Gay and straight

[Cambo]

Thread resurrection.

Just watched an interesting documentary called "The Making of Me," in which a gay man went hunting for clues as to what it was that caused him to be gay. From the outset he admitted he wanted to prove, if possible, that sexual orientation was something inherent, rather than any kind of choice. His opinion was that theories that people chose to be homosexual opened the door for gays to be morally condemned. It was a very good doco, good mix of the personal and the scientific. Happily for the main guy, all the scientific evidence pointed towards biological factors being the cause of sexual orientation.

The most relevant bits:

- Scientists have yet to isolate a gay gene, but believe they are getting close.

- Children who are "gender non-conformists" (girls who play like boys, vice versa) are far more likely to later identify as gay. Somewhere in the realm of 70% more likely.

- The gay male's brain is very similar to the straight female's brain. Importantly, the key areas of similarity are all developed midway through pregnancy.

- Factors within the womb are likely to influence whether males, at least, are likely to be gay. Two influences were looked at. One, exposure to levels of testosterone in the womb. Basically, the more testosterone you get, the more typically male you will be. A way to test this: the male ring finger is typically longer than the index, whereas in women the fingers are typically even.

- Again, just for males. The number of older brothers you have dramatically increases your chances of being gay. The theory is that the mother's body reacts to the testosterone and other chemicals the male fetus produces, basically her immune system acting on foreign bodies. This reaction becomes stronger with each male gestation, meaning that the more boys a mother gives birth to, the more feminine her body will be attempting to make them.

[Orlion]

Some interesting observations, some I think are just grasping at straws (aka, in the model development phase )

I just don't understand why it being a choice makes it possible to be morally contemptible... but that's just me, and I know that it happens, even if it doesn't make sense. Ultimately, though, I don't think it'd matter if you could convince the homophobes that sexual orientation is founded principally in biological matter. Even if they accepted that, they'd probably start treating it as a "genetic disorder" or punishment from God or some other such non-sense. What is important is that homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexuality.

[duchess of malfi]

Thread resurrection.

Just watched an interesting documentary called "The Making of Me," in which a gay man went hunting for clues as to what it was that caused him to be gay. From the outset he admitted he wanted to prove, if possible, that sexual orientation was something inherent, rather than any kind of choice. His opinion was that theories that people chose to be homosexual opened the door for gays to be morally condemned. It was a very good doco, good mix of the personal and the scientific. Happily for the main guy, all the scientific evidence pointed towards biological factors being the cause of sexual orientation.

The most relevant bits:

- Scientists have yet to isolate a gay gene, but believe they are getting close.

- Children who are "gender non-conformists" (girls who play like boys, vice versa) are far more likely to later identify as gay. Somewhere in the realm of 70% more likely.

- The gay male's brain is very similar to the straight female's brain. Importantly, the key areas of similarity are all developed midway through pregnancy.

- Factors within the womb are likely to influence whether males, at least, are likely to be gay. Two influences were looked at. One, exposure to levels of testosterone in the womb. Basically, the more testosterone you get, the more typically male you will be. A way to test this: the male ring finger is typically longer than the index, whereas in women the fingers are typically even.

- Again, just for males. The number of older brothers you have dramatically increases your chances of being gay. The theory is that the mother's body reacts to the testosterone and other chemicals the male fetus produces, basically her immune system acting on foreign bodies. This reaction becomes stronger with each male gestation, meaning that the more boys a mother gives birth to, the more feminine her body will be attempting to make them.

Not to mention that there is a ton of both scientific and anecdotal evidence of homosexuality in animals. Somehow I doubt if a housecat or stallion makes a concious choice of being straight or gay.

[Cambo]

Some interesting observations, some I think are just grasping at straws (aka, in the model development phase )

I just don't understand why it being a choice makes it possible to be morally contemptible... but that's just me, and I know that it happens, even if it doesn't make sense. Ultimately, though, I don't think it'd matter if you could convince the homophobes that sexual orientation is founded principally in biological matter. Even if they accepted that, they'd probably start treating it as a "genetic disorder" or punishment from God or some other such non-sense. What is important is that homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexuality.

The Ba'hai's believe that homosexuality is a pre-natal disease similar to spina bifida. While this leads them to be more accepting of hmosexuality than your fundamentalist Christian, they still come off as condescending when discussing homosexuality, or indeed any queer tendencies. God's way is monogamous heterosexuality, and none other.

Speaking of puking...Duchess, you should see some of the logical acrobatics the "homosexuality-is-unnatural" camp perform when confronted with that argument. I think they learn at the same circus as the fundies.

[SerScot]

F&F,

You think you've chosen to not play sports, but you haven't. You can't choose to play them. That choice just isn't in you. You don't play them because you can't. I mean, yeah, you can go play a game of basketball, or whatever. But you can't do it with whatever regularity you need to say "I play sports."

Now, of course, you'll say, "I can make that choice, and I am choosing to not play." But the only thing we know is that you don't play. If that supports either of us, it's me.

Please tell me you aren't a determinist. Determinism is weak at best. We are certainly influenced by our surroundings and experiences. However, for pure determinism to be correct you have to deny that humans are sentient because with hard determinism any choices we do make are meaningless.

[rusmeister]

What makes someone gay? What makes them straight? Where are the boundaries? What are the criteria for being one or the other? Where do bisexuals fit in? Is everyone, deep down, just a little bit gay? What does "gay pride" entail? Can you have "straight pride?" Would that even make sense?

Answers please!

Why are some people born with stunted limbs or no limbs or otherwise mutated?
You may be able to find scientific answers as to the "how". That still won't answer the "why".

On "pride" - it seems self-evident to me that people who need to shout about pride or power in public are those least in possession of it. If a person is strong, they don't go around shouting "strength!" They don't need to. Those that actually have something to be proud of don't need to march with posters demanding that others acknowledge them pride.

[Cambo]

Pride and power are two different things. As I see it, "Gay Pride!" is a declaration. "Gay Power!" is a demand. The former says "I am gay, I'm proud, I'm going to let you know about it whether you like it or not." The latter says "I'm through taking your shit. I am not your inferior, and I will no longer permit you to treat me as such."

So in a way, you're half right. Those with power do not need to organise rallys to demonstrate that power. The whole point of civil movements is to attain power that your group doesn't have, which you feel you should. As for pride, expressing pride in something others feel you should be ashamed of is a technique for attaining power. It will hopefully change opinions and influence votes, which is supposedly how power is gained in a democracy. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is before my time, but I've seen videos from before that time, when the only media representations of homosexuality were shadow faced people hiding behind pot plants, confessing their "sickness" and discussing their "treatment." It doesn't take much to see what an effect on the public consciousness an entire rally of open, unashamed gays must have had.

Your last sentence confuses pride with power. Waving signs in the street and shouting is something you need to do if you're proud of who you are, but are in least possession of power because of who you are. Of course, if you're proud of who you are, and you are in a powerful position, you can rest on your laurels.

But I believe your point, Rus, was that gay people don't, in fact, have anything to be proud of. I seriously suspect you'd prefer a return to the days of homosexuals hiding behind pot plants. Certainly your analogy with mutated, limbless babies indicates a view of homosexuality as a crippling defect. If that is not your view, please correct me, because that is the impression you leave, without quite coming right out and saying it.

You're entitled to that view. But it is one I disagree with in every way.

[rusmeister]

Pride and power are two different things. As I see it, "Gay Pride!" is a declaration. "Gay Power!" is a demand. The former says "I am gay, I'm proud, I'm going to let you know about it whether you like it or not." The latter says "I'm through taking your shit. I am not your inferior, and I will no longer permit you to treat me as such."

So in a way, you're half right. Those with power do not need to organise rallys to demonstrate that power. The whole point of civil movements is to attain power that your group doesn't have, which you feel you should. As for pride, expressing pride in something others feel you should be ashamed of is a technique for attaining power. It will hopefully change opinions and influence votes, which is supposedly how power is gained in a democracy. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is before my time, but I've seen videos from before that time, when the only media representations of homosexuality were shadow faced people hiding behind pot plants, confessing their "sickness" and discussing their "treatment." It doesn't take much to see what an effect on the public consciousness an entire rally of open, unashamed gays must have had.

Your last sentence confuses pride with power. Waving signs in the street and shouting is something you need to do if you're proud of who you are, but are in least possession of power because of who you are. Of course, if you're proud of who you are, and you are in a powerful position, you can rest on your laurels.

But I believe your point, Rus, was that gay people don't, in fact, have anything to be proud of. I seriously suspect you'd prefer a return to the days of homosexuals hiding behind pot plants. Certainly your analogy with mutated, limbless babies indicates a view of homosexuality as a crippling defect. If that is not your view, please correct me, because that is the impression you leave, without quite coming right out and saying it.

You're entitled to that view. But it is one I disagree with in every way.

Obviously, I think I am completely right and am confusing nothing.

expressing pride in something others feel you should be ashamed of is a technique for attaining power.

I think you are quite right about this. Only the point I made is that it is precisely not what it claims to be; it is not pride. It is (if I may borrow your words) a technique for attaining power.

While I don't think anyone should hide behind pot plants, I do think some forms of behavior ought to inspire only shame and never pride. I do think it a crippling defect, but do not propose to argue that with people who are determined to think otherwise (ie, who hold their own dogmas) and who resort to charges of arrogance and other ad hominem attacks when reason fails.

The assumption that this condition is a good and normal thing - rather than a deformity, a deviation - is merely an assumption, unproven at best and horribly misleading at worst. I don't accept it or any talk that assumes it. THAT is the thing that ought to be discussed and questioned. Most today have come to the wrong answer, mostly via assumption and - I do assert - lack of thought, the motivation being laissez-faire, that regarding sex, it is not possible to do wrong. I just re-read a text from "The Well and the Shallows" that nails on the consumer attitude towards sex and its enslaving aspect:

The two sinister things can be seen side by side in the system of Bolshevist Russia; for Communism is the only complete and logical working model of Capitalism. The sins are there a system which are everywhere else a sort of repeated blunder. From the first, it is admitted, that the whole system was directed towards encouraging or driving the worker to spend his wages; to have nothing left on the next pay day; to enjoy everything and consume everything and efface everything; in short, to shudder at the thought of only one crime; the creative crime of thrift. It was a tame extravagance; a sort of disciplined dissipation; a meek and submissive prodigality. For the moment the slave left off drinking all his wages, the moment he began to hoard or hide any property, he would be saving up something which might ultimately purchase his liberty. He might begin to count for something in the State; that is, he might become less of a slave and more of a citizen. Morally considered, there has been nothing quite so unspeakably mean as this Bolshevist generosity. But it will be noted that exactly the same spirit and tone pervades the manner of dealing with the other matter. Sex also is to come to the slave merely as a pleasure; that it may never be a power. He is to know as little as possible, or at least to think as little as possible, of the pleasure as anything else except a pleasure; to think or know nothing of where it comes from or where it will go to, when once the soiled object has passed through his own hands. He is not to trouble about its origin in the purposes of God or its sequel in the posterity of man. In every department he is not a possessor, but only a consumer; even if it be of the first elements of life and fire in so far as they are consumable; he is to have no notion of the sort of Burning Bush that burns and is not consumed. For that bush only grows on the soil, on the real land where human beings can behold it; and the spot on which they stand is holy ground. Thus there is an exact parallel between the two modern moral, or immoral, ideas of social reform. The world has forgotten simultaneously that the making of a Farm is something much larger than the making of a profit, or even a product, in the sense of liking the taste of beetroot sugar; and that the founding of a Family is something much larger than sex in the limited sense of current literature; which was anticipated in one bleak and blinding flash in a single line of George Meredith; “And eat our pot of honey on the grave.”

209.236.72.127/wordpress/?page_id=1032 for a more complete context.

This attitude towards sex, more than anything else, drives the modern push to support the legitimization of homosexual behavior -and the legitimization of other forms of immorality that gradually made the impossible possible, such as fornication (uh, "co-habitation"), pornography, and divorce. It's all connected.

(Edit: addition) Other people who I've talked to before (hopefully) have got this; you, Cambo, may have not:
There is nothing morally reprehensible in merely experiencing desire in my tradition. In Orthodox Tradition it is seen as a consequence of the Fall, but is not sin itself. The sin is in ACTING on the desire; fulfilling the lust. Thus it is entirely possible for a person who experiences same-sex attraction to be a communing member of the Church, just as the alcoholic or anyone desiring to abuse alcohol or anything else may be. It is only when they say "It is OK for me to act on these desires" that this becomes impossible. Thus, the person suffering from same-sex attraction is on an equal footing with all other sinners in the Church - we ALL experiences bent desires one way or another. The teaching is that 'for ALL (not just 'some') have sinned and come short of the glory of God'.

It's just that MANY people think we condemn the sin of the homosexual act more than other sins. Not so. It just happens to be one that a number of people in our society are working very hard on today to legitimize, unlike most other sins.

Hopefully that doesn't distract from my earlier comments. But for a few readers, it might need to be said.

[Cambo]

Okay, let's discuss and question it. Why should I not assume that homosexuality harms nobody? What is different about your views on the matter? Are they based not on assumptions, but proof? What is the source of your dogma?

I'll freely admit that the source of my dogma is certainly a libertarian attitude towards matters of sexuality. That is, sexual activites that are consensual and harm no-one are not morally wrong. I do think that it is possible to do wrong when it comes to sex, but I include as "wrong" only acts that violate those rules. And yes, that is the attitude that drives the acceptance of fornication (call a spade a spade , pornography and divorce, things which were never impossible, just frowned upon. I see this pattern as problematic, but overall positive.

Now, Rus. Tell me about your dogma. If it is not founded on assumptions as much as my own dogma, I will be staggered.

[rusmeister]

Okay, let's discuss and question it. Why should I not assume that homosexuality harms nobody? What is different about your views on the matter? Are they based not on assumptions, but proof? What is the source of your dogma?

I'll freely admit that the source of my dogma is certainly a libertarian attitude towards matters of sexuality. That is, sexual activites that are consensual and harm no-one are not morally wrong. I do think that it is possible to do wrong when it comes to sex, but I include as "wrong" only acts that violate those rules. And yes, that is the attitude that drives the acceptance of fornication (call a spade a spade , pornography and divorce, things which were never impossible, just frowned upon. I see this pattern as problematic, but overall positive.

Now, Rus. Tell me about your dogma. If it is not founded on assumptions as much as my own dogma, I will be staggered.

(Please note my edit addition above)
There are always principles from which thinking starts that are themselves unquestioned: that reason is valid, for example, that it can produce true results and genuine knowledge.

I'd first note that your own libertarian principles fit quite well into GKC's description of what is usually a failure of thought (or at the very least, exposition); so this bears repeating:

to think or know nothing of where it comes from or where it will go to, when once the soiled object has passed through his own hands. He is not to trouble about its origin in the purposes of God or its sequel in the posterity of man.

Any answer we give as to these purposes will be in the context of one view of the world or another. This view may be

a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy.

I dare to say that mine happens to be the former. Yours may also be. This remains to be shown.

The path by which I came to mature faith would require more time than I have; why I came to be convinced that the traditional Christian faith is actually true. It is based on life experience far more than assumptions; because it is a rather daring philosophy based on incredible-seeming dogmas, I certainly have given a lot of thought to it. My recommendations for those who want to try to understand the position, which is not purely personal but corporate, would be to begin with "Mere Christianity" (Lewis) lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt and "Orthodoxy" (Chesterton) www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ . Visiting an Orthodox Church and beginning the process of learning what it teaches is even better.

So what is man, what is sexuality and what is his and its purpose? This involves grasping the Orthodox Christian worldview. The shortest and most succinct statement of that is here:
www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=201

and how is homosexuality seen on that background?:
www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26

I have found it to be a waste of time trying to talk to people who can't be bothered to read even that much - such people don't really want to understand; just debunk.

If that helps understanding, maybe we can talk further. (I'm rather more skeptical than I used to be about that.)

[Cambo]

I'd first note that your own libertarian principles fit quite well into GKC's description of what is usually a failure of thought (or at the very least, exposition); so this bears repeating:
Quote:
to think or know nothing of where it comes from or where it will go to, when once the soiled object has passed through his own hands. He is not to trouble about its origin in the purposes of God or its sequel in the posterity of man.

Well, as to thinking nothing of where it comes from, I think I've shown plenty of interest in where our sexuality comes from. The implications our knowledge of sexuality has for the future interest me also. But I certainly don't trouble about its "origin in the purposes of God." I don't think God has any purposes. So, if failing to factor in the intentions of a God I do not believe in counts as a failure of thinking, then sure. I failed. I've failed all my life. Shucks.

Any answer we give as to these purposes will be in the context of one view of the world or another. This view may be Quote:
a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy.


I dare to say that mine happens to be the former. Yours may also be. This remains to be shown.

Wow, Rus. I just gotta say, if you want people to stop accusing you of arrogance and listening to what you have to say, you gotta cut that kind of thing out. I'm not sure how you meant it, but the impression given is that you are awaiting me to prove my intellectual worth to you before you even begin to take me seriously. I really want to think you didn't mean that.

Your links certainly aid understanding. But in my mind, they proved my point. Your beliefs are built on assumptions just as mine are. The fact that life experience lead you to adopt a particular set of pre-existing assumptions doesn't change that. That's exactly how I reached my set of assumptions. In my life experience, I have never seen anything I would count as harm come to individuals or society as a result of homosexuality. I have, however, directly seen terrible harm done to individuals due to some other individuals intolerance of homsexuality. I have also indirectly seen harm done by institutional discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, I was drawn to libertarian principles when it comes to sexuality. This might be a good place to note that I don't necessarily embrace every aspect or application of libertarianism.

After reading those passages (probably even before), I can say for sure your beliefs arise from a set of assumptions. Chief among these that the Christian God exists and what He has to say matters, without which the entire argument becomes null and void. As assumptions go, that's a doozy.

I have found it to be a waste of time trying to talk to people who can't be bothered to read even that much - such people don't really want to understand; just debunk.

I wish to both understand and debunk. Understand because I am a student of religion, and people's religious beliefs are of interest to me. Debunk because I see your beliefs about homosexuality as damaging, and I wish to resist them wherever I find them. After reading a few of your posts, I've come to wonder how much "understanding" and "agreement" are linked in your mind.

[rusmeister]

I'd first note that your own libertarian principles fit quite well into GKC's description of what is usually a failure of thought (or at the very least, exposition); so this bears repeating:
Quote:
to think or know nothing of where it comes from or where it will go to, when once the soiled object has passed through his own hands. He is not to trouble about its origin in the purposes of God or its sequel in the posterity of man.

Well, as to thinking nothing of where it comes from, I think I've shown plenty of interest in where our sexuality comes from. The implications our knowledge of sexuality has for the future interest me also. But I certainly don't trouble about its "origin in the purposes of God." I don't think God has any purposes. So, if failing to factor in the intentions of a God I do not believe in counts as a failure of thinking, then sure. I failed. I've failed all my life. Shucks.

Any answer we give as to these purposes will be in the context of one view of the world or another. This view may be Quote:
a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy.


I dare to say that mine happens to be the former. Yours may also be. This remains to be shown.

Wow, Rus. I just gotta say, if you want people to stop accusing you of arrogance and listening to what you have to say, you gotta cut that kind of thing out. I'm not sure how you meant it, but the impression given is that you are awaiting me to prove my intellectual worth to you before you even begin to take me seriously. I really want to think you didn't mean that.

Your links certainly aid understanding. But in my mind, they proved my point. Your beliefs are built on assumptions just as mine are. The fact that life experience lead you to adopt a particular set of pre-existing assumptions doesn't change that. That's exactly how I reached my set of assumptions. In my life experience, I have never seen anything I would count as harm come to individuals or society as a result of homosexuality. I have, however, directly seen terrible harm done to individuals due to some other individuals intolerance of homsexuality. I have also indirectly seen harm done by institutional discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, I was drawn to libertarian principles when it comes to sexuality. This might be a good place to note that I don't necessarily embrace every aspect or application of libertarianism.

After reading those passages (probably even before), I can say for sure your beliefs arise from a set of assumptions. Chief among these that the Christian God exists and what He has to say matters, without which the entire argument becomes null and void. As assumptions go, that's a doozy.

I have found it to be a waste of time trying to talk to people who can't be bothered to read even that much - such people don't really want to understand; just debunk.

I wish to both understand and debunk. Understand because I am a student of religion, and people's religious beliefs are of interest to me. Debunk because I see your beliefs about homosexuality as damaging, and I wish to resist them wherever I find them. After reading a few of your posts, I've come to wonder how much "understanding" and "agreement" are linked in your mind.

Well, the only things I'll say to this now, Cambo, are that
1) I was not attempting to say that one may or must operate without assumptions; only that they are almost always unexamined - and I mean from the sides I am coming from. I agree that the assumptions are big - that's why we'd have to go into the reasoning and experience that led me to accept them; but having accepted them, I find that they illuminate everything and make things amazingly clear. The key fits the lock. The Faith makes sense of everything I see in the world.

2) Understanding and agreement are decidedly NOT linked in my mind - but an acknowledgement that my views are reasonable, even if wrong, is still forthcoming from most here. Usually, they want to simplify that position to "because God said so". Being so oversimplified makes it easy to dismiss as some kind of fanatic view. And that means that they do not understand. A simple, "Ah, I see how your own view makes sense from your POV. I don't accept it, but at least I understand." would suffice. But I don't generally get that.

I am not impugning your intellectual worth; in fact, I am withholding judgement on your own views and thought I was saying so (so it looks like misunderstanding to me - I was granting that your own philosophy may be thought out - even as thought-out as mine). I do believe that most popular assumptions really are taken for granted, and that explains why people are so shocked when anyone questions them.

I see an enormous difference between certitude and arrogance (which it seems many here do not see) - the latter being based on pride of personal worth or merit. I plead guilty to the former, but not the latter. Is that something I need to cut out? People whose base dogma is that there is no absolute truth; that truth is merely subjective would like me to. Spockian "IDIC" and understanding and tolerance end there.

[Cambo]

1) That your Faith makes sense of everything you see in the world means that it is the right answer for you. I believe, of course, that certain tenets of that faith are wrong. But I wouldn't want to take any hard won answers from you. A willingness to examine and critique the assumptions you hold is indeed a good thing. But that this examination confirms the assumptions merely shows that they are indeed your answers. It says nothing for their rectitude. (Btw, exactly the same can be said of my spiritual beliefs).

2) Now, see, I'd need that lengthy explanantion of your life story to fully understand how your worldview makes sense from your POV. But I accept that it does. People don't adopt faiths and dogmas for no reason. If they are not pushed, they jump. When it comes to Orthodoxy in general, I think I've got a basic grasp. Sexuality was intended by God to be part of the holy union between man and wife. Heterosexual monogamy, in other words, is the only way. Homosexuality is obviously excluded from this, and a sin. But since we are all Fallen sinners, there is no reason to treat homosexuals as any more sinful than the rest of us. They can be accepted, so long as they make the commitment everyone else has to make, to resist the temptation into sin. That seems pretty clear to me. I disagree with it in just about every way possible, but I'm pretty sure I understand. Was that what you were looking for?

3)I'm glad to hear you were'nt impuging my intellectual worth. That is how it sounded to me, however. Perhaps "cut it out" was a bit harsh, but I really do think you need to watch the way you word things sometimes. I would actually agree that most modern assumptions are taken for granted, but I don't see why libertarianism should be a particularly apt example of this. Surely as many social conservatives take as little time to question their own dogmas?

I don't think arrogance is based on a sense of personal worth or merit. I think those things are very healthy things to have, much more important, in fact, than being right. I am worthy and meritorious. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. Neither circumstance has any bearing on my worth or merit. I would say the same for most people.

Where arrogance comes into is when you believe yourself so worthy or meritorious that it makes you better than other people. And if you're better than other people, and you disagree with them, then obviously you must be right. This is where our misunderstanding came from. The assertion that your philosophy was "complete and conscious" and that mine "may also be" but that "remains to be shown" seemed to place you in a position of established worth, and my own worth something that must be proven to you. In short, it set you up as my superior. I'm not saying you meant any of this, I'm just saying that's the meaning your words conveyed.

So, can you have pride without arrogance? I would say so. I would say a group of people who know they possess worth and merit, but exist in a society that refuses to acknowledge it, are expressing pride when they march on the streets. Gay pride doesn't (in my experience) claim that gay is better than straight. As worthy as straight would be closer. Now, you're not a big fan of relativism, I know. But try a thought experiment with me. You claim not to have pride, but rectitude. Okay. Suppose you and the other people in the right were denied an equal standing in society because everyone else thought you were wrong (which, by the way, most of the world does). But you're right. They are wrong. Why should the right people be oppressed by the wrong people? Surely something should be done about that?

Substitute rectitude for pride, and you have the gay rights movement. Gay people began to realise that they had worth and merit. Further, they began to realise that they had just as much worth and merit as straight people. For straight people to claim they had more worth and merit than gay people was...arrogance. I don't expect you to agree with me on this. But hopefully you'll better understand why "gay pride" parades happen.

[Fist and Faith]

(Edit: addition) Other people who I've talked to before (hopefully) have got this; you, Cambo, may have not:
There is nothing morally reprehensible in merely experiencing desire in my tradition. In Orthodox Tradition it is seen as a consequence of the Fall, but is not sin itself. The sin is in ACTING on the desire; fulfilling the lust. Thus it is entirely possible for a person who experiences same-sex attraction to be a communing member of the Church, just as the alcoholic or anyone desiring to abuse alcohol or anything else may be. It is only when they say "It is OK for me to act on these desires" that this becomes impossible. Thus, the person suffering from same-sex attraction is on an equal footing with all other sinners in the Church - we ALL experiences bent desires one way or another. The teaching is that 'for ALL (not just 'some') have sinned and come short of the glory of God'.

It might take a day or so, because I'm strapped for time, and I don't remember the exact wording you've used, so can't do a quick search. But I'll be anything you've said that the thought is a sin. As Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

[SerScot]

F&F,

You know I disagree with Rus regarding Homosexuality. However, I can tell you what he'll say. My priest has said it any number of times. Having a felting thought that you banish quickly is not sin. Dwelling on the thought is sin.

Do you see the distiction. Everyone will see people they are attracted to and feel attraction. That's not sinful, it's natrual. Then dewelling upon the attraction if it's a woman you aren't married to or if it's a person of the same sex is what the church would say is sin.

[Fist and Faith]

That's not what rus just said. He said "The sin is in ACTING on the desire; fulfilling the lust." He didn't say the sin happens before acting on the desire; he said the sin is acting on the desire.

But yes, at other times, he has said the sin is thinking about the desire more than somewhat. As you say, dwelling on it. But if that is sufficient to be considered sin, why say it is the desire's fulfillment that's the sin? Of course acting on it is a sin if the mere dwelling is.

[Cambo]

And, actually, the very link Rys pointed me to explaining Orthodoxy's position on sexuality made the same argument. It even quoted the same line from the Sermon on the Mount.

[rusmeister]

(Edit: addition) Other people who I've talked to before (hopefully) have got this; you, Cambo, may have not:
There is nothing morally reprehensible in merely experiencing desire in my tradition. In Orthodox Tradition it is seen as a consequence of the Fall, but is not sin itself. The sin is in ACTING on the desire; fulfilling the lust. Thus it is entirely possible for a person who experiences same-sex attraction to be a communing member of the Church, just as the alcoholic or anyone desiring to abuse alcohol or anything else may be. It is only when they say "It is OK for me to act on these desires" that this becomes impossible. Thus, the person suffering from same-sex attraction is on an equal footing with all other sinners in the Church - we ALL experiences bent desires one way or another. The teaching is that 'for ALL (not just 'some') have sinned and come short of the glory of God'.

It might take a day or so, because I'm strapped for time, and I don't remember the exact wording you've used, so can't do a quick search. But I'll be anything you've said that the thought is a sin. As Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Thanks, Fist. That is a good and reasonable question. But SS beat me to the punch. (So I'll just expand on it) The sense of what Christ said is to accept the thought (and hug it and encourage it and fantasize about it), as opposed to, when the thought occurs, immediately saying a prayer or psalm or filling your mind with something else; the spiritual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. The former is sin. The latter is not. It IS a struggle. No one promises that trying to live the faith will be easy.

[rusmeister]

And, actually, the very link Rys pointed me to explaining Orthodoxy's position on sexuality made the same argument. It even quoted the same line from the Sermon on the Mount.

Hmm. With a typo like that, maybe Cambo is a closet Russian?
(For the clueless, the symbol we call the letter "y" the Russians call "u" (pronounced "oo" in Russian).

[Fist and Faith]

But even accepting - dwelling; obsessing; whatever - the thought is not ACTING on - fulfilling - it. You just said acting.

2) Understanding and agreement are decidedly NOT linked in my mind - but an acknowledgement that my views are reasonable, even if wrong, is still forthcoming from most here. Usually, they want to simplify that position to "because God said so". Being so oversimplified makes it easy to dismiss as some kind of fanatic view. And that means that they do not understand. A simple, "Ah, I see how your own view makes sense from your POV. I don't accept it, but at least I understand." would suffice. But I don't generally get that.

You don't get it because your views are not reasonable. It's one thing for a worldview to be internally consistent, and not able to be proven or disproven from outside itself. It's another for a worldview to be forced to outright ignore things that contradict it in order to remain internally consistent. Which is what you do with meaninglessness.

Also, sometimes your views on things start from a conclusion. As in Lewis' moral compass, which starts with the conclusion that we all feel the same moral compass, but some ignore it.

You don't think my worldview accepts that which cannot be proven in certain ways, which seems to be a necessary aspect of your faith. (The "If we could prove God's existence, it wouldn't be faith" idea.) No, it does not. My worldview is not built the same way yours is. I'm not bothered that you don't think mine is built on faith. Why are you bothered that I think yours is?