Is Homosexuality Immoral?
A Fraternity Discussion
What follows is a reprint of a heated discussion that took place on my fraternity alumni listserv. I'm including it here so that people can get a better idea of what I'm like through conversation with my indigenous people. It was also just a really interesting discussion.
-- Toaph
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:11:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Rehab
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Clinton humor&serious
You've probably already heard this one but I don't care...
Whats the difference between Clinton and the Titanic?
Only 1,500 went down on the Titanic!
-Rehab
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:43:23 +0000
From: Donger
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re[2]: Clinton humor&serious
Oh yeah, does this mean we may finally see a head line in the paper
that says:
'BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!'
Just a thought
Donger
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:05:28 -0500
From: Ziggy
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: George Bush
For the most part, I really liked George Bush as President. He was a
strong leader during the Gulf War, he had a lot of respect in the world
community, he championed sound economic policies, he was a fan of small
government. and he was in good physical condition (yes, I think this is
important for a leader - how effective is Boris Yeltsin from his
hospital bed?). It was just that pesky support for right wing social
issues that really stuck in my craw. But hey, what the hell - you can't
have everything. I'd vote for Bush over Gore in a minute.
Ziggy
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:52:31 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: George Bush
In-Reply-To: <51C8AD58995BD11187A700805F1A7E8C086973@DILBERT>
I think that Bush was a strong leader during the gulf war, but by the end
of his first term the entire executive branch was spinning its wheels.
Every single thing that came his way, he would just say, "This needs more
research," and nothing would get done. It was a marked contrast when
Clinton came in and actually started making things happen.
Actually Bush used to be a very moderate Republican. He was even pro
choice. But when he became Reagan's running mate in 1980, he had to tow
the party line. If the Republican party could liberate themselves from the
Christian right, and embrace some more moderate stances on social issues,
I'd be much more likely to support Republican candidates. Truth is, I'm
registered independent and have very moderate views. I only support
Democrats because the Republican party would just as soon see me thrown in
jail for my core identity.
-- Toaph
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:43:14 -0500
From: Pops
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: George Bush
Ziggy,
Here I go for the first time in my life laying out my political views in
public, but some things just strike nerves.
George Bush??? I never thought that George Bush was all that respected as
a leader. After amassing the popularity of the winner of the Persian Gulf
War, what did he do to piss the American public off and lose within the
timeframe of two years to a small-time backwoods governor of the
intellectual paradise of.....Arkansas???? Maybe folks nowadays are a
little pissed off that their president got a little on the side (I am
betting not much more than a blow job in this situation), but I think we
need to prioritize which things in American history are more catastropic.
Does the Iran-Contra Affair ring a bell? It doesn't take a genius to
delve a little further into the cause/effects of foreign and domestic
policy to see a direct correlation with our suppling weapons to the
Iranians, who are (or used to be before they started to see what side of
the butter the bread is on) much more fanatical than the Iraquis ever
were. Remember our hostage crises and the demolition of the Marine
barracks in Beirut in the 80's? I blame 257 deaths on the weapons that
the Iranians placed in that suicide truck and ask if they were purchased
with funds from the South American side of the equation. Of course,
special prosecutors didn't go into that one with the fervor reserved for
the current "crisis", if you really want to call it that and I don't trust
the American public to get upset until the media tells them to get upset.
But much of all that was Reagan, "The American President" as the video
tape offer calls him. What happened during George's administration?
Perhaps the S&L scandal, at the unestimated cost to the American taxpayers
of such proportions that they (we) still haven't got done paying that off.
Strange we don't hear much about that anymore.
In the long run, I don't automatically respect a president as a leader.
The job is too big for any one man and by voting for a president, we elect
a whole group of advisors who collectively do the job. The days of
Lincoln and Washington are over. I believe that it is any president's job
is to listen to us, the American citizen and affect what is good for us.
The Republicans didn't do that in the early 90's and lost the presidency.
And it is the job of the party not in office to provide the "loyal
opposition" for balance and perspective. It is nasty now and has been
nasty before. Politically, I have lived through many more days in the
camp of the opposition than I ever have as a supporter of the president.
Bill Clinton is the first president that I have voted for that has won
since I started voting in 1968. So maybe the common ground is that it's
truth the American public should seek, not merely what is shoveled at us,
nor what politician is in office (there are skeletons on most of them I'm
willing to bet); nor should we not seek the truth when we should (this is
what I get upset about). So if a blow job is more important than the
lives of Americans overseas or billions of dollars of American tax money
lost, then I guess we should be more concerned about our society in
general. And remember...this is the society that again allows bloodshed
over nipples. Shouldn't we get a little more perspective and concern
ourselves with what is really important??
#############
After all that, a joke. The Pope and Clinton died, but were erroneously
sent to Heaven and Hell incorrectly; the Pope to Hell and Clinton to
Heaven. When the error was discovered, they were sent back in the proper
direction. As they passed, the Pope told Clinton that now he would
finally get a chance to meet the Virgin Mary. Clinton smiled, pulled up
his pants, and said "You're about a half hour too late for that!"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:43:23 -0500
From: Chewie
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: George Bush
Toaph wrote:
> Truth is, I'm registered independent and have very moderate views.
YOU???? Moderate views???? GET OUT! You do not!
Chewie
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:58:24 -0500
From: Ziggy
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Bush/Gore
Pops,
You make some good points. I absolutely agree that lives are more
important than blowjobs.
The Reagan years were a mixture of great triumphs and critical errors.
Ultimately, I believe that history will credit Ronald Reagan for the
fall of the Iron Curtain.
George Bush, as I recall, lost his reelection bid because taxes went up
and we hit a mild recession. Bad timing for him.
Clinton's greatest asset is his ability to adapt. Remember his "Health
Security" plan? Ah, big government! Luckily, he got the message during
those early years that he was missing the mark. Problem is, sometimes an
individual's personality or foibles get in the way of his achievements
and message. Clinton is suffering this right now, and he has only
himself to blame.
Ziggy
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:29:44 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: George Bush
>> Truth is, I'm registered independent and have very moderate views.
>
> YOU???? Moderate views???? GET OUT! You do not!
Sure I do. I mean, if we're getting loaded and I'm talking about the
meaning of life, I suppose my views are not very moderate. But when it
comes to political issues, I'm very much middle of the road. Sure I'm for
relatively liberal social issues, like civil rights for gays and safe legal
abortions, but I'm also for conservative issues, like welfare reform and
smaller government. I hate extremists on both sides of the aisle. I do
admit that I tend to be a bit more anti-conservative than anti-liberal
because, like I said, they'd just as soon round me and my kind up and shoot
us, but I'm also anti-left-wing-liberal. I was reading some liberal tripe
by some left-wing dyke on the web the other day, and it really turned my
stomach.
-- Toaph
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:19:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Rehab
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: PGA & other stuff
Toaph,
Being a registered Republican I have to take defference to what you said
about Rebublicans wanting to kill people who were like you (I know it
wasn't exactly what you said, but something to that effect). Having said
that, I am embarassed that there is this Christian Coalition and Radical
Anti - abortion that insists on attaching itself to the Party and Republican
leaders who embrace that reactionary b.s.
I personally am against abortion, but what a woman chooses to do to her
body is her own business and not some outside group. I hope that a more
moderate Republican leadership takes control of the Party of Lincoln.
I would model the model republican after NYC mayor Rudy Guliani- (Even
though I think he has gone a little too far with actually ticketing
J-walkers; and that he also includes the dreaded "L" word on his ticket)
But in terms of his crime reducing and generally making life better for
ALL people in NYC.
-Rehab "Do you think we would have this problem with Saddam if Ronald
Reagan were President?"
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:51:31 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Republicans
>Toaph,
>Being a registered Republican I have to take defference to what you said
>about Rebublicans wanting to kill people who were like you
Alex,
I know I was making a broad generalization and over-stating my case, but
the truth is that the Republican party, as an insitituion, is opposed to
any and all form of gay rights. Cornell has an official policy of
protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Republican
Party has an official policy of being vehemently opposed to this. As a
registered member of that party, you are a representative of this view,
even if you individually are opposed to it.
The Republican Party now states that they made a huge mistake 30 years ago
by opposing civil rights for blacks. I am certain that 30 years from now
they'll be saying that they made a huge mistake by opposing civil rights
for gays. "Memory is a stranger."
There *are* moderate, forward-thinking Republicans out there, for example
California Governor Pete Wilson, and former Mass. Governor George Weld.
I hope that you use your voice and your vote to try to effect change within
the party to support candidates who are fiscally conservative, but socially
progessive.
-- Toaph
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:02:59 -0600
From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'Connor
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Republicans
Toaph .. I am a Republican an I believe you are extending yourself as far as
your interpretation of the Republican policy ... You are referring to a track
record of opposing legislation that entails the gay rights issue .. They do not
vehemently oppose gay rights ... it has been dealt with on a case by case basis
.. So if you want to misconstrued their track record for an established policy
that seems so "Not You" ... but .. hey thats the beauty of Politics ...
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:35:29 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Republicans
>You are referring to a track
>record of opposing legislation that entails the gay rights issue .. They do not
>vehemently oppose gay rights ... it has been dealt with on a case by case basis
Mick,
There seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement. It seems to
me that a proven track record is a pretty good indication of official
policy. But beyond that, I still stand behind my statement. Political
parties have platforms. Do the words "Traditional Family Values" ring a
bell? That was the OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PLATFORM in the last Presidential
election. It is somewhat veiled, but it means, among other things, "We
vehemently oppose gay rights." That had nothting to do with case-by-case
legislation. It was an overriding policy. Once again, not every
registered Republican supports the Republican platform 100%, but the RNC
sets the policy, and anti-gay-rights is part of it. If you really want me
to, I can research the matter further. I assure you, I'll be able to come
up with a wealth of official Republican policy that blatantly states their
opposition to gay rights.
-- Toaph
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:42:36 -0600
From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'Connor
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re[2]: Republicans
Your on tough guy ... I want examples ... figures .. slide shows ... Give me
what you got tough guy ... You called down the thunder now you are going to get it.
Mick "Spoken words can be turned into whatever the listener wants them to be
.... But facts on paper are concrete"
Then I am going to kick you ass in golf!!!!
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:12:19 -0600
From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'Connor
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re[2]: Republicans
>Do the words "Traditional Family Values" ring a
>bell? That was the OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PLATFORM in the last Presidential
>election.
YEAH THEY DO RING A BELL ... THATS WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN ... IF THATS SO WRONG
INTO TODAYS FUCKED UP SOCIETY I GUESS WE CAN READ INTO THAT STATEMENT AS FAR AS
YOU WANT ... I PLAN ON BRINGING MY CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD WITH THAT PHILOSOPHY
... You would have to be on another planet if you believe that any political
parties policy would be Anti-Gay or Anti-Black or Anti anything in the nineties
... Its the age of give me this because I'm this ... I'm Irish ... No Irish Need
Apply .. Give me a Job ... Cmon' ... Everyone wants a piece of something .. If
we don't get exacltly everything we want ... you must be Anti - or you are a
racist ... Isn't it kind of Ironic that this Subject is going around the same
time the Subject about a hanidcap golfer wants a cart to play in a sport were
they do not use golf carts ... It's the nineties baby... made it all the way to
the Supreme Court ... It's not The Republicans .. its not the Democrats .... Its
the Society ... They blame it on my generation and the generation after me ...
but these old pricks on capital hill are the ones who created this society ....
they let it go this far .. Not to get off the subject Toaph .. It's not the
platform party to be anti-gay.... CMon .. you are better than that ... Do you
really think that shit flys in the nineties ... It apparently looks that way
though ... Nobody has fucking old fashion Morals ... I believe in the Wife, Kids
.. white picket fence .. dog .. Old fashion good wholesome family ... Apple Pie
and baseball ... Those are my beliefs ... I will not put others down for skin
color , sexual preference .. etc .. But not today .. not anyday will I be swayed
on what I believe is right ...EVER ... I believe in GOD and MARY his Mother ...
and family ... That is just me ... I am a number ....!!!! I want everyone to
believe in what they believe is right .. Go Nuts .. How Wide Open Can we make
this society ... Drugs ... Gang Wars .. Diseases ... Should we keep being laxed
or should we try and take hold of this ship before it lies next to the Titanic
on the ocean floor. It's funny ... I am registered Republican but in this day
in age I will vote for the president that will benefit me the most ... tax
breaks .. etc {Single-White Male in the 90's}. It doesn't matter what puppet is
in there ... You can blame my beliefs on being raised in an Irish-Catholic
Parents ... I am telling you this ... I would not push my religion down anyones
throat ... I am not even telling you to believe in God .. But how bad is a
family that promotes .. Family .. Love you neighbor ... Forgive ... I guess that
is kind of radical in this one-dimensional society ... HOW CAN I BENEFIT FROM
THIS !!
Mick Sorry for the long drawn out response ... emotions running on high}
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:19:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Chaka
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Republicans
Mick,
God bless you Mick, well said. I may not be as "old fashioned" (No
Irisih-Catholic upbringing either), but I do agree that the issue of
unfounded accusations of people being called Anti-whatever (I'm not talking
political parties either), just because thier views are confliocting,
or (as you stated) they don't get exactly what they want. Sometimes
you just have to suck it up (like a sc%#^?), roll with the punches,
get up, brush yourself off etc. etc.. When things go wrong it should harden
your resolve to correct the situation, not WHAH! WHAH! WHAH! till you get
your way.
Sorry it unexpectedly turned out to be a little too philosophical (a little
off topic too). I'll stop now.
-Chaka
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:37:45 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Republicans
I don't want to belabor this, but I do want to respond. If the word
'traditional' refers to the 'values,' I'm all for it. If it refers to the
'family,' I can't support it. The problem is that the Republicans used the
term to target gays and abortionists rather than irresponsible fathers who
sire a dozen children by a dozen women and don't support any of them.
Clearly this country has lost sight of its values, but anyone who says it's
immoral for me to fuck other men is gonna get a fight from me. I'm not
saying that you're saying that, Mick, but I contend that it is the official
policy of the Republican party to categorize gay sex as immoral.
The problem with "tradition" is that it doesn't keep up with the times.
Things are changing. Our value system has to change with the increasingly
complex society we're in. That doesn't mean abandoning "values." But it
does mean re-evaluating what worked yesterday and seeing if it continues to
work today. If tradition works for you, then fine. More power to you.
But if a national political party, trying to get control of the leadership
of the country, is touting tradition as their platform, then I think it's
safe to say that they're trying to push it on me. I think that's wrong.
>Not to get off the subject Toaph .. It's not the
>platform party to be anti-gay.... CMon .. you are better than that ... Do you
>really think that shit flys in the nineties ...
No I don't. By the way, who lost the last election? Why do you think that
is???
-- Toaph
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:26:32 -0500
From: Ken Doll
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Republicans
>"Clearly this country has lost sight of its values, but anyone who says it's
>immoral for me to fuck other men is gonna get a fight from me."
I don't care who or what you sleep with as long as the individuals
consent and are old enough to consent, but the government has not
authority to grant you EXTRA rights because of it. The constitution say
"All men are created equal" it should be changed to say "all people
(men, women and children) are created equal". That's it. Done. Nothing
more. No Gay Rights, No Minority Rights, No {insert group of choice
here} rights. All people are equal.
That DOES NOT mean life is fair.
>"I contend that it is the official policy of the Republican party
> to categorize gay sex as immoral."
I don't think the government should be in our home at all. I think you
should be able to grow, smoke, or do anything on your own property as
long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
>"The problem with "tradition" is that it doesn't keep up with the
times."
NO that's simply wrong. Tradition to me says "treat others as you would
want to be treated". You respect other peoples and realize that
different does not mean better or worse.
I coach 4-7 year olds in hockey. The hardest thing to teach is to
respect your opponents and your team mates. Our society has made it
acceptable to trash talk. I had a seven year old bring a 4 year old to
tears and then I had to be try to explain to the seven year olds parents
why trash talking it is not acceptable behavior for a 7 year old.
Parents scream at other kids or referees if they make a mistake.
Coaches yell at 10 year olds, Players choke coaches, someone else is
always responsible for your problems and you can always sue em.
I agree that times change, but how do these traditional values (treat
others as you would want to be treated) not keep up? And I agree with
Mick the primary teacher is the family so, maybe they are "family
values".
Ken
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:43:56 -0600
From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'Connor
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re[4]: Republicans
Well to address this from a non-bias point of view because my emotions did
flow a little bit which may have distorted my opinion...but ...First let me take
the easy one ... Why did the Republicans lose the presidency ... well they held
the oval office since Jimmy Carter and made it through the critical "Late 80's
period where all this controversy started ..." and well to be honest ... We did
not have a strong candidate that I would even want to see as a president ...
Bush the Mush .. Did some good ... really got nowhere with a democratic congress
..now that I think about it ... hasn't that been an ongoing issue since the
first Regan term ...One political party controlling the Presidency and the other
party controlling Congress "I would like to buy stalemate for $1000 Alex". And
Dole ... Being a War Veteran is great ... president .. might as well take a long
walk off a short stage ..oh he did that ... He shot himself in the foot any
chance that he could. You know .. I love to see people fight for their right
to live the way they want and be themselves when under the threshold of
oppression ...Thousands and Thousands of Irish gave their lives for the cause
... Many Americans gave their lives for the cause ...Do you honestly feel that
gays/minorities are targeted ... targeted ... do you really believe they are
targeted ... It's funny how we cringe at the word family ... I am done
expressing my personal views ... Please ... I don't care it your black/white/
yellow/gay/straight ... Just pick up the paper .. watch the news ... It's not
about all those discriminatory categories ... it's about the people of today as
a whole .. I tell you ...This society is made up of bunch of whiners ... I swear
... if I there was nothing to gripe about they would gripe about that there is
nothing to gripe about. It kills me how anyone who thinks of trying to
establish themselves in politics be Anti- anything or target a particular race/
gender/sexual preference.
That's like being elected as an Irish Pope saying you like Catholics but only
certain types ... I like Irish Catholics ... but I hate those English Catholics
... they don't play by our rules .. they are not like us ... They are different
... Do the English Catholics get mad knowing that the Pope is Irish{Work with
the ethnicity portion} and are under the assumption he dislikes the English
Catholics because they are different? ... But in the end as a Denomination
...aren't we all Catholics ....
Americans are Americans ... Humans are Humans ...They shot down the Irish
because they wanted the United States Governement to Recognize March as Irish
History Month .. for the historical figures that gave their life ...{Rory
O'Connell, Brendan Bean, Roddy Mcuurddy} ... and all those soldiers in the Civil
War that came over from Ireland to fight for the cause here in America ... You
know what ... they have already shot that down here in America .... God bless
the Hiberian Society for trying ...You are familiar with Black History Month
....HMMMMM.... Did you see the tone I have created from writing from an Irish/
White/Straight/Catholic point of view .. I did that on purpose for you to
realize that this is what goes on today ... Everyone cries about what has happen
to their race/religion/sexual preference/right down the line ... Nobody makes
any assessments about society as a whole ... I would have probably taken this
with a grain of salt if it was "Boy, those damn republicans have not contributed
anything to the welfare of the United States ... because ... lately ... I might
even agree with you .... It's not about targeting any race ...its about
targeting society as a whole ... Where does the nonsense end .. when do we stop
drawing lines ... This society is going in the crapper because we accept
everything and anyone "The big melting pot has been abused and has some cracks
in it." ... Little country in Africa ...you need money ... hey the U.S. is here
to give out money and police the world ..
Mick
Shit ... I wasted my whole lunch time wrapped in the American Flag ...
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:14:07 -0800
From: Skip
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: Re[4]: Republicans
> >> But in the end as a Denomination ...aren't we all Catholics ....<<
What? Are you kidding me? I enjoy reading a lot of your
rationalizations, Mick, but this statement is simply stupid...and
wrong.
-Skip
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 15:15:51 EST
From: Sped
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Toaph
Toaph,
Exactly what rights are being held from you?
Not to be meant too direct, but...
Sped
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:25:25 -0600
From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'Connor
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re[6]: Republicans
SKIP .... CATHOLICS BEING THE ORGANINZATION ... IRISH BEING IRISH .. YOU ARE
MISINTERPRETING THIS HUGE ... I KNEW IT SOUNDED AWKWARD WHEN I WAS DIPLAYING
THAT EXAMPLE ... YOU ARE READING INTO I WAY TOO FAR!!!!! ... THINK OF THE
OVERALL CONCEPT .. DO NOT PICK APART THE ACTUAL REFERENCES ... I KNOW WE ARE ALL
DIFFERENT .... FORGET IT .... I AM WRITING WAY TOO MUCH EMAIL TODAY ... BYE
MICK
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:14:54 -0800
From: Skip
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: Re[6]: Republicans
Denomination means: classification, label, category, class, group. I
don't know, but I just don't get it, buddy. Can anyone else elaborate
on this and help me understand exactly what he's trying to say?
-- Skip
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 15:28:14 EST
From: Sped
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: cathloic comment
I think that Mick was saying that an Irish Catholic could complain about an
English Catholic being a Popebecause an Irish Catholic would feel slanted due
to t he nature of history in the Isles. But in the end these two groups are
still and most importantly Catholics as opposed to Here's an Irish Catholic
and Here's an English Catholic or an American Catholic or any other kind of
Catholic. It's ludicrous to separate themselves, they all believe in the same
principle so they are all Cathloics. Similarly, there shouldn't be
Afro-American, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans or any
other such group because we are all Americans first. For most of us our
ancestors left those places because of the problems they had there. So why
revel in being Something-American when the something caused so many problems.
I am not a heterosexual-American. I'm an American (that's one statement), I'm
heterosexual is another statement not related. A great program was on PBS
about the Irish in Beaute, Montana. There lived a people who were very Irish,
and celebrated being Irish, but when an old man who had lived in Montana his
whole life died in Ireland on his search for his home, his one request was to
be buried in his homeland...Beaute, Montana.
Sped
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:37:14 -0600
From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'Connor
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re[8]: Republicans
O.k. Skip ... Religious Denomination {Catholic} ....I am sure you have filled
out forms that say Religious Denomination: It was a stupid example , I'll grant
you that , it was referencing a situation to discrimination among the same
overall group ... if the word Denomination is scaring you ...Broken Down ... all
this example was trying to demonstrate : A poliitical figure is representing
all of us {Whites, Blacks, Irish, Gay ...} ... They represent us all ... the
problem stems when we break the representation into each group of race/color/
sexual preference instead of an overall representation. Thats it ... I hope
this answers the question ... It was no more than that .... I promise you ... It
was an "off the hip" example that I knew was going to be questioned ... Sorry
Mick {If you read the book instead of reading the cliff notes ... you still
would have rented the movie ... What??}
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:45:47 -0800
From: Skip
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: RE: Re[8]: Republicans
Ah, an analogy of sorts. Me shutt up now. Feele dum.
(I am a piece of hot broccoli with cheese sauce)
- Skip
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:31:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Chewie
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Republicans
JESUS CHRIST! If the Republicans AND Demoacrats put as much
effort into solving the problems of this country as you mornons
spend bitching about which ones stand for what, we'd all be
millionares!
LISTEN UP, PEOPLE! POLITICS IS BULLSHIT! It's a way for
a fat old man (who would otherwise be unemployed begging
dollars on the street to pay the cover charge at a sleazy
strip club) to get paid millions for doing NOTHING!
LOWER MY TAXES! MAKE POLUTION ILLEGAL! INCREASE THE EDUCATION
LEVELS OF OUR CHILDREN! Solve some of those problems, and
I'll start paying attention to Politics. Until thenm, it's
all hype, hot-air, and name calling, and quite frankly, not
as interesting as Bay Watch.
> >You are referring to a track
> >record of opposing legislation that entails the gay rights issue .. They
> do not
> >vehemently oppose gay rights ... it has been dealt with on a case by case
> basis
>
> Mick,
>
> There seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement. It seems to
> me that a proven track record is a pretty good indication of official
> policy.
Isn't this one of those "Past Performance is not an indication
of future returns?"
Chewie
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:14:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Rehab
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Republicans
Your last paragraph was exactly my point, well stated.
-Rehab
> There *are* moderate, forward-thinking Republicans out there, for example
> California Governor Pete Wilson, and former Mass. Governor George Weld.
> I hope that you use your voice and your vote to try to effect change within
> the party to support candidates who are fiscally conservative, but socially
> progessive.
>
> -- Toaph
>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:05:59 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Republicans - final word
Wow, I thought I was going to get flamed WAY worse than I did. Still, I
think I'll make this my last comment on the subject.
>I don't care who or what you sleep with as long as the individuals
>consent and are old enough to consent, but the government has not
>authority to grant you EXTRA rights because of it. The constitution say
>"All men are created equal" it should be changed to say "all people
>(men, women and children) are created equal". That's it. Done. Nothing
>more. No Gay Rights, No Minority Rights, No {insert group of choice
>here} rights. All people are equal.
Basically I agree. All humans are created equal. Amen. The problem is
that they're not all treated equally. The reason we need {insert group of
choice here} rights is because {insert group of choice here} can be treated
unequally. I'm not talking about EXTRA rights. I'm not asking for
anything extra. I'm saying that if you're trying to deny me something
(employment, housing, etc.) based on the fact that I'm an {insert group of
choice here}, it's the govenrment's place to force people to treat me
equally. 30 years ago, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. They
were being denied their God-given equality. It was minority rights that
allowed them to sit anywhere they wanted. Is that an EXTRA right?
This comes back to the PGA issue that somehow started all this. I think
that the Americans w/ Disabilities Act is all about EXTRA rights. That
golf player is asking for extra rights. No one is allowed to ride in a
golf cart, but he says he should be able to. That's an EXTRA right. For
that matter, handicapped parking spaces are an extra right. I'm not saying
it's wrong, but there is a distinction. I'm not asking for extra rights.
I'm just asking for legal recourse if I'm being denied my equality.
>>"The problem with "tradition" is that it doesn't keep up with the
>>times."
>
>NO that's simply wrong. Tradition to me says "treat others as you would
>want to be treated". You respect other peoples and realize that
>different does not mean better or worse.
Whoah, what dictionary do you read? A tradition is an activity or practice
that is continued from generation to generation. I would say that "treat
others as you would want to be treated," the so-called "Golden Rule" is an
EXAMPLE of a tradition. This particular one, in my opinion, does stand up
to the test of time. Not all traditions do. Getting pledges so drunk they
become violently ill is a tradition. Is it a good one? We've had some
discussion here that would suggest it's not. That is something that needs
to be re-evaluated in the present context.
>I coach 4-7 year olds in hockey. The hardest thing to teach is to
>respect your opponents and your team mates.
I laud your efforts. I wish we had more parents like you.
>I agree that times change, but how do these traditional values (treat
>others as you would want to be treated) not keep up?
Again, if it's the values that are traditional, I'm fine with that.
Loyalty, support, responsibility, are all traditional values that apply to
families, and will never not keep up with the times. But traditional
families are a working father, stay-at-home mother, and 2.5 kids.
Traditional families are becoming a thing of the past. That doesn't mean
that traditional values need to be discarded. It's the deadbeat dads who
ignore traditional VALUES whom I think need to be spotlighed, not
unconventional relationships that ignore traditional FAMILIES. The reason
that I brought this up in the first place was because I felt that the
Republicans in '96 were focusing on the latter, when I felt they should be
focusing on the former. Not only did I think that was grossly misguided,
it gave me the impression that the had a policy of being anti-gay.
>From: Sped
>Exactly what rights are being held from you?
>Not to be meant too direct, but...
A fair question. I have to conceed that my life has been pretty free from
discrimination. But consider this. Suppose I fall in love. We want to
form a contractual union that will allow us to file a joint tax return,
share health benefits, exercise medical power of attorney, etc. That is a
right enjoyed by heterosexual couples. It's being held from me. I don't
want to start a whole other can of worms with this example. This would be
a non-traditional family (so non-traditional that a lot of people see red
at just the thought of it). But anyone who knows me knows that I would
bring traditional values to it. I would be loyal, supportive, responsible,
etc.
-- Toaph
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 22:38:08 -0400
From: Donker
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Republicans
I guess we just threw traditional morality out the window...
We rewrite it every day, don't we?
Where do we draw the line?
Just the first thoughts that came to mind, Toaph.
Answer my question Bro., want to hear your point O' view.
Donk
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:30:27 -0500
From: Ziggy
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Morality?
> I guess we just threw traditional morality out the window...
> We rewrite it every day, don't we?
> Where do we draw the line?
>
OK, come on now. All of this theoretical "traditional morality" is fine,
but are we simply using it as a conversation piece?
I'll tell you what's traditional in America - Dad does what he wants
(and shrouds his selfish career aspirations with the assertion that he's
working all those hours to build a better life for his family). Mom
holds down the fort and is thankful to even have a fort. Girls are
raised by their dads to be virgins until they're 30, and boys are raised
by their dads to go out and bed down every women they possibly can by
the time they're 21. Alcoholism, adultery, and spousal abuse run
rampant, but they are simply not talked about, because those are
"personal" matters. Wasn't this the America of the 40's, 50's, and 60's?
Isn't that what everyone was tossing out the window in the 70's and
80's? There are two differences between now and the 50's - women have
real rights in society and don't have to take our crap, and every detail
of personal life is laid bare to the public. We can't hide from these
things anymore.
Any of us who laments the decline of morality in modern society is
simply blowing smoke unless we're out trying to do something about it.
It's about giving a damn about the other person *every time*, not just
when it's convenient for us.
Ziggy
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:20:51 -0500
From: Toaph
To: Psi Phi Alumni List
Subject: Re: Republicans
>I guess we just threw traditional morality out the window...
>We rewrite it every day, don't we?
>Where do we draw the line?
>
>Just the first thoughts that came to mind, Toaph.
>Answer my question Bro., want to hear your point O' view.
Donk,
The problem with a charged word like 'morality' is it means different
things to different people. If you're asking me, I would say that morality
comes down to whether what you're doing hurts someone or not. People
shouldn't do things that hurt other people. If someone steals from
someone, that is hurting them. If someone neglects their kids, that's
hurting them. I think that Ken summed it up best with his 'do unto
others' line. That is a traditional moral that is timeless. But there is
a lot of traditional 'morality' that should be out the window, in my opinion.
Let me give a real-life example of a 'traditional' moral that's out the
window. My Army boyfriend was in Ithaca visiting for NYE. At one point,
he and a mutual friend went off by themselves. I met up with them at the
other guy's place later that night. I walked in on them fooling around in
the guy's bedroom. They were caught in the act. You know what I said?
"Oops, sorry. I'll come back." I did not consider this to be a breach of
morality, because my boyfriend knows that I differentiate between physical
affection and emotional attachment. I know that my boyfriend is in love
with me. I am confident in that knowledge. I know that he has the hots
for the other guy. I know that him getting it on with the other guy is not
a threat to what we have, but a purely physical act based on a healthy
libido. He knows this is how I feel. He knew he was not hurting me by his
action. The "traditional moral" that is out the window is, "Thy must be
monogomous." That does *not* mean that it's fine for anyone to fool around
in any situation. I contend that it should be replaced with "Thy shall not
harm another." I know another gay couple. One of the guys is the jealous
type, and would be devastated if he found his boyfriend fooling around with
someone else. If that happened, his boyfriend would be guilty of harming
another, and would have committed an immoral act. My boyfriend, on the
other hand, was not harming anyone, and was not behaving immorally.
This comes back to traditions changing with the times. It has
traditionally been immoral to fool around with someone other than your
designated partner. I'm saying that this should be out the window, and
should be *replaced* with a moral value that people shouldn't do things
that harm other people. The problem with reactionaries (note I didn't say
'Republicans') is that they get stuck in tradition. Conservative
Christians will say that my boyfriend was committing an immoral act, even
though he, I, and the other guy think everything's fine.
I'm not saying that we don't need morals. We need morals now more than
ever before. What I'm saying is that what has traditionally been immoral
isn't necessarily immoral today. Times are changing rapidly, and our moral
code needs to be updated with the changing society. Not discarded. Updated.
-- Toaph
What follows is a private exchange between me and Donker
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:15:26 -0400
From: Donker
To: Toaph
Subject: Re: Republicans
I can understand what you're saying about "not harming others", and my usual
attitude has been, "to each man his own". It's difficult for me, coming from a
traditional christian background, to accept homosexuality as a moral act. As far
as coming down on gay people, I can't help but agree completely with Bryan's
excerpt from the Bible, "do unto others, as you would have others do unto you".
That's really what it comes down to, I have to put myself in your shoes (to a
minimal degree) and attempt to understand the scorn and public harrassment your
group must endure.
I'm attempting to understand your rationalization for moralizing homosexuality.
Still can't say that I understand it.
Anyway, Seqvere Optima, that's what really matters.
Donk
To: Donker
From: Toaph
Subject: Re: Republicans
Donk,
This went on a little longer than I expected it to. I've just had a lot of
these thoughts in my head for a long time, and it was your message that
finally got me to put them down on paper.
At 11:15 AM 2/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I can understand what you're saying about "not harming others", and my usual
>attitude has been, "to each man his own". It's difficult for me, coming from a
>traditional christian background, to accept homosexuality as a moral act. As far
>as coming down on gay people, I can't help but agree completely with Ken's
>excerpt from the Bible, "do unto others, as you would have others do unto you".
>That's really what it comes down to, I have to put myself in your shoes (to a
>minimal degree) and attempt to understand the scorn and public harrassment your
>group must endure.
>
>I'm attempting to understand your rationalization for moralizing
homosexuality.
>Still can't say that I understand it.
>
>Anyway, Seqvere Optima, that's what really matters.
>
>Donk
You say that you're attempting to understand my rationalization for
moralizing homosexuality. By "moralizing," I'm going to have to assume
that you mean asserting that it's not immoral. For example, I would say
that something like volunteer charity work is a moral act. I wouldn't say
that gay sex is a moral act any more than I'd say that playing tennis is a
moral act. It's neither moral nor immoral. It just is.
Also, before I go any further, I have to reiterate that "morality" means
different things to different people. The Catholic church believes that
premarital sex is immoral, and for that matter that any sexual activity
that is not strictly for the purposes of procreation (within the
institution of marraige) is immoral. Even innocent, solitary masturbation,
in their eyes, is an immoral act. If you agree, then I'm not going to be
able to get anywhere with this discussion because gay sex clearly involves
sexual activity between unmarried people with no intent of procreation.
For the purposes of this argument, I will have to assume that you believe
that sexual activity between consenting heterosexual couples as an
expression of love and affection, though not intended for procreation, is
not an immoral act. Yet, you believe that sexual activity between
consenting same-sex couples as an expression of love and affection, is an
immoral act. Again, if you can't accept this premise then there's not much
point in going on.
The most common argument I hear for gay sex being an immoral act is that it
is a crime against nature. The quote is, "God created Adam and Eve, not
Adam and Steve." It's hard to contradict the notion that gay sex is
contrary to survival of the species. I'm going to come at this from a
couple different angles.
The most explicit condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is from the
book of Leviticus. In there you will find all manner of commandments for
how people should behave. It's important to understand the historical
context in which these commandments originated. Life was extremely
difficult. Infant mortality was high, life expectancy was low, and just
maintaining the size of a population, let alone increasing it, was a very
difficult endeavor. There were fewer people on the face of the earth than
currently reside in the greater Dallas Fort Worth area. Clearly the nature
of these commandments is going to be geared towards survival and
procreation. That is why, in my opinion, homosexuality was strictly
forbidden. It is not directly involved in making babies. I think they
also had a lot of misbeliefs, like a man is born with only so much "seed,"
and no semen should ever be wasted. I'll have to look up some verses of
Leviticus to see what his other commandments are. I think that there are a
lot of really weird ones that were also based on such misconceptions.
Now I'm going to say something that you're probably going to consider as
sacriledge. Traditional Christians consider the Bible to be the word of
God. I don't. I consider it to be the word of man, represented as being
the word of God. The leaders during Biblical times were, by and large,
prophets. People like Moses were the spiritual leaders, as well as the
"political" leaders. It was their stories, their teachings, and their laws
that were eventually written down and collectively became the Old
Testament. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they
wanted what was best for their people. Unfortunately, people don't always
want what's best for them. These prophets, faced with enemies on all
sides, no medical technology, and encountering natural dangers every day,
had the difficult task of getting their people to do what is best for them,
even if they don't want to. It is my belief that these prophets claimed
their laws to be the word of God, and used their peoples' fear to get them
to obey the laws. Some of these prophets may have sincerely believe that
God was speaking directly to them. I am cynical enough to believe that
some of the prophets also deliberately lied about the influence of God just
to intimidate their followers into compliance with their own mandates.
Either way, I don't believe that God speaks directly to humans. I cannot
believe that the contents of the Bible are the words of God. I also cannot
accept that laws that were used millennia ago are necessarily pertinent to
our situation today. Things like, "Though shalt not kill" are as
applicable today as they were 4000 years ago. But things like, "If a man
lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is
detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own
heads" don't cut it with me in 1998. Now, if I was living 4000 years ago
and the survival of the tribe was the most important thing going, I'd be
having sex with women all over the place, no matter who I was attracted to.
But we're simply not living in the same situation today. If I don't have
kids, the society as a whole is not going to be significantly diminished.
Let me go on a bit more about the Bible. For the record, just because I
refuse to believe that it is the word of God does NOT mean that I don't
think it has value. The teachings of Christ, in particular, are all about
peace and love. That's totally what I promote. I know that traditional
Christians do believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that's fine
for them. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. But one problem I
have, and this is one that I'll never be able to get past, is that all but
the most staunch fundamentalists are very selective about the Bible
passages that they do or don't follow. If you're going to follow the Bible
selectively, that's fine. That's essentially what I do. But I can't
accept that someone says I'm being immoral because I've selectively omitted
a teaching of the Bible that they haven't omitted. This comes back to the
geology thing. According to the Bible, your very career is heresey. Your
field of study, by its very nature, delves in sacrilege and spreads lies.
You are immoral for believing in it, let alone fostering it. Do you buy
that? Do you think that a belief in geology makes you immoral? The same
goes for evolution. Do you believe we descended from the apes? Do you
promote that belief? Is that an immoral act? The problem with this whole
"word of God" things is that as soon as one part of it is proven wrong, the
whole house of cards comes crashing down. I don't believe that
homosexuality is immoral any more than I believe that God created Adam from
a lump of clay.
Now let me come at this "crime against nature" concept from another angle.
As I suggested before, I can accept that it is contrary to the natural
order of things. The thing is, practically everything we do is contrary to
the natural order. Lets go back to the very beginning of civilization: the
agricultural revolution. As soon as man started collecting and planting
seeds, and harvesting the crops that grew, we were behaving contrary to the
natural order of things. God intended seeds to be cast upon the wind and
take root wherever they fell. Taking that function into our own hands was
a defiance of God. Lets move on to the next step: animal husbandry. God's
creatures were intended to wander the Earth freely and mate randomly. When
we penned them in, forced them to do our bidding, and bred them
selectively, we were again defying God. The mule, by all rights, should be
an *abomination* before God. Forging metal is contrary to the natural
order of things. Cutting down trees, erecting buildings, digging wells,
burning fossil fuels, rolling down roads in vehicles, flying through the
air in planes, splitting the freakin' atom; all these things are against
the natural order of things. The truth is, it is contradicting nature that
makes us human and sets us apart from the animals. I can't accept the
premise that contradicting nature is automatically immoral. Diseases are
natural. Is someone committing a crime against nature if he survives a
disease?
All this comes back to things changing with the times. According to the
Bible, we're forbidden to eat pork. That came about because in Biblical
times swine were carriers of disease. But the prophets of the time didn't
say, "Don't eat pork, you might get a disease." They didn't know about
micro-organisms and disease. They assumed that the pigs were wicked, and
it became an immoral act to consume their flesh. When medical science came
into being and the diseases were cured, it no longer became immoral to eat
pork. The morality associated with it evaporated because people came to
understand that the commandment was based on a misconception and ultimately
had no moral grounds. Jewish people continue to abstain from pork simply
out of a sense of tradition, even though they know that there is nothing
physically wrong with it. For them, eating pork remains an immoral act,
not because you're consuming something wicked, but because you're doing
something you're told not to do.
There was a time when left-handed people were persecuted as being evil.
The word 'sinister' used to mean 'left' or 'left-handed.' Since the
majority was right-handed and there was no explanation why someone would
become left-handed, and there were no advantages to it, it was perceived as
deviant behavior. Deviancy is treated as immoral. This is an interesting
parallel to homosexuality, because people could hide it and pretend to be
like everyone else, while deep down inside they had to secretly live with
the knowledge that they were different. They also probably lived in
constant fear of being discovered.
Today this seems silly. In modern times we know that there's nothing
*wrong* with being left-handed. It's just different. It's not deviant or
immoral. It's just different. I firmly believe that in the distant future
that persecution of homosexuals will seem as silly as persecution of
left-handed people seems to us today. Back then, right-handed people
simply couldn't understand why anyone would deliberately use their left
hand. There was no reason for it, it provided no advantages, and actually
introduced some disadvantages. Today people feel the same way about
homosexuality. I know that the 'born that way' argument doesn't hold a lot
of credence with traditional Christians. But you have to trust me on this,
Donk. I'm not lying to you. When I was a kid and started looking at dirty
magazines, I was much more captivated by the male anatomy than the female.
I never made a decision, any more than I made a decision to be left-handed.
That's not to say that there aren't *any* people out there who made a
conscious decision to engage in gay activity. I'm sure there are lots of
people who decide they want to take a walk on the wild side. It's like a
switch hitter in baseball. He was born right-handed, but made a decision
to engage in left-handed behavior in certain situations. What it comes
down to is the "core identity" issue that we had so much fun with a few
weeks back. If someone's core identity is straight, but he gets it on with
guys from time to time, he's not going to 'catch' homosexuality. He's not
going to suddenly be converted. When I was dating women and fucking fat
chicks, I actually made a conscious decision to be heterosexual. It went
against all my natural feelings. But just engaging in the activity didn't
make me 'catch' straight. My core identity is gay, I was born that way,
and nothing can change that.
In the end, it all comes back to the concept that you identified with from
the beginning. I ask myself, "Is this hurting anyone?" I don't feel that
it is. Sure, some kids are hurting their disapproving parents, but the
parents are also harming their kids with their disapproval. Which is the
immoral behavior? Van Gogh chose to be an artist against the will of his
parents. Does that make it an immoral act? But traditional Christians
will make the case that it *is* harmful. Of course the first thing they do
is bring up AIDS. Spreading disease is harmful, and could be considered
immoral. I don't dispute this. But it's a nonsequitur. "Spreading
disease is immoral; some gays spread disease; therefore all gays are
immoral." Plenty of heterosexuals spread disease too. Are all
heterosexuals immoral? The proper statement would be that irresponsible,
unprotected sex is immoral whether it's gay or straight. I would agree
with that. But traditional Christians will say that deviant behavior harms
society at large because of the degradation of moral values. For me,
immoral behavior is something that is harmful. I can't accept the argument
that the reason it is harmful is because it is immoral. I think that this
self-referential logic is also falacious. If you can give me
representative evidence that something is harmful, like spreading disease,
or deceiving a spouse, or whatever, then I can accept that that specific
behavior is harmful, but I can't accept a blanket condemnation of an entire
practise. Plenty of people are being gay without hurting anyone.
I've pretty much laid out my thinking as to why homosexuality is not
immoral. I don't know if I've convinced you or not, but I can say from
experience that traditional Christians are not swayed from their views. I
don't mean to sound judgemental, but it always strikes me as a "don't
confuse me with the facts" scenario. I think that there are a number of
reasons for this.
One problem is that there are a lot of misconceptions based on the behavior
of closeted gays. I can see how people get the impression that someone can
'turn' gay. Take me for example. No one would ever suspect that I had gay
inclinations. I went for years without anyone suspecting. Then when I
finally decide to be honest about it, especially after fucking chicks for a
long time, it looked like I just suddenly decided to fuck guys instead.
The complicating factor is that closeted gays are *very* good at concealing
their true nature. When you live in fear, you *have* to be good at
concealing it. But this doesn't make it any less your "core identity."
Just because it looks like an overnight transformation doesn't mean that it
is. Now, here is a point that I will conceed. Deceit hurts other people,
and in my opinion is immoral behavior. That means that if you gay, I
believe that it is immoral to be closeted about it. It's not that simple,
and it's easy for me to have sympathy for someone who is engaging in that
immoral behavior, but I think it's best for everyone to be out of the
closet from the very beginning. I know that it was a really bad situation
with your brother, but I have to congratulate him for dealing with the fear
and being honest about it at a relatively early stage.
I also think that there is something very deeply rooted in some people that
just makes them utterly disgusted and disturbed by the very thought of
homosexual acts. It's like some primal thing. Beliefs are very much like
sexual orientation. You never sit down and make a decision about what you
believe. Either you believe something or you don't. As a traditional
Christian, I'll assume that you believe in the immaculate conception, the
resurrection, etc. I can't picture you saying to yourself, "Should I
believe this or not? Yeah, I think I will. Sure." It doesn't work like
that. You believe it because you believe it. It's the same thing with
believing that homosexuality is immoral. There's no reason why people do.
They just do. And nothing is going to get them to believe otherwise.
There seems to be a very large number of these people among traditional
Christians. I think it's merely a convenient coincidence that the Bible
actually has some few passages openly condemning homosexuality. I think
that these people would consider it immoral on a religious basis even if
there was no mention of it in the Bible at all.
I'm going to wrap this up because it's already gone on a lot longer than I
ever expected it to. I would be happy if I was able to convince you to
some degree that homosexuality is not immoral, but that was not my goal. I
want you to believe what ever you want to believe. But I do hope that I
was able to help you understand my point of view better, and to know why I
feel the way I do.
Seqvere Optima!
-- Toaph
To: Toaph
Subject: Re: Republicans
Your right Toaph, I didn't expect such an explanation, but anyway, read on....
> You say that you're attempting to understand my rationalization for
> moralizing homosexuality. By "moralizing," I'm going to have to assume
> that you mean asserting that it's not immoral. For example, I would say
> that something like volunteer charity work is a moral act. I wouldn't say
> that gay sex is a moral act any more than I'd say that playing tennis is a
> moral act. It's neither moral nor immoral. It just is.
>
Just as you know that you feel deep down inside that you're a homosexual, I also
feel deeply that it just isn't right, I can't explain it, it's just a gut
feeling. Maybe due to my upbringing, I don't know. But you're right about
morality, each man (or woman) , or society for that matter, makes their own
decisions about their moral standings, I believe it relates directly to each
individuals life experience. I've seen nothing but bad things come of it
(besides the fact that it makes me nauseous-sorry), especially in my own family
(my brother Mike).
> Now I'm going to say something that you're probably going to consider as
> sacriledge. Traditional Christians consider the Bible to be the word of
> God. I don't. I consider it to be the word of man, represented as being
> the word of God.
Then Sodom and Gommorah will have little meaning to you, seeing as though it was
an Act of God. Right?
>These prophets, faced with enemies on all
> sides, no medical technology, and encountering natural dangers every day,
> had the difficult task of getting their people to do what is best for them,
> even if they don't want to. It is my belief that these prophets claimed
> their laws to be the word of God, and used their peoples' fear to get them
> to obey the laws.
I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding this, but...you're saying the Bible was
used as a political? device to sway the "morals" of the people? Maybe, morals
isn't the right word........how 'bout social beliefs?
> But I can't
> accept that someone says I'm being immoral because I've selectively omitted
> a teaching of the Bible that they haven't omitted.
True. We all "selectively" obey the Laws of God (Ten Commandments).
> This comes back to the
> geology thing. According to the Bible, your very career is heresey. Your
> field of study, by its very nature, delves in sacrilege and spreads lies.
> You are immoral for believing in it, let alone fostering it. Do you buy
> that? Do you think that a belief in geology makes you immoral? The same
> goes for evolution. Do you believe we descended from the apes? Do you
> promote that belief? Is that an immoral act? The problem with this whole
> "word of God" things is that as soon as one part of it is proven wrong, the
> whole house of cards comes crashing down. I don't believe that
> homosexuality is immoral any more than I believe that God created Adam from
> a lump of clay.
Ha Ha. Now you're hitting home. You wouldn't believe the number of times I got
into this discussion with my old man. Whew! Good point, and yes, I struggle
with Evolution / Creation every day. If I could figure that one out, I'd win a
Nobel. I don't care to discuss it any further, it's like apples and oranges.
The scientist relies solely on facts and physical data, on the other hand, the
Christian relies solely on "faith".
>Diseases are
> natural. Is someone committing a crime against nature if he survives a
> disease?
??That's stretching it Toaph.
> My core identity is gay, I was born that way,
> and nothing can change that.
>
Born that way. I can't accept that. You're beliefs/activities/"morals" were
molded from "life experience". Is the Heisman Trophy winner born with the ability
to be a great football player? Are you saying there is some chemical or
biological mixture that favors homosexuality in newborns? Touchy subject, but
the heart of the matter nonetheless.
> Plenty of people are being gay without hurting anyone.
So, in the years to come, when my 14 year old son/daughter tells me they are gay,
do I encourage them to pursue that path in life?
> I've pretty much laid out my thinking as to why homosexuality is not
> immoral. I don't know if I've convinced you or not, but I can say from
> experience that traditional Christians are not swayed from their views.
True. They're a stubborn bunch.
> I'm going to wrap this up because it's already gone on a lot longer than I
> ever expected it to. I would be happy if I was able to convince you to
> some degree that homosexuality is not immoral, but that was not my goal. I
> want you to believe what ever you want to believe. But I do hope that I
> was able to help you understand my point of view better, and to know why I
> feel the way I do.
I guess immoral is too relative. It seems each person formulates his or her own
moral standard. I've just seen my brother's (Mike) life go down the shitter, so
I'm personnally pissed off in regards to homosexuality. It hurts the most when
it hits home, bro.Anyway....
We may feel differently about this subject, but you're still my brother, and
nothing can interfere with that. Seqvere Optima.
Donk
To: Donker
From: Toaph
Subject: A Couple Follow-up Points
Donk,
I'm glad that you are interested in trying to understand where I'm coming
from, and I have a lot of respect for you for taking a level-headed,
open-minded approach to the subject. I just have a couple of follow-up
points.
>Then Sodom and Gommorah will have little meaning to you, seeing as though it was
>an Act of God. Right?
I don't know much about the story, but I've seen a documentary or two where
they found the original site and were trying to determine what kind of
natural disaster destroyed it. I don't believe it was a deliberate act of
God. I believe that some natural cataclysm befell the cities, and the only
explanation that the people of the time could come up with to explain it
was that God swept them off the face of the earth.
>I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding this, but...you're saying the Bible was
>used as a political? device to sway the "morals" of the people? Maybe, morals
>isn't the right word........how 'bout social beliefs?
The thing is, at that time the Bible didn't as-such exist. Stories were
largely passed down verbally from generation to generation. Finally, some
people had the foresight to write them down. When this happened more and
more, they were put together collectively and then became the Bible. I
mean, Moses wasn't walking around with a Bible in his hand reading Exodus
and saying, "Okay, next we head for the Red Sea."
This comes back to Sodam and Gommorah. There was some horrible
catastrophie, and the story of it was passed down from generation to
generation. Stories can undergo changes and embellishment through that
process. Who knows if the cities were actually filled with wicked people
or not. That may just have been how the story evolved as a way of
explaining why these particular cities were destroyed. I formulated some
of these ideas way back when I was active, and was close with alumni Vic
James. He had a lot of insights on this. Take the story of Moses parting
the Red Sea. I don't believe for a minute that the hand of God actually
caused the waters of a major body of water to part. But what could have
happened was Moses devised some ingenious way to get his people across the
sea without the Egyptians being able to follow them. Then, as the story
was passed down, it kept getting embellished until it got to the point that
the waters actually parted.
So I'm not saying that the Bible as such was used as a political device.
I'm saying that the fear of God was used as a way of intimidating people
into following the morals, values, and social beliefs set down by the
leaders. As time progressed, the teachings and laws of the leaders became
what today is the Bible.
>Born that way. I can't accept that. You're beliefs/activities/"morals" were
>molded from "life experience". Is the Heisman Trophy winner born with the ability
>to be a great football player? Are you saying there is some chemical or
>biological mixture that favors homosexuality in newborns? Touchy subject, but
>the heart of the matter nonetheless.
How people become homosexuals is a mystery, and probably will be for a long
time. I've always considered my situation to be an interesting case study.
I am the middle of three boys. We all had essentially identical life
experiences. My parents were very fair between us, treated us all equally,
and we were brought up in a "moral," church-going environment. Why is it
that I turned out gay and my brothers didn't?
Regarding your football player example, consider this. Take like 12 people
from birth. Put them all through the same football training throughout
their whole lives. Some will be better than others. Some will be
pathetic, and some will be championship material. Some people are just
naturals at things. The Heisman Trophy winner wasn't born with the ability
to be a great football player. But he *was* born with the potential. I
don't believe that he succeeded above all others just because he trained
harder. I believe that he was born with a natural talent that allowed him
to excel.
This is a touchy subject, and one you and I will probably never agree on.
>So, in the years to come, when my 14 year old son/daughter tells me they are gay,
>do I encourage them to pursue that path in life?
I would say that you should neither encourage nor discourage them, but
allow them to be free to pursue what they perceive to be their own path in
life. Just remember that they're not doing this to intentionally rebel, be
deviant, or be immoral. They're doing this because they feel it's what's
right for them.
>We may feel differently about this subject, but you're still my brother, and
>nothing can interfere with that. Seqvere Optima.
Right back at you. I'm proud to have you as a brother.
-- Toaph
Scraps Index | Next Essay: Entering The Lion's Den
|