At least Republicans are focusing on the big issues.

[DavidCPA]

http://tv.yahoo.com/fc/ytv/network_tv_programming/

I'm not sure quite what to say about this story.

-DavidCPA

[Mark Asher]

The way to solve the AIDS problem is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

"The letter to PBS president Pat Mitchell was sent by committee chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican; as well as by Joe Barton of Texas; Richard Burr of North Carolina, Charles "Chip" Pickering of Mississippi, Cliff Stearns of Florida and Fred Upton of Michigan, the paper said."

AKA, the dumbest fucks on Capitol Hill. CTW should make a muppet of a grandstanding hick-wad politician to warn children of the dangers of inbreeding.

[Anonymous]

I think it was just a matter of time until a muppet came down with aids, given all that fisting they engage in.

[Anonymous]

WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO REVOKE BERT'S CITIZENSHIP AND TRY HIM IN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR LENDING MORAL SUPPORT TO BIN LADEN?!!

PBS ARE ANTI-AMERICAN FUCKS!

[JeffL]

OK - I'll jump in here and take a roasting.

While I don't think either political side has a lock on stupidity and grandstanding and thirst for power, and I don't think congressmen should be worried about crap like this, I AM tired of the constant desire to politicize and teach in programs aimed at little kids. I've talked to my kids about AIDs and HIV, and why some things we used to not worry about we need to think about. But can't we just let programs aimed at little kids be entertaining? Do I really need a program on Nick targeted at small children to teach them that it's OK for lesbians to be parents? Etc. etc.

OK, flame away folks.

[Bub, Andrew]

Do I really need a program on Nick targeted at small children to teach them that it's OK for lesbians to be parents? Etc. etc.


Maybe. It sounds like you might. Do you have some sort of problem with lesbian parents? But I think that program was also aimed at children being raised by lesbian parents and they probably thought it valuable. Plus over 95% of Nickelodeon is aimed at being mindless, why'd you watch that 5%?

Anyway, that kind of programming is probably a lot more needed than the 700 Club.

[Anonymous]

"tired of the constant desire to politicize and teach in programs aimed at little kids. [...] But can't we just let programs aimed at little kids be entertaining?"

Uh, I'm kinda speechless. The idea behind Sesame Street is to create educational programming for children that also has an entertainment component, not the other way around. The program is SUPPOSED to "teach."

Note: even the "entertainment" shows are trying to teach. Mainly they are trying to teach your children that they need to own Pokemon products, eat at McDonalds if their grandparents really love them, and indulge in Disney ocean cruises. Sesame Street is one of the few media options aimed at kids (along with Mad Magazine) which might actually support the idea of viewing entertainment messages with a critical mind.

Finally, this character was expressly aimed at children in Africa, where there is an epidemic of children BORN with the disease. You don't have to teach the kids about condoms and needle sharing in order to help prepare them to deal with classmates with AIDS.

[DavidCPA]

OK, flame away folks.

I don't think you said anything that requires flaming Jeff.

I would like to point out that Seasame Street has always tried to be educationally entertaining (ABCs, 123s, shapes, etc). They always lowkeyed the big social issues and focused on kid level interactions (being nice, polite, etc). If you remember, Seasame Street has always had one of the most diverse casts in TV without making he racial differences a big deal.

Having an HIV character is probably important for the South African version of the show as the prevalance of the disease in Africa is growing every day.

-DavidCPA

[JeffL]

Oh, frankly the concept of what they are doing in South Africa with Sesame Street and HIV makes a lot of sense - with the unbelievable rates of infection and death down there, and the fact that kids are surrounded every day by many HIV positive folks, it's surely a public good.

My cranky rant was that it seems that every day I'm seeing some new attempt to interject some socio-political teaching into programs aimed at lower and lower ages. As for the person who said:

"Maybe. It sounds like you might. Do you have some sort of problem with lesbian parents? It sounds like your kids may NEED this"

That's a moral issue. While you may categorize them all as toothless hicks who marry their sisters, there are people who disagree with the concept of lesbian parents. And whether you and I agree with them, why does someone feel compelled to teach little kids about this issue? Because they're right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, and has no right to a differing moral opinion (and anyone who does have a different opinion is intolerant of others' views, BTW.) I'd be just as peeved if there was a cartoon on a mainstream network that was teaching that homosexuality was wrong.

I've got absolutely no problem with Sesame Street having an HIV positive character - as someone pointed out, it fits in with their gentle, social (and responsible) methods. That's one of the few TV programs our kids watched when they were little. But I see an increasing trend to ensure that our kids carry the burdens of the adult world on their shoulders as soon as possible. They don't need their Sponge Bob or Bugs Bunny to be teaching them about abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, ethnic cleansing, etc. They have far too many years to learn about all of those worries once they can ride their bikes without training wheels. This isn't sticking your head in the sand, this is choosing the appropriate age to teach each kid what they need to know to be safe, socially responsible, caring, etc.

I'm a little more sensitive to this than usual due to a recent sad event that happened with a friend's 5 year old, but I would still feel this way regardless (although not perhaps at the level to want to take the time to discuss it.)

[Erik]

Thank God the muppets are willing to say something about the current plague, since Nelson Mandela wouldn't and South Africa's current president slash crackpot, Thado Mbeki, refuses to even acknowledge a link between HIV and AIDS.

Ironically, according to a recent article in The New Republic, the kind of conservative moralizing that often characterizes these hand-wringing congressional misadventures is actually the foundation for the most successful public health AIDS policy in Africa, much to the consternation of various NGOs. The article isn't online, but I found it on deja news:

<Non-Erik Material Starts Here>

USAID Study Promotes Abstinence as Effective against AIDS

Uganda's experience suggests that abstinence and fidelity may be the keys to whipping AIDS in Africa. According to a study presented to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) this February by former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization (WHO) epidemiologist Rand Stoneburner, Uganda's prevention model has the potential to reduce the AIDS rate in Africa's worst-stricken countries by 80 percent--the same level of efficacy one might expect from an HIV vaccine. "According to the modeling we've done, 3.2 million lives would be saved between 2000 and 2010," said Stoneburner.

Since Uganda's success is nearly unique in sub-Saharan Africa, more and more people are asking how it can be duplicated. As researchers have begun picking apart the reasons for Uganda's success, controversy has dogged their work, perhaps because most of them agree on one troublesome fact: Condoms had relatively little to do with it. (A recent study in Uganda led by Ronald Gray, a physician-researcher at Johns Hopkins University, confirmed that while consistent condom use worked in slowing HIV transmission, inconsistent use had no effect whatsoever.)

The experiences of Botswana and Zimbabwe provide further evidence that condom use alone is not the answer. The two nations rank first and second worldwide, respectively, in HIV prevalence. Yet by African standards, they are relatively modern states in which condoms are freely available. In a 1999 survey, more than 70 percent of adult men in Zimbabwe said they had used condoms in their last high-risk sex act, making Zimbabwe possibly the most condom-friendly country outside Asia. And while a leading USAID contractor, Population Services International (PSI), has marketed condoms heavily in Zimbabwe and Botswana, they haven't stemmed the aids epidemic. "Both countries are basket cases," says Green, who is writing a book about failures and successes in the fight against AIDS. "Condoms are marketed as if they are one hundred percent safe; but there is leakage, breakage, slippage, improper usage.... If condoms fail or aren't used correctly or consistently just twenty percent of the time, if you don't change your behavior and keep running around, it may be just a matter of time before you'll get infected."

The most striking epidemiological feature of Uganda's success is the drastic reduction in multiple partnering by Ugandan adults. Among women aged 15 and above, the number reporting multiple sexual partners fell from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 8.1 percent in 1995 to 2.5 percent in 2000, according to Nantulya's colleague in the Harvard study, anthropologist Edward C. Green. Smaller but similar declines in male promiscuity were reported as well. At the same time, while the average Ugandan girl becomes sexually active at the age of 17--about one year older than was the case a decade ago--the rate of marriage among girls aged 15 to 19 is 76 percent, compared with 37 percent in neighboring Kenya.

Researchers working in Uganda have suspected that abstinence and fidelity were contributing to declining infection rates for close to a decade. In 1993 Green wrote in a report for World Learning Inc., a USAID contractor: "If a high AIDS-prevalence country like Uganda shows a significant decline in STDs in the absence of a male condom prevalence rate over 5 (percent), it might suggest that other types of behavior change (premarital chastity, 'zero grazing' or marital fidelity, abstinence, non-penetrative and other safer sexual practices) can significantly affect STD incidence if not HIV incidence." Stoneburner, then a WHO official, came to a similar conclusion two years later. But their message didn't exactly catch fire. And while it is difficult to separate political differences from scientific ones, both Green and Stoneburner complain of difficulty publishing studies that point to the importance of fidelity and abstinence. In 1998 Green wrote an article about the apparent success of what he calls "primary behavior change"--more abstinence and fewer partners, as opposed to condom use and STD treatment--in slowing HIV transmission in the Dominican Republic, only to have it turned down by four academic journals. (He eventually published it as a brief letter in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.)

One prominent example of the public health establishment's preference for condoms over abstinence and fidelity in the 1990s was Aidscap, a large USAID-funded "Behavior Change Communication" program run by Family Health International from 1991 to 1997. Aidscap simultaneously offered STD treatment and HIV testing in African clinics. But its prevention guidelines for health workers mainly encouraged them to talk about condom use and treatment of other STDs that make people more vulnerable to HIV. "It was considered too moralistic to stress abstinence and fidelity," recalls David Wilson, a leading USAID consultant from the University of Zimbabwe in Harare.

Officials at USAID say fidelity and abstinence--"delayed sexual debut" and "partner reduction," in public health speak—have always been part of their message. But Paul R. DeLay, acting director of USAID's Office of HIV-AIDS, acknowledges that "there was a tendency to focus on what we were most familiar with: condoms. Other parts weren't ignored, but were they applied to the extent they could have been?"

"What happened in Uganda," says Jim Shelton, senior medical scientist in USAID's Office of Population, "is that a lot of forces at one time were promoting more responsible sexual behavior, so you get to a social norm, a tipping point kind of thing. At some point all these messages, plus seeing people dying, get people to change their sexual behavior.... And I guess this has reinforced and awakened us to the virtue of emphasizing more the A and B in the ABC strategy."

[Bub, Andrew]

I disagree Jeff. It isn't a moral issue at all ("Lesbian parents" or even "homosexuality"). I believe morality is a personal thing. The fact is that it's legal for lesbians to have children and there are a lot of gay parents with children. I and millions of others have no moral problem with it. Since it's happening in society, I see nothing wrong with a television program addressing this social reality. Because it's teaching tolerance and it's easily ignored by moral evangelists.

I see lots of things wrong with your other example: A cartoon preaching against homosexuality. (You said you'd be against that - good for you.) But it isn't the same thing at all, because that would be teaching intolerance. The lesbian show is saying: "I'm all right" the cartoon would be saying "You are wrong"

Big difference there. I didn't see this pro-lesbian parent show but I'm GUESSING there was nothing in there that said it was morally wrong to be a straight or Christian parent. Just as I'd have no problem with a Born Again Christian program that simply talked about how great it is to be a BAC. It's when they start saying that NOT being a BAC, or being gay, or being foreign, is some sort of problem, that they start being a big Pain in the Ass.

:D

[Anonymous]

If you can't be bothered to listen to the intro dialogue in Operation Flashpoint, I ain't gonna read that article.

[Erik]

If you can't be bothered to listen to the intro dialogue in Operation Flashpoint, I ain't gonna read that article.

But that was the whole point; I *did* listen to the intro dialogue in Operation Flashpoint. All thirty minutes of it, plus the interactive waiting for the bus level.

[Jason McCullough]

I disagree Jeff. It isn't a moral issue at all ("Lesbian parents" or even "homosexuality"). I believe morality is a personal thing. The fact is that it's legal for lesbians to have children and there are a lot of gay parents with children. I and millions of others have no moral problem with it. Since it's happening in society, I see nothing wrong with a television program addressing this social reality. Because it's teaching tolerance and it's easily ignored by moral evangelists.

I see lots of things wrong with your other example: A cartoon preaching against homosexuality. (You said you'd be against that - good for you.) But it isn't the same thing at all, because that would be teaching intolerance. The lesbian show is saying: "I'm all right" the cartoon would be saying "You are wrong"

Big difference there. I didn't see this pro-lesbian parent show but I'm GUESSING there was nothing in there that said it was morally wrong to be a straight or Christian parent. Just as I'd have no problem with a Born Again Christian program that simply talked about how great it is to be a BAC. It's when they start saying that NOT being a BAC, or being gay, or being foreign, is some sort of problem, that they start being a big Pain in the Ass.

:D

There wasn't a "christian breeders are losers" message, no. And on the subject or contreversial "moral" issues on childrens shows: would an interracial couple be something that Shouldn't Be Shown?

[Dave Long]

Big difference there. I didn't see this pro-lesbian parent show but I'm GUESSING there was nothing in there that said it was morally wrong to be a straight or Christian parent.

No, but you're missing the point. Jeff's saying that he doesn't mind if people want to act in a certain way, but why do they have to promote that behavior on the show by emphasizing that it exists. They're not writing programs where you say it's ok to be Christian or it's ok to whack off in your own home. So why do we need one that says it's ok to be a lesbian?

Leave the politics out of kids programming. If you want to educate, educate the fundamentals like reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Heaven knows so many kids could use that kind of help and don't need to even think about Lesbian politics at 3 years old.

--Dave

[JeffL]

Andrew, here's the problem as I see it. For many people, perhaps millions, homosexuality is morally wrong. That isn't intolerance, that's a moral belief. There's a guy here in Michigan that is a fundamental Christian, strongly believes that homosexuality is morally wrong, and he runs a free clinic for AIDs patients. He isn't intolerant, he's more giving and loving than I'll ever be and he genuinely feels compassion and love for these folks - but he believes homosexuality is morally wrong. There are others like him. Why do you and I have the right to teach his children that it morally acceptable? Because it is prevalent? Abortion is legal and widespread, but obviously many feel that it is morally wrong - should I applaud a show aimed at 6 year olds that teaches abortion is acceptable?

C'mon - is there really a nationwide need to teach preschoolers about lesbian parents? I know I'm going to come across to those who don't actually know me as incredibly intolerant, backwards, all those nice terms, but I'm trying to take the unpopular side here and get people to at least think beyond the surface, beyond the easy politically correct answers.

[Bub, Andrew]

Andrew, here's the problem as I see it. For many people, perhaps millions, homosexuality is morally wrong. That isn't intolerance, that's a moral belief.

Ugh, are you kidding me? I don't think that exclusionary stance "Gays are wrong" is a moral or even a truly Christian belief Jeff. In fact I think it's an immoral belief. I hold it in the same amount of contempt I would hold someone who held the belief "Mexicans are Bad". Actually no matter how many millions of people espouse it, it's still an intolerant and immoral belief, so far as I'm concerned. It's at least as wrong-headed as the older belief that blacks are subhuman or that Jews have horns and tails. And it most definitely is intolerance.

"Why do you and I have the right to teach his children that it morally acceptable?"

Why do we have the right to teach David Duke's kids that black people are ok? Or that woman are to be respected?



C'mon - is there really a nationwide need to teach preschoolers about lesbian parents? I know I'm going to come across to those who don't actually know me as incredibly intolerant, backwards, all those nice terms, but I'm trying to take the unpopular side here and get people to at least think beyond the surface, beyond the easy politically correct answers.


Why isn't there? What harm does it do? I don't have the numbers, but there's a large number of gay people who clearly want to adopt kids. Gay couples are adopting kids. And some of them are fighting for that right in court.

Also, I'm assuming most of the people who watched that show were, um, lesbian parents and their children? I can't imagine why anti-gay, excuse me, "moral and tolerant" people would even tune in to a show so odious to their moral character. Are they afraid their kids are going to tune in and BOOM all of a sudden get some fancy idears? Go and adopt themselves a few kids and marry someone of the same sex?

[Jason McCullough]

Andrew, here's the problem as I see it. For many people, perhaps millions, homosexuality is morally wrong. That isn't intolerance, that's a moral belief. There's a guy here in Michigan that is a fundamental Christian, strongly believes that homosexuality is morally wrong, and he runs a free clinic for AIDs patients. He isn't intolerant, he's more giving and loving than I'll ever be and he genuinely feels compassion and love for these folks - but he believes homosexuality is morally wrong. There are others like him. Why do you and I have the right to teach his children that it morally acceptable? Because it is prevalent? Abortion is legal and widespread, but obviously many feel that it is morally wrong - should I applaud a show aimed at 6 year olds that teaches abortion is acceptable?

C'mon - is there really a nationwide need to teach preschoolers about lesbian parents? I know I'm going to come across to those who don't actually know me as incredibly intolerant, backwards, all those nice terms, but I'm trying to take the unpopular side here and get people to at least think beyond the surface, beyond the easy politically correct answers.

There isn't a "nationwide need" to teach preschoolers anything but english and math, but that didn't stop anyone before. And what's with this "teaching its morally acceptable" bit? How else are they supposed to show it?

Really, I think interracial parents is the best analogy: the only difference is the number of people offended. Both are situtations preschoolers will encounter that are off the norm.

[Mark Asher]

I don't see the harm in portraying a same sex relationship. Teaching tolerance isn't the same as teaching that it's accepted behavior children should emulate.

Sesame Street is a daily show and it's been on a long time. It's going to touch on a wide range of topics.

[milo]

WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO REVOKE BERT'S CITIZENSHIP

Dude, get with the program. Bert has been off the show for at least a year (some people had a problem with his living arrangement with Ernie).

No, I'm not making this up.

--milo

[JeffL]

Ugh, are you kidding me? I don't think that exclusionary stance "Gays are wrong" is a moral or even a truly Christian belief Jeff. In fact I think it's an immoral belief. I hold it in the same amount of contempt I would hold someone who held the belief "Mexicans are Bad".

I get so weary of this knee-jerk reactionary "I can't tolerate the opinion of these intolerant people" predictible response.

There's a big difference between believing that something is morally wrong and being intolerant. I'm so glad your tolerant heart holds someone like Michael Florence, the guy I was talking about previously who spends his time, his money, his life working with and caring for and loving AIDs victims, almost all of who are homosexual, in contempt. I know it's really tough for people who like to categorize and label everything in nice, tidy, sound-bite forms to understand that people can find something morally wrong and still find it in their heart to love and feel compassion for those people. Since people like to label this as a "Christian" thing because that's a politically correct group to paint with a broad brush and be bigoted against, remember that the basis of true Christianity is that no person is good enough to hold himself as inherently better than someone else.

There are many people who find homosexuality to be morally wrong, but to immediately paint them as "hating" those people or being intolerant of them is just stupidity. Sheesh, even Falwell, on Larry King live, when asked about homosexuality, said he thought it was morally wrong, but no more wrong than sins in his own life.

This will all fall on deaf ears, I suspect, for those who prefer their world much simpler and enjoy calling people names because they disagree with their view. There's a difference between being of a nationality and your sexual practices and what is held as normal and what is held as not accepted. You'd have been castigated as being "intolerant" in 30 AD Greece for saying that you thought men screwing young boys was morally wrong. People can have honest differing views on the moral correctness of sexual practices and not be the caricatures people so want to make them. All those "tolerant" people.

[Anonymous]

"Sheesh, even Falwell, on Larry King live, when asked about homosexuality, said he thought it was morally wrong, but no more wrong than sins in his own life."

Was that before or after he blamed gays for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

[Jason McCullough]

I get so weary of this knee-jerk reactionary "I can't tolerate the opinion of these intolerant people" predictible response.

There's a big difference between believing that something is morally wrong and being intolerant. I'm so glad your tolerant heart holds someone like Michael Florence, the guy I was talking about previously who spends his time, his money, his life working with and caring for and loving AIDs victims, almost all of who are homosexual, in contempt. I know it's really tough for people who like to categorize and label everything in nice, tidy, sound-bite forms to understand that people can find something morally wrong and still find it in their heart to love and feel compassion for those people. Since people like to label this as a "Christian" thing because that's a politically correct group to paint with a broad brush and be bigoted against, remember that the basis of true Christianity is that no person is good enough to hold himself as inherently better than someone else.

There are many people who find homosexuality to be morally wrong, but to immediately paint them as "hating" those people or being intolerant of them is just stupidity. Sheesh, even Falwell, on Larry King live, when asked about homosexuality, said he thought it was morally wrong, but no more wrong than sins in his own life.

This will all fall on deaf ears, I suspect, for those who prefer their world much simpler and enjoy calling people names because they disagree with their view. There's a difference between being of a nationality and your sexual practices and what is held as normal and what is held as not accepted. You'd have been castigated as being "intolerant" in 30 AD Greece for saying that you thought men screwing young boys was morally wrong. People can have honest differing views on the moral correctness of sexual practices and not be the caricatures people so want to make them. All those "tolerant" people.

Boy, is this going to get me in trouble: in 30 AD, screwing young boys wasn't morally wrong. Society didn't see anything wrong with it, the law didn't, the religion of the region at the time didn't, and I doubt anyone involved complained. They had an entirely different view of childhood than we do; some things really are incommensurable with modern society. This is no way changes that today having sex with children is morally and legally wrong, though.

'People can have honest differing views on the moral correctness of sexual practices and not be the caricatures people so want to make them.'

I also think voting Republican is almost always immoral, but I don't complain when they show it on television; it's just a choice people make I disagree with. Same for homosexuality, and homosexual parents.

[Chris Floyd]

I'd just like to add to Jeff's well-reasoned statements that the difference between racial intolerance and sexual orientation "intolerance" is that one is a matter of nature and the other of behavior. Calling a human being immoral because of how they were born is just absurd. Calling a human being immoral because of their actions is at least a viable argument. Of course, this is why some people are desperately trying to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait.

I don't believe that homosexuality is immoral, but it is ignorance to think that those who do believe so have only evil-minded intolerance behind their arguments... or that they can't have respect for a homosexual person despite their moral evaluation of them.

[Bub, Andrew]

"I get so weary of this knee-jerk reactionary "I can't tolerate the opinion of these intolerant people" predictible response."

I'm sorry you find it predictable but there's really nothing knee-jerk about it. I've given it a lot of thought. I've seen a lot of suffering at the hands of well-meaning Christians. I've seen a lot of discrimination.

"There's a big difference between believing that something is morally wrong and being intolerant. I'm so glad your tolerant heart holds someone like Michael Florence, the guy I was talking about previously who spends his time, his money, his life working with and caring for and loving AIDs victims, almost all of who are homosexual, in contempt."

I hold his work in the highest esteem. I hold his opinion of homosexuality in contempt. He doesn't "love" them Jeff. Because he doesn't "accept" them. To not accept them is to be, at best, patronizing. Bully for him for the good works he performs.

Anyway, plenty of racists used to help those poor lowly black people out of good Christian charity. I have an uncle who would help anyone who needed help - he's truly a generous soul. I admire him for that. He tells a story about how a black man's boat got stuck at the dock and he helped him and refused payment. He uses that story to illustrate how he's not a racist. Nice huh? Then he calls black children "Chimps".

"I know it's really tough for people who like to categorize and label everything in nice, tidy, sound-bite forms to understand that people can find something morally wrong and still find it in their heart to love and feel compassion for those people."

I've never said I didn't understand them. I find their moral view of homosexuality as wrong and disgusting as they find homosexuality. I'm intolerant of it and I'm bigoted against it.
Anyway, they can be bigots in silence Jeff, I never said any different...
the problem I have isn't when remain silent.

"This will all fall on deaf ears"

Jesus. Stop making foolish predictions. I've read everything you've written and given it plenty of respect. I just think you're fooling yourself if you think it isn't a form of intolerance and bigotry. I know plenty of religious people. Some clergy and some lay-people. And they don't believe Homosexuality is morally wrong. So stop painting all Christians with your brush.

And I can't believe you referenced Falwell.

You claimed that lesbian parent show offended you? Fine. The 700 Club offends me.

[Anonymous]

"I don't believe that homosexuality is immoral, but it is ignorance to think that those who do believe so have only evil-minded intolerance behind their arguments... or that they can't have respect for a homosexual person despite their moral evaluation of them."


Tolerance and respect are not shown to homosexuals when extremist Christians object to the slightest media acknowledgement that gays can play a positive role to play in our secular culture and secular communities in this secular country.

[Tom Chick]

Good comments, Jeff. Words like 'intolerance', 'hated', and 'condemnation' are all too often used interchangably. Each word has a distinct meaning and blurring them together is one of the first signs that you're about to be kicked with a knee-jerk reaction.


I don't think that exclusionary stance "Gays are wrong" is a moral or even a truly Christian belief Jeff.

Since you've made it clear you regard morality a personal thing, it's no wonder you're wrong about "truly Christian beliefs". There are deep-rooted Christian traditions condemning homosexuality as wrong. Whether you embrace these is one thing, but to deny they exist just shows a lack of understanding for the traditions of Christianity.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

"Since you've made it clear you regard morality a personal thing, it's no wonder you're wrong about 'truly Christian beliefs'. There are deep-rooted Christian traditions condemning homosexuality as wrong. Whether you embrace these is one thing, but to deny they exist just shows a lack of understanding for the traditions of Christianity."


He wasn't denying they exist. There are long-standing traditions among believers in Christ which can be regarded as contradictory to the teachings of Christ, and thus not truly Christian. Did Christ speak out against Gays, or is this view based on Old Testament, pre Christian pronouncements?

[Tom Chick]

Did Christ speak out against Gays, or is this view based on Old Testament, pre Christian pronouncements?

Jesus was a devout Jewish rabbi. He probably did speak out against homosexuality. The belief that homosexuality is wrong was a tenet of the Judaism that preceded him and the church that followed him. The Torah and Paul are pretty clear on the subject.

I have no problem with someone calling himself Christian and not embracing certain Christian traditions. But when Bub applies his own personal morality and decides that it's "immoral" and it's not a "true Christian belief", he's no different from the people who accused Christians of being cannibals because of the Eucharist.

It's easy to let your jerking knee guide your opinion of something you disagree with. The challenge is to understand it and work around it. This applies, btw, to the Christian perspective on homosexuality as well...

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

Did Christ speak out against Gays, or is this view based on Old Testament, pre Christian pronouncements?

Jesus was a devout Jewish rabbi. He probably did speak out against homosexuality. The belief that homosexuality is wrong was a tenet of the Judaism that preceded him and the church that followed him. The Torah and Paul are pretty clear on the subject.

I have no problem with someone calling himself Christian and not embracing certain Christian traditions. But when Bub applies his own personal morality and decides that it's "immoral" and it's not a "true Christian belief", he's no different from the people who accused Christians of being cannibals because of the Eucharist.

It's easy to let your jerking knee guide your opinion of something you disagree with. The challenge is to understand it and work around it. This applies, btw, to the Christian perspective on homosexuality as well...

-Tom

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/homosexual.html

There's no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the Bible at all. Judaism may have some injunctions for all I know, but Judaism isn't Christianity.

[JeffL]

I hold his work in the highest esteem. I hold his opinion of homosexuality in contempt. He doesn't "love" them Jeff. Because he doesn't "accept" them. To not accept them is to be, at best, patronizing. Bully for him for the good works he performs.
I've never said I didn't understand them. I find their moral view of homosexuality as wrong and disgusting as they find homosexuality. I'm intolerant of it and I'm bigoted against it.

Anyway, they can be bigots in silence Jeff, I never said any different...
the problem I have isn't when remain silent.

You just don't get it. Maybe you're incapable of getting it.

Florence loves these guys. He doesn't approve of their homosexuality, but he loves them. Many die in his arms. He's not patronizing, he's not a bigot. He thinks their homosexual acts are wrong, but he doesn't therefore label them as a lower life form or even a "worse" person than himself. He's sacrificed his daily life for these men. It's appalling that you can so easily label someone you don't know in the least. I find you far more of a bigot for throwing someone like him in your ignorant heap of people who are less "good" than you. He thinks these people have one piece of their life that is in a place that he morally disagrees with, but he sees that as only one aspect of them, loves them and helps them and would never dream of considering them "less" than himself.

I have a very good buddy that I've known for years, and I love him like a brother. He is unfaithful to his wife. I think that is morally wrong. We've talked about it, he tells me he just can't help it, etc. I don't love him any less and I don't think I'm a "better" person than he is - I've got plenty of space between me and perfection. Just because I think he does something that I find morally wrong doesn't mean that I look down on him or am incapable of having a close relationship with him.

This may be a very strange concept to you, but you can morally disagree with an activity that someone engages in and not hate them or consider them lesser people.

[JeffL]

He wasn't denying they exist. There are long-standing traditions among believers in Christ which can be regarded as contradictory to the teachings of Christ, and thus not truly Christian. Did Christ speak out against Gays, or is this view based on Old Testament, pre Christian pronouncements?

Jesus taught that all men are sinners, "no man is righteous, not one." He spoke against all manner of sin, including adultry, and never spoke against the Jewish law (which is specific in its teaching regarding honosexuality), only that no man was capable of truly keeping all of it and that the pharisees were hippocrites due to their focus on the legalities and loss of the spirit of the law. His teaching has been summarized as "hate the sin, love the sinner."

[Jason McCullough]

He wasn't denying they exist. There are long-standing traditions among believers in Christ which can be regarded as contradictory to the teachings of Christ, and thus not truly Christian. Did Christ speak out against Gays, or is this view based on Old Testament, pre Christian pronouncements?

Jesus taught that all men are sinners, "no man is righteous, not one." He spoke against all manner of sin, including adultry, and never spoke against the Jewish law (which is specific in its teaching regarding honosexuality), only that no man was capable of truly keeping all of it and that the pharisees were hippocrites due to their focus on the legalities and loss of the spirit of the law. His teaching has been summarized as "hate the sin, love the sinner."

So, Christians should also keep all the injunctions of the Torah? If Jesus didn't speak against the Jewish law, and it logically follows that the Jewish law is part of Christianity, then there is an absolute ton of stuff modern Christians are disobeying god on (nutrition, clothing, menstruation practices).

He didn't specifically speak against the food restrictions, did he?

[Bub, Andrew]

I have a very good buddy that I've known for years, and I love him like a brother. He is unfaithful to his wife. I think that is morally wrong.

Me too. Jeez does his wife know?
You've brought up several wild examples btw. I've ignored them thus far... but with this last one I have to ask: Do you really equate Homosexuality with infidelity? With abortion? With having sex with children in 30 BC? If you equate it with all those reprehensible acts, well, we really have no common ground here.

For the sake of clarity:
I do equate "feeling homosexuality is immoral and a sin" with "feeling blacks are inferior" on the old INTOLERANCE meter.



This may be a very strange concept to you, but you can morally disagree with an activity that someone engages in and not hate them or consider them lesser people.

It's not strange at all, except that you've added it to the argument wholesale. I haven't said I hate "Christians who hate Homosexuals" Jeff. I've only said I think they are bigots and intolerant. I think being anti-gay is morally wrong.

You might say I hate that sin, but the leap that I also hate the sinner is wrong and something you are fabricating. Do Christians have a monopoly on moral outrage? FWIW I have several Born Again Christians in my family, as well as a few Pentacosts and about 15 Catholics. I respect them all, even if some of their beliefs are, in my opinion, intolerant.

EDIT: for a bit of rewording.

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to feel really bad about my hot-tub mistake, but at least it's not as bad as fagging it up.

Gays are tainted at birth, like original sin, holmes. Even if they're really bad at socializing and die virgins. It's the thought that counts.

They can act as nice as they want, but they're all goin' to hell. Don't let your kids around 'em, unless you want 'em "left behind" when the Rapture comes down and kicks ass on unbelievers.

Meanwhile, I can bang chicks in my parents hot tub, rob banks, and do whatever the hell else I want, and I'll be forgiven in the end. I'm gold, holmes. Ha! Life is good for us non-gays!

Christ rocks.

[DennyA]

Well, as an about-to-be-parent, I'll admit that I'm planning on being a TV Nazi with my kids and screening what they watch. I think that up to a certain age, kids should be allowed to be fun-loving innocents and NOT have to worry about the problems of the world. There's plenty of time later for sex, drugs, violence, inspipid boy bands, and Britney.

But I wouldn't have a problem with a show because it had a pair of moms. I'm more concerned that Spongebob Squarepants will make LSD seem appealing from a nostalgia standpoint later in life. :-)

That said, having lived in the south most of my younger life, and gone to the same college as Jeff and seen the prevalent closed-minded ignorance among a notable proportion of the populace in that town (which had more churches per-capita than any other U.S. city at the time), I'm all for a sneaking tolerance messages into kids' programs.

Because your average fundy churchgoer in Oxford, Missippi (which is far worse than Hattiesburg, where we went to school) probably IS going to teach the kids intolerance towards gays and a number of other social/racial groups. So good for Nick, sneaking in the counterpoint.

(Mind you, I'm not pegging the south specifically here, but more the fundy redneck mentality... That's just where I saw it. Over and over. You'll find that prevalent in much of the midwest, and even in farm towns in Northern California. And in small-town Vermont, where the bubbas nail "Take Vermont Back" signs the sides of their barns.)

[DennyA]

Should we take up a collection to send "Dennis Wright" to troll school? The poor boy's making a bad showing, and really needs help. No believability, lack of style, and general poor form.

Even the French judge gives him a 1.6...

[Bub, Andrew]

Wow Denny!
I'm really impressed that through this morass you actually remember what sparked it!

(FWIW I consider Jeff Lackey a friend. On this topic I suspect we are like Mark's earlier Frank Gorshin Star Trek reference (was that this thread?) constantly at each other's throats stuck on a ruined and dead planet. Until the end of time... with Shatner above us clucking his tongue. See Jeff? I have a head start on the single malt!)

[Anonymous]

I don't understand, are you displeased because you think I am a troll, or just because you think I'm not "good" at it?

Getcher story straight, gashuffer!

[Desslock]

>You've brought up several wild examples btw. I've ignored them thus far... but with this last one I have to ask: Do you really equate Homosexuality with [snip]...abortion? If you equate it with all those reprehensible acts,

Did you really intend to state that abortion is a reprehensible act?

[Bub, Andrew]

I'm sorry, the answer is no. My views on abortion aren't so simple as "reprehensible" or even "acceptable". I misspoke (miswrote) there. It's far too complicated an issue for a term like "reprehensible" and I honestly regret tossing it in there so casually.

[Tom Chick]

I do equate "feeling homosexuality is immoral and a sin" with "feeling blacks are inferior" on the old INTOLERANCE meter.


Ah, the irony. So part of your "personal morality" is equating a traditional religious perspective with racism?

What a simplistic reductio ad absurdum. There are plenty of Christians who feel homosexuality is a sin who are neither intolerant, immoral, or hateful. You might want to notch down the sensitivity setting on your "old INTOLERANCE meter".


There's no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the Bible at all.

If you're trying to argue that homosexuality as immoral is not a sound Biblical principle, you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't personally approve of it, but it's firmly rooted in the tradition behind, concurrent with, and following the Bible, including the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Apocrypha.

If you're rooting for some historical evidence that Jesus approved of homosexuality, you won't find any. Instead, it's a safe and historically sound assumption that Jesus shared the perspective of his fellow rabbis on that topic. There is plenty of record on where he differed and if he had been running around preaching that same sex relationships were okay, you can bet we would have heard about it.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether I personally approve. I'm just reporting the facts.

-Tom

[Desslock]

>Again, this has nothing to do with whether I personally approve. I'm just reporting the facts

What's the Easter Bunny's view on homosexuality, again? I couldn't find that in any old text I had kicking around.

[Jason McCullough]

I do equate "feeling homosexuality is immoral and a sin" with "feeling blacks are inferior" on the old INTOLERANCE meter.


Ah, the irony. So part of your "personal morality" is equating a traditional religious perspective with racism?

What a simplistic reductio ad absurdum. There are plenty of Christians who feel homosexuality is a sin who are neither intolerant, immoral, or hateful. You might want to notch down the sensitivity setting on your "old INTOLERANCE meter".


There's no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the Bible at all.

If you're trying to argue that homosexuality as immoral is not a sound Biblical principle, you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't personally approve of it, but it's firmly rooted in the tradition behind, concurrent with, and following the Bible, including the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Apocrypha.

If you're rooting for some historical evidence that Jesus approved of homosexuality, you won't find any. Instead, it's a safe and historically sound assumption that Jesus shared the perspective of his fellow rabbis on that topic. There is plenty of record on where he differed and if he had been running around preaching that same sex relationships were okay, you can bet we would have heard about it.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether I personally approve. I'm just reporting the facts.

-Tom

If you want to cite "Paul and history," sure, homosexuality is real real bad. However, Jesus didn't mention it, and near as I can tell the Torah isn't binding on Christians. Color me unconvinced.

' Instead, it's a safe and historically sound assumption that Jesus shared the perspective of his fellow rabbis on that topic.'

He must have agreed with them a whole lot if he both began a new set of religions and got himself crucified.

I agree with Desslock, really, but if you're going to use the son of god as a justification for your ethics, you should at least get what he said correct. If it's so damn bad, how'd he miss talking about it? Jesus seemed to have plenty of time to talk about murder and theft.

[Tom Chick]

He must have agreed with them a whole lot if he both began a new set of religions and got himself crucified.

I agree with Desslock, really, but if you're going to use the son of god as a justification for your ethics, you should at least get what he said correct. If it's so damn bad, how'd he miss talking about it? Jesus seemed to have plenty of time to talk about murder and theft.

There are two separate things going on here, David. 1) Christian theology as it evolved after Christ's followers split from Judasim, and 2) the historical person of Jesus, a devout Jewish rabbi.

There is clear and ample evidence that #1 condemns the practice of homosexuality as sinful.

As for #2, there is zero evidence that he condoned the practice of homosexuality. The burden of proof is on the positive. If you want to figure that Jesus broke with the ranks of his contemporaries and accepted homosexuality, then you may as well also assume he ate Dove bars for breakfast, drove a Ford Pinto, and listened to Slim Whitman albums before going to bed every night. Because he didn't talk about those things either.

The fact of the matter is theology is the art of evolving belief systems. I don't deny that there are plenty of contemporary Christian worldviews that accept homosexuality to varying degrees (many based on extrapolations of things Jesus said, BTW). But they've all been recently developed and many Christians haven't adopted them. But it doesn't necessarily follow that those Christians are immoral or intolerant, as Bub would have you believe.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

He must have agreed with them a whole lot if he both began a new set of religions and got himself crucified.

I agree with Desslock, really, but if you're going to use the son of god as a justification for your ethics, you should at least get what he said correct. If it's so damn bad, how'd he miss talking about it? Jesus seemed to have plenty of time to talk about murder and theft.

There are two separate things going on here, David. 1) Christian theology as it evolved after Christ's followers split from Judasim, and 2) the historical person of Jesus, a devout Jewish rabbi.

There is clear and ample evidence that #1 condemns the practice of homosexuality as sinful.

As for #2, there is zero evidence that he condoned the practice of homosexuality. The burden of proof is on the positive. If you want to figure that Jesus broke with the ranks of his contemporaries and accepted homosexuality, then you may as well also assume he ate Dove bars for breakfast, drove a Ford Pinto, and listened to Slim Whitman albums before going to bed every night. Because he didn't talk about those things either.

The fact of the matter is theology is the art of evolving belief systems. I don't deny that there are plenty of contemporary Christian worldviews that accept homosexuality to varying degrees (many based on extrapolations of things Jesus said, BTW). But they've all been recently developed and many Christians haven't adopted them. But it doesn't necessarily follow that those Christians are immoral or intolerant, as Bub would have you believe.

-Tom

Correct, in this case I have the burden of proof on pointing out Jesus said homosexuality was ok. The evidence: he didn't mention it once, to judge by the written record. Possible explanations for Jesus not mentioning it:

1) It wasn't that big of a deal either way, being either a mild sin or a mild good. This seems unlikely, considering how Paul would later be obsessed with it.

2) It never came up in a quoteworthy form, or never made its way into print. This seems really rather unlikely, even if you don't subscribe to Biblical inerrancy.

3) It was a settled thing that everyone agreed was a really big sin, so it "didn't need to be said." This doesn't make sense, as lots of obvious things like murder, betrayal, lieing, hypocrisy, and pickpocketing, all of varying levels in sin, which everyone knew were bad, merited their own bits.

4) He didn't think it was wrong, yet didn't talk about how it was ok. Doesn't make sense either.

Ok, I can't prove he thought it was ok, so the default assumption is statis: he thought it was wrong, same as in the old law. However, in my judgement, 3) means this is a pretty damn tenous thing to base today's loathing of homosexuality in the church.

However, if you assume homosexuality is wrong, and the only justification for this is the old law, then anything Jesus didn't state as a difference between the new law and old law still applies, and christians are violating god's will by not adhering to the lifestyle of orthodox jews.

http://www.glccftl.org/library/religion/bible.html

In my opinion, the enormous gap between the levels of attention the (apparently) binding old laws get indicates how the entire thing's a scheme to satisfy pre-existing prejudices. Throw in the eliminationist (Ralph Reed calling for the execution of homosexuals), paranoid-style approach (they're going to take our children) christians take to the subject, and I'm pretty sure it's not based in religion at all.

[Murph]

While it has not been recorded Biblically where Jesus ever spoke against homosexuality, it's totally reasonable to assume that he disagreed with the practice. When "common religious views" of the time were wrong in Jesus' eyes, he was quick to point them out. Had he disagreed with the concept of homosexuality being wrong, he probably would have spoken out. Also, the fact that Paul, who was a student of Jesus', not of the church, spoke against homosexuality seems to indicate that Jesus felt the same way. There's no reason to assume otherwise.


I do equate "feeling homosexuality is immoral and a sin" with "feeling blacks are inferior" on the old INTOLERANCE meter.

That's just mind-boggling. Lackey's example of his friend who is unfaithful to his wife is such a good one to illustrate how someone can disapprove of an action, but not think less of a person because of that action.

My wife has made mistakes and has habits that I don't necessarily approve of, that I would consider wrong, but that doesn't make me love her less. Heck, I've made my own mistakes, and have my own habits, that I know are wrong. Do I judge myself so harshly?

I work with several people who are gay. One of them is a good friend of mine. The fact that I think homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that I judge him differently than anyone else.

I'm certainly guilty of a lot of sins, myself. I haven't been to church in awhile, I certainly make a lot of bad decisions on a daily basis, and God doesn't have near the priority in my life that I know that He should. I've often been guilty of gluttony, and am probably more materialistic than I should be. I don't always honor my mother like I should, and I think my father is a pretty worthless human being, some days. These are all sins in my own life; who am I to judge someone for being gay? That doesn't mean that I think it's okay to be gay, anymore than I think it's okay for me to do any of the above. But it also doesn't make me intolerant of someone who is gay. Not at all.

Disapproving of someone's actions is not the same as being intolerant of the person, and certainly is very, very different than treating them as inferior due to the color of their skin.

[Anonymous]

"While it has not been recorded Biblically where Jesus ever spoke against homosexuality, it's totally reasonable to assume that he disagreed with the practice."

He'd probably get pissed off if he saw anyone spending money on video cards and playing computer games when there are homeless children on the street, too. Why not go all the way?

[Murph]

I agree. Read the rest of my post. Particularly, this:
"I'm certainly guilty of a lot of sins, myself. I haven't been to church in awhile, I certainly make a lot of bad decisions on a daily basis, and God doesn't have near the priority in my life that I know that He should. I've often been guilty of gluttony, and am probably more materialistic than I should be. I don't always honor my mother like I should, and I think my father is a pretty worthless human being, some days. These are all sins in my own life; who am I to judge someone for being gay? That doesn't mean that I think it's okay to be gay, anymore than I think it's okay for me to do any of the above. But it also doesn't make me intolerant of someone who is gay. Not at all."

[Anonymous]

My recurrent sin is forgetting to read the rest of posts before I reply.

[Tom Chick]

I have the burden of proof on pointing out Jesus said homosexuality was ok. The evidence: he didn't mention it once, to judge by the written record.

By this rationale, Jesus approved of abortion, cloning, ethnic cleansing, masturbation, drunkeness, speeding, and mail fraud. Nice try, Jason.

It's worth noting again, and you can see this in Murph's post, that believing homosexuality to be a sin doesn't mean you have to ascribe to intolerance, hatred, and all the other things that Bub invokes when his "old INTOLERANCE meter" starts clanging.


I'm pretty sure it's not based in religion at all.

In a way, I agree. The condemnation of homosexuality transcends religion. It has, historically, been an element of the ethical code of all civilizations and has thus been present in religions. Even in the notable exception, Ancient Greece, it was more a matter of misogyny than tolerance: the idea was that the perfection of the male form was wasted on women. Goofy Greeks. They'd flip if they knew we were going to let women vote.

-Tom

[Anonymous]

"It has, historically, been an element of the ethical code of all civilizations"

Uh, I'm sure you checked out the history of 'all civilizations' before posting, right, Mr. History of the Universe?

[Tom Chick]

I'm eagerly awaiting Canabis Pete's List of Civilizations That Have Condoned Homosexuality.

<tapping fingers...>

Hey, when does this turn into an argument of whether there are gay animals?

-Tom

[Anonymous]

You were the one who chose to use an absolutist term. Methinks its up to you to prove this claim.

Me? I'll be smokin' a doobie.

[Desslock]

>Hey, when does this turn into an argument of whether there are gay animals?

I told you to leave my Easter Bunny out of this.

[Jason McCullough]

I have the burden of proof on pointing out Jesus said homosexuality was ok. The evidence: he didn't mention it once, to judge by the written record.

By this rationale, Jesus approved of abortion, cloning, ethnic cleansing, masturbation, drunkeness, speeding, and mail fraud. Nice try, Jason.


Mail fraud, speeding, and cloning hadn't been invented yet; ethnic cleansing goes under murder, and he mentioned drunkenness.

Amusingly, my argument (if Jesus didn't say it, then continuation of the sinful state of the act can only be supported by declaration of the old law still being in effect) applies in exactly the same way to masturbation, abortion, and homosexuality, so it stands. Why do christians eat pork? Why do they charge usurious interest rates? Why do they not treat women as unclean during their menstrual period? They're old law, yet they somehow don't apply anymore, and Jesus never mentioned 'em.



It's worth noting again, and you can see this in Murph's post, that believing homosexuality to be a sin doesn't mean you have to ascribe to intolerance, hatred, and all the other things that Bub invokes when his "old INTOLERANCE meter" starts clanging.


I think the whole tolerance/intolerance thing has acquired a connation similar to compassion, I think, and is a way to shift the debate onto the christian's turf. There's lots of sneering, and head-shaking, but you try not to be too mean to them. It's a foul approach to relationships.




I'm pretty sure it's not based in religion at all.

In a way, I agree. The condemnation of homosexuality transcends religion. It has, historically, been an element of the ethical code of all civilizations and has thus been present in religions. Even in the notable exception, Ancient Greece, it was more a matter of misogyny than tolerance: the idea was that the perfection of the male form was wasted on women. Goofy Greeks. They'd flip if they knew we were going to let women vote.

-Tom

New Guinea tribes didn't care about it; neither did a wide variety of Polynesian ones (Thailand, etc). It's not even remotely a constant.
http://icarus.ubetc.buffalo.edu/users/apy106/cultures/sambia.html

Ignoring the horrible formatting on the below page, it does reference a useful study, which I can't find the text of online:

http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/facts.html


In 1974, a major survey by Weinberg and Williams of 76 cultures found that almost two-thirds accept some form of homosexuality.

Among many North American Indian tribes gay people are regarded as special individuals; gay men of the Crow Indians were believed to have mystical powers and were often chosen as shamans and healers; women of the Sioux and Shoshone could be warriors and marry other women. Other tribes that accept gay people are the Navajo, Yokut, Ogala, Fox, Sack and Zuni.

In Africa, peoples among whom homosexuality is accepted include the Nandi and Meru of Kenya; the Dinka and Nuer of Sudan; the Konso and Amhara of Ethiopia; the Ottoro of Nubia; the Fanti of Ghana; the Kwayama and Ovimbundu of Angola; the Thonga of Zimbabwe; the Tanala and Bara of Madagascar; the Wolof of Senegal; the Lango, Iteso, Gisu, and Sebei of Uganda and the Zulu of South Africa.

It is accepted as normal among Aborigine peoples all over Australia, particularly the Arunta, Chingalee and Tiwi. It is included in social traditions of many Polynesian peoples, such as the Ai’i, Baruya, Bugali, Gebusi, Iatmul, Jacaq, Kaluli, Keraki, Kiwai, Kuks, Onabasulu, Onge, Sambia, Tchetchai and Tolai.

In the 50s and 60s the anthropologist Tobias Schneebaum studied the Amakaeri people of the Peruvian Amazonian rainforest, among whom homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality only occurred for the purposes of reproduction. This is also the case in some Polynesian tribes such as the Marind and the Kiman.

[Anonymous]

"I'm eagerly awaiting Canabis Pete's List of Civilizations That Have Condoned Homosexuality.

<tapping fingers...>"

Enjoy, Smug Boy!

Thanks for the research, Jason! I suppose Tom's next arguments will be that these aren't "real" civilizations because they didn't build megacities and colonize/rape/murder other civilizations for profit like the noble White Man.

[Sparky]

Hey, when does this turn into an argument of whether there are gay animals?

Hey, you said "gay animals"...

http://www.phobe.com/effstarwars2.gif

[Murph]

No, you're wrong. They're not real civilizations because they've never had computer games made after them.

[Anonymous]

I just want to say that in order to work my frustrations off from this argumentative thread, I just downloaded my first gay porn.

Thanks, guys...

[Murph]

Can't blame us for that. Sicko. (And Bub called me intolerant! Feh!)

[Tom Chick]

Turn Jason loose on Google and he's an anthropologist. Aside from isolated instances that I'd just as soon not argue the significance of (no, I don't consider tribes on New Guinea 'civilizations'), how about I emend my comment as follows:

"Historically, homosexuality has not been an acceptable part of larger civilizations."

Why is that such a controversial point? Who would argue against that? Are you surprised that Chrisitanity doesn't embrace homosexuality? I'm not. It's taboo in most culture, religious or otherwise (exempting musical theatre).

It's very simple: if you're going to argue that Chrisitanity condones homosexuality, you're going to have to do some revisionism. Have at it. God knows, I saw plenty of this in divinity school. You know what I got for my Masters of Theology? A few years of sitting in classrooms listening to people revise religious traditions (mainly Chrisitianity) to support all manner of causes: feminism, environmentalism, paganism, gay rights, socialism, ecumenical movements, and nearly anything else that would give a Southern Baptist nightmares.

Some of these efforts were admirable (liberation theology in Latin America), but most of them did violence to their traditions. They were clumsily shoehorned in because of someone's a priori beliefs. I'm not a religious man, but I have enormous respect for people who are, and those people have to deal with their traditions without simply ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.

It's really easy to just make up your own traditions, like Jason's assumption that homosexuality is A-okay with Jesus. It's even easier to sit on the sidelines like Bub and say Christianity is immoral because it doesn't approve of gays.

But what I admire, and where I see the power and beauty of religion, is when someone like Murph has to struggle with what his religion tells him about someone he cares about who happens to be gay. That takes conviction and faith and there are no easy answers. The rest of you guys (myself and most the other people at divinity school included) are just a bunch of loud mouths in the peanut gallery.

-Tom

[mtkafka]

"You know what I got for my Masters of Theology?"

You have a masters in Theology? Wow. Did not know you were a Master Theological guy! :lol:

BTW, I have gay friends and I'm Catholic... supposedly. Actually most of the Catholics I know are pretty liberal actually when it comes to gays... though most of em dont agree with abortion.. yeehaw another topic for the flames!

etc

[Matthew Gallant]

If gay people are an accepted part of civilization, then what are their attack/defense/movement ratings? How many shields do they cost to produce?

Aha!

[Anonymous]

"'Historically, homosexuality has not been an acceptable part of larger civilizations.'

Why is that such a controversial point?"


That isn't. What you said before was. Before you were saying that all people hate gays. Your current statement acknowldeges the fact that the western cultures that happened to dominate economic resources historically are intolerant of gays. (You, of course, excluded Greece as a meaningless anomaly in your original statement because it wasn't convenient to your argument that ALL cultures hate gays.) The fact that there are dozens of cultures that accept gays, or even regard homosexuality as the norm, needs to be acknowledged, as that is reality. Universal intolorance is not reality, it's an illusion, an assumption that the way things are is the way they had to be. If New Guinea had taken over the world, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thank you for your support.

[Mark Asher]

"It's very simple: if you're going to argue that Chrisitanity condones homosexuality, you're going to have to do some revisionism. Have at it. God knows, I saw plenty of this in divinity school. You know what I got for my Masters of Theology? A few years of sitting in classrooms listening to people revise religious traditions (mainly Chrisitianity) to support all manner of causes: feminism, environmentalism, paganism, gay rights, socialism, ecumenical movements, and nearly anything else that would give a Southern Baptist nightmares."

You sound like the Antonin Scalia of Divinity School. Why are different intrepretations out of place? The Bible itself revises its teachings and contradicts itself. Christianity today is different from 500 years ago, and so on. Is there a single correct intrepretation of the Bible? Maybe there are intrepretations of passages in the Bible that are now relevant for our time that are just as valid as different intrepretations were for past times? Perhaps as we change, it's God's intent that we see his message to us in new ways.

[Erik]

Why are different intrepretations out of place? The Bible itself revises its teachings and contradicts itself. Christianity today is different from 500 years ago, and so on. Is there a single correct intrepretation of the Bible? Maybe there are intrepretations of passages in the Bible that are now relevant for our time that are just as valid as different intrepretations were for past times? Perhaps as we change, it's God's intent that we see his message to us in new ways.

As Tom alluded to, your interpretation of the bible is great and all within the confines of your own personal theology. However, Christianity is not a democracy, so, as a practicing Christian, you need to either accept the guidelines of your Church or renounce your faith and start a new breakaway sect with your own crazy rules. For better or worse, very few serious religions have "Hey whatever, man." as an integral part of their doctrine.

[Matthew Gallant]

Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Would you want a homosexual confronting you and telling you that heterosexuality is immoral, that "That's just my personal view, no offense intended"? How about spreading that message around to everyone? I would say that you don't.

Therefore, Jesus demands silent acceptance of homosexuality. Q.E.D.


It's somewhat of an empty statement to say that you personally find something immoral when that something will never have any effect on you. I came to this realization when I carefully re-examined my stance on the morality of remoras licking sharks.

[Anonymous]

Shark-licker-lover!

[Mark Asher]

Why are different intrepretations out of place? The Bible itself revises its teachings and contradicts itself. Christianity today is different from 500 years ago, and so on. Is there a single correct intrepretation of the Bible? Maybe there are intrepretations of passages in the Bible that are now relevant for our time that are just as valid as different intrepretations were for past times? Perhaps as we change, it's God's intent that we see his message to us in new ways.

As Tom alluded to, your interpretation of the bible is great and all within the confines of your own personal theology. However, Christianity is not a democracy, so, as a practicing Christian, you need to either accept the guidelines of your Church or renounce your faith and start a new breakaway sect with your own crazy rules. For better or worse, very few serious religions have "Hey whatever, man." as an integral part of their doctrine.

Ok, so there are established Christian churches that accept homosexuality and don't consider it a sin. Looks like case closed to me, although I thought Tom was arguing from a broad viewpoint. I didn't realize he was defending one sect's tenets.

[Doug Erickson]

I don't hate Christians; I just hate their religion, traditions, and values.

See how that works?

[Jason McCullough]

Turn Jason loose on Google and he's an anthropologist. Aside from isolated instances that I'd just as soon not argue the significance of (no, I don't consider tribes on New Guinea 'civilizations'), how about I emend my comment as follows:

"Historically, homosexuality has not been an acceptable part of larger civilizations."

Why is that such a controversial point? Who would argue against that? Are you surprised that Chrisitanity doesn't embrace homosexuality? I'm not. It's taboo in most culture, religious or otherwise (exempting musical theatre).

It's very simple: if you're going to argue that Chrisitanity condones homosexuality, you're going to have to do some revisionism. Have at it. God knows, I saw plenty of this in divinity school. You know what I got for my Masters of Theology? A few years of sitting in classrooms listening to people revise religious traditions (mainly Chrisitianity) to support all manner of causes: feminism, environmentalism, paganism, gay rights, socialism, ecumenical movements, and nearly anything else that would give a Southern Baptist nightmares.

Some of these efforts were admirable (liberation theology in Latin America), but most of them did violence to their traditions. They were clumsily shoehorned in because of someone's a priori beliefs. I'm not a religious man, but I have enormous respect for people who are, and those people have to deal with their traditions without simply ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.

It's really easy to just make up your own traditions, like Jason's assumption that homosexuality is A-okay with Jesus. It's even easier to sit on the sidelines like Bub and say Christianity is immoral because it doesn't approve of gays.

But what I admire, and where I see the power and beauty of religion, is when someone like Murph has to struggle with what his religion tells him about someone he cares about who happens to be gay. That takes conviction and faith and there are no easy answers. The rest of you guys (myself and most the other people at divinity school included) are just a bunch of loud mouths in the peanut gallery.

-Tom

I'm not arguing Christianity condones homosexuality; I'm arguing it either has nothing to say about it, or it condemns it but conveniently forgets to also abide by the other strictures of the old law, based on Jesus's changes.

"Historically, homosexuality has not been an acceptable part of larger civilizations."

'Why is that such a controversial point? Who would argue against that?'

Because it's wrong? Go ask an anthropologist if you don't believe me.

[Murph]

Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Would you want a homosexual confronting you and telling you that heterosexuality is immoral, that "That's just my personal view, no offense intended"? How about spreading that message around to everyone? I would say that you don't.

Therefore, Jesus demands silent acceptance of homosexuality

Not really. As Christians, we are to act as Jesus would have acted. He never "silently accepted" sin as being okay. Ever. He would treat everyone he met with love and acceptance, and you won't find a more "tolerant" person that has ever walked the earth. But he never excused sin. He always took care of their needs first, healing the sick and feeding the hungry, and then said "Now, go, and sin no more." When the adultress was brought before him, he didn't condemn her, but neither did he allow her actions to continue.

[Tom Chick]

I'm not arguing Christianity condones homosexuality; I'm arguing it either has nothing to say about it, or it condemns it but conveniently forgets to also abide by the other strictures of the old law, based on Jesus's changes.

In that case, you're clearly wrong. Christianity has plenty to say about homosexuality without resorting to Jewish law. Read the writings of Paul (that's all that stuff that comes after the Gospel according to John). There's pretty vivid stuff in there. Even after that, you've got a few thousand more years of condemning homosexuality.

As for Jewish law, do you need me to explain how Christian's can eat pork because Jesus fulfilled and therefore superseded much of the law? That's basic Christianity 101.


Looks like case closed to me, although I thought Tom was arguing from a broad viewpoint.

Tom was taking issue with Bub equating the Chrisitan perspective on homosexuality with racism. Bub, of course, turned tail and ran at this point. Since then, I guess I've been dancing with Jason and his mad G00gle skillz about whether or not Jesus gave the big thumbs up for same sex relationships.

But this really is the sort of stuff that should be discussed over a beer...

-Tom

[Bub, Andrew]

Tom was taking issue with Bub equating the Chrisitan perspective on homosexuality with racism. Bub, of course, turned tail and ran at this point.

Nope. I'm still here.
The fact is that I never claimed to be arguing from a theological viewpoint, or that my view was anything but personal opinion, so you really haven't said anything yet to make me change my mind. The traditional Christian viewpoint is also sexist and for centuries condoned slavery and anti-semitism too. (I'd equate those things with racism as well.)

Sure, Christianity has taken long strides in recent years (decades, centuries) and hopefully, one day, it will wake up on the homosexuality issue too.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not arguing Christianity condones homosexuality; I'm arguing it either has nothing to say about it, or it condemns it but conveniently forgets to also abide by the other strictures of the old law, based on Jesus's changes.

In that case, you're clearly wrong. Christianity has plenty to say about homosexuality without resorting to Jewish law. Read the writings of Paul (that's all that stuff that comes after the Gospel according to John). There's pretty vivid stuff in there. Even after that, you've got a few thousand more years of condemning homosexuality.

As for Jewish law, do you need me to explain how Christian's can eat pork because Jesus fulfilled and therefore superseded much of the law? That's basic Christianity 101.


Looks like case closed to me, although I thought Tom was arguing from a broad viewpoint.

Tom was taking issue with Bub equating the Chrisitan perspective on homosexuality with racism. Bub, of course, turned tail and ran at this point. Since then, I guess I've been dancing with Jason and his mad G00gle skillz about whether or not Jesus gave the big thumbs up for same sex relationships.

But this really is the sort of stuff that should be discussed over a beer...

-Tom

Paul wasn't the self-proclaimed son of god, Tom.

'As for Jewish law, do you need me to explain how Christian's can eat pork because Jesus fulfilled and therefore superseded much of the law? That's basic Christianity 101.'

Yes, please do: why is the old law against homosexuality still in force, while lots of other old laws were thrown out? No fair citing Paul's after-death justifications for this; I want to see a Jesus-based explanation. He was the impetus for the whole thing.

[Doug Erickson]

Saul/Paul was the purported vehicle for the revelations of an ascended Christ - convenient, but if you're a strict Christian, you won't disagree with them. Personally, I find the epistles of Paul to be completely repugnant in their judgmental tone (and quite unlike most accounts of Christ), but there's no denying their appeal to a certain flavor of Christian, or their extreme relevance to modern Christian morality. 2 Corinthians is a great place to start.

[Tom Chick]

I want to see a Jesus-based explanation. He was the impetus for the whole thing.

Ah, I see your problem. You think Christianity should take everything from the teachings of Jesus. This ain't a little book of homespun aphorisms. It's a religion.

You're missing the central fact of Chrisitianity: it wouldn't exist without the resurrection of Christ and the evangelism that followed (as led by Paul). You're stuck thinking Christianity is just the comments of this swell guy making speeches on the shores of Galilee. That's like assuming Judaism is just the Ten Commandments. Sorry, Jason, it's not that simple.

Here's another hint for you: the teachings of Jesus don't exist anymore except as they've been filtered through years of tradition, canonization, and factional infighting (which is why the Dead Sea Scrolls were such an amazing find; they predated a lot of what was handed down to us).

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

I know Paul's considered a prime source, but I'm curious if it's possible to argue the point without referring to him. If not, well, then the only christian justification for anti-homosexuality is Paul, right? I certainly haven't heard that argument made by a christian.

More on that "was the old law was superseded or not?" bit, from an obviously partisan source (Rabbis, in this case):

http://www.yashanet.com/library/under1.htm

[Tom Chick]

Personally, I find the epistles of Paul to be completely repugnant in their judgmental tone

For the record, I agree. The literary quality of the Bible takes a serious nosedive after the gospels. :)

-Tom

[Doug Erickson]

Gotta agree with Tom, here, Jason - Paul was more of the impetus for modern Christianity than Jesus was, which is probably why it's so damn irritating.

[Jason McCullough]

I want to see a Jesus-based explanation. He was the impetus for the whole thing.

Ah, I see your problem. You think Christianity should take everything from the teachings of Jesus. This ain't a little book of homespun aphorisms. It's a religion.

You're missing the central fact of Chrisitianity: it wouldn't exist without the resurrection of Christ and the evangelism that followed (as led by Paul). You're stuck thinking Christianity is just the comments of this swell guy making speeches on the shores of Galilee. That's like assuming Judaism is just the Ten Commandments. Sorry, Jason, it's not that simple.

Here's another hint for you: the teachings of Jesus don't exist anymore except as they've been filtered through years of tradition, canonization, and factional infighting (which is why the Dead Sea Scrolls were such an amazing find; they predated a lot of what was handed down to us).

-Tom

I know christianity isn't strictly a "what jesus said thing"; that's the lousy point I'm trying to make here: Jesus can't be logically used in any way, shape, or form as a justification for ethical judgements about homosexuality.

Most importantly, you lose a lot of justification for an argument when your only source is "Paul" instead of "the son of God." You can argue Paul had a mainline to god, but it's rhetorical bait-and-switch: they don't claim Paul came back from the dead.

Oh yes: what is the justification for continuance of just parts of the old law? I've heard it asserted a few times by varying people, but never the actual reasoning.

[Tom Chick]

I know Paul's considered a prime source, but I'm curious if it's possible to argue the point without referring to him.

Absolutely. So long as it's from an academic perspective like ours. But we've been talking about how Christians regard homosexuality. Christians don't have the luxury of just saying, "Fuck Paul and 2000 years of tradition, gays are okay by me!".

From an academic perspective, consider Jesus' stance on adulterers and prostitutes. I would fully expect that he hung with gays as well (note this isn't the same as not thinking it's sinful; he never condoned prostitution or adultery!). However, homosexuality was so taboo in Jewish life, that it wasn't an issue of doctrine until Paul started branching out into the Roman empire and encountering it.

The fact remains that condemning homosexuality is part of Christianity. It's a difficult issue for Christians to deal with, like abortion. Give them credit where it's due. To deny it exists, as Jason does, ignores history. To declare Christianity is therefore immoral, as Bub does, is simple minded. The truth of being religious is far more complex.

-Tom

[Doug Erickson]

I think Tom's point is that if Christians abided by the words/works of Christ alone and NOT the holistic text of the Bible, they'd all be a bunch of poor and extremely charitable Communists. Or, more accurately, completely non-existent.

The Bible - and especially the epistles of Paul (along with the eschatology of Revelations and the promise if offers) - are why we say "one nation under God" and not "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Xenu". The judgmentalism and promise of violent censure for the infidel are probably THE definitive reasons why Christianity is alive and kicking today.

Yes, Christians pick and choose the bits they like to emphasize in the modern social clime of any generation. But your complaint is a complaint about RELIGION in general; there isn't an intellectually honest or consistent one under the sun. The appeal of religion is promise of world painted in bold and obvious swaths of black and white, and the conviction that comes with rigorous adherence to dogma draws a sharp contrast between the muddy and insecure world of relativism.

Christianity is the religion of Christians, and the leaders they choose decide what is "Christian" - and in many cases, those choices may have almost nothing to do with Christ and his philosophy.

[Doug Erickson]

GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

What, that's not in the Bible?

[Jason McCullough]

Jesus was a devout Jewish rabbi. He probably did speak out against homosexuality. The belief that homosexuality is wrong was a tenet of the Judaism that preceded him and the church that followed him. The Torah and Paul are pretty clear on the subject.

I have no problem with someone calling himself Christian and not embracing certain Christian traditions. But when Bub applies his own personal morality and decides that it's "immoral" and it's not a "true Christian belief", he's no different from the people who accused Christians of being cannibals because of the Eucharist.

It's easy to let your jerking knee guide your opinion of something you disagree with. The challenge is to understand it and work around it. This applies, btw, to the Christian perspective on homosexuality as well.

And that's what spawned this very long series: I was objecting to "Jesus probably spoke out against homosexuality." And now that I look at, where's the evidence that he was a devout rabbi?

Hey, a large group of people can get together, create a tradition around a few people who say god speaks to them, and non-governmentally enforce it among themselves all they want, and yes, I'll have a bit of sympathy when times change around them. That's a completely different issue from "god's son said it was wrong, and he came back from the dead."

Ok, now that we're agreeing on that:

http://www.yashanet.com/library/under5.htm

'Example #3

Christianity condemns homosexuality. That sin is not mentioned in the 10 Commandments, but elsewhere in "the Law." Perhaps then, homosexuality is still wrong because the New Testament "verifies" it? If specific "New Testament citation" is the criteria to determine what parts of the Law we follow, can you marry your sister? Christianity says that would be sin. Is that mentioned in the New Testament? No. Can you call it sin without saying, "because it's in the Torah?" No. This would apply to other sins not "specifically" mentioned in the "New Testament."

More and more of late, books supporting homosexuality, when discussing "Christian condemnation" are using this argument against Christianity, stating that if we are not under the "old Law" anymore, homosexual relationships, if done "in love," are not sin. It is the Christian position against Torah that has given a foothold to this argument. This was warned about in the book of Jude.'

[DavidCPA]

Geez! All this from a story about an HIV positive muppet :D

-DavidCPA

[JeffL]

I decided I'd said all I had to say, some understood, some didn't. Cool.

But the one thing to keep in mind is that true Christianity says "OK, homosexuality is not right. If you do it, you've sinned. And telling your boss a lie is also a sin. And even THINKING about committing adultry is a sin. And no one sin is more acceptable than another. Thus no one who sins can hold themselves above anyone else as "better" than others - thus we're all in the same boat. In the eyes of true Christianity, God says that Billy Graham is no "better" than a homosexual prostitute." That's far from being intolerant: that's saying that none of us can claim moral high ground on anyone. (As an aside, that's not to fall into the old Gnostic heresy that said "hey, since none of us can be sinless, it doesn't matter if we just sin as much as possible!")

That's why a man can sacrifice his life for dying AIDs patients, almost all of whom are homosexuals, even though he believes men screwing men is wrong. Because he knows that noone is perfect, that these men are no more moral or immoral than he himself is, and that he has no right to hold himself above them or think of them as any less than his preacher, his wife, or himself.

If you truly believe that someone who believes that someone else is doing something that is morally wrong can't love that person, have a genuine relationship with that person, and not think less of them, then none of us can have a loving relationship with any of us, or else we all have to be perfect.

Jesus said over and over and over: love each other, and from this all of the commandments flow. Do some Christians hate? Yep. Just like a lot of non-Christians spew hate on a variety of issues. People are people.

[Tom Chick]

And now that I look at, where's the evidence that he was a devout rabbi?

You've got to be kidding? I'm not going to hold your hand through the basics of Biblical scholarship, McCullough. :)

Let me break some shocking news: Jesus was Jewish! He wasn't even Christian! In fact, the first adherent of this religion that Bub condemns as sexist, racist, and immoral was a dark-skinned woman.

Okay, I guess this thread has run it's course. Nice summary from Lackey, Jason's chasing stray points on something called yashanet, Bub is posting without participating, and Doug brought up the Adam and Steve thing. My work here is done.

Can we work the thread around to gun control next?

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

And now that I look at, where's the evidence that he was a devout rabbi?

You've got to be kidding? I'm not going to hold your hand through the basics of Biblical scholarship, McCullough. :)

Let me break some shocking news: Jesus was Jewish! He wasn't even Christian! In fact, the first adherent of this religion that Bub condemns as sexist, racist, and immoral was a dark-skinned woman.

Okay, I guess this thread has run it's course. Nice summary from Lackey, Jason's chasing stray points on something called yashanet, Bub is posting without participating, and Doug brought up the Adam and Steve thing. My work here is done.

Can we work the thread around to gun control next?

-Tom

Ok, I did some searching, and found this:

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1499

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_search.html

I honestly couldn't remember hearing of him referred to as a rabbi; the word conjures up images of officiality. Anyway, ta da.

And you never explained that "anti-homosexuality is a cultural constant" thing. So there.

[DennyA]

One of the things I remember from my secular humanist honors education was that there's a lot of evidence that "Paul's" writings don't match up well other parts of the Bible -- that there's evidence of tomfoolery and revisionism in the translations of those sections as time passed.

That's the problem with taking the bible seriously. It's been translated and reintepreted so many times over the past 20 centuries that it bears only a passing resemblance to what was actually written in ancient times. (Of course, some will tell you that the translations were guided by G_d. I'd suggest those people read up on the politics of the times of the major translations.) So IMHO it's best taken as a guide, not an absolute.

The fact is, most of the prohibitions in the Bible were designed to protect the species. Homosexuality? No breeding. Eat pork? Die from disease. Covet thy neighbors wife? Get your ass kicked.

Besides, we're awfully selective about the parts of the Bible that we still choose to believe. Homosexuality? Bad! But wait... Did you know that those credit cards you're using are mentioned as being terrible MANY more times than a little gay bootie?

Ezekiel 18: 8-9 "He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase...he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD."

Ezekiel 18: 13: [He that] "hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live; he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him."

Give Leviticus a good read sometime. You're much, much worse sinners than you ever imagined, you beard-trimming shrimp eaters!

[Tom Chick]

Sheesh, Denny, don't get me started. You're doing just the kind of convenient half-informed bashing that I used to do. Until I grew out of it. :)


That's the problem with taking the bible seriously. It's been translated and reintepreted so many times over the past 20 centuries that it bears only a passing resemblance to what was actually written in ancient times.

The Bible was a living document (cf Constitution of the United States). And it's much older than 20 centuries, thank you very much, Mr. Christ-centric. If you approach it as a textbook, you're going to find inconsistences. Have a field day whooping and hollering about it. Then take a look at how people use it to inform their faith. You'll find you've been missing the point all along.


The fact is, most of the prohibitions in the Bible were designed to protect the species.

This is fashionable and easily discredited bullshit. I suppose you're one of those guys who thinks circumcision prevents disease.


Ezekiel 18: 8-9 "He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase...he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD."

That's the best you can do in an attempt to discredit the Bible by quoting something out of context? Weak. Tres weak.

I'm afraid we're going to have to fly to some neutral territory in the middle of the country to hash this out.

-Tom

[Matthew Gallant]

I'm afraid we're going to have to fly to some neutral territory in the middle of the country to hash this out.

Man was not meant to fly! It is against God's will!

Witchery!

[Anonymous]

GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!
Don't drag me into this mess. I'm a lapsed Catholic who knows nothing of this bible stuff, though I saw the movie version.

[DennyA]

Tom,

Nah, you'd win any biblical arguments with me in a second. I'm not armed for this one. I read the whole book, but that was when I was about 14 and trying to figure out the whole faith thing. Those quotes were merely pulled up from a quick Google... Lazy techique, and I should be ashamed.

(Going to Southern Baptist churches was the solution to the faith question. Cured me of organized Christianity with great efficiency. I prefer to think of God as a force that's way behind what man can understand.... My own take is that the Bible may indeed be an accurate interpretation of God's will -- thousands of years ago. And what the Earth needs more than anything right now is a visible manifestation of the Big Guy or Grand Force or whatever to straighten out all the extremists on all sides of the issues...)

Where are Johnny Wilson and Vince Broady when you need them?

(There are nearly as many divinity school grads in this industry as there are transsexuals! )

(Mind you, some great friends of mine have been divinity school graduates. And transsexuals... Seriously. But so far no divinity school graduate transsexuals, oddly enough.... :twisted:)

[Anonymous]

tom,

you were wondering about which civilizations condoned homosexuality...well I don't know if this counts as a "civilization" condoning it, but I'm reading "the art of the Samuri" right now and they talk about homosexuality being something like necessity. Of course, I don't have the direct quote right in front of me so my argument won't be very good, but you should look at the samuri culture as one that at least tolerated it...

brian

[Tom Chick]

"I'm reading "the art of the Samuri" right now and they talk about homosexuality being something like necessity."

Interesting, Brian. I'd never heard of this and I have to admit a couple of red flags go up for me when you mention it. However, even if it is correct, I don't think I regard the samurai as a civilization so much as a subset of a civilization. Perhaps they're the feudal Japanese equivalent of musical theatre. :)

-Tom

[Doug Erickson]

Homosexuality is a very common practice among male warrior sodalities - the Mongol, Roman, Greek, and Viking warrior cults all practiced homosexuality. Egalitarian tribal cultures with warrior ethos were doing this long before; homosexuality has long been an aspect of military life, which is why the modern injunctions against it are so damn funny. Blame the collision of Christianity and the military, especially during the 12th century and onward. Not that homosexuality didn't remain in practice; it was just condemned by opportunistic and often hypocritical clergy, and often observed in full because of the Biblical injunction we're discussing in this thread.

The original Levitican injunction, in Greek, specifies "menekoitos", which besides meaning homosexual was often used to refer specifically to a male temple prostitute. Male prostitutes often tempted homosexual warriors, and often broke up marriages (which weakened the social fabric that the Hebrews prized). The conflict between the powerful social and familial ties that come from marriage and the common homosexual practices of a warrior culture was a battle that the latter lost in Hebrew culture. However, that wasn't true for many other cultures - it was a common view among many ancient cultures that women were nothing but broodmares, and that pure intellectual love could only exist between two men. Mating with a woman was simply a biological necessity; male bonding was something spiritual. Also, in military culture, homosexuality was a convenience; one didn't have to support non-combatant prostitutes in expeditionary forces, since a legionnaire or Viking could just bugger his combat-trained "squire". Fagdom makes perfect sense in the military venue; you have fiercely loyal bands of soldiers who don't need prostitutes.

It should probably be clarified that the old world "homosexual" was more bisexual than homosexual - they would mate with women, and often frequently; they just preferred to get with dudes. They weren't exclusive to male-male relationships unless they were more misogynistic and/or intellectual about it, which wasn't common.

The effete image of the modern homosexual is a recent invention, and has more to do with the rise and popularity of transvestitism in Elizabethan and post-Elizabethan society, especially among the public theatre of that era. Like Japan, the rise of theatre culture and prohibitions against women on the stage led to "beautiful men" dressing as women, which attracted the attention of the warrior and upper castes. These men (Japan's samurai nobility, Europe's merchant nobility) became attracted to them, and the ideas of transvestitism and homosexuality co-mingled to produce what Qt3 now knows as the OMM-designated "fag", or nancy Final Fantasy loving gamer lad.

Anyway.

[DavidCPA]

homosexuality has long been an aspect of military life, which is why the modern injunctions against it are so damn funny.

I never understood the American military's obsession with homosexuals either. I always thought that the same rules that governed male-female conduct should apply to male-male and female-female conduct also (e.g. harrassment, fraternization, etc). I never served but, if I did, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if a fellow soldier was gay as long as he/she could shoot straight, follow orders and save my ass (no pun intended) if necessary.

-DavidCPA

[Anonymous]

I always thought that the same rules that governed male-female conduct should apply to male-male and female-female conduct also (e.g. harrassment, fraternization, etc).

Nah. Female/Female conduct should only be allowed if it's videotaped or made available by webcam. And only if they're hot.

[Tom Chick]

Doug,

I'm calling bullshit all over your post.


Homosexuality is a very common practice among male warrior sodalities

"Very common?" Show me serious scholarship to this effect. You won't find it.


it was just condemned by opportunistic and often hypocritical clergy

What kind of history books are you reading that ascribe motives like 'hypocrisy' and 'opportunism' to clergy? I presume these are the same sources that explain how male warriors preferred to "to get with dudes"? And they know these things how?

BTW, codemnation of the practice predates Christianity, as you point out later in the thread.


The original Levitican injunction, in Greek, specifies "menekoitos"

Leviticus isn't written in Greek. The Torah is a Hebrew text. Might want to doublecheck the credibility of your sources.


However, that wasn't true for many other cultures - it was a common view among many ancient cultures that women were nothing but broodmares, and that pure intellectual love could only exist between two men.

This was a facet of Greek culture, not "many ancient cultures" as you suggest.

Finally, you might want to look up the word 'effete' before you use it again.

It sounds like you cracked some revisionist apology for homosexuality. I'm sure David Sidaris' Warfare through the Ages was a fun read, but I tend to prefer history without some a priori agenda.

-Tom

[Doug Erickson]

From dictionary.com:



ef·fete Pronunciation Key (-ft)
adj.
1. Depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness; exhausted: the final, effete period of the baroque style.
2. Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence: an effete group of self-professed intellectuals.
3. Overrefined; effeminate.
4. No longer productive; infertile.

Christ, Tom, don't be so reactionary. The above statements are from three semesters of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma; I really doubt it's a surprise to anyone, unless you attended a seminary school.

As for the Greek bit, the Septuagint chose the term "menekoitos" (which became homosexual in Latin) - menekoitos was a term for a Greek male temple prostitute. At this point, there's no telling if the original Hebrew meant "all homosexuals" or just "gigolos" (I shoulda made the Hebrew/Greek translation thing clearer, but I was in a hurry).

As for not ascribing opportunism and hypocrisy to clergy, what a priori version of history are YOU indulging in - the seminary school one, where priests don't bugger kids or manipulate entire histories?

[Dr Fear]

Christ, Tom, don't be so reactionary. The above statements are from three semesters of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma; I really doubt it's a surprise to anyone, unless you attended a seminary school.

I don't know what seminary school your talking about, but I remember this link from the old quartertothree page

http://www.quartertothree.com/about_us/about_us.shtml

and it says Tom went to Harvard Divinity School, which is not a seminary.

[Murph]

Ya know, just 'cause we were discussing it yesterday and this never occurred to me...

If Jesus was the Son of God (and, as the Trinity suggests, God in flesh), as He claimed, there's one overwhelming piece of evidence that indicates he didn't approve, in any way, of homosexuality.

Remember why God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah? It may not have been exclusively due to homosexuality, but I'm quite certain that that is mentioned as one of the underlying reasons.

[Tom Chick]

Christ, Tom, don't be so reactionary.

I'm just calling bullshit where I see it. The world would be all great and everything if homosexuality were widely accepted throughout history. But it wasn't. Gay men and women have been marginalized and persecuted throughout history. Half-baked revisionism to the contrary doesn't help anyone.


what a priori version of history are YOU indulging in - the seminary school one, where priests don't bugger kids or manipulate entire histories?

As Dr. Fear mentioned, I didn't attend a seminary. But that's a pretty big anti-clerical chip on your shoulder. You could probably see a lot clearer if you'd put it down. :)

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

Remember why God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah?

Murph,

This is just one of many examples of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. I think the destruction of those cities might have been tied to "men lying with men", as it was quaintly put. But there are also much more explicit and specific injunctions in the Old and New Testament.

I am kind of curious how progressive churches condone gay relationships in the face of these Biblical injunctions. I know many conservative strands of Christianity (including Catholicism) teach that it's okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it. But there are some denominations that approve of active homosexual relationships.

I was at a service at a non-demoninational church in LA last Sunday that made specific references to being open to practicing gay couples. I wonder what sort of theological basis they use for this.

-Tom

[Doug Erickson]

Re: the samurai fag biz - read about the Tokugawa era (1600 onwards), and Shogunate injunctions against female stage performers. Lotsa love for the pretty boys, and the scandals! Heian era Japan (Tale of Genji et al) was also really, really big on the boy-boy thing.

Japan has some pretty diverse attitudes regarding homosexuals, although I should point out that I'm not implying some sort of global trend based on a country that sells used panties in vending machines and makes cartoons featuring tentacle genitalia.

[Jason McCullough]

Ya know, just 'cause we were discussing it yesterday and this never occurred to me...

If Jesus was the Son of God (and, as the Trinity suggests, God in flesh), as He claimed, there's one overwhelming piece of evidence that indicates he didn't approve, in any way, of homosexuality.

Remember why God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah? It may not have been exclusively due to homosexuality, but I'm quite certain that that is mentioned as one of the underlying reasons.

http://kcm.co.kr/bible/kjv/gen18.html
http://kcm.co.kr/bible/kjv/gen19.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

God decided to blow up Sodom in chapter 18 before the passage in question (alternatively interpreted as homosexual rape or interrogation; seeing how back in Chapter 14 Sodom was at war, I lean towards interrogation) happened, so I don't see how this can really be used as a justification.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
The Leviticus lines are closer territory; I don't know enough about the homosexual pagan temple prostitution thing to make a judgement there. The juiced-up translations of the Living version is funny, though.

[Jason McCullough]

'I'm just calling bullshit where I see it. The world would be all great and everything if homosexuality were widely accepted throughout history. But it wasn't. Gay men and women have been marginalized and persecuted throughout history. Half-baked revisionism to the contrary doesn't help anyone.'

Well, if you search for "Norwegian homosexual warrior" on google you get a bunch of scholarly-looking hits, though they could all be made up. All I know is the two anthropology majors I knew back at Oklahoma said the same things as Doug. It seems unlikely that the anthropology department there would be way liberal.

[Don Quixote]

"Very common?" Show me serious scholarship to this effect. You won't find it.

For starters, try the Thousand Nights and a Night- the unabridged four volume translation by Mardus and Mathers is best. Homosexuality was a pretty common theme throughout the stories (and not in a condeming way, either). In one cycle of stories, Shahrazad is forced to tell all the stories she can think of about this 'new fashion in sexuality'. She finally manages to get the king's mind on a new track after five or six such stories (I can imagine her being worried for her neck if the king thought he didn't need a wife to lay with!).

There's an interesting essay online, taken from a (sadly, now defunct) magazine called "Interactive Fantasy" at http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/censor.html, talking about the subject, as it concerns Japanese and Viking culture. I've checked out some of the books that Lee Gold references, and they definately don't seem like 'revisionist' histories with 'a-priori agendas'. Some of them were written prior to this century, for example (when the need for PC-hood was... significantly less :wink: )

[Mark Asher]

As to soldiers and buggery, what about the English Navy? It was common enough for people to make jokes about it. Wasn't it also not uncommon among the ancient world for a victorious army to often sodomize the defeated soldiers?

I wouldn't be surprised if the 20th century has been more intolerant of homosexuality than in many centuries past.

[Jason McCullough]

Wasn't it also not uncommon among the ancient world for a victorious army to often sodomize the defeated soldiers?

Are you sure you aren't thinking of the engineers in C&C?

[Tom Chick]

There's an important distinction to be made between homosexual behavior and bona fide homosexuality. Rites of humiliation are different from someone who has an innate preference for the same sex. If you want to lump them together into the same category, then you might have a stronger argument that it was common and accepted. But confusing the two is how you get errors like the "10% of the population is gay" conclusion draw from Kinsey's 1948 study of prison populations. It's also how you get a lot of stuff about gay chimps and dolphins.

I would define homosexuality as an innate preference for the same sex over the opposite sex. I don't think English sailors buggering each other and prison rape necessarily qualify. I imagine these guys would much rather have women around.

-Tom

[Lurker]

The original topic, if it can be returned to, was whether any of this should be taught to 5 year olds.


I think that up to a certain age, kids should be allowed to be fun-loving innocents and NOT have to worry about the problems of the world. There's plenty of time later for sex, drugs, violence, inspipid boy bands, and Britney.

I wanted to see how the non-parents in this group felt about this opinion. See, my problem with it is that this "time later" never actually occurs. Parents, for any number of reasons, NEVER want their children to grow up. Hence, they spend their child's entire non-adult life shielding them from absolutely everything and making them believe that everything revolves around their state of mind. Then everyone wonders why there's so many slacking, irresponsible adults living in today's society, who expect everything to be handed to them.

Is stealing a child's "innocent" years by opening them to the horrors of the world and making them forget Pokemon really so inhumane? Wouldn't it fill society with wholly more educated, tolerant and responsible adults?

[Supertanker]

As to soldiers and buggery, what about the English Navy?

Time for one of my favorite quotes:

"The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash." -- Churchill's secretary, Anthony Montague (though the source is disputed by many).

[Ben Sones]

I am kind of curious how progressive churches condone gay relationships in the face of these Biblical injunctions.

Probably in the same way that churches (including non-progressive sort) condone all sorts of things that were forbidden under biblical law, such as usury, or the wearing of tattoos, or the eating of pork. By the same token, many things that are just hunky-dory, according to the bible, are considered abhorrent by today's ethical standards (such as slavery, or human sacrifice, or selling your daughter into slavery to pay your debts). I don't wonder why some churches condone homosexuality so much as I wonder why that particular issue (which is mentioned only briefly in the bible) attracts so much attention when so many other "immutable" biblical laws are routinely ignored.

[DennyA]

I don't wonder why some churches condone homosexuality so much as I wonder why that particular issue (which is mentioned only briefly in the bible) attracts so much attention when so many other "immutable" biblical laws are routinely ignored.

Some underlying insecurities, probably. :-)

[Sparky]

Well, if you search for "Norwegian homosexual warrior" on google you get a bunch of scholarly-looking hits...

Huh... I just got this. None too scholarly, but you have to admit that "Y.M.C.A." song was pretty catchy.

http://www.phobe.com/village.jpg

[TimElhajj]

Bwahahhahahahah. Sparky, you crack me up!