People!! Ouch! Stop it. Can’t we play nice?
At least until the end of the State/Church Supported Happy Holidays?
Man this is getting a little nasty…
And Geekmom, two women and one man has ALLWAYS been more natural, if not more complicated.......
But we’re in the thread for that now....
My two cents, being French and all

elwed- I’m afraid you’re right, and consi is not really interested in a serious discourse, at least not when the going gets rough.  Intuition pump, time to jump, thanks for the discussion, chump.

GeekMom- I’m also afraid he’s going to continue being coy about his religious beliefs, if any, so you can go ahead and give that twenty bucks to Oxfam, or maybe buy a DVD of Mel Gibson’s Passion.  At least consi’s gone away with a trophy- your endorsement of polygamous marriage- that he can wave about on Christian sites.

Mike- If you think this is nasty, you ain’t seen nothing yet.  And about your 2xx+1xy equation, that is indeed another thread.  Good read: “The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People” by Barash and Lipton.

Freedom Frog croaked: My two cents, being French and all

That’s two €uro cents to all you Bushwhackers out there, that is US 2.6 cents, so ecoutez!

Consi, that was charming equivocation, but I’ll pose my very simple questions again:

My definition of Christian:  do you use the New Testament as a guide and do you believe in the divinity of that Jesus dude?

I’ll take silence as assent. 

zilch, yes, now mouth-breathing Christians everywhere can take my answer as going one step further down the slippery slope, if they’re not too familiar with their own Bible.  Call it a return to Biblical Values if you like.  Three or four adult people trying to make a go of a committed relationship aren’t hurting anyone outside of the group, so what’s the problem?  A group marriage is very hard to pull off, but I’ve seen it done before.

The only thing I object to is the kind of forced polygamy where underage girls are involved.  That’s clearly hurting them, and therefore wrong.  But I have yet to see any man pulled into polyandry against his will ...

Zilch, I have wondered for some time if Consigliere is but a secondary handle used by that poster on this site. A few off-hand and not-so-off-hand remarks sound awfully familiar, but I don’t want to bother searching SEB.

GM: charming equivocation

...a good definition of religion…

Geekmom: I’m honored that you find me charming.  Be sure to pass that on to El if ya would. 

I fear you will find me equivocating again on your question, but I’m still interested in getting the donation for a religious charity if I can, so here goes.  The New Testament contains a hodgepodge of various writings.  Some contain a world of wisdom, others contain a world of cultural bias.  To the extent that the New Testament contains wisdom, I do use those portions as a guide.  To the extent that it contains cultural bias, I don’t.

Since you’ve set forth two conditions, I’m assuming that the answer must be in the affirmative for both.  Since I’ve answered partially in the negative for the first, seems to me that it just don’t matter if I believe Jesus produced any Christmas candy.  Do I get to pick a charity now?

el & zilch: I must say I’m touched that you boys missed me enough while I’ve been traveling to engage in collegial baiting.  That is just too sweet. 

Regards,

el & zilch: I must say I’m touched that you boys missed me enough while I’ve been traveling to engage in collegial baiting.  That is just too sweet.

Hey, as long as we’re entertaining you, we’re happy.  Collegial baiting is all we godforsaken atheists are capable of, in the absence of someone touched by the Spirit to keep us in line.  And what else can we do, if you start complaining about our “mindsets” and “stereotyping”, rather than answering our questions?

The New Testament contains a hodgepodge of various writings.  Some contain a world of wisdom, others contain a world of cultural bias.  To the extent that the New Testament contains wisdom, I do use those portions as a guide.  To the extent that it contains cultural bias, I don’t.

Many atheists could say the same thing- the only difference is that they would simply leave God and Divine Inspiration out of the equation.  I still suspect, though, that your characterization of homosexuality as “abnormal” is biblically based, since your “biological” argument is threadbare- you haven’t really answered our objections to it.  The most disturbing thing about your position, no matter what its basis, is that you arrogate to yourself the right to tell others that they are abnormal for doing something that does no harm to you.  Just as the Biblethumpers do.

Iv always found it rather funny how Christians pick N choose what parts they like & dont like about the Bible.
Except for the Fundamentalist nutjobs that technically should be locked up in a Sanitarium which believe the entire Bible 100% cover to cover word for word, talking snakes & all, other than those lunatics, in general the majority of Christians are believing less & less each decade as Science continually proves more to be false, most to be absurd.
Through the internet many Christians can finally trace down the “real truth” instead of that Bullshit they are fed from the pulpit each week.

The real truth being unearthed by Archeologist is that the Bible is nothing but much older Paganism rebadged, it’s simply a retelling of pagan Astrological Dramas, all they did was change the names.
What exactly is left to have faith in?

There simply is nothing there, just a figment of overactive imaginations.

Consi,
Hey, I’m interested in something you wrote on another topic.  Is there a way to creat a new thread or must I bide my time until a discussion arises in which I can further discuss the matter?
Please look to the left and find the link to “Submit an entry” near the top of the page.

consi,

I just noticed that you base much of your view on your notion of what is “normal” and what is “abnormal”.  Now my question is, what is it that you take to be abnormal?  I know you think homosexuality is abnormal but why?  Are you simply going with a statistical notion of normal, a la most people aren’t gay so being gay is abnormal?  If that’s the notion you’re going with then it doesn’t serve much basis for policy decision making.  For example, the majority of people will die of cardio-vascular disorders.  Does that suggest that death by cardio-vascular disorder is normal, and not dying as a result of stroke, heart-attack or arrhythmia should be discouraged in favor of the biologically normal state?

I know you think homosexuality is abnormal but why?  Are you simply going with a statistical notion of normal, a la most people aren’t gay so being gay is abnormal?

SS, I’m hesitant to reengage in this topic.  I said I was done with the thread and I meant it.  However, I appreciated you taking the time to find the article in Nature. 

Given your consideration for that, hopefully I can clarify for you what my position is.

I’m not using a statistical notion of normal.  I reference homosexuality as a maladaptive coping mechanism. It is maladaptive either physiologically, as a defect, or psychologically, as it is self-destructive. 

I see homosexuality as lacking any benefit for the individual that is homosexual, whether by choice or by birth defect.  The individual gains nothing by being homosexual.  I’ve yet to hear any homosexual say “I’m so grateful that I was gay because when I was a young man attempting to come to terms with my sexuality it was so much easier because I was gay.” I don’t hear it, because it is not true. 

There is no benefit.  Further, it makes for an unduly tough row to hoe and most homosexuals are honest enough to tell us this. So we have no benefits, and the homosexual individual has a helluva struggle. 

In my view, if there is some processs going on in the womb that so screws up someone’s life, I would like to see us fix it. If there is something that sets this off psychologically then we need to find out what it is.  To that end, it would be folly to endorse homosexuality, and homosexual marriage as if there was no underlying problem in the first instance.

Hope this clarifies my position for you.

Regards,

I’m not using a statistical notion of normal.  I reference Christianity as a maladaptive coping mechanism. It is maladaptive either physiologically, as a defect, or psychologically, as it is self-destructive. 

I see Christianity as lacking any benefit for the individual that is Christian, whether by choice or by birth defect.  The individual gains nothing by being Christian.  I’ve yet to hear any Christian say “I’m so grateful that I was delusional because when I was a young man attempting to come to terms with my insanity it was so much easier because I was delusional.â€? I don’t hear it, because it is not true. 

There is no benefit.  Further, it makes for an unduly tough row to hoe and most Christians are honest enough to tell us this. So we have no benefits, and the Christian individual has a helluva struggle. 

In my view, if there is some processs going on in the womb that so screws up someone’s life, I would like to see us fix it. If there is something that sets this off psychologically then we need to find out what it is.  To that end, it would be folly to endorse Christianity, and Christian marriage as if there was no underlying problem in the first instance.

Hope this clarifies my position for you.

Yes would be great if we could “fix” this very debilitating meme in the womb.

consi,

Sorry to belabor the topic, but it’s not entirely clear why you think that homosexuality is maladaptive (I’m not sure why you think it’s self-destructive, I know gay people who seem very happy with their gayness.  It seems that how people feel about their sexual orientation has very little to do with the orientation itself and how other people treat them.  I mean most gay people have a hard time dealing with their sexuality because our culture discourages it.  On a side note one interesting thing that I’ve noticed is that lesbians have a much easier time with their sexual identity than homosexual men.  I know several homosexual women and they seem untroubled by their sexual orientation.  This might be because lesbianism seems to be generally less frowned upon than male homosexuality.) and why having a maladaptive trait warrants exclusion. 

Actually, let me rephrase that, it seems that you’re making a value judgment calling homosexuality maladaptive, in that you argue that a trait being maladaptive warrants us to make moral/ethical claims. 

For example, being color blind is maladaptive, however it doesn’t provide basis to discriminate against color blind people, unless you’ve already made the value judgment that color blindness is a trait that makes some people inherently undeserving of various rights. 

So I’m not sure of two things.  I don’t know exactly why you think homosexuality is maladaptive and if homosexuality is maladaptive, I’m not sure why that fact justifies us excluding them from various institutions.  If I’ve misunderstood your position, please correct me.

El Puerco squealed: On a side note one interesting thing that I’ve noticed is that lesbians have a much easier time with their sexual identity than homosexual men.

Indeed, and on a side note to a side note (a metalateroscriptum?) I’ve noticed that although more men than women identify themselves as homosexual, more women than men are comfortable with bisexuality.  Perhaps this is because women are more touchyfeely than men in general; but that just begs the question of why this should be so.  Maybe women are just more generally enlightened than men.  My posslq would certainly go along with that.

Be that as it may, I agree that homosexuality is an abomination contra naturam- how could anyone condone that monstrous comingling of Greek and Latin roots?

Arguing that homosexuality is maladaptive because homosexuals aren’t happy is specious:  if bible thumpers didn’t portray it as an abomination and persecute them, people who were gay wouldn’t feel so shamed and threatened by it. 

By the same token, being black would have been “maladaptive” for the past couple of hundred years in this country. 

Isn’t it interesting how the same arguments get trotted out time and time again by people trying to justify bigotry?  It’s “maladaptive” or “genetically inferior,” so they don’t deserve equal rights.  “I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one.” “It’s okay as long as they stay out of the public eye.” I’m sure “don’t ask, don’t tell” would have been tried on ethnic minorities if their status weren’t so visually obvious ...

Woooh, my little post really grew up here

I haven’t even finished all the stuff that’s been discussed during the last few days, but I’ll add one little thing right here:

What we do know is that at as young adults, a higher number of of those young adults are engaging in same sex relationships.

Well, obviously! If in an ‘ideal’ environment (where homosexuality would neither be specifically encouraged nor discriminated against) there exists a certain percentage X of homosexuals (for WHATEVER reasons - preference or genetics)…

...then it FOLLOWS that under the current situation the number of homosexuals amongst us would be lower, because many people suppress those inclinations. So the right wingers are correct - treating homosexuality as normal WILL raise the numbers of homosexuals (both the actual and the visible number).

You make this sound like it’s a bad thing.

Thanks Elwed!

Now THAT was a fucked-up mis-use of blockquotes.

Les, PLEASE fix it!

(And yes, for the same reason I would support marriage among more than two consenting adults, even though those unions are notoriously difficult to maintain the more people you have involved.)

Say, GeekMom, have you read Heinlein? Please tell me that you have read his stuff like ‘Time Enough for Love’ or ‘To Sail Beyond the Sunset’

And while I’m at it, Zilch, can you tell me what the heck you’re holding in your gravatar picture?

A weed-covered ship anchor?

A weed-covered ship anchor?

Ein Blasinstrument, nicht wahr?

Say, GeekMom, have you read Heinlein?

I’m pretty sure we have two complete collections of Heinlein. Mine in German, hers in English.

Triple-dipping, just for the heck of it.

I kicked off a project on my site - an effort to write up my thoughts and to compile a list of pro and con arguments. There’s not much more than a preliminary outline right now, but hopefully I’ll get around to fill in some blanks. Anybody who can stay civil is welcome to pitch in; I can’t provide a direct link, as it triggers some kind of blacklist message.

GeekMom said:

A group marriage is very hard to pull off, but I’ve seen it done before.

Really? Sheesh, GM, I have never even HEARD of any in western states at least, beyond hearesay (group marriage meaning one with two or more of each sex). Is my horizon really that limited?

Then again, maybe it is. After all, Brock has already browbeat me for not knowing any gay people, so it seems my circle of friends is pretty HOMEgenic (sorry for the bad pun ).

Tired. HOMOgenic, obviously.

I’ve the creeping feeling that I’m making more typing mistakes as I get older. Alzheimer at 27. A scary thought…