to worship their God.
MrSquicky: I must confess I do not see the flaw you described me as, "having." I personally feel I am acceptably versed in the Bible. Were you suggesting that I knew the NT rejects homosexuality but that I did not know where?
Karled: I merely meant that many people HONESTLY think the world will be a better place if homosexuality is opposed, rather then embracing it. Homosexuals believe they (and the world)will be happier if society accepts homosexuality as normal or even beautiful and its right to express that part of themselves. Both sides think the world will be a better place if their view prevails, and both sides think the world is a terrible place if their view fails.
I was not suggesting that we could lump every homosexual into one big group and effectively discuss them as such. Obviously being homosexual is one part of the individual, we don't lump all the black haired people together and discuss patterns of behavior. Though apparently red haired people are ill tempered.
Pixiest: The NT is not binary code. You dont have all sins as 0's and all good acts as 1. You could argue the commandment to abstain from blood is to abstain from pagan rites where drinking the blood of animals would allow you to consume its strength. Or you could argue its unhealthy to just drink raw blood (most people agree this is true). Its doubtful Paul wanted us to take that passage to the Massai living in Africa and strongly condemn them from drinking the blood of their cattle which they do as a survival measure. Or it would be equally wrong to create a "gospel hobby" around this principle and say "Those who drink rare steak are as bad as murderers!"
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "Those who drink rare steak are as bad as murderers!"
... What kind of steaks is your butcher selling?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Why do you think that? Do you think that such things are the sum total of a person's existence? Look at the good and evil they do in their lives if you want to know what kind of person they are. Keep your head out of their chromosomes, their crotches, and their bedrooms. None of those places are any business of yours.
Exactly! Did I not make my point?
You're an ornery, contrary little stinker aren't you.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, you have helped formulate what is one of my biggest struggle with that particular passage. I understand your interpretation is very common (perhaps even canon?), but I've always felt that the interpretation doesn't include the full meaning of "fullfilment". Now it may be that the underlying Greek/Aramaic is more clear, but to me Jesus says he doesn't come to abolish the Law, and even after his death Jewish Christians, such as they were, still were required to follow all of the Mosaic Laws. Rather, he came to fulfill it, and to me that means he was the living, breathing embodiment of the Law, which is not only awesome in it's premise, but also works to hearken to the Old Testament prophecies.
I don't think Jesus replaced, or even modified (speaking of course from a Christian apologist's perspective) the Law. I don't think the New Testament supports this view with it's use of "fulfillment". His example was to be the Law (which, from this POV is circular in logic) and teach it to everyone he could. --
BB, you mention a sophistication with the :don't drink blood", and its one that some more liberal/progressive Christian theologians have put forth, which is that all these requirements were related to how they were to worship in a Gentile Christian way. "Sexual immorality" could mean (and I think this idea has some merit) no modified Dionysian Ecstasies allowed between the sermon and the offering
-Bok
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Why do you think that? Do you think that such things are the sum total of a person's existence? Look at the good and evil they do in their lives if you want to know what kind of person they are. Keep your head out of their chromosomes, their crotches, and their bedrooms. None of those places are any business of yours.
Exactly! Did I not make my point?
You're an ornery, contrary little stinker aren't you.
Ornery, yes. Contrary, frequently. Stinker, <sniffs> not that I can tell. And no, you didn't make any point except that you're of a prurient bent.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: BB, you have helped formulate what is one of my biggest struggle with that particular passage. I understand your interpretation is very common (perhaps even canon?), but I've always felt that the interpretation doesn't include the full meaning of "fullfilment". Now it may be that the underlying Greek/Aramaic is more clear, but to me Jesus says he doesn't come to abolish the Law, and even after his death Jewish Christians, such as they were, still were required to follow all of the Mosaic Laws. Rather, he came to fulfill it, and to me that means he was the living, breathing embodiment of the Law, which is not only awesome in it's premise, but also works to hearken to the Old Testament prophecies.
I don't think Jesus replaced, or even modified (speaking of course from a Christian apologist's perspective) the Law. I don't think the New Testament supports this view with it's use of "fulfillment". His example was to be the Law (which, from this POV is circular in logic) and teach it to everyone he could. --
BB, you mention a sophistication with the :don't drink blood", and its one that some more liberal/progressive Christian theologians have put forth, which is that all these requirements were related to how they were to worship in a Gentile Christian way. "Sexual immorality" could mean (and I think this idea has some merit) no modified Dionysian Ecstasies allowed between the sermon and the offering
-Bok
Interesting point on Jesus being the embodiment of the law, he did in fact observe it all the way until he himself was ressurected (to many this signifys the conclusion of the law). I think you might find it interesting that the conference in Jerusalem was very much rooted in "How much of the Law of Moses still applies to Christians," specifically on the question of whether its right to be circumcized. Paul argued circumcision was unrequired, many Jews still supported it and Peter sympathized with them. It was ultimately decided that Paul was in the right.
For Mormons its an even easier problem to solve as there is a passage in the Book of Mormon about Nephite who followed the Law of Moses to the letter but looked forward to the day when Jesus would come and the law would no longer be neccesary. There was even a group of radicals that had to be corrected when they errenously interpreted the star that signified Jesus' birth as the end of the law of Moses.
Alma 25:15-16 "15 Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them. 16 Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come."
and 3rd Nephi 1:24 "24 And there were no contentions, save it were a few that began to preach, endeavoring to prove by the scriptures that it was no more expedient to observe the law of Moses. Now in this thing they did err, having not understood the scriptures."
theres one scriptures that describes post ascencion Nephites
4th Nephi 1:12 " 12 And they did not walk any more after the performances and ordinances of the claw of Moses; but they did walk after the commandments which they had received from their Lord and their God, continuing in fasting and prayer, and in meeting together oft both to pray and to hear the word of the Lord."
Of course you might not accept the BOM as canon (I do).
Sorry for derailing the thread, Ill get back on topic, but to quote Mr. Card
"If we can't digress, why bother conversing in the first place?"
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
starLisa: Prurient? What terminology might I have used that would have been less offensive to your sensibilities?
If you are offended then you should know that homosexuality is all about "chromosomes and crotches," and you should avoid threads with such words in their titles.
My point: the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament may not have anticipated everything that people of the future would do with their "crotches," and it would be foolish to expect to find Biblical commentary on every instance of what we may percieve as deviations from the Judeo-Christian norm. It would be even more foolish for one person to judge another based on a personal interpretation of Biblical content.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:no modified Dionysian Ecstasies allowed between the sermon and the offering
I'm still trying to figure out if this would hurt or hinder church attendance. I mean, there are some people I definately do now want to see in modified Dionysian Ecstasies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, What's your point?
This was:
quote:If he was disrespectful, it was in response to a charge of hypocrisy founded on factually inaccurate perceptions of the faith of the people he was levying that charge against. And right after an admonition from you that people should educate themselves about a group before judging it.
Was there some particular point you were incapable of understanding? Is there something specific you'd like clarified?
If not, just reread the quote. That was my point.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, to me that passage illuminates that God does not discriminate among the nations, as far as who was given the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say the Law is superceded. I see nothing to suggest that Mosaic Law didn't still apply to Jewish Christians. ---
Who exactly do you "now (sic)" want to see in Ecstasies, hmmm?
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bokonon at the risk of being offensive did you mean the Bible passage did not have the same meaning for your as it did for me? Or the BOM verses as well?
I think the fact God kept telling Peter to not call anything common or unclear went directly in the face of several rules laid out in the Law of Moses.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I didn't say that you did or didn't know the passage I was talking about. I specifically left that open.
It is, however, a common thing, both on Hatrack and in the outside world.
---
There are major problesm with the way Christianity is practices by a large number of people today. There were even more problems clearly existant in history. It bothers me that when someone points these out or tries to do something about them in a way that makes the people with a problematic grasps of religion look bad, he gets jumped on by people who in a perfect world should be helping him.
In this thread, BB, you've repeatedly stuck up for Exodus and the ex-gay movement. Why? You don't seem to know anything about them.
I do. And I crticized them based on this knowledge. They are doing bad. They are violating important codes of professional ethics and causing predictable harm to many of the people who trustingly come to them for help. Many of them straight out lie about their programs and their successes. The rest pursue treatments that rest not on a valid scientific basis, but rather on political and religious ideology.
I brought up snake oil salesmen before. It's sort of like that, sort of like a couple of steps above beating schizophrenics to get the demons out of them. Oooh, or excorcizing them, something that still goes on in certain places.
Although, to me, it's worse in a way. The excorcists are ignorant. The ex-gay people are not. Though a number of them have had their credentials revoked because of their unethical behavior, they purport to be trained therapists. They knowingly violate the ethical codes set up for the therapist/client relationship.
In response to this, you said:
quote: I just get riled up when people get so angry at people who think they are doing right. If they are not doing good in your opinion, at least work with them instead of railing against them.
I'm not sure what role you see me taking in the assistance with these creationists in the psychological sphere. My focus is more on exposing the emptiness of this position and their unethical behavior so that Christians and others who are struggling with being gay don't at the very least get swindled and often get more psychological trauma dumped on them.
Until not that long ago, some groups would strap people into a chair a pull A Clockwork Orange aversive conditioning sessions on them. You think people shouldn't have tried to stop them?
---
You see, I'm honestly trying to do good. I also have whatI think are good reasons for the beliefs I have.
I don't just blast Christianity or religion. There are many, many instances on this site where I've stood up for both. I've repeatedly said that Christianity, done right, has great potential for improving society.
When I think it's being done wrong or that there are problems with certain types of belief or groups, I go into an explanation of why I think so, often pulling in examples or work from outside the religious sphere. The work I do is almost entirely on the more general issues that I then see specific instances of.
But it seems like all some people read is "blah blah blah. I'm baselessly and simplistically attacking Christianity/religion. blah blah blah."
[ October 17, 2006, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: <blink> That's... wow.
I thought so, too. It was kind of creepy, really.
-pH
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
It makes me wonder why he thinks his girlfriend is with him. Must be for the money or the nice car, because it obviously can't be for the nice body. o_O
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, the former, at least for this particular passage. I'm not a member of the LDS, and so while I'm sure it backs up your point, it is moot to me.
Peter was given a specific vision, at a specific time. He is also in an era where the law (from a Christian perspective) was so overrought in its attempt to satisfy the Mosaic Law, that I would say it actually failed it. Hence, IMO, Jesus' embodiment of the Law. Of course, if God makes something previously unclean, clean, that doesn't mean he's abolished his Law in all times and places, rather he has simply performed a miracle, which is within his right and power
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Bok, kind of like any official secret that the president gives to the press is no longer a secret since the President has the miraculous legal power to de-classify it, so he can never be a leak.
Sorry for the digression, but the comparison, both valid arguments but uncomfortable, screamed out at me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Karled: I merely meant that many people HONESTLY think the world will be a better place if homosexuality is opposed, rather then embracing it. Homosexuals believe they (and the world)will be happier if society accepts homosexuality as normal or even beautiful and its right to express that part of themselves. Both sides think the world will be a better place if their view prevails, and both sides think the world is a terrible place if their view fails.
I don't think honest intent ameliorates destructive behavior. As far as one view "prevailing" I hope with all my heart that it is my view and that has less to do with the fact that I'm gay but with the fact that I love freedom and believe that sexual identity is one area even more fundamental than the freedom of speech or religion where no one should be forced into someone else's concept of what they should be.
However, insofar as the discussion is about groups like Exodus, I'm a little ambivalent. I think their tactics are naive and largely ineffectual, but are they harmful? This raises a whole host of questions, the answers to which could have ramifications far beyond any questions of "curing" homosexuality. To the degree that their program is voluntary, should they not have the right to provide assistance to people who want to fit their mold?
I look at the program as just one more example of misguided religion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr.Squicky/KarlEd: Sorry to lump you both together this post sorta flip flops between you two, so not every comment is directed to one.
I know little or nothing about the program Exodus. All I have heard anybody say is its a program where they attempt to super charge homosexuals with masculinity (whatever that entails) and by so doing cure them from homosexuality. Reminds me of the Simpsons Episode "Homers Phobia" when he tries to cure Bart from his perceived path down homosexuality and tries to make Bart go hunt for a deer to make a man out of him. Obviously its just ridiculous, but it was humerous.
I can agree that Homosexuality is not a bi product of a lack of "Masculinity" if that term can even be defined. Not that this is related but I did watch a Brainiac episode where the made a dweeby guy do tons of "manly things" like get a lap dance, work out, practice primal roaring, and they made a tough biker guy listen to bed time stories, sing childrens songs, where a bib and have nap time.
Their testosteron levels were then measured again (they were measured both prior to any activities and then after) and dweebs levels had increased significantly and bikers levels had plummeted. I just thought it was humerous (obviously you can't really call that REAL science much less solid evidence) it was just funny at best.
I guess my point is Ill have to withold judgement on Exodus until I actually read up on them, I am open to any possibility. I could be biased but I know my church has programs for helping homosexuals fight that part of themselves. Its not at all what Exodus is (from your descriptions) but I know people who have done it and said it helped them so much, and I know some who did and said, "It did nothing for me."
But I stand by the principle of what I said earlier. I don't think its fair to be pissed of at a homosexuals who says, "I've been freed from my affliction!" and then categorically pleased when somebody, "Comes out of the closet."
You dont think honest intent ameliorates destructive behavior, well I agree, but at least understand that some Christians honestly believe that promoting a philosophy of, "Do whatever feels good." is an evil mind set.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My guess is that these kinds of programs are harmful in that they reinforce the idea of homsexuality as something to be "cured".
I would also point out that there is an enormous difference between lovingly and responsibly living in a way that is consistant with one's orientation and "doing whatever feels good". This is true whatever the orientation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lissande: It makes me wonder why he thinks his girlfriend is with him. Must be for the money or the nice car, because it obviously can't be for the nice body. o_O
I don't think he has a problem with her, say, complimenting his biceps or something. It's the butt in particular that makes him have a spazzfit. Weird weird weird weird.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I guess my point is Ill have to withold judgement on Exodus until I actually read up on them
And if you had done that, I wouldn't really have had a problem. But you actively defended them and attacked me for criticizing them.
If there were an effective therapy that resulted in a large percentage of people who were gay becoming straight, I wouldn't have a problem with people offering it and other people going through with it, so long as their participation was voluntary. I don't have a problem with these groups counseling the gay people that come to them in how to lead a celibate lifestyle. I do have a problem with people saying that they have a "cure" for homosexuality when their therapy may possibily work only in a very small number of cases, if at all.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think their tactics are naive and largely ineffectual, but are they harmful?
Yes. There's sort of an online community of Orthodox Jews who are gay, and I know one guy in NY who spent 3 years trying to go the NARTH route. He nearly killed himself over what they called his inability to get with the program. He finally got away from those vampires and started living his life.
So yes, they can be extremely harmful.
The suicide rate of gay teens is 3 times that of straight teens. And it's not because they're gay. It's because they're gay in a society that sees being gay as something to be "fixed".
That mindset is not only harmful; it's often lethal. It's cruel, and it reflects an utter unwillingness to see things from another perspective.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Y'know, I'll agree that they're harmful. I bought into the whole belief...'gays are by and large, effeminate, weak, speak with lisps, and do things that should never be done by any man'. I was proud of the fact that, while I wasn't the biggest, strongest guy in the world, I was pretty tough, I was a man, I'd never be like those 'damn homos'. Then, when I figured out that I was gay, I spent about half a year in a painful, self-destructive hell, fueled in part by those very same beliefs. Only recently have I finally let myself believe that one can be tough, strong, capable, intelligent...and still be gay. Took me a long damn while, and I think longer than it would have, had I not been exposed to those beliefs of 'weakness' and 'wrongness' from an early age.
Now, you can't convince my friends that there isn't something at least a little wrong with someone that's gay, usually along the lines of a lack of masculinity. (Which is one of the reasons I get away with it--I dont' fit the stereotype, so they don't bother to question the lie of my 'straightness'.) Between the way the people around you act, and the way society and the media portray such things, I can't say I'm surprised that the suicide rate is so high. Saddened, but not surprised. I'm just also not so naive that I think it's gonna change anytime soon.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I agree that they are harmful, certainly from my point of view. However if that harm is largely or in part due to the prevailing belief that homosexuality is "wrong", does it then follow that the belief should be erradicated by fiat?
Lisa, how do you reconcile what you write above with being part of a society which you have strongly indicated would kill unrepentant homosexual men had they the authority to do so? (or if I have misread your assertions in other threads, please feel free to correct me.)
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote: I agree that they are harmful, certainly from my point of view. However if that harm is largely or in part due to the prevailing belief that homosexuality is "wrong", does it then follow that the belief should be erradicated by fiat?
It would be really, really nice if someone just gave an absolute order, like, say, "Be nice to the gays...OR ELSE." But do you really think that would change anything? If you supress the public symptoms of it, it'll still continue in private.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think we are growing out of it...too slowly as with any discrimination.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think we're growing out of it, too, and I believe that many religions in 50-100 years will bear only passing resemblance to their present incarnations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I hope so. I can certainly think of some changes to my own. Though I think the truth at the core of it will remain.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I agree that they are harmful, certainly from my point of view. However if that harm is largely or in part due to the prevailing belief that homosexuality is "wrong", does it then follow that the belief should be erradicated by fiat?
As in the case of all discrimination, I'm against coercive remedies. If someone wants to refuse to rent to me or sell to me or employ me because I'm gay, that's their right. It's also my right to say that such people are a**hats, and to try and organize boycotts against them and drive them into poverty, despair and death. But it's not my right to force them to rent to me or sell to me or employ me. People have a right to be jerks, so long as they don't violate my rights. That means they aren't entitled to break a contract with me when they find out that I'm gay, unless it specifically said they could in the contract. It means that they aren't entitled to beat me up with baseball bats and spray-paint me purple. And so on.
<sigh> It's really depressing living in a society where the concept of rights has been so devalued that I have to explain this every single time.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Lisa, how do you reconcile what you write above with being part of a society which you have strongly indicated would kill unrepentant homosexual men had they the authority to do so? (or if I have misread your assertions in other threads, please feel free to correct me.)
All I know is that I've known gay men who say they've never engaged in anal sex, and never have any intention of doing so. They say the idea grosses them out.
I have no idea to what extent this is the case among gay men in general. I do know that it's the only thing "gay" for which Jewish law proscribes capital punishment. And no distinction is made between whether the people doing it are gay or straight (such as prison sex and the like).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I guess my point is Ill have to withold judgement on Exodus until I actually read up on them
And if you had done that, I wouldn't really have had a problem. But you actively defended them and attacked me for criticizing them.
If there were an effective therapy that resulted in a large percentage of people who were gay becoming straight, I wouldn't have a problem with people offering it and other people going through with it, so long as their participation was voluntary. I don't have a problem with these groups counseling the gay people that come to them in how to lead a celibate lifestyle. I do have a problem with people saying that they have a "cure" for homosexuality when their therapy may possibily work only in a very small number of cases, if at all.
I most certainly did NOT defend them. I simply said that designating the Exodus program as evil and therefore all efforts with similar or even identical goals was wrong.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Can I argue that trying to 'cure' homosexuals through a combination of brainwashing, guilt, and emotional manipulation is wrong? Because from everything I've ever heard about places like that, that's the tactic du jour. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't those kind of programs have fantastically high 'relapse' rates?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
So they trot out this guy who has supposedly been cured. What are his credentials? Or is he shilling?
How many stamps do you have to have in your gay collection before you qualify for rehabilitation?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: I simply said that designating the Exodus program as evil and therefore all efforts with similar or even identical goals was wrong.
Perhaps you could point out where anyone on this thread did this?
edit: And I appologize if I read defending into your statements where none was intended.
[ October 17, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Maybe we should have programs that cure people of their monosexuality.
After all, you monosexuals have only a half life. You miss out on half the beauty around you.
Further, when you sing a love ballad directed toward the wrong sex you have all that awkward changing of the pronouns that can mess up the rhyme scheme.
Face it, being monosexual is sexist. And therefore evil.
So sign up for Pixie's Bisexual Training and I can cure you of the Evil in your heart.
Pix
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Pix: perhaps you mean autosexuality. Is there a special pronoun with which to refer to one's hand?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
a monosexual is someone who is only attracted to one sex. ie: Not bisexual. (or asexual for that matter)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
skillz, I think you may be looking for manosexual.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Or manualsexual. Perhaps you're just an all around handy person.
(Oh god, I think this is turning into an onanism thread.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: I simply said that designating the Exodus program as evil and therefore all efforts with similar or even identical goals was wrong.
Perhaps you could point out where anyone on this thread did this?
edit: And I appologize if I read defending into your statements where none was intended.
Very well,
quote: People fighting to prove the world is flat because they are so afraid of having their religion proved wrong in any way... that their world will come crashing down. Maybe we should do what the Bible says is good and revive slavery, women as cattle, and force all the men to wear beards. These evangelicals are such hypocrits...they claim to follow the Bible to the letter but they just pick and choose like everyone else.
They take advantage of these desperate people who see religion not as philosophy but as a requirement to remain with their family.
emphasis added
He rails on the Exodus program and then makes a statement about all evangelicals. Now if Telp really meant "these evangelicals" as in "these evangelicals of the Exodus program" I remove my complaint entirely and apologize for wasting time in this thread. But I did not get that vibe, and I think its reasonable to have not done so based on the ambiguity of Telp's comments.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
So the Exodus program would take manusexuals shopping at ToysRUs?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pix, I think a problem far bigger than homosexuality (that's not saying much since I don't see homosexuality as a problem) is "Anti-Sexuality." Now there is something that needs to be cured. All those people who are not only militantly anti-premarital sex, but not to sure about after marriage either, do more harm than just about anyone else.
Anti-Sexuals:
Osama Bin Laden North Korea's leader Jung (its ok for him to have blonde haired American mistresses, but the lives of his people must be entirely controlled) Phelps Saturday Night Live's Church Lady
In fact, I won't vote for an old man in politics unless he does a Viagra commercial or appears in at least one Men's magazine talking about lust in their hearts.
Its better to be led by those who have come out of the closet than by those nailing the closet closed, for what is a closed closet but a casket without the strength to fall over.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I took Telp's comments to pertain only to the evangelicals that he was talking about. The ones in Exodus who were fighting to prove that the world was flat (metaphorically). I didn't see much ambiguity there. You obviously saw it differently.
edit: And I was, I think, very clear that I was only talking about Exodus and affiliated groups in the ex-gay movement.
[ October 17, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: As in the case of all discrimination, I'm against coercive remedies. If someone wants to refuse to rent to me or sell to me or employ me because I'm gay, that's their right.
Would you feel the same way if everyone refused to rent or sell to you, or employ you, leaving you with no place to live or earn a living?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yes. I don't believe such a thing would or could happen, but it doesn't matter. This is an issue of a very clear principle. Forcing someone to hire you (etc) is no different than mugging him. You can dress it up however you want, but it's still a violation of his rights in order to give you something unearned.
If I needed $250K to save my life, would I rob a bank? That's pretty much the same question. Maybe I would. I've never been in that situation. But I know I wouldn't make excuses about it. I'd at least own up to the fact that I was committing robbery. And I'd like to think that I wouldn't do it at all.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yes. I don't believe such a thing would or could happen, but it doesn't matter.
It's pretty much what life was like for homosexuals 50 years ago.
I do have a citation for this, but it's in a book, so I can't link to it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Actually, 50 years ago, they'd break contracts with you if they found out you were gay. So we're not talking about just doing things that they have a right to do; we're talking about stealing and otherwise violating our rights.
And forget 50 years ago. What about Stonewall? They used to arrest people just for associating with other gay people.
I know this is hard for a lot of people to get, but there is a huge and fundamental difference between forcing people to stop beating us with bicycle chains and forcing people to hire us. The similarity is that beating us with bicycle chains and refusing to hire us are both immoral, and we want both to stop. But beyond that, they are entirely different. I have a right to demand that someone not beat me with a bicycle chain. I do not have a right to demand that someone hire me.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept. Jobs are not some sort of natural resource, like leaves that have fallen from a tree. A job means that someone is buying something that I have to offer. Making someone hire me when they don't want to is like making someone buy... anything at all, really... that they don't want to buy.
Forcing someone to rent to me is like forcing them to give me anything at all that I might demand, so long as I'm willing to pay some arbitrary price for it. Anything. Housing is not some sort of exception. I don't lose my rights of ownership of my own property just because the property happens to be suitable for you to live in it.
As to your comment about what things were like 50 years ago, I reject it. Fifty years ago, I could have been closeted and miserable and rented any apartment or gotten any job. Being out isn't a right.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
So you're saying that it shouldn't be a right for us to be who we are, but it should be a right for them to force us back into our nice, dark, crowded little closets?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. She's saying it's a right for you to be who you are. And it's a right for them to not hire you based on who you are. (She's also saying that following the building of the Temple, Jews will again possess the right to put people to death for anal sex.)
Sadly, I agree, but that's due to the fact that both Lisa and I use similar definitions of the word "right."
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Okay, I can see that. Makes a weird sort of sense. But I don't have to like it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: So you're saying that it shouldn't be a right for us to be who we are, but it should be a right for them to force us back into our nice, dark, crowded little closets?
Tom answered this, but let me be more clear. A right is something you're entitled to demand of others. Something they owe you. It's not just something that the law says you can have because a larger mob voted for it than voted against it.
Right and wrong is an issue of morality. And different people can have different views of morality. But people don't have a right to force their morality on others.
If a white supremecist/Nazi/skinhead/bigot opens up a store in my neighborhood, I can refrain from patronizing his establishment. I can try and convince other people to do the same. If I'm lucky, I can deprive him of customers until he's forced to close. Nothing in this involves coercion. Nothing in this involves any violation of rights by anyone or against anyone. He doesn't have a "right" to customers. He has a right to try and have customers.
It's like the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing. Notice that no one ever claimed that we are all endowed by our creator with the right to "life, liberty and happiness". Well, not until FDR came along with his "Economic Bill of Rights [sic]".
You have the right to try. You don't have the right to succeed. If you want people to change their wrong views of morality, educate them. Try and persuade them that they're wrong. It takes a lot longer than the shortcut of coercing them, but it's moral. Coercion is not.
If I can be out about being gay and not have doors shut in my face, that's a Very Good Thing, in my view. Similarly, if I can't, that's a Very Bad Thing. But it's not something I'm entitled to force people to change. Their jobs are theirs. I don't own them, and I don't have any right to force them to hire me. Their apartments are theirs. I don't own them, and I don't have any right to force them to rent to me.
Moral shortcuts are bad. Doing bad things just because you think the result is good is a cheat. And trying to convince yourself that it's not really a bad thing because you like the results is a kind of moral blindness.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Interesting thought, that companies have the right not to hire people based on non-work performance criteria. That means that a company seeking to not hire, or fire someone due to their race, religion or gender should be able to.
Further, that means that any new manager should be able to fire or hire people that they wish. And if they wish to only hire women that enjoy in clandestine and degrading sexual practices, then that is all they will hire. If you have worked there for a long time and are almost vested in that IRA and your new boss informs you that he/she has certain requirements, the sexual practices mentioned above, then you have the choice of being unemployed, or fulfilling those requirements.
In a perfect market world, such short sighted managers and business owners would fail as they are at a great disadvantage. They are cutting out a large segment of the available job market from their searches. As a result those people who do not meet their non-job qualifications, but do meet and surpass their job requirements, will find employment with their competitors.
The problem is that the market isn't perfect. To often Cronyism and Good Boy network work together to make up for the statistical down-braining that limiting ones employement pool results in.
JoeCo has a better product, and better service, and better price than SamCo, but SamCo hires them homosexuals, so RobMart will not buy from him.-
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: If a white supremecist/Nazi/skinhead/bigot opens up a store in my neighborhood, I can refrain from patronizing his establishment. I can try and convince other people to do the same. If I'm lucky, I can deprive him of customers until he's forced to close. Nothing in this involves coercion. Nothing in this involves any violation of rights by anyone or against anyone. He doesn't have a "right" to customers. He has a right to try and have customers.
So long as what you tell people is the truth. If you lie or bend the truth to get them to close, it's slander/libel and that's, obviously a form of Fraud.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: In a perfect market world...snip... The problem is that the market isn't perfect.
Exactly. All of those arguments depend on a perfect market and disregard the actual lives of actual people in favor of protecting/supporting a perfect market system...that doesn't exist.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Interesting thought, that companies have the right not to hire people based on non-work performance criteria. That means that a company seeking to not hire, or fire someone due to their race, religion or gender should be able to.
Correct. Or rather, no one else has the right to judge the criteria on which a company hires or does not hire anyone, so long as they are not violating a contractual agreement.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Further, that means that any new manager should be able to fire or hire people that they wish.
Barring contractual limitations, that's correct. If I get hired for a 2 year contract, and they find out after a year that I'm gay, they can't fire me because of it, because they didn't put that kind of a caveat into the contract. They're bound to live up to their commitments.
But Dan, hiring me means they have to have me in their company and that they have to give me money. What happened to give me a lein on their money? Who could possibly take the basic right of ownership of their own money away from them on my behalf? Who the hell am I that I have more of a right to determine their decisions about what to do with their own money than they are?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: And if they wish to only hire women that enjoy in clandestine and degrading sexual practices, then that is all they will hire.
And I'm not saying that's a good thing. I am saying that it's their right. It's also my right, if I find out about it, to publicize that fact and try and get people to stop doing business with them. That's called persuasion. It's slower and less efficient than coercion, just like working for a living is a slower and less efficient means of accumulating wealth than bank robbery. But there's an issue of right and wrong here.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: If you have worked there for a long time and are almost vested in that IRA and your new boss informs you that he/she has certain requirements, the sexual practices mentioned above, then you have the choice of being unemployed, or fulfilling those requirements.
Is there a contract? Is his change of requirements a violation of the terms of my employment?
We're used, nowadays, to being able to do everything without the details being ironed out. It wasn't always like that. But our overbenevolant government has time and again ruled in favor of the lazy, and has chosen to protect those who won't bother to protect themselves. With that kind of protection, we've grown out of the habit of seeing to such things ourselves.
A lot of people nowadays work "at will". That means that they can be canned whenever it suits the employer. Unless, of course, they can prove in court that it was for a "bad reason". With that "bad reason" protection, no one really minds working "at will". But it's a relatively new phenomenon. Contracts exist for a reason. They make explicit what's being agreed upon between two parties.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: JoeCo has a better product, and better service, and better price than SamCo, but SamCo hires them homosexuals, so RobMart will not buy from him.-
So? Consumer boycott is a remedy. Holding a gun to RobMart's head is not.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: In a perfect market world...snip... The problem is that the market isn't perfect.
Exactly. All of those arguments depend on a perfect market and disregard the actual lives of actual people in favor of protecting/supporting a perfect market system...that doesn't exist.
With all due respect, Kate, if you think that any of the arguments I made depend on a perfect market, you didn't understand the arguments in question.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: If a white supremecist/Nazi/skinhead/bigot opens up a store in my neighborhood, I can refrain from patronizing his establishment. I can try and convince other people to do the same. If I'm lucky, I can deprive him of customers until he's forced to close. Nothing in this involves coercion. Nothing in this involves any violation of rights by anyone or against anyone. He doesn't have a "right" to customers. He has a right to try and have customers.
So long as what you tell people is the truth. If you lie or bend the truth to get them to close, it's slander/libel and that's, obviously a form of Fraud.
True. But fraud needs to be proved, which can get a little sticky in cases like this.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If I can be out about being gay and not have doors shut in my face, that's a Very Good Thing, in my view. Similarly, if I can't, that's a Very Bad Thing. But it's not something I'm entitled to force people to change.
I worked as a dishwasher back in the mid 80's, and at least one of our waiters was gay. One particular fellow really worked the gay-ness hard when he was on the job, throwing little tantrums and being shrill. One day he passed out while waiting on a table. Turned out that his jeans were so tight with his fanny pads on that his legs collapsed from lack of circulation. He was fired as a result.
Gayness-on-display made a lot of coworkers and customers nervous.
Fortunately, sexual preference, unlike race or color, can be turned on and off to suit the situation. If you're looking for a job or working a job it's probably best to leave your sexuality under wraps. It wouldn't do, for example, for a manusexual to go into a job interview and start doing what a manusexual does.
Edit: oops, sounds bad. I'm not saying that it would be nice if people of color could change their color to suit the situation.
Edit: sounds even worse. I give up.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: It wouldn't do, for example, for a manusexual to go into a job interview and start doing what a manusexual does.
Manusexual? All I can think of is something having to do with hands. Is that what you had in mind?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:One particular fellow really worked the gay-ness hard when he was on the job, throwing little tantrums and being shrill.
Dude.
I have to give thanks to the gay guys I hang around with for suppressing their gayness around me and not acting like B movie stereotypes. They are so good at it that I actually see them as three dimensional human beings. It must be rough for them to hold off on all the mincing and shrillness that everyone knows are the hallmarks of being gay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: [QUOTE] One particular fellow really worked the gay-ness hard when he was on the job, throwing little tantrums and being shrill.
Thank goodness he wasn't doing the "straight thing",punching people and being violent.!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And talking really loudly about the chick he slept with last night.
-pH
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
That was the 80's. I guess gay people nowadays can just be themselves, but back then the trend was to work the stereotype (example: The Village People). This particular guy acted like Chris Tucker's Ruby Rhod character from The Fifth Element Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Ruby Rhod hooked up with the big-boobed flight attendant, though.
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I have to give thanks to the gay guys I hang around with for suppressing their gayness around me and not acting like B movie stereotypes. They are so good at it that I actually see them as three dimensional human beings. It must be rough for them to hold off on all the mincing and shrillness that everyone knows are the hallmarks of being gay.
I don't see that anything that he said indicated that he thought that all gay people acted that way.
I assume you are implying that someone who acts shrill and effeminate can't be known to be gay, and you are making a point that we shouldn't assume that just because someone is 'acting gay' that they can't be straight? Or possibly that it's not something we should worry about. That's cool.
I have a question, though. Of what benefit is it for a straight guy to 'act gay'? I don't get the benefit. We might say that it's learned and they can't help it, but I have a really hard time believing that. I'm sure guys that act 'that way' got teased a lot and I think it's quite possible that they get hit on by more gay guys because they are 'acting gay', so if they're not gay, why would they act gay?
So, what's the benefit for straight guys to act that way? Make a statement? Who are they modeling themselves after that this is something that they would want to do? I mean, given the notiously bad harassment gay people get, why would any guy want to subject themselves to that kind of grief if they weren't gay? I just don't get it.
For what it's worth, I know lots of gay guys that don't 'act gay', but no men that I know of who 'act gay' that aren't gay. So, there it is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know a few. I suppose it is possible that they haven't come out yet, but one is a 45-year-old professor who has been happily married to his wife for twenty years. He works in theatre and history and is very passionate and opinionated. I can't think of a single reason that he wouldn't come out if he wanted to. All signs point to straight.
Except everyone who meets him thinks he is gay and it comes as a shock to find out he's married. *shrug* Flamboyant and artistic men can be straight.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Of what benefit is it for a straight guy to 'act gay'?
There have been times, sitting in the cold bleachers at a football game, when I wished I had fanny pads on.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I know a few. I suppose it is possible that they haven't come out yet, but one is a 45-year-old professor who has been happily married to his wife for twenty years. He works in theatre and history and is very passionate and opinionated. I can't think of a single reason that he wouldn't come out if he wanted to. All signs point to straight.
Except everyone who meets him thinks he is gay and it comes as a shock to find out he's married. *shrug* Flamboyant and artistic men can be straight.
I too have met many a flamboyant straight man.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahhh...that's not more acting gay than having oily hair, wearing tons of gold chains, and speaking in broken English is acting Italian.
It's called acting effeminate. There is definitely a subculture of gay guys who play that up. It doesn't in any way represent how gay people in toto act, not even in the 80s. There are also many straight guys who also act effeminate. We call them the French.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Ahhh...that's not more acting gay...
The culture in general very much disagrees with you. This isn't to say that the culture is right, however . It is to say that it is a role, a way of acting, that is known by everyone in America.
You and the rest of the forum are completely ignoring the substance of my post in favor of a straw man.
quote: It doesn't in any way represent how gay people in toto act, not even in the 80s.
Of course, I never said it did. Also, how do you know this?
I have this weird idea that you think that I'm some kind of rube fresh off the boat, or that I'm some kind of prejudiced Southern guy, and you, unencumbered by prejudices of any kind, see the world as it *really* is.
I urge you to reconsider this idea if you believe this.
I get that there's an ideal of being fair to people and not assuming things based on stereotypes, an ideal of not being prejudiced against someone for the wrong reasons. That's cool. That's great.
On the other hand, it may be that you and I have experienced different things. Maybe there is such a thing as a 'gay culture' Maybe the gay culture thing has changed over time. Maybe we just knew different gay people. Maybe there is a different gay culture in places that you've lived versus where I've lived.
This next is not directed at Squicky.
The Mormons and traditionally religious people are a power on this forum, and they've let their feeligns be known that it's not o.k. to assume things and read crap into what they write just because of who you (general you) think they are. I think this might be a good rule to use with everyone when conversing with them, whether or not they have a ton of other people sticking up for them.
edited for clarity
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
That audacious advertising has probably taken some of the fun out of being gay. Insteady of finding out after a sufficiently long time that the person you're attracted too is also gay, and is also attracted to you, it's right there in your face. No more guessing, or tactful questioning, or tweaking the gay-dar, just move on to the sex. And what fun is that?
I suppose it's also fun sorting through piles of flamboyant, artistic, straight-types, who give off false signals.
Like Telp said once, it's a "hobby"... I would think something like gold panning or rockhounding. If the gold and gems were just lying around on the surface, you'd fill your pockets and go back to being bored.
Edit: I'm talking about the pursuit and discovery part of getting together. I'm sure there's also the true-love and lasting relationship part.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And, no, I'm not saying the above is conclusive, but it does give support to the idea that there is a distinctive male gay culture with its own voice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All of those arguments depend on a perfect market and disregard the actual lives of actual people in favor of protecting/supporting a perfect market system...
Kate, my definition of "rights" has nothing to do with market forces, and everything to do with the role of violence in society. The older I get, the less comfortable I am with authorizing force on someone else's behalf.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
starLisa
![[Wink]](wink.gif)