[Vision2020] Crazy Train

Sun Apr 23 15:55:27 PDT 2006

Thank you very much for your tone, Ed. I hope that we can meet soon. Are you free on Tuesday? We could meet at the One World Cafe.

Herein lies the problem. Your view comes down to a particular interpretation of a particular religious text. We even agree on the text, Ed. Where we disagree is in the interpretation of that text. Maybe your interpretation works for you but it does not work for me. It seems unnatural to me.

[Side note: You are JUST PLAIN WRONG to assert that the Bible is full of condemnations against "homosexuality." There are just two people who condemn it, really: Paul and Leviticus. I'd be interested to see if you have some text that suggests that I am wrong.]

If we are in a debate about which interpretation of the Bible is the better one, well I don't want to suggest that I would be the winner of that debate. I've been a Christian for only a short time now. 

The relevant debate, however, is about who can and who cannot marry whoever they damn well please. That is the practical issue before us.

If, on the basis of my own religious beliefs, I judge that you are acting immorally, that is irrelevant from your own point of view, right Ed? You are not moved by the fact that I think that you are acting immorally in saying what you say about gays and lesbians. I think that you are not being very Christian in acting as you do. But you could care less what I think.

Likewise, you may believe whatever you want about which sex practices are the good ones but I will not have my own actions -- or the actions of my friends and family -- inhibitied by your personal beliefs. At least not if I can help it. (And in Idaho I have a damn good chance.)

Clear harms to clear persons. That should be the only concern of the law. Particular interpretations of particular religious texts are not the standards.

--
Joe Campbell

---- Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote: 

=============
Joe et al,

Your missive, well, down to your final statement, was interesting. But, the basis for my argument against homosexuality is biblical. (In the Bible, God condemnation of homosexuality is pervasive.) Yet, especially for non-believers (atheists, agnostics, etc.), further proof my reasoning is correct lies in pure common sense, and generalizations I suppose. From fitting like a puzzle piece, anatomy, emotionally, procreation (thus sustaining a population base), and other common sense ills. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: joekc at adelphia.net 
  To: Michael 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Crazy Train

  Michael,

  I think that these two questions are interesting but that they would be very difficult to answer. Suppose that we find out that there is some difference in behavioral practice between straight couples and gay couples. Well that might have something to do with the fact that the last time the gay couple went out on a date, they were physically assaulted by a gang of Christian soldiers. 

  Our society makes it very hard for gays and lesbians to act as "normal couples." The fact that we find some "normal couples" among gays and lesbians anyway is amazing. We do all that we can to prevent this from happening and until that changes we should not try to compare couples and see if we find anything interesting.

  As for sexual morality in general two points come to mind. First, it is hard for me to identify any sexual act that a gay/lesbian couple could perform yet a straight couple could not perform. I just don't see how "homosexual activity" could be a relevant moral category. It would be like saying that if I steal from a woman that is OK but if I steal from a man then it is immoral. Is "stealing from a man" a relevant moral category?

  Condemnations of "homosexual activity" are essentially discriminatory. I just don't see any other way to think about it. If it is, say, oral sex that is wrong, then why not just say this and leave the particular manifestation of the oral sex out of it? After all, there are a lot more straights who partake in oral sex then there are gays/lesbians who do (I'm guessing that this is true just because there are so many more folks in the former group). But I have never seen anyone speak in such general terms. This is an indication that whatever most folks are doing when they talk about "homosexual activity," they are not talking about morality. (I'm not suggesting that this is true of you, Michael.)

  Second, in cases of adultry we can point to some part of the act -- the lieing, cheating part -- that is morally wrong. We can then say adultry is wrong because lieing and cheating is wrong. Similarly with sex with minors. Minors cannot properly consent to sexual activity and sex without proper consent is wrong. What is it about same-sex sexual activity that makes it wrong? And keep in mind that whatever it is it must be something that would make the same act wrong if it were done by a straight couple.

  Some folks say that "homosexual activity" is "unnatural" but so is driving a car or flying in an airplane. It just doesn't follow that everything that is unnatural is wrong, or even that if something is unnatural that is a prima facie reason for thinking that it is wrong. I have never seen an argument against same-sex sexual activity that was a good one. The best one can do is speak in vague generalizations making claims that cannot possibly be supported, like Ed has been doing.

  --
  Joe Campbell

  ---- Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote: 

  =============
  Tom,

  To clarify, I'm currently interested in two things:  what the actual
  difference in cultural/behavioral expression really is (statistically)
  between current homosexual and heterosexual practice and also whether or not
  homosexual activity is defined according to some broad notions of morality
  to be in any sense 'wrong.'  All sexual activity is not off the radar simply
  because it is sexual or private, as I'm sure you would agree; e.g., we might
  not necessarily condone some forms of adultery and we might not dispute laws
  against sex with consenting minors.  I also want to distinguish the question
  of legal right from the question of morality.  Further, I also want to grant
  that if some traditions conclude that homosexual activity is 'not good' or
  'wrong' this does not entail that these traditions will approach actual
  homosexuals like a bunch of arrogant fundamentalists.  I do share your
  concerns about bigotry, fear, feeling threatened, etc.  I just don't think
  my particular questions deal much with that particular problem.  Hope that
  helps.

  Michael

  That's just it, Michael -

  You really don't know.

  I am a male heterosexual that has been married to his "significant other"
  for 33 years (come June).

  During the course of those 33 years my significant other and I have known
  several homosexual people.  One was the best man (you can take that pun any
  way you want) at our wedding.  To qualify his "equal entitlements under the
  law" by his sexual preference is purely, and simply, intolerable.

  You see.  I possess sufficient self-confidence and do not feel threatened
  living in the same state, same city, or same building with a same-sex
  married couple.

  And yet another question remains:  Of the 58,004 names on the Vietnam
  Memorial Wall, how many belong to homosexual  soldiers, sailors, airmen, or
  Marines.

  Seeya round town, Moscow.

  Tom Hansen

  Moscow, Idaho

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com