Pages

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!



A friend of mine plugged the NC amendment on his Facebook wall. This triggered some hostile feedback. I’m going to evaluate on some of the comments:

Myke Floyd Yes, but once again you are picking and choosing what you believe out of the Bible as fact and what you do not. Christianity may provide you with a moral framework but if you pick only which passages out of the Bible you choose to support, how can you honestly and validly state that Christian theism's idea of morality is greater or less than those who might disagree with your interpretation of it?

Several issues here.

i) Not every Biblical injunction is a moral absolute. There’s a distinction between laws of utility and laws of morality. Likewise, some OT laws are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.

ii) Moderate to liberal professing Christians are often guilty of cherry-picking the Bible.

iii) Some conservative Christians are inconsistent because they don’t have the time and expertise to work through the complexities of the issue. But that’s a fairly innocent inconsistency. We have different vocations.

iv) Floyd is using a simplistic all-or-nothing argument, but that’s not the position of the NT. On the one hand, the NT indicates a degree of continuity between OT law and the new covenant (e.g. (Mt 5:17-19; 1 Tim 1:9-10). On the other hand, the NT indicates a degree of discontinuity between OT law and the new covenant (e.g. Acts 15:20,29; Gal 3:23-24; Heb 7:11-19).

Therefore, Christians are not ipso facto inconsistent when they draw some distinctions. To the contrary, Christians would be inconsistent with Scripture if they ignored the witness of the NT. Christians can’t be faulted for inconsistency if they consistently follow the NT.

v) Christians don’t have to have a general position on the degree of continuity between OT law and the new covenant to have a principled position on homosexuality, for that’s a case in which the NT specifically reaffirms OT ethics (e.g. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). Whatever else does or doesn’t carry over, that much carries over.

vi) In addition to OT law, you also have OT narrative. On the issue of divorce, Jesus grounds his position on the creation account (Mt 19:4-6). That’s normative for the nature of marriage, which precludes homosexuality.

Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling of one's daughter into slavery. Do you find that permissible??

Several issues:

i) This is a good example of a knee-jerk reaction to Scripture. The unbeliever makes no effort to understand why that provision exists, or the particulars.

Compare this to, say, a secular anthropologist who studies a South American Indian tribe. The anthropologist doesn’t assume this judgmental attitude. Rather, he (or she) tries to understand tribal customs in the context of survival in the Amazon basin. To what extent are tribal customs an adaptation to life in the jungle?

Likewise, even if you deny the inspiration of Scripture, it’s unintelligent to attack OT laws without bothering to understand the socioeconomic conditions to which these laws are responsive. .

ii) Under the circumstances, I do think Exod 21:7 is permissible. And that would be permissible in comparable circumstances. It’s a type of arranged marriage.

iii) The practical issue which this provision deals with is how to cope if a family has too many mouths to feed. One solution is to expose the weak, the sick, the elderly, or female children.

But in Bible ethics, that’s unacceptable.

iv) As one scholar explains:

The practice of selling minors is well attested in the ancient Near East. Parents who were in debt, or unable to support their families, sold children in the markets.
In this section of Exodus we learn that Hebrew parents could sell their daughters into conditional slavery…In the Old Testament, this girl is not a slave-girl in the usual sense that we understand the term. She is better protected, and is not to be treated as other slaves As we shall we see in the following verses, the law presupposes that she will marry either her master or his son. Therefore, she has the status of a married woman and she is to be treated kindly and with utmost respect. J. Currid, Exodus: Chapters 19-40 (EP 2001), 67-68.
v) Is that an ideal solution? No. But then, no ideal solution was available in that situation. It’s because the underlying situation was less than ideal that the solution was less than ideal. Rather, it’s realistic. And it’s far better than starvation.

The Bible isn’t a fairy tale, like Cinderella, where the prince will marries the peasant girl, and they live happily ever after in a marble palace by the sea.

vi) This is analogous to medieval apprenticeship. In the past, poorer families would often apprentice their sons. That provided him with room and board, and taught him a marketable skill.

Was that ideal? No. Young sons suffered emotional separation from their families. Living and working conditions were often harsh. They were under the authority of someone who might not have natural affection for them.

But it was an economic necessity. Better than starvation.

vii) I’ll finish with a personal anecdote. I had a great-grandmother who migrated to America during the Irish potato famine. She came over as an indentured servant.

Is that ideal? No. But life was tough back then. Still is in many parts of the Third World.

Exodus 35:2 clearly defines working on the Sabbath as punishable by death. Lots of stores are open on Sundays. Should we get out the stones??

i) We use to have blue laws in this country. Life was less hectic when stores closed on Sunday. That gave everyone a day off.

ii) One question is whether the death penalty for Sabbath-breakers reflects the heightened holiness of the ceremonial law. If so, then the death penalty doesn’t carry over into the new covenant even if Sabbath-keeping remains obligatory.

iii) Based on Rom 14:5, Gal 4:10, & Col 2:16, many Bible scholars think Sabbath-keeping is no longer obligatory. Of course, that’s disputed, but you can’t fault Christians for inconsistency if they think the NT relegates that to the defunct ceremonial law. 

Leviticus 11:7 points out that that touching the skin of a dead pig is also not allowed. Should I shoot my mom which she cooks a pork roast?? Wouldn't that be allowed under your narrow canon of moral fiber??

That’s an example of ritual purity. And it’s arguable that that’s unique to Israel’s cultic holiness.

To draw that distinction is not an ad hoc distinction. For the NT itself draws that general distinction. Christians are simply taking their cue from the NT.



Leviticus 18:22 is often pointed out as the section of the Bible that Christians use to justify the belief that homosexuality is against God's law. But if you adhere to such a standard, why do you not adhere to all of the rest? I could point out other verses but I doubt you would agree that are apropo in today's society.

Paul reaffirms Lev 18:22. His wording in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 paraphrases that every passage. So Christians have specific NT warrant for invoking that passage.

We don’t have specific warrant for adhering to “all the rest.” Rather, the NT indicates degrees of continuity and discontinuity, with examples of each.

Myke Floyd Gabe, your presume I do not have that background. Besides, my objections to the pick & choose frame of mind regarding passages from the Bible needs no defense. & if you are have to pull authors as references to back up what you believe, then it's clear that you're working with modern interpretation to selectively believe which chapter & verses you believe in adhering to and those that you do not. Either you believe it is all verbatim or you believe it's open for interpretation. There's no passage that I'm aware of that states "here's the Bible, I've given you the word of God. Pick which parts back up what you believe and throw out the parts you don't.".

That betrays multiple confusions:

i) There’s a difference between modern interpreters and modern interpretations. The aim of modern interpreters (unless they have a liberal agenda) is to ascertain what the text would mean to the ancient author and his ancient audience.

Floyd’s objection makes no more sense than suggesting that modern interpreters of Dante or Aristotle modernize the text.

ii) In fact, the objection is contradictory. Floyd is the one in danger of modernizing the text by failing to consider the text in its original setting. As a result, he’s using his modern framework as the interpretive grid.

iii) Then there’s his false dichotomy between believing it is all verbatim or believing it’s open to interpretation. What a muddleheaded objection. For instance, one can read a verbatim transcript of a speech by Churchill, yet the speech may still be open to interpretation. For instance, a wartime speech by Churchill takes for granted a lot of topical background information which was common knowledge to contemporary listeners, but not necessarily to someone in the 21C

iv) Likewise, you can believe it’s verbatim, but still consider the best interpretation.

v) Moreover, it’s not as if conservative interpretations are self-serving. Conservatives condemn homosexuality, but they also condemn heterosexual fornication and adultery. So they’re not exempting themselves from temptations to which they themselves are prone.

Conversely, you can have candid liberals like Luke Timothy Johnson who admit the Bible condemns homosexuality, but reject the authority of Scripture.

Myke Floyd Gabe ... you not only proved my point but you contradicted your own assertions. On the one hand you state that the Bible uses different "metaphors" to answer the question of what it means to be a Christian. Yet ... on the other hand, you assert it is the absolute word of God and should be believed in it's entirety. A book full of metaphors open to interpretation (by authors such as those you were referring to) is by definition not meant to be taken literally.

i) Further confusion. The Bible should be taken figuratively when it’s speaking figuratively, and literally when it’s speaking literally. To believe it all doesn’t mean believing it’s all literal or all figurative.

And that’s hardly unique to the Bible. Nonfiction literature frequently uses metaphors.

Once again, Floyd simplistically turns this into an all-or-nothing argument.

ii) Likewise, there can be divinely-inspired metaphors.

 I once again assert that though everyone has a right to his or her opinion, his or her opinion by definition is not fact. And unless you believe verbatim every passage and verse of the Bible without needing anyone to define what they mean for you, then you acquiesce to the fact that it's not literal ... which negates your belief that you're for or against anything based strictly on the words contained within that hallowed book. I've never claimed to be a theologian, but you do not have to possess a degree in theology to plainly read what is written therein.

Once again, this is nonsensical. For instance, Thomas Aquinas is a pretty literal writer. Yet many commentaries have been written on the Summa Theologica, defining key terms and concepts.

There’s a difference between believing in the divine authority of Scripture, and supposing that interpretation is confined to the words of Scripture. The Bible wasn’t written in an artificial language like Esperanto, unique to the pages of Scripture.

Natural languages are the product of a linguistic community. Meaning derives from the usage of the linguistic community. Likewise, understanding the Bible presupposing a certain amount of background knowledge about the world it talks about.

Myke Floyd Just as a follow up to your assertion in the original post that "The marriage amendment is not about bigotry or hatred. It is a question of where authority in ethics resides."
This is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-relgious nation founded on tolerance and the belief that you could believe differently.

Actually, the nation was founded by Puritans, who weren’t notably tolerant. Does he think the Colonial New England theocracies were tolerant? Perhaps he means the founding of the Republic.

At it's very foundation, your argument presumes that one specific religion ... that you personally adhere to as do many others ... but not everyone ... should be able to become law regardless of what the others believe.

According to the Northwest Ordinance:

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.


Religious theocracies have never worked, Christian based or otherwise. Your argument predisposes they do & would lead this nation down a horribly slippery slope. Secularism doesn't dismiss anyone's ability to adhere to their own personal religious beliefs. It simply means you can't force them on everyone else.

i) Even in ancient Israel, resident aliens weren’t required to practice Judaism. Indeed, they were forbidden to participate in the religious life of Israel unless they voluntarily converted to the true faith.

ii) Secularism has its own slippery slope.

Chris Hill Myke, if a group of folks lobbied and were able to propose that government approve spousal abuse, would you approve? I think not. What if the group claimed that their own "religion" ok'd such abuse? Does the government have the "authority" to rule in a manner that protects spouses BUT impedes the groups ability to exercise what they believe is their "right"? How does the government decide?

We have popular sovereignty.

Myke Floyd Bob ... I have no problem with Gabe's statements. What he believes in the core of his soul is just fine by me. He, nor anyone else, should expect everyone else to emulate such cores of belief. Again, that's why we were founded on many levels of tolerance including religious freedom ... & not just for Christians. We do not legislate religious beliefs. But we do legislate equality. Or else there would still be slaves and women would not be able to vote.

We also legislate inequality. We treat bank robbers differently than bank customers. The law distinguishes between withdrawing money you’ve deposited in your account and pointing a gun at the teller.

Myke Floyd Chris, that is a ridiculous comparison at best. & we all no religious freedom is valid ... & guaranteed but not at the expense and safety of others. Secular law overrides religious law ... or like I pointed out ... one could sell one's daughter into slavery ... IF you REALLY believe EVERY passage from the Bible VERBATIM. Which I guarantee each and every person posting here and in every pew on Sunday does not.

The relevant distinction is not between religious and secular, but between true and false, right and wrong. As long as something is true, even if it comes from a religious source, it would be bigoted to exclude it simply because a religious truth is religious. That’s the classic genetic fallacy. 

Myke Floyd Whether or not I am saved is between me, my soul, and God. And again ... you're only picking and choosing which passages to throw out as fact. That sounds much nicer and easier to defend but it's part of the same book. & if you knew or know the history of how the Bible was put together ... it was put together, chapter & verse, by men. Men who decided what testaments went in & what didn't. Personally, I'd love to take a theologian and an interpreter into the Vatican archives & see what DIDN'T make it in.

Da Vinci Code conspiracy theories.

Marcus Watson It's sad to see people hide behind Christianity to shower their judgement and hate.
Marcus Watson All your theories and premises are basically hiding hatred and intolerance. I won't debate this. I have seen you do it before, but I will no longer sit around and not call you out on it.
Marcus Watson Like I said. I don't need to argue anything with you. If you can't see why denying other people the same rights you have is hateful and intolerant then I truly feel sorry for you.
Marcus Watson There are so many contradictions in that diatribe I don't know where to begin. The biggest one is that you say you wish that homosexual have the best life possible and them deny them civil rights, not religious rights....civil rights. I don't owe anyone an apology and I won't apologize for standing up for the rights of people that are not engaging in immoral activities that you compare to lying, stealing and murdering. Do you hear yourself?

Okay, let’s bracket that pernicious religious perspective and consider this from a secular standpoint. On that view, homosexuals, and humans generally, are just animals. Apes. Primates.

To my knowledge, the social structure of the Great Apes isn’t democratic or egalitarian. There’s a pecking order. Alpha males dominate beta males. Males dominate females. The secular alternative to Christian ethics is Planet of the Apes.

Kevin Daniel Dixon As much as all of you would like your personal faith to dictate the laws of our country, it does not and should not. To deny constitutional rights to a group because of their sexual orientation is no different than denying the rights of someone based on skin color, gender, etc. If the Methodist church or Catholic church would like to not recognize the unions, that is completely up to them. Ironically, the ability to not recognize these unions would be granted by the very government liberties you seek to limit.

i) Sodomite marriage is not a Constitutional right. Indeed, sodomy is not a Constitutional right. Just consider all the anti-sodomy statutes on the books at the time the Constitution was ratified:


ii) To say it’s no different that racism or sexism is an argument from analogy minus the argument. Where is Dixon’s supporting argument? All he’s done is to allege a parallel.

Christopher Jewell There is a huge difference between religious right/wrong and legislation. We live in America...of course a marriage amendment is bigoted. Church and state.

But from a secular standpoint, Jewell is just a self-important monkey. If one ape calls another ape “bigoted,” who cares? Why should Jewell’s apish opinion concern me?

Matthew McCarter Jesus died for everyone. Not just Christians. He died for murderers, prostitutes, me and you. I will leave the judgement up to him and in the mean time I will try my best to love thy neighbor and thy enemy. No matter what their sin is. Because whether someone is gay, a thief, adulterer, or even an atheist; we are ALL SINNERS.

Part of neighbor love is to protect your neighbor from sexual predators. Keep in mind that the priestly abuse scandal is fueled by homosexual priests. When we empower homosexuals, we put our children at risk.

Myke Floyd Bob ... I base my morals on what Jesus taught ... love of fellow man & not judging lest I be judged. As Mr. McCarter pointed out, Jesus died for everyone, so why must hard core evangelicals or radical islamists or purists orthodox Jews, etc. etc etc assume that it's ok for them to pass judgement on others based on their own personal morals and beliefs?? We're NOT talking about beating ones wife ... that's just silly ... why can't you believe what you believe, hold it true to your heart & soul, & let everyone else do the same?? Isn't taking judgment into your own hands against the word of God?
Kevin Daniel Dixon After spending time with the bible and reflecting upon my faith, I have decided that God's number one desire for me is to love my fellow man. It was and is his first commandment. As such, I will support proudly granting civil rights to any group of people. I applaud the decision of many of you to seek further education, but I cringe to see the conclusions that you and your peers seem to draw and accept as factual. I hope the ammendment in NC passes in a landslide, and I will pray for all of you.

i) The Bible itself condemns homosexuality,

ii) Love is not synonymous with permissiveness. Indeed, permissiveness is unloving. Homosexuals have a highly destructive lifestyle. You don’t love them by officially sanctioning their lifestyle. It’s hateful to sanction a self-destructive lifestyle. Let’s take some concrete examples:

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men. Recent increases in syphilis cases have been documented across the country. In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.
Gay and bisexual men can be infected with HPV (Human Papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States. Some types of HPV cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancer. Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer. See Primary and Secondary Syphilis—Reported Cases, 2008, by Sexual Orientation.


The overall number of new HIV cases – referred to as HIV incidence – has remained relatively stable at approximately 50,000 new cases annually. However, the number of new cases among people aged 13-29 years increased by 21 percent from 2006 to 2009. The rise in HIV incidence among young adults was fueled by a 34 percent increase in HIV infections among young gay and bisexual men. For more information, see HIV Incidence.


Gay and bisexual men are at increased risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, B and C, which are contagious liver diseases. Approximately 10 % of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among men who have sex with men. Many men have not been vaccinated against viral hepatitis, despite the availability of safe and effective vaccine.  In addition, CDC has investigated several outbreaks of Hepatitis C among HIV positive gay men. In addition, CDC has investigated several outbreaks of Hepatitis C among HIV positive gay men.


Studies have shown that, when compared with the general population, gay and bisexual men, lesbian, and transgender individuals are more likely to:
 • Use alcohol and drugs
 • Have higher rates of substance abuse
 • Are less likely to abstain from alcohol and drug use
 • Are more likely to continue heavy drinking into later life[1]
Substance abuse is associated with a wide-range of mental health and physical problems. It can disrupt relationships, employment, and threaten financial stability.
Alcohol and illegal drug use in some gay and bisexual men also contributes to increased risk for HIV infection and other STDs, especially methamphetamines, amyl nitrates (poppers) and drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction. Individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol may increase their risk for HIV transmission by engaging in risky sexual behaviors or through sharing needles or other injection equipment.


Men who have sex with men are at even greater risk for suicide attempts, especially before the age of 25.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs between two people in a close relationship, including current and former partners. IPV can range from a single episode of violence to ongoing battering. IPV includes four types of behavior: Physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical or sexual violence, and emotional abuse. Studies have estimated that 11% to 44% of men who have sex with men surveyed experienced IPV in same-sex relationships.

30 comments:

  1. Thanks for these helpful comments, Steve. We disagree about a lot of things but we agree on a lot as well, and your remarks on deriving ethics from Scripture are very helpful. I just want to point something out with regard to the source you cite on substance abuse problems among gays and lesbians. It does say that such problems are more frequent than in the general population, but it also says this:

    "Alcohol and drug use among some men who have sex with men (MSM) can be a reaction to homophobia, discrimination, or violence they experienced due to their sexual orientation and can contribute to other mental health problems."

    So I wouldn't cite this source as evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is inherently self-destructive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course there's some political correctness that seeps into the CDC exposition. But I was deliberately quoting a source sympathetic to homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One statistic I'm surprised you didn't cite was those regarding the average number of sex partners had in a lifetime. The claims are that the study is out of date, but it's still telling.

    A few other comments.

    i) Not every Biblical injunction is a moral absolute. There’s a distinction between laws of utility and laws of morality. Likewise, some OT laws are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.

    I think you would have done better to focus on this, and then bypass anything that wasn't a moral absolute in the comments regarding the OT. That observation alone cuts down on the lion's share of the comments.

    The Bible itself condemns homosexuality,

    It condemns same-sex sexual behavior. It doesn't condemn homosexuality such that a person, just for having SSA, is committing a sin.

    I wish this was appreciated more, because I think it would undercut an awful lot of the knee-jerk attacks on the Christian position.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That was informative. Im glad you took the time to write it.

    When I wrote my comment on FB it was because the tone of the thread was harsh. I was trying to make sure that everyone knows that no matter what the sin of another commits we are all still sinners. Casting our judgement onto them is in and of itself wrong. Instead we should love them like our brothers, be there for them and consult them in each and every way that we can. Jesus didnt run from sinners, he sat down and ate with them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CRUDE SAID:

    "It condemns same-sex sexual behavior. It doesn't condemn homosexuality such that a person, just for having SSA, is committing a sin."

    In Rom 1, Paul condemns both homosexual deeds and homosexual desires.

    And even if he didn't explicitly condemn homosexual desire (which he does), that's already implicit in the Biblical principle that outward actions proceed from the heart (e.g. Mt 7:18; 15:19; 1 Jn 3:15).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pun said...

    "I was trying to make sure that everyone knows that no matter what the sin of another commits we are all still sinners."

    This is a question of public policy. Some sins are more socially destructive than others. Both gossip and murder are sinful, but only one is criminal.

    "Casting our judgement onto them is in and of itself wrong."

    It's wrong for Christians to share the outlook of Scripture?

    "Jesus didnt run from sinners, he sat down and ate with them."

    You're attacking a position that hasn't been taken.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    In Rom 1, Paul condemns both homosexual deeds and homosexual desires.

    Granted, but Leviticus didn't punish the desire. And Paul's condemnation of the desire seems to be in line with the desire for any sin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve, I do want to start off by saying that I have read this entire post and want to say that I appreciate your, at least biblically, educated and rational responses to the statements that disagree with your position. However, I can't say I agree with some of your assertions, and absoluteness of your position.

    i) Amazingly, you did the best job I've seen in a long time of explaining how OT (and I guess some NT passages) have to be looked at in the context of the time that I've seen in some time. You excellently picked passages from the OT and NT and explained the differences and continuity to make your points. My problem is that your excellent arguments are only valid if the "Christian" God is real. What I mean by that, is that, the last I checked, Christians accounted for ~33% of the world population (and I'm sure a lot of that "~33%" thinks a fair amount of the rest of the "33%" is wrong in their "interpretation" and going to hell)...but that still leaves 66% of the world's population that just as vehemently believe their God/Gods (or lack thereof)are real and yours is not. Now I'm sure you're smart enough to give me a passage from the Bible that says 2/3 of the world are heathens...but really dude? The point I'm making is that if you're God is, in fact, The Omnipotent Omnicient G to the Mofo D...I think he would make his thesis a little less open to "interpretation" or a "living book" that takes a friggin' archeologist to understand...just saying.

    ii) So I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything, but have read the Bible in it's entirety a time or two...and I don't recall Jesus denying the right to believe/behave differently than he. Obviously, I know he said you can't go to Heaven unless you repent and go through him, etc...but what if you don't care about going to Jesus Heaven?...can't imagine Jesus creating a law that would not allow said person the ability to see someone he loves in the hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  9. iii) I was actually a fan of your solid arguments (although I disagreed with your position, I still was understanding of it)...however, that last one lost me man. Now, we can do the "chicken before the egg" debate, but if I were gay, living in a society where I was constantly discriminated against, bullied, made a mockery of, and if I was lucky, afraid for my life....I could conceivably understand why I would drink, do drugs, etc. In terms of your sex data...did it ever occur to you that in a society that embraced commitment of same sex couples that had committed relationships could flourish rather than feeling the need to live a "double life" and engage in 'anonymous' behaviors might alter this data to a more "hetero" level?

    iv) You're ape arguments make me laugh. You're an excellent theologian, but doubt that you're much of a geneticist. Mankind's genome is between 95 and 98.5% identical to chimps. If that is the case, what do you suppose the percentage is between man and woman? Is it possible that a slight glitch in a man's genome makes him a "woman" in his head and thus attracted to men...you can bet your sweet sweet ass. As much as it is hard for you (and myself) to imagine being attracted to another man, the gay friends I have have just as hard of time as being attracted to a woman.

    v) Since I've got to go (and I could go on for some time), I want to go ahead and make my last statement. Given what I've already said, would God have condemned you to Hell if you (metaphorically if you do not live in NC) if you just did not vote on Amendment 1? I believe that, in America, one's rights end where mine begins. You mentioned a robber vs. a customer just taking cash out. The difference between the two is that in your scenario, you have just another person going on about his business vs. someone with a gun in my face threatening my life. With regards to the gay issue, you have two guys/girls doing their own thing, and I'm having a happy loving committed relationship with my wife...what they do has no impact on my love, my life, and my family...I know why you think you should care, but unless they have a gun to your head saying "suck it"...just let it go, dude, and let them know you are Christian by your love...not use your "interpretation" of the Bible to take your sword out and make them believe what you hold true...

    ReplyDelete
  10. In terms of divorce, Scripture seems quite clear about this (Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18, Matthew 19:9).

    "He who divorces his wife forces her to commit adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery". The exception is marital unfaithfulness. There were no outs provided by Christ for emotional or even physical abuse.

    Should our laws reflect this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. i) We used to have stricter divorce laws. It was liberals who enacted no-fault divorce.

    ii) Divorce laws also depend on the will of the electorate.

    iii) Desertion is another Scriptural grounds for divorce (1 Cor 7:15).

    iv) Biblical case law doesn't anticipate every conceivable contingency. Christ was responding to a particular question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. C. K. ANDERSON SAID:

    “My problem is that your excellent arguments are only valid if the ‘Christian’ God is real. What I mean by that, is that, the last I checked, Christians accounted for ~33% of the world population (and I'm sure a lot of that ‘~33%’ thinks a fair amount of the rest of the ‘33%’ is wrong in their ‘interpretation’ and going to hell)...but that still leaves 66% of the world's population that just as vehemently believe their God/Gods (or lack thereof)are real and yours is not. Now I'm sure you're smart enough to give me a passage from the Bible that says 2/3 of the world are heathens...but really dude? The point I'm making is that if you're God is, in fact, The Omnipotent Omnicient G to the Mofo D...I think he would make his thesis a little less open to ‘interpretation’ or a ‘living book’ that takes a friggin' archeologist to understand...just saying.”

    i) As a Calvinist, I don’t think God intends to save everyone. Therefore, your percentiles are perfectly consistent with divine omniscience and omnipotence.

    ii) Just because something is true doesn’t mean people are inclined to believe it.

    iii) Many adherents of non-Christian religions are nominal adherents. Moreover, non-Christian religions generally stress the practice of religion rather than a set of beliefs.

    iv) So I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything, but have read the Bible in it's entirety a time or two...and I don't recall Jesus denying the right to believe/behave differently than he.

    There’s a difference between allowing evil and making evil a civil right.

    “…can't imagine Jesus creating a law that would not allow said person the ability to see someone he loves in the hospital.”

    To my knowledge:

    i) Visitation rights are generally a matter of hospital policy, not law. It’s not as if there’s generally a law against friends visiting patients.

    ii) Hospitals routinely allow friends to visit patients.

    iii) Hospital staff don’t inquire about the sexual orientation of friends who visit patients. Hospitals don't allow heterosexual friends to visit patients, but disallow homosexual friends to visit patients.

    iv) There are situations in which hospital policy restricts patient access to the immediate family. I think that happens in ER/CCU/ICU settings.

    v) Apropos (iv), this controversy has less to do with visitation rights than who has the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated homosexual patient. Is it the immediate family, or the boyfriend? Isn’t that the real issue?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "My problem is that your excellent arguments are only valid if the 'Christian' God is real."

    If there is no God, then what Steve said about considering the arguments from a secular perspective hold true.

    If you believe in a different sort of a "God," then you'll have to make your position more explicit if you want interaction.

    "What I mean by that, is that, the last I checked, Christians accounted for ~33% of the world population (and I'm sure a lot of that '~33%' thinks a fair amount of the rest of the '33%' is wrong in their 'interpretation' and going to hell)..."

    The focus isn't on what Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, a variety of Protestants, and other types of Christians who call themselves Christians each believe, per se. Rather the focus is on what the Bible teaches.

    "but that still leaves 66% of the world's population that just as vehemently believe their God/Gods (or lack thereof)are real and yours is not."

    So what's your argument exactly? That because 66% of the world believes differently to what the Bible teaches, their belief in x and/or disbelief in y negates the Bible? What if everyone vehemently believed 1 + 1 does not equal 2 (in a base-10 or decimal numeral system)? Truth isn't defined by consensus.

    "Now I'm sure you're smart enough to give me a passage from the Bible that says 2/3 of the world are heathens...but really dude? The point I'm making is that if you're God is, in fact, The Omnipotent Omnicient G to the Mofo D...I think he would make his thesis a little less open to 'interpretation' or a 'living book' that takes a friggin' archeologist to understand...just saying."

    So the fact that you happen to think it "takes a friggin' archeologist to understand" the Bible implies the Bible isn't true?

    "if I were gay, living in a society where I was constantly discriminated against, bullied, made a mockery of, and if I was lucky, afraid for my life"

    What about "gays" who discriminate against, bully, make a mockery of, and cause others to fear for their lives (e.g. see here and here)?

    "In terms of your sex data...did it ever occur to you that in a society that embraced commitment of same sex couples that had committed relationships could flourish rather than feeling the need to live a 'double life' and engage in 'anonymous' behaviors might alter this data to a more 'hetero' level?"

    This is no more than your prejudiced prognostication. But without further evidence and argumentation you can't predict what will happen in such a society any more than we can.

    At best, you can try to extrapolate from a society which is friendly to sodomites. Take San Francisco, for example. Does SF "flourish" in terms of the "sex data"?

    Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, it seems like a lot of the data which feeds into the "sex data" Steve cited is taken from sodomite behavior in San Francisco.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "You're ape arguments make me laugh"

    Your poor command of English punctuation makes me laugh.

    "doubt that you're much of a geneticist."

    Given that you talk about genetics, I could ask you in turn, what makes you "much of geneticist"?

    As someone who has taken university level biology, worked with scientists like geneticists and molecular and cell biologists (including one who has been short-listed for the Nobel Prize on more than one occasion), as well as being a current med student, I have some background in genetics. But I wouldn't say I'm a geneticist.

    "Mankind's genome is between 95 and 98.5% identical to chimps."

    1. Originally this figure came from a paper published in the 1970s which didn't compare the entire human genome with the entire chimp genome. Rather, the paper only compared the protein-coding portions of the human genome with the protein-coding portions of the chimp genome. The problem is only about 1%-2% of the human genome codes for proteins. The vast majority of our DNA doesn't code for proteins (i.e. it's "junk DNA"). As such, when scientists compare the human genome with the chimp genome, they're really only comparing the protein-coding portions of each respective species' genome. So this 95% (or higher) figure is comparing a very small fraction of the genome in its comparison of the human and chimp genomes.

    2. In fact, the entire human and chimp genome weren't compared until 2005. But when we compare the entire genome of humans to the entire genome of chimps, then this figure becomes highly disputed. People like Todd C. Wood (a Christian and YEC) agree with the 95% (or higher) figure. But Jeffrey P. Tomkins (another Christian and YEC) argue the human-chimp genome is at best 86%-89% identical. Jay L. Wile (another Christian) argues for a 72% similarity.

    By contrast, the human and mouse genomes are anywhere from approximately 70%-90% similar on the whole.

    3. Of course, it's easy to simpy throw out percentages as if they're meant to be meaningful. But there's so much left unspoken that's not only important but crucial to understanding what it all should mean. For example, even if we were to agree (arguendo) there is a great degree of similarity overall, there is a lot of variation between specific genes. Is that meaningful? How meaningful? And so on.

    Also, much of this depends on the method we use to compare genomes, and it's quite possible to critique the methodology.

    Obviously it also depends what we're comparing. It's not as if we simply line up 3 billion human base-pairs with 3 billion chimp base-pairs (which is roughly how many base-pairs there are in human and chimp DNA) and just count the difference. It's far more complicated than that, and I don't have the time to talk at length about it.

    In addition, even if we agree (arguendo) these are highly similar genomes, we would need to understand how the genes differ functionally. Functional genomics is a highly significant element. After all, DNA works at the molecular level coding for proteins and so forth; DNA doesn't directly determine our macrostructures.

    There's so much more to say. Maybe I'll add more if I have more time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Mankind's genome is between 95 and 98.5% identical to chimps. If that is the case, what do you suppose the percentage is between man and woman? Is it possible that a slight glitch in a man's genome makes him a 'woman' in his head and thus attracted to men...you can bet your sweet sweet ass."

    1. So by your logic, it's also possible "a slight glitch in a man's genome" makes him a chimpanzee in his head and thus attracted to chimps.

    2. Also, I suspect many homosexuals would find what you've just said quite offensive. A male homosexual doesn't necessarily think of himself as a "woman in his head." Rather I would think it more likely he thinks of himself as a male homosexual.

    3. Not to mention I think a lot of women could be offended by what you've just said. I wouldn't be surprised if they think you're quite prejudiced.

    4. Moreoever, if it's true "a slight glitch in a man's genome makes him a 'woman' in his head," then one possible implication is you're suggesting homosexual men have a psychiatric disorder which makes them "attracted to men." Just check out the field of psychiatric genetics. For example, it's possible bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are caused by heritable genetic polymorphisms.

    5. I could playfully act a bit snarky here. Human males have an XY chromosome whereas human females have an XX chromosomes. So on a chromosomal level males and females are only 50% similar. It'd have to be much more than "a slight glitch" then! Of course, my more serious point is to say when it comes to comparing genetics it depends how you want to slice it and dice it. We could compare by various criteria.

    6. Are you suggesting there's a gay gene?

    7. On the plus side, I guess this answers my question about whether "you're much of a geneticist"!

    "As much as it is hard for you (and myself) to imagine being attracted to another man, the gay friends I have have just as hard of time as being attracted to a woman."

    There are a lot of things various people have trouble imagining. This doesn't necessarily mean they're true.

    ReplyDelete
  16. C. K. Anderson said...

    “iii) I was actually a fan of your solid arguments (although I disagreed with your position, I still was understanding of it)...however, that last one lost me man. Now, we can do the ‘chicken before the egg’ debate, but if I were gay, living in a society where I was constantly discriminated against, bullied, made a mockery of, and if I was lucky, afraid for my life....I could conceivably understand why I would drink, do drugs, etc. In terms of your sex data...did it ever occur to you that in a society that embraced commitment of same sex couples that had committed relationships could flourish rather than feeling the need to live a ‘double life’ and engage in 'anonymous' behaviors might alter this data to a more ‘hetero’ level?”

    i) That’s an urban legend, promoted by homosexual lobbyists and the liberal media for propaganda purposes.

    ii) In the pop culture, gay is chic, hip, cool.

    iii) Ironically, you’re reinforcing the view that homosexuals are emotionally arrested. They need social approval to feel good about themselves.

    “You're ape arguments make me laugh. You're an excellent theologian, but doubt that you're much of a geneticist. Mankind's genome is between 95 and 98.5% identical to chimps. If that is the case, what do you suppose the percentage is between man and woman? Is it possible that a slight glitch in a man's genome makes him a ‘woman’ in his head and thus attracted to men...”

    “…you can bet your sweet sweet ass.”

    That’s certainly what sodomites focus on.

    “As much as it is hard for you (and myself) to imagine being attracted to another man, the gay friends I have have just as hard of time as being attracted to a woman.”

    So you’re suggesting that homosexuals are genetically defective. Abnormal. An evolutionary dead-end. Not sure how that helps your argument.

    “I believe that, in America, one's rights end where mine begins.”

    No one really believes that. It’s just a nice-sounding slogan. For instance, the ACLA doesn’t generally come to the defense of persecuted Christians.

    “With regards to the gay issue, you have two guys/girls doing their own thing.”

    No, it’s not just between consenting adults. It’s homosexual priests seducing underage minors. Or homosexuals adopting kids. Or indoctrinating public school students. Or prosecuting Christians for "hate speech."

    ReplyDelete
  17. i) As a Calvinist, I don’t think God intends to save everyone. Therefore, your percentiles are perfectly consistent with divine omniscience and omnipotence.
    -A) I don't "think..."...why don't you know? Have you not spoken to Him lately and asked? B) Let's say your "thought" is correct, you're telling me that God created 6 billion people, and unless they believe in Jesus, etc...even the millions who have never been introduced to God, he'll just say "let em' burn"...I don't care who you are, that makes God a giant asshole.

    ii) Just because something is true doesn’t mean people are inclined to believe it.
    -Prove your "truth"! Don't even tell me "because the Bible tells me so" or some B.S. "faith" argument. Show me a parting sea, or a burning bush that talks, or an arc that has two of every species. I know I can show you thousands of men "resurrected"...not by God...but a freaking defibrillator.

    iii) Many adherents of non-Christian religions are nominal adherents. Moreover, non-Christian religions generally stress the practice of religion rather than a set of beliefs.

    -Umm, I'm pretty sure those assholes that took down the twin towers believed they were getting some virgins. When you have millions of people declaring "jihad" and willing to die for it, that's "belief" not "practices" my friend.

    "That’s certainly what sodomites focus on."

    I made that comment completely as a joke, but now that you mention it, when you say "sodomite" are you referring to me, a homosexual, or anybody that loves a "sweet sweet ass"? Because I have to tell you brother, I do love my wife's sweet sweet ass. If that makes me a "sodomite" then so be it my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  18. C.K. Anderson said:

    "you're telling me that God created 6 billion people, and unless they believe in Jesus, etc...even the millions who have never been introduced to God, he'll just say 'let em' burn'..."

    No, people can end up in hell because of all the wrongs they've done in life.

    "I don't care who you are, that makes God a giant a**hole."

    Your latest comment is nothing more than a vacuous rant. You're just spewing forth filth because you can't respond with reason.

    Moreover, check out the blog rules: "Expletives, abbreviated or not, will not be tolerated. Ad hominem invective, as a substitute for reasoned argument, is unacceptable. Abusive language directed at God will not be tolerated. Triablogue has the technical wherewithal to delete improper comments."

    ReplyDelete
  19. C. K. ANDERSON SAID:

    "-A) I don't 'think...'...why don't you know?"

    Try to master idiomatic English usage. "I think" is not an antonym for "I know." It's just a stylistic variant.

    "Have you not spoken to Him lately and asked?"

    I don't have to. He's spoken to me–in the Bible.

    "...you're telling me that God created 6 billion people, and unless they believe in Jesus, etc...even the millions who have never been introduced to God, he'll just say 'let em' burn'...I don't care who you are..."

    Expressing your disapproval is not a reasoned argument. Besides, you're just an ape–remember?

    "Prove your 'truth'! Don't even tell me 'because the Bible tells me so' or some B.S. 'faith' argument. Show me a parting sea, or a burning bush that talks, or an arc that has two of every species."

    You're a newbie who popped in here out of the blue. You regurgitate hackneyed objections to the Bible as if I and others hadn't rebutted those many a time.

    Regarding your next point, "millions" of Muslims aren't willing to die in the jihadist cause. If they were, they'd be doing it.

    Regarding your wife–since you brought it up, not me–unless you sodomize your wife (i.e. anal sex), the comparison isn't apt.

    By contrast, there's a reason so many homosexuals have to undergo colostomies.

    Finally, the fact that you have to resort to angry expletives to pad the lack of substance illustrates the irrationality of your position.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Moreover, check out the blog rules: "Expletives, abbreviated or not, will not be tolerated. Ad hominem invective, as a substitute for reasoned argument, is unacceptable. Abusive language directed at God will not be tolerated. Triablogue has the technical wherewithal to delete improper comments."

    Under your own rules for civil discussion, your entire post is in violation.

    & yes, I'm the myke floyd whom you attempted to pick apart and then lowered the entire tenor of the discussion to comparing all gays to child molesters and essentially stating we're responsible for the mass spread of diseases, sexually transmitted or not, are alcoholics, and junkies.

    Your reasoned attempt at discourse went right out the door with that debasing and crude point of view. I could easily go point to point with you. I don't have to have a degree in theology or proclaim my self a seasoned expert on all things biblical. But I am an educated man with a decent intellect and I can read just fine on my own.

    I stand my original assertions with full force. You and your ilk pick and choose what parts of the Bible you wholly endorse to fit your own personal moral boundaries (i.e. homosexuality) and find a way to justify the rest as rooted in metaphorical language bound to the time it was written.

    You can't have it both ways. Either state your believe every single word of the Bible verbatim in the very simple language that it is written which, yes, even I can understand or admit that you prefer to cull out what you can utilize to substantiate your own personal points of view and utilize hyperbole to auction off the validity of what you do not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. All you've done is to repeat your refuted assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MYKE SAID:

    "I'm the myke floyd whom you attempted to pick apart and then lowered the entire tenor of the discussion to comparing all gays to child molesters and essentially stating we're responsible for the mass spread of diseases, sexually transmitted or not, are alcoholics, and junkies."

    It's just a fact, albeit an ugly fact, that homosexuals are responsible for the priestly abuse scandal.

    Likewise, it's a medical fact that homosexuality is a filthy, dangerous, disease-ridden lifestyle. And, yes, that includes higher rates of drug abuse.

    Your problem is not with what I said; your problem is with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "It's just a fact, albeit an ugly fact, that homosexuals are responsible for the priestly abuse scandal.

    Likewise, it's a medical fact that homosexuality is a filthy, dangerous, disease-ridden lifestyle. And, yes, that includes higher rates of drug abuse.

    Your problem is not with what I said; your problem is with the facts."

    My assertions have not been refuted just because you disagree with them. You can pull out authors' opinions to support your point of view but so can I. As in the end opinion is just that ... and is most certainly not fact.

    As for your comments quoted above ... I would think that wouldn't be such a good route to go as I could also use facts and statistics to "assert" that heterosexuality is a "filthy, dangerous, disease-ridden lifestyle."

    To wit:

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    {Most child molesters are not heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. According to University of California Davis, their attraction is to children, not same or opposite sex. According to Mahrin Raman, Case Western Reserve University, over 90 percent of molesters in the United States in 2000 were male offenders abusing females, and over 90 percent were acquaintances or family members.
    References:

    University of California Davis: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

    Case Western Reserve University: Definition of the Problem--Child Sexual Abuse: A Very Real Public Health Concern
    Resources:

    U. S. Department of Health and Human Services: Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics

    American Academy of Pediatrics: Parenting Corner Q & A: Sexual Abuse

    Read more: What percentage of child molesters are heterosexual men? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2233661#ixzz1uVG0ZqKI }

    Should we now outlaw heterosexuality based upon those facts and figures?

    ReplyDelete
  24. From the University of Minnesota, Duluth: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

    Please note the following line:
    The vast majority of male rape victims, as well as their rapists, are heterosexual. }

    It's clear from anyone's "point of view" that rapists are predominantly heterosexual men. I don't think there can be any logical realm of sensibility where you would think otherwise. Wouldn't you call that depraved & filthy? As such, should we begin castrating heterosexual males now to prevent any such possibility of this filthy and violent behavior??

    Here's several sets of facts/statistics showing that in much of the world, heterosexuals are the majority of new AIDS cases whether by non-condom use, prostitution, etc -- mother to child transmission is also noted to be a primary factor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic

    http://www.avert.org/women-hiv-aids.htm

    Quote "At the end of 2010 it was estimated that out of the 34 million adults worldwide living with HIV and AIDS, half are women." -- heterosexual women

    There are plenty of statistics to show that though there are more male cases of aids percentage wise of AIDS in the US, in most other areas of the world it is primarily transmitted among heterosexuals to other heterosexuals.

    I could go on but I think even you would get my point ... and it can't be refuted.

    So should we say that the US is really the only gay nation and you could move to Africa, Asia, or even Europe would have less AIDS cases among homosexuals but of course, you as a heterosexual would be more in danger in any of those regions.

    Your points of view are your own and neither I nor any other level headed individual is going to change your mind. However, the fact remains that points of view are not facts no matter what stats you point out to try to prove them so. It's easily shown that anyone call pull stats or articles from all over the place to back up their particular version of what is or is not right about anything ... including homosexuality.

    In the end, you simply hate homosexuality and would do anything to stamp it out.

    On a parting note ... the VAST majority of serial killers are also heterosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  25. i) Since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by better than 100-1, your comparison is statistically meaningless.

    ii) Likewise, some incarcerated heterosexuals will temporarily resort to sodomy (since women are unavailable), then revert to heterosexual activity when released. Once again, you're comparison is flawed.

    iii) It's fine with me if you wish to compare homosexual activity to prostitution. Both forms of immorality have medical consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Myke said:

    I could easily go point to point with you. I don't have to have a degree in theology or proclaim my self a seasoned expert on all things biblical. But I am an educated man with a decent intellect and I can read just fine on my own.

    Why don't you demonstrate that by actually defending your statements in light of Steve's analysis?

    ReplyDelete
  27. your statement "Studies have shown that, when compared with the general population, gay and bisexual men, lesbian, and transgender individuals are more likely to:
    • Use alcohol and drugs
    • Have higher rates of substance abuse
    • Are less likely to abstain from alcohol and drug use
    • Are more likely to continue heavy drinking into later life[1]
    Substance abuse is associated with a wide-range of mental health and physical problems. It can disrupt relationships, employment, and threaten financial stability.
    Alcohol and illegal drug use in some gay and bisexual men also contributes to increased risk for HIV infection and other STDs, especially methamphetamines, amyl nitrates (poppers) and drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction. Individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol may increase their risk for HIV transmission by engaging in risky sexual behaviors or through sharing needles or other injection equipment."

    I wonder why studies have shown that...... why don't you try living your whole life ridiculed and hated just because of the way you were born, lets see how many drugs you abuse to cover up your pain

    ReplyDelete
  28. Michael said:

    "why don't you try living your whole life ridiculed and hated just because of the way you were born, lets see how many drugs you abuse to cover up your pain"

    Since you bring up your personal experience, please allow me to bring up mine.

    As a minority I've experienced discrimination.

    Also, as a Bible-believing Christian, I've experienced discrimination.

    Moreover, I know of fellow Christians who have experienced ridicule, hatred, and death threats. We've prayed for families and friends of Christians who have been murdered for doing nothing more than minding their own business, going to church, going to Bible study, etc.

    Indeed, some of the discrimination against people like me has been at the hands of homosexuals (e.g. see here, here).

    Thus far, I don't know of any Christians who have abused drugs in order to cover up our pain, severely profound though it can be.

    ReplyDelete
  29. On another note, I have heard of people married to asexuals who themselves were not asexual. From what I can tell, they've been faithful to their asexual partners. But it must pain them greatly to be married to an asexual partner.

    Likewise I wonder if it doesn't pain the asexual person to have been born as an asexual. They could face a considerable amount of discrimination from our sex-drenched society. There could be a considerable amount of a psychological, emotional, and perhaps even physical pain. For one thing, the vast majority of our society doesn't understand someone who is asexual. They're far less well understood than homosexuals, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Michael said...

    "I wonder why studies have shown that...... why don't you try living your whole life ridiculed and hated just because of the way you were born, lets see how many drugs you abuse to cover up your pain."

    i) First of all, you're admitting something that Myke denied. Mike tried to argue that there are more dysfunctional heterosexuals than dysfunctional homosexuals–but, of course, that's bogus inasmuch as one would need to compare the percentage of dysfunctional homosexuals to the percentage of dysfunctional heterosexuals.

    So you're conceding my claim, but attempting to deflect the force of the claim by assigning that to the emotional effects of discrimination.

    ii) Your complaint also plays into the stereotype that homosexuals suffer from an inferiority complex. Of course, many men and women are plagued by self-esteem issues. That's hardly confined to homosexuals.

    iii) Social approval is more important when we're kids. But adults should outgrow the need for constant social approval.

    iv) I don't grant your premise that homosexuals are born that way.

    v) Some homosexual students are bullied, but many heterosexual students are bullied. Is there any hard statistic evidence that homosexuals are bullied at significantly higher rates than heterosexuals? In my observation, the media hypes isolated incidents.

    vi) No one knows that you’re homosexual unless you advertise the fact. I recently discovered that one of my classmates from junior high/high school is homosexual. That's something I didn't know at the time, for homosexual students were invisible back then (the 70s). They were indistinguishable from heterosexual students.

    vii) Nowadays it's generally illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. Indeed, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Straight boys are subject to discrimination for being "insensitive."

    viii) Ideally, homosexual men need straight male friends. But as long as homosexuals are waging war against heteronormativity, they make it almost impossible for straight guys to befriend homosexuals.

    ReplyDelete