Wish Threads Would Be Locked Not Deleted!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by DaveHayden, Sep 26, 2004.

Loading...
  1. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    OK

    Discussion can get hot and heavy, but moving a thread to where only Admins can see it is the same as deleting it. It would be much better to lock it. Deleting is the equivilent of censorship. While Chip has the right to censor his forum it goes against the spirit of the place.
     
  2. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I will admit that I have moved a few threads to the Admin section in the last couple of days.

    Simply put, I haven't had the time to review each post in each thread that I moved, so I relied on longtime members who alerted me to them as being possible problems.

    Rest assured, these threads have not been "deleted".

    Moving a thread to the Admin Section does not delete it. As a matter of fact, that catalouges it forever.
     
  3. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I personally was surprised at how divisive the topic was. It seemed to trigger strong religious and political views both. I was amazed.
     
  4. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Bill:

    I understand where you're coming from--and I was one of those posting as I'm sure you're aware--but in my estimation it didn't get ugly until race was interjected. People can disparage a lifestyle--mine most definately included--and that's one thing, but even subtle racial comments have no place here.

    Mike
     
  5. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Mike

    Well put. I too am guilty as charged. I was surprised how quickly I got charged up. I agree that it only got ugly (and confusing) when race entered the picture.

    Tom
     
  6. JoAnnP38

    JoAnnP38 Member

    I don't know if you guys are referring to the nature/nurture thread concerning homosexuality, but if you are, then I have no idea what you are talking about. I viewed all of the responses to the thread (except for the last one as indicated by my email notifications) and there was simple NO out-of-handedness occurring. Of course, given Mike's confession that he thinks it's okay to disparage a lifestyle then of course things are going to get energetic. Many of us see a moral equivalency between disparaging a race and disparaging a sexual orientation. As long people don't respect that then threads of this nature will devolve.
     
  7. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I personally thought that as a comparison with another ill within society where the majority has discriminated against a minority based on race, it was a fair comparison. Over the last 40 years I believe that our society has made improvements in reducing racial discrimination. We aren't where we should be yet but improvements have been made. I hope that in the next 40 years we'll see more improvments. People are too important to alienate because of race, sex, age, or sexual preference.
     
  8. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    JoAnn:

    With regard to lifestyles, I said "mine most definitely included"--people are free to disagree with the way I live my life as well--and they certainly do! Of course it's ok to discriminate upon the basis of a lifestyle or beliefs--you do so all the time, or do you consider conservative and liberal to be functionally equivalent, that no one can discriminate between the two? No one considers all lifestyles to be equivalent--discrimination upon the basis of behavior and beliefs is not out of bounds, it's reasonable fodder for debate, but discrimination on the basis of skin tone is never acceptable. As for the out-of-handedness, I just don't think it's morally acceptable to make racist comments of any natureand such comments were very clearly made on that thread.

    Oh boy, here we go again! (JoAnnP--if you wish to continue this, let's start another thread, I'll be glad to debate--but racial comments are out of bounds!)
     
  9. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Why only racial? Why not also age, sex, and sexual orientation?
     
  10. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    With regard to sexual orientation, be it hetero or homo, I've already answered that question. So long as either orientation is practiced, it involves behavior. I see nothing wrong in discriminating against certain behaviors--skin tone does not imply behavior, therefore it's an invalid area for discrimination (age and sex might, but they are not behaviorally-defined as are sexual practices). If you wish to discriminate against me--not invite me to your party or refuse to holds hands with me and acknowledge that my viewpoint has validity--because I am conservative theologically, then that is your prerogative, and I'd have no right to call you a bigot.

    I did not always feel this way, I have invoked the word "bigotry" even on this forum to describe religious discrimination, and while some forms may be--name-calling such as "Jesus freak" or "Bible-thumper" come to mind--it would be wrong for me to say that no one can disagree with my beliefs which inform my behavior or they are bigoted. If someone has a problem with Christians like me, they should not be silenced, because my religion is behaviorally-defined--it's my lifestyle.

    Have we truly come to the point where one can't disagree with what people do without being branded "bigot"? This is an astonishing cultural turn.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2004
  11. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Let's look at the definition of bigot.

    I haven't called anyone a bigot. I haven't followed the discussion close enough to even decide if anyone is being intolerant. It would seem though that the definition of bigot could encompass anyone being intolerant of just about anything?
     
  12. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Mike,

    Your answer gets at the original essence of the debate. Your reasoning seems to be, one’s sexual lifestyle is a chosen behavior, and therefore it is subject to debate and criticism. Of course, if being gay (or straight) is a trait that you are born with, then the issue is suddenly relegated to the realm of “untouchable”, as now it can be equated with skin color. That is, no one should be criticized for something that they have no control of.

    These are really circular arguments that have no hope of resolution on this thread, because people are starting from different assumptions, and then their arguments take off from there.

    My beef with Jimmy’s early post is that he apparently appealed to the scientific method by stating that there was no empirical evidence for homosexuality as a trait one is born with, and then made the absurd leap that it therefore must be a “choice, pure and simple.” Of course, his conclusion (and decision methodology) leaves the scientific method swirling in the wake of his own personal views.

    You indicated that somehow we all “choose” our sexual lifestyle. I understand your motivation to say that, as it keeps the debate on the table and subjects the choice to criticism from anyone so incined. I don’t agree with your assertion at all, however. I wonder how exactly you chose to be straight. Did you draw straws? Did you perhaps create a list of pros and cons for all the different choices and then pick the one with the most pros and the fewest cons? Doesn’t this idea seem absurd to you?

    I suspect your sexuality came naturally to you, just as it does for everyone else, for straights, gays, and everything in between. It’s just that you and other fundies (as Tio Janko would say) would like your lifestyle to be ok with God, and you’d like the gay lifestyle to be bad with God. Is that it?

    The fundamentalist argument that says that the gay lifestyle is wrong, and that gays are fundamentally bad (in the eyes of God) is wrought with a bunch of assumptions: the assumption that gays consciously choose the lifestyle; the assumption that God would want to condemn any of his creations; the assumption that your religious views should be accepted as the truth; the assumption that everyone involved in the argument even has a religious view; and the assumption that two humans (straight and gay) who are so alike in the ways that matter could be so fundamentally different that one is condemned in the eyes of God and the other cherished.

    The racial comparison is not that far off, though I confess I didn’t pay attention to how it entered the thread. Forty some odd years after the civil rights movement, most of us have evolved enough to realize that there is nothing about skin color which should naturally subject one to ridicule and discrimination. It wasn’t always that way. Eventually, the argument against gays will be an historical relic too.
     
  13. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Tom:

    You're missing my point. I'm not even touching upon the nature v. nurture issue. I do not think that proclivities are by themselves wrong--it's the action thereupon that's wrong. I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that all sexuality is determined by genetics, having nothing whatsoever to do with environment. Even if, it does not affect my viewpoint.

    On that other thread, I stated clearly that I do not have a natural proclivity towards mating with but one woman; my natural--probably inborn--proclivity is to engage in sex with many women, that might be kind of fun (for a season). But that would not make it right! My wife would be justified in kicking my butt up around my shoulder blades, and she wouldn't suffer my foolish argument: "But honey, it's my inborn proclivity."

    Let us suppose that they find genetic markers for all manner of things: beastiality, bigamy, pedophilia, Naziism, right-wing religious fanaticism--does that justify the ACTIONS that people take? Proclivities are a given--although I'd argue, as would common-sense and a good number of social scientists, that the manner in which we behave influences our proclivities as much as vice-versa, in a symbiotic relationship--but they don't justify behavior.

    I'll not discriminate against any proclivities, as my faith informs me that we all have proclivities to do that which is unseemly, but I'll not allow that to silence my discussion of behavior.


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2004
  14. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Mike,

    I agree with you to a point, but I would point out a few things. Genetic markers haven’t been found for the items on your list. It’s quite possible none will ever be found. You have subtly included homosexuality with beastiality and Nazi’s. Your tacit assumption is that homosexuality is evil -like vanquishing millions or having sex with animals?

    What about a gay couple that lives happily, harmoniously, and monogamously, as you do with your wife (and as I do with my wife)? Where does that leave your argument? Are they still bad? They are doing no more and no less than you. The only difference is their sexual preference.

    If the crux of your argument rests on the idea that gays lead a more promiscuous and less virtuous life, then that’s a whole different issue. It may or may not be true on average, but it certainly isn’t true universally. Moreover that subtlety was lost (to me, at least) in your earlier posts.

    Tom
     
  15. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    No, my argument does not rest upon a more promiscuous life--that may be true, but those people who engage in that should be criticized for their promiscuity, just as heterosexuals who are promiscuous should be so criticized.

    And as for my placement of homosexuals with Nazis and pedophiles--recall that I also placed right-wing religious individuals in that very same list!

    In any event, acting upon homosexual impulses is wrong. I say that primarily for a reason I know you'll reject--my faith, and the New Testament is unequiviocal on the subject. I don't think that homosexuals are any less a person than me or despised in God's eyes--what a fool I'd be if I stated He winks at my wrongful heterosexual lusts while condemning homosexual acts! If there are Christians who contend that they're inherently better as human beings than the homosexual couple next door, then they're sincerely mistaken and they'd better reread the Bible. But that does not mean that the God whom I believe invented sex doesn't have a right to inform us as to its most beneficial use; and it doesn't mean that I can't state what is right and wrong according to a clear reading of the New Testament.

    I'm not saying everyone must believe as I do, I'm not trying to force my beliefs upon you, and I'm not even suggesting public policy as the solution--I'm just saying that some actions are right and some are wrong, and my bet is you feel the same way, we just put different things on our list.

     
  16. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Now you are comparing homosexuality with bestiality, pedohilia, and Nazism! Where do you get off Mike?! That is just TOTALLY uncalled for and inappropriate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2004
  17. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Dave:

    Read my quote: "Let us suppose that they find genetic markers for all manner of things: beastiality, bigamy, pedophilia, Naziism, RIGHT-WING RELIGIOUS FANATICISM." (emphasis added)

    I included ME AND MY THEOLOGICAL BRETHREN in that group--read my posts, don't always think the very worst of me.

    Why do you fellows insist on reading into my posts that which I did not intend--and further, why are you giving Bo a free pass on this? I've heard from three of you that you "can't seem to remember" who brought race into the debate. Well I think you all know who, and I'll be glad to remind you what was said and ask any of you if you're willing to defend it--just give me the word, I remember the debate well, I'll recount it if you wish.

    Cheers!

    Mike
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2004
  18. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    I understand your reasoning. You're right, I don't agree with it. It's not equitable. As a heterosexual, you are ok, as long as you don't commit adultery, or some other sin. You allow that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual as long as one doesn't act on it - at all.

    Based on my beliefs, your philosophy is no different than telling a black person, "I have no problem with you being black. You are inherently my equal. Yet being black, and doing what blacks do (whatever that might be) is wrong."

    A monogomous healthy relationship is open to you. For a homosexual, it is not. If gays were to subscribe to your doctrine, they would be condemning themselves to a life of unhappiness. It's hard to imagine how a merciful God would allow that. I suppose the answer from you would be that God allows car accidents and children to get cancer - and that we have no promise or guarantee of happiness. However, what you are suggesting deprives people of their most basic needs to live as happy and productive people. This is a sentence that makes no sense, and my belief tells me it is wrong - dead wrong.

    Nevertheless, I respect your right to your beliefs and your interpretation of the Bible. I'm far from a Bible scholar, but I have studied it enough to know that it is open to many interpretations, and it was written by many different people, and at many different times. To say that the Bible, even the New Testament, is unequivocal on the subject is, necessarily, an interpretation - one that no doubt fits with many people's inborn (or nurtured?) ideology.

    Can you honestly say that your beliefs come exclusively from your interpretation of the Bible? If someone had showed you an alternative interpretation years ago, one that showed that homosexuality was not a sin, would that have cemented your beliefs in the other direction? Or did you find an interpretation that matched what you already felt in your heart?

    The first has more credence. The second is no more than building a theory to match one's feelings, or in statistics, we call it data mining.
     
  19. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    I am NOT getting into this tiresome issue (sorry for the hollering), except to assert with every bit of my cranky altlutherisch self that there are a few of us for whom doctrine and belief come first and the "heart" or emotions can damn well catch up (or not--so much the worse for them, not for the doctrine or belief).

    I also support the moderators doing what they want. They're in charge.
     
  20. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    The Bible really is clear on this, it's very direct, if you wish me to point you to the passages, I will--there's more than one in the New Testament, and while I'll acknowledge there are many passages in the Bible that are apparently unclear and subject to several interpretations; the pronouncements in the NT are so clear they're overwhelming: Romans chapter 1, I Corinthians Ch 6,
     

Share This Page