Homosexuals Honour Spong...

[_Roger Morrison]

Glad to see this thread hasn't been sent to outer-darkness, or to that less-lestial... More than pleased to see the attention it has received... Just imagine the minds being changed to the pro-homo-side. Thanks to ALL for that! ;-)

The bit of profanity was indeed profane and secular but it might have demonstrated the level of frustration created by irrationalism that vacilates between picking & choosing between the evils of the Old Testament... Inconsistancy or what???

Surely there is no one here who thinks we have verbatim quotes of Jesus!? Or that the Apostles fully understood the whole "Good News"!? Are we to believe the early Missionaries were not influenced somewhat by their pre-Jesus conditioning??

Someone has said, "once a topic is debated it is the beginning of its death..." Or words to that effect.

'Homophobia' is the topic here. The efforts to suppress the FULL acceptance of homosexuals into Full fellowship in every aspect of life and association is doomed to failure.

There is absolutely no justification, other than theologically fostered fear and ignorance, to continue the subjugation of homosexuals in our society. No question!! Warm regards, Roger

[_Coggins7]

'

Homophobia' is the topic here. The efforts to suppress the FULL acceptance of homosexuals into Full fellowship in every aspect of life and association is doomed to failure.

There is absolutely no justification, other than theologically fostered fear and ignorance, to continue the subjugation of homosexuals in our society. No question!! Warm regards, Roger

Besides much of this sounding like what you would see written on placards and signs at a Gay rights march, what do you mean by "homophobia"? Do you mean an irrational fear of the same sex, or do you meant any opposition to homosexuality and the "Gay" lifestyle whatever, no matter how principled?

[_Coggins7]

There is absolutely no justification, other than theologically fostered fear and ignorance, to continue the subjugation of homosexuals in our society. No question!!


And you base this proposition upon what criteria?

[_Roger Morrison]

There is absolutely no justification, other than theologically fostered fear and ignorance, to continue the subjugation of homosexuals in our society. No question!!


And you base this proposition upon what criteria?

In answer to your previous question, which by the way is a good one, re homophobia: I 'm not sure i can answer it to your satisfaction. I think it has become somewhat generic and applied in different contexts by folks who run the gamut from outright hostilility (irrational hatred) who might physically beat them to death, in extreme cases. Others just don't see them as equals and/or deserving of equal rights and opportunities in their 'communities'... Tolerated with varying degrees of acceptance. I think there are fewer in the first group than before. What do you think? Aside from your placard comments, do you really resent "Gay Activism"?

As for my "criteria": Empirical observations and consideration of homosexual persons and the real consequences, IMSCO, of being in that minority group. I have worked with several in numerous LDS callings as 'coverts'. I saw them accoladed for fine-service. And later excomunicated as unfit to serve. This may not effect you as it does me. So be it. I have also associated with others in uncountable occasions. Real fine folks.

As i consider what 'your-side', if that's an acceptable term--i hope it is for this discussionn--presents as their views, i find nothing to substantially validate their position. Aside from their misinterpretating scripture, there is no fundamental reason to not accept the reality of homsexuality as being "God" granted as you and me are what we physically are, heterosexual.

Our 'physical nature' (gender) is by "God". Our 'nurtured nature' (character) is by our environmental 'luck'. Why is that so hard to accept? Warm regards, Roger

[_Calculus Crusader]

Spong is one dumb cracker.

[_Coggins7]

In answer to your previous question, which by the way is a good one, re homophobia: I 'm not sure I can answer it to your satisfaction. I think it has become somewhat generic and applied in different contexts by folks who run the gamut from outright hostilility (irrational hatred) who might physically beat them to death, in extreme cases. Others just don't see them as equals and/or deserving of equal rights and opportunities in their 'communities'... Tolerated with varying degrees of acceptance. I think there are fewer in the first group than before. What do you think? Aside from your placard comments, do you really resent "Gay Activism"?

I oppose its ideology as a matter of principle. Activism itself is a constitutional right, so long as it is peaceful and civil.

As for my "criteria": Empirical observations and consideration of homosexual persons and the real consequences, IMSCO, of being in that minority group. I have worked with several in numerous LDS callings as 'coverts'. I saw them accoladed for fine-service. And later excomunicated as unfit to serve. This may not effect you as it does me. So be it. I have also associated with others in uncountable occasions. Real fine folks.

Your subjective impressions aside, There is very little in the "Gay" lifestyle and subculture, except for a very tiny minority of relationships within it, that does not indicate that the lifestyle itself is, at its core, pathological and a generator of ever more supporting pathologies. The empirical and statistical evidence is clear on that score. If those real fine folks were engaging in gross sexual immorality (homosexual behavior), and would not repent and make every attempt to live the Lord's laws regarding sexual relationships, then excommunication would yes, be the likely result. Unfortunate.

As I consider what 'your-side', if that's an acceptable term--I hope it is for this discussionn--presents as their views, I find nothing to substantially validate their position. Aside from their misinterpretating scripture, there is no fundamental reason to not accept the reality of homsexuality as being "God" granted as you and me are what we physically are, heterosexual.

I'm really not going to go down the road of biblical revisionism here again, because the embarrasing straw grasping that liberal textual revisionists have had to engage in to make the Bible ideologically correct has been dead and buried for any serious textual critic since the inception of this ideological cleansing of the scriptures to fit modern fashionable political crusades.

I can think of a number of reasons not to accept homosexuality as to claim it should, and they are:

1. Revealed teaching on the matter (theological/philosophical)

2. Psychological

3. Social/Cultural
















Our 'physical nature' (gender) is by "God". Our 'nurtured nature' (character) is by our environmental 'luck'. Why is that so hard to accept? Warm regards, Roger

[_guy sajer]

There is absolutely no justification, other than theologically fostered fear and ignorance, to continue the subjugation of homosexuals in our society. No question!!


And you base this proposition upon what criteria?

That, like us, they are human beings of inherent worth and every bit as deserving of the same consideration, freedoms, rights, and dignity as the rest of us.

Dogmatic, uncharitable, religious dogma condemning homosexuals is not adequate justification to deny homosexuals their equal human worth, nor the consideration, freedoms, rights, and dignity that the rest of us enjoy, or should enjoy.

[_Coggins7]

That, like us, they are human beings of inherent worth and every bit as deserving of the same consideration, freedoms, rights, and dignity as the rest of us.

Yes, yes, but you see, this is all tangential to the question. Nobody is questioning either their inherent worth or their unalienable rights under the constitution, of which full participation or inclusion in a private religious organization is not one. Nor a homosexuals in any way "subjugated" in our society. They are one of the most socio-economically successful and politically powerful subgroups in the culture.

Dogmatic, uncharitable, religious dogma condemning homosexuals is not adequate justification to deny homosexuals their equal human worth, nor the consideration, freedoms, rights, and dignity that the rest of us enjoy, or should enjoy.

This is nothing but a recapitulation of the first paragraph, and your statements about some undefined religious views of the subject seem simply to be prejudicial opinions with a hazy, undefined basis.

[_guy sajer]

That, like us, they are human beings of inherent worth and every bit as deserving of the same consideration, freedoms, rights, and dignity as the rest of us.

Yes, yes, but you see, this is all tangential to the question. Nobody is questioning either their inherent worth or their unalienable rights under the constitution, of which full participation or inclusion in a private religious organization is not one. Nor a homosexuals in any way "subjugated" in our society. They are one of the most socio-economically successful and politically powerful subgroups in the culture.

I agree that religions have, and should have the right, to hold "moral" views viz homosexuality. But I think that in doing so, and to the extent these views run contrary to that of society, they are appropriately criticized. You can dress bigotry up in religious garb all you want, but it's still bigotry.

If you think that there is no longer any subjugation of homosexuals in our society, you are in for a rude awkening. There remain several sub-groups (not all religious) in which homosexuality is anything but open or tolerated. See, for example, the recent book by former NBA player John Ameche.

Dogmatic, uncharitable, religious dogma condemning homosexuals is not adequate justification to deny homosexuals their equal human worth, nor the consideration, freedoms, rights, and dignity that the rest of us enjoy, or should enjoy.

This is nothing but a recapitulation of the first paragraph, and your statements about some undefined religious views of the subject seem simply to be prejudicial opinions with a hazy, undefined basis.

I don't see this as a recapitulation but a expansion of the thoughts in the first paragraph. I am not referring to undefined religious views. The religious views of Mormons and Evangelicals viz homosexuality are well-documented and well-known.

The question as I see it is whether we, that is secular society, ought to allow religious concepts of "sin" to intrude on public policies. I say "no way in hell." If one wants to try to convince me that society rightly denies rights and priviledges to homosexuals, citing the Bible or religious dogma will not do the trick. I am also unpersuaded by theoretical arguments viz the effect on general morality, respect for marriage, or impact on the family.

More, even if there is some empirical evidence supporting discrimination against gays, it better be pretty damned conslusive and material (statisically signficiant but trivial results are not sufficient) to justify witholding rights and privileges from an entire group of people who are doing absolutely nothing to hurt anyone else.

[_Coggins7]

I

agree that religions have, and should have the right, to hold "moral" views viz homosexuality. But I think that in doing so, and to the extent these views run contrary to that of society, they are

appropriately criticized. You can dress bigotry up in religious garb all you want, but it's still bigotry.

There is no argument here about the right of the rest of society to criticize such views (your implication that the rest of society is radically out of harmony with LDS teachings in this area is a little rubbery, at best, however, even when theism of some kind is taken out of the equation). And please don't play Scratch's games. If you cannot tell the difference between principled criticism of a lifestyle or behavior from a religious and philosophical perspective, and plane bigotry, your ability to contribute anything of substance to the marketplace of ideas will be essential disabled.

If you think that there is no longer any subjugation of homosexuals in our society, you are in for a rude awakening. There remain several sub-groups (not all religious) in which homosexuality is anything but open or tolerated. See, for example, the recent book by former NBA player John Ameche.

I see no reason why open homosexuality should be tolerated in the Basketball locker room, or in a military group shower, or in some other venues. Basketball teams, are, indeed, private businesses, and can hire and fire whom they please, based upon the prime directive of the business, which is, in the case of pro sports, to win games. If homosexuality sabotages that directive (and it most certainly, if open, could do just that), then so be it. This is still a free country, even for heteros.

The question as I see it is whether we, that is secular society, ought to allow religious concepts of "sin" to intrude on public policies.

What you are essentially implying here, is that people of religious faith have no right to express themselves in the public square vis-a-vis the ballot box or the referendum. In other words, you want to relegate conservative religious people to the very same subjugated, second class status you claim homosexuals presently labor under. What do you mean that we are a secular society? In some official capacity? There's nothing about that in the constitution, Declaration, or other founding documents of the country. Informally, we may be, but as to professed religious belief, we are, as a nation, far more religious than anywhere in Western Europe. There is no "secular society" to which religious people must defer, at least, not in the founding documents.


I say "no way in hell." If one wants to try to convince me that society rightly denies rights and priviledges to homosexuals, citing the Bible or religious dogma will not do the trick. I am also unpersuaded by theoretical arguments viz the effect on general morality, respect for marriage, or impact on the family.

Then you have the right to speak, vote, and agitate for your views, but not to deny those who disagree with you a place within the body politic.

More, even if there is some empirical evidence supporting discrimination against gays, it better be pretty damned conslusive and material (statisically signficiant but trivial results are not sufficient) to justify witholding rights and privileges from an entire group of people who are doing absolutely nothing to hurt anyone else.

Pure leftwing bluster, for the most part. Homosexuals are not discriminated against except in rare circumstances (and sometimes, not even in those) where your precious democratic masses finally say "no" to the continual carrying of water for the homosexual lifestyle and its various appendages.

In any case, how do you know that homosexuals should not be discriminated against, at least in some circumstances? Do you want an open and very effeminate homosexual teaching your grade school children? Do you want him as a Boy Scout leader? Homosexuality, as with other sexual fetishes, is still quite rare among the general population (one to three percent of the population, perhaps somewhat higher), and indeed, perhaps much rarer than some other popular heterosexual practices. Can not the majority in a free society set demarcation lines for rare and idiosyncratic behaviors, especially behaviors encompassing such a sacred and powerful human capacity as sexual expression, such that they can at least protect their children, their military, and the right of free association from colonization and corruption by what they consider to be alien and undesirable ideologies and practices.

Or is the society you envision no longer a free one...at least for those who disagree with you?