Framing religious debates

The Daily Princetonian (Princeton U.) ^ | 12/9/03 | Julie Park

[AnalogReigns]

Rape is illegal because it infringes on someone else's rights. Incest is illegal because of the genetic ramifications of it. Beastialility is illegal because there is not way to gain consent from an animal, same for having sex with a minor. These remain illegal not for biblical reasons, but because they are fundamentally wrong.

You give a list of practical ramifications of laws regarding sexual behavior, then you label them as "fundamentally wrong." Historically in law all the things you mentioned have been considered wrong, not for practical reasons (as you list) but since they are "fundamentally wrong...." and as soon as morality...i.e. "wrong" is mentioned religious issues (even if tangental) come up.

Rape for example, is accepted in some societies today (and has been in many in the past)...with a kind of "boys will be boys" mentality. Incest was the way Egyptian Pharoahs were raised...(and a minority of those born to incest have genetic problems...though it is a SIGNIFICANT minority)...so in some cultures incest has been accepted. Beastiality has been accepted, in various times and cultures--as most all societies don't give a rip about animal "consent"(does your dog consent to that fence or leash?) and again it was seen as an outlet for the oversexed.... (gross, definitely.) The point is, in the history of our law, moral, not practical, bases were the reasons why those three deviant behaviors were (and are) outlawed. Homosexual behavior too, has been proscribed due to moral (and yes, religious) reasons.

Our very concept of human rights is based on those "endowed by the Creator" to quote Jefferson in the Declaration. Do you really think America has been a theocracy until the ACLU flexed its muscles???

Back to the specific issue however at the same time, without resorting to the religous, many practical reasons can be found to restrict homosexual behavior. These include, obviously, the spread of disease (since homosexual men by any measure are persistantly VERY promiscuous) (AIDS didn't spread through heterosexual monogamy now, did it?) Homosexual relationships tend to be more violence prone.... Homosexuals have a MUCH higher than average tendancy to molest children. (something like 1/3 to 1/2 of reported child molestations are homosexual....by a group which is less than 3%....you do the math). Finally, homosexuals do nothing to promote healthy interaction between the sexes--including the production of children. These are all practical (and yes arguable...as is your list, to some) reasons why homosexual behavior is not a good thing...but wait, there's that pesky word "good" which relates to values, which, ultimately must relate to religion...and has done so historically in our society and law, as in all others.

The acceptance of homosexual behavior or not, is not about the religous, vs. the practical or non-religous--its about one religious/value system vs. another... Secularism is as much a religion as the most backwoods bible thumper. Since it pretends not to be, to my way of thinking--it has even less tolerance.

[AnalogReigns]

Christians since the 1st Century on have not found contradictions in the Bible. Different laws applying now than those to ancient pre-Christian Israel yes, but its a canard to say you can't really know Christian morality due to strange Old Testament ceremonial laws no Christian has ever known to apply. Since St. Peter was commanded by God to give up Kosher law, therby accepting gentiles into fellowship, dealing with obscure Old Testament picadilos is not a problem---unless one is not looking for truth, but rather a reason to avoid it. Moral laws mentioned in BOTH Old and New Testament--as the sexual laws are--are known to apply. Not an obscure or cloudy method of interpretation. The condemnation of homosexual behavior (note, not simple "orientation") in both Old and New Testaments is one of those clarities folks today especially, try to obscure and avoid.

The Bible is not a simple childrens' book...but neither is it "full of contradictions" to those who actually take the time to know it well--and love its Savior.

[ArGee]

The only reason people want homosexuality to remain not accepted or illegal is for biblical reasons.

Since you already know that to be true, I will not bother to present you with my own valid, sociological, non-Biblical reasons. I will also not ask scripter to bother showing you where he keeps his huge list of links with non-Biblical psychological and physiological reasons to declare homosexuality as a mental illness.

You already know what you know. Why confuse the issue with facts?

Shalom.

[sunryse]

>I will also not ask scripter to bother showing you where >he keeps his huge list of links with non-Biblical >psychological and physiological reasons to declare >homosexuality as a mental illness.

Oh, go ahead. I will bet your non-biblical psychologists to be practicing Christians. I have seen those "studies". And when you are finished, I will send you links to PHYSIOLOGICAL studies that show that homosexuality is genetic, not mental. We could send studies untill we are blue in the face, but it still comes down to the fact that homosexuality being illegal is a law based on biblical reasons.

[sunryse]

>Moral laws mentioned in BOTH Old and New Testament--as >the sexual laws are--are known to apply. Not an obscure >or cloudy method of interpretation. The condemnation of >homosexual behavior (note, not simple "orientation") in >both Old and New Testaments is one of those clarities >folks today especially, try to obscure and avoid.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality that I know of. Paul did, in his letters. But Paul also commanded that a woman keep her head covered. Does your wife or do you wear a wrap?

[ArGee]

And when you are finished, I will send you links to PHYSIOLOGICAL studies that show that homosexuality is genetic, not mental.

Actually, you go first. I have never seen such a study that was not discredited nearly as soon as it has come out. Currently the homosexual activists admit there is no validity to the "genetic" argument. Predisposition is not disproven, and is even likely, but that will not change the basic fact.

If you find a dead man, you can not tell if he was gay or straight. Until that changes, homosexuality is a behavior, not a trait.

Shalom.

[sunryse]

>Rape for example, is accepted in some societies today
>and has been in many in the past)...with a kind of "boys >will be boys" mentality. Incest was the way Egyptian >Pharoahs were raised...(and a minority of those born to >incest have genetic problems...though it is a SIGNIFICANT >minority)...so in some cultures incest has been accepted.

We are talking about TODAY. Not ancient times. Today, IN AMERICA. Not other cultures or societies. Insanity is often what society you choose to live in. But in America today, the only reason to hold homosexuality as illegal is a biblical reason. Please offer me an argument as to otherwise. (The ones listed below are weak)

>Do you really think America has been a theocracy until >the ACLU flexed its muscles???

A theocracy? No. Laws made on a biblical basis, yes. I am not saying that certain laws aren't "fundemental". Stealing is "biblical", but it is also about infringing on someone else's rights. But who someone chooses to sleep with is basically thier business. And harms noone, but possibly the people involved. And even that is thier choice to make.

>These include, obviously, the spread of disease (since >homosexual men by any measure are persistantly VERY >promiscuous)

That is a misconception. Homosexual men are no more promiscous then some of the hip hop culture, or even white trash trailer parks. There are filthy elements to EVERY culture and lifestyle.

>(AIDS didn't spread through heterosexual monogamy now, >did it?)

AIDS didn't spread through homosexual monogamy either. Two virgin men coming together doesn't CREATE AIDS.

>Homosexual relationships tend to be more violence >prone....

That I disagree with. There are battered women shelters all over town, what does that say?

>Homosexuals have a MUCH higher than average tendancy to >molest children. (something like 1/3 to 1/2 of reported >child molestations are homosexual....by a group which is >less than 3%....you do the math).

Excuse me, but you are whole group of people based on MISCONTRUED facts. The fact is that sexual abuse in the home is much more discreet. There are family issues involved, another parent to think of. Whereas homosexual contact is a bit more apt to be reported. If stepdad is molesting, it is a little more difficult to come forward due to familial issues that would result. So I don't believe you can claim that statistic accurately. But even beyond that, we should outlaw all black people having relationships because they sleep around more? Or maybe some Latino's because they might be more statistically apt to molest. This sounds silly, same as your argument above.

>Finally, homosexuals do nothing to promote healthy >interaction between the sexes--including the production >of children.

Well, maybe thier goal isn't to "promote healthy interaction between sexes". Is that a prerequisite to becoming a human member of society?

Michelle

[AnalogReigns]

Jesus is never recorded mentioning wife-beating or suicide either--along with various other sins....however He consistantly upheld the moral law (and actually all laws) found in the Old Testament.

Dietary regulations, those pertaining to the ritual sacrificial worship system, and civil laws made for the theocracy of ancient Israel--from the 1s Century onwards have been never seen to be applicable to Christians--since they served their purpose in the nation bringing forth the Messiah. Other clearly moral commands from the OT are known definitely to apply. It really isn't complex--amazing that the modern mind finds it so.

Classical orthodox (small o) Christians regard all scripture as inspired by God--therefore whether or not Jesus mentions something is irrelevant--the writings of Paul and yes Moses are just as authoritative--as its all God's word.

Paul did not command a head covering for women except during worship--and among scholars its generally understood as culturally relative. The Greek could also have referred to hairstyle--i.e. that men and women should look different from each other--which repeats another Old Testament moral law, by the way.

I think however, I'm wasting my breath...as you sound like you are more interested in obscuring debate then learning truth.

[sunryse]

> I'd rather say you don't have the right to "choose" to >saddle me with the social costs of your "choices."

So are you saying you would like to see divorce and sex outside of the marraige illegal?

[AnalogReigns]

Last I checked every homosexual is a human member of society--and under the same laws that govern anyone else.

My point about other societies take on the practical aspects of laws about sexual behavior (and yes, some societies today do wink at things like rape...at least for men) is to point out that our laws about sex are not simply based on practical reasons--they have a moral historical foundation in our cultural experience...which surely includes the bible.

I realize homosexual "normalcy" has been pounded into our collective heads in schools, colleges, the media, ad nauseum. Secularists now say that it’s actually bigoted to say some forms (only certain forms) of sexual "expression" are wrong. Do you believe incest (with birth control) is morally wrong? How about adultery? Most current secularists would still say those are wrong (now, but don't count on them keeping that way...30 years ago those same people regarded homosexual behavior deviant). Those secularists on homosexual behavior (as they did 20 years ago with pre-marital sex) are just establishing their own competing morality, which to people who believe the time-tested ancient moral codes (yes religious) is just libertine immorality. It's amazing to me that since the "sexual revolution" people are soooooo smart--as to abandon practices of behavior civilized people have followed for thousands of years....amazing, even breath-taking, the arrogance.

What do we have to show for it? 1 in 3 kids in America born to single mothers (and the crime--at least with boys--that follows that)....and the deadly affect of AIDS, and other debilitating STDs, not to mention the incredible emotional & yes spiritual toll.

As to the stats on child molesting...talk around it all you want. Yes there are all kinds--and the majority of it is heterosexual, however a lot more than 3% (or even 10%) of the abuse is homosexual.... (try asking a homosexual man when he was introduced to sex...a stunning number will say when they were underage, by an older man.)

Its a human principle, if you throw out one big taboo--others are easier to toss too.

You and others like you may want to establish a Sodomite paradise, but myself and millions like me won't allow you to take America to the place Sodom and Gomorah went.

[k2blader]

I've often wondered if these people who claim to oppose a "literal" interpretation would say, "I oppose a literal reading of 'Robinson Crusoe?'"

*LOL*

I am unable to comprehend it myself...

Maybe you're right and they really meant to say "I oppose taking the Bible out of context", but I'm not sure...

Frankly, it's pretty scary to hear a professed Christian say something like that!

[scripter]

...I will send you links to PHYSIOLOGICAL studies that show that homosexuality is genetic, not mental.

You'll have problems doing that. They've been discredited, some by the very homosexual activists who performed the study.

And I realize ArGee asked you to go first but you'll have problems so I'll give you a good place to start: Homosexuality and Genetics. From there you'll find many studies, some of which include statements from homosexual activists denying exactly what you claim. Please consider reading the links to better help you understand the underlying issues.

[Map Kernow]

So are you saying you would like to see divorce and sex outside of the marraige illegal?

Oh, my! You mean something has to be illegal before it's stigmatized? There's no other way to discourage an adverse social practice other than to outlaw it, right?

That would certainly give you a great talking point, now wouldn't it? It also allows you to dodge the point I made it my post.

[scripter]

And when you are finished, I will send you links to PHYSIOLOGICAL studies that show that homosexuality is genetic, not mental.

Speaking of just that, you might find this report informative. From the article posted on FR:

The research was conducted by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who in 1973 was one of the driving forces behind the psychiatric community's removal of homosexuality from its manual of mental disorders.

I hope you caught that. The doctor who was the driving force behind removing homsexuality as a mental disorder is now saying homosexuals can change. Many others have said the same, and that falls right in line with what the experts are saying is the major factor in determining homosexuality. That is, environment. There's a lot to read at links I've provided...

[xzins]

Perhaps they mean to say, "I don't think it's the truth."

They're not really opposed to a literal reading, either. They're opposed to taking it seriously.

[k2blader]

They're opposed to taking it seriously.

If so, that's even scarier than I thought!

[Kyrie]

Can we try a more reasonable discussion???

A debate about principles may not always seem reasonable. But it can still be a principled debate. Reductio ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction, is well-accepted and often used. My approach is similar.

The "consenting adults" argument is not self-evident. It is the current stage of an debate along the following lines:

Libertine: You shouldn't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It doesn't hurt anyone.

Moralist: What about rape or murder in the privacy of one's own bedroom?

Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care as long as none of the parties involved get hurt.

Moralist: What about sadomasochism?

Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care even if someone gets hurt as long as all parties involved give their consent.

Moralist: What if a 14 year old child wants to have sex with an adult? In the privacy of the bedroom, of course...

Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care as long as the parties involved all consent to it, and are capable of giving consent. A child is incapable of giving consent.

Moralist: What about bestiality?

Libertine: Animals are incapable of giving consent.

Now let's examine this matter of "giving consent" more closely. As seen in the beginning stages of the argument above, the libertine's underlying concern was not about "consent" but that no one get hurt. But since some people like getting hurt, the libertine had to pull a "bait and switch." All of a sudden the "no one gets hurt" issue disappears, and is replaced without explanation by the "consent" issue.

But if "giving consent" and "capable of giving consent" are the real issues in bestiality, it would seem that we now have the following: A man cannot use a calf for sexual gratification because he "needs consent" and the calf is "incapable of giving consent." But this man can raise the calf in confinement, breed it with any bull he chooses, and finally kill, butcher and eat it. Whatever happened to "consent"? How is it that he "needs consent" for something that hardly more than inconveniences the calf, but not for confining, killing and eating it?

At least we try to be a little more consistent when it comes to children. If parents use their power to do something that everyone else thinks is injurious to the child, the state steps in. And most are in agreement that a sexual relationship between a child and an adult is injurious to the child (although this belief is founded more in moralism than in utilitarianism). So, we allow parents to impose upon the child "good things" like "eat your vegetables," "brush your teeth," "go to your room," all without needing the child's consent or ability to give consent. But we don't allow the parents to give surrogate consent to "bad things" even if the child wants them.

But consider the case of necrophilia. A dead body is no longer a person that can suffer or be injured. This situation is not meant to be an "extrapolation" of the situation of two homosexuals; it is the result of carrying the "capable of giving consent" argument to an extreme. If, through a "last will and testament" of the deceased, or the conscious decision of the parents in the case of a child, consent has been legally obtained, is it now okay for the necrophile to do whatever he wants in the privacy of his bedroom? It isn't hurting you or anyone else!

I contend that the "consent" argument is an huge red herring. If "consent" is the gold standard for judging someone's behavior, then we would be forced to tolerate the necrophile. We would also be forced to either become vegetarians or permit bestiality.

But there are probably some issues I have overlooked. I'm sure someone will show me how the "consenting adults" argument is consistent with prohibiting bestiality or necrophilia, while at the same time it is consistent with allowing me to enjoy my steak and will my body to science.

[ArGee]

You're too kind. I pinged you because I used your name. But when somebody knows all the answers, as he said he did, it does little good to even let him know what the questions are.

Of course, I know you do this for the lurkers. You are not only a good friend but an outstanding combatant against the outright lies of the homoactivists. Thanks for your tireless efforts.

Shalom.

[scripter]

Thank you. I figured you were just following proper netiquette but I wasn't 100% sure, plus there's the lurker factor you mentioned - that's a big one for me. A proverb influences me at times as well, but not often enough.

Your efforts, well articulated, are very much appreciated as well.

[sunryse]

>I hope you caught that. The doctor who was the driving >force behind removing homsexuality as a mental disorder is >now saying homosexuals can change.

I'm still trying to figure out why you care about what someone else does in thier bedroom? Or with whom. Or why you feel that laws should play a part in it.