Co-operating with Satan
Charity blackmailer Stephen Green’s sense of self-righteous persecution received a boost when the Co-operative Bank asked Christian Voice to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.
According to the PA (reported in the Guardian), Green has 30 days from June 6 to close the account.
A spokesman for the bank said,
It has come to the bank’s attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This public stance is incompatible with the position of the Co-operative Bank, which publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders.
Speaking from his closet in Carmarthen, Green said,
The Co-op bank, for all its fine words, is discriminating against us on the grounds of conscience and religion.
Never mind. CV may not have any money left to bank soon, as it is still pursuing an expensive blasphemy action against the BBC, claiming that Jerry Springer: The Opera portrayed Jesus as a “sexual deviant”, when in fact it portrayed a sexual deviant as Jesus.
UPDATE: Contact details of the Co-op bank, should you wish to express an opinion on their decision.
(Thanks to Scaryduck)
June 24th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Good to see a financial organisation with some morals for a change.
June 24th, 2005 at 8:55 am
Did not Stephen Green learn from the parable of the man who buried all his money in a big hole in his garden? He ought to be burying all his money in a big hole in his garden. Or, better still, inside a mattress, as long as the mattress has NOT been used for deviant acts of fornication.
Glad to be of help.
June 24th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Somebody from Christian Voice (probably Stephen Green, as they seem to have no other spokesperson) is going to be on the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 at 12 noon today. Could be worth a listen.
June 24th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
It was Stephen Gree, surprise surprise. He didn’t come across very well, especially at the end when he couldn’t answer a simple question from Vine, asking what good things Christian Voice do. He also revealed himself as the bigot he is by saying that if Co-op support gay rights then they don’t want to bank with them anyway. Not only bigotted, but also incredibly childish. Like taking your ball away when your’re losing isn’t it?
The guy from the co-op, although a little nervous got his point across very well, unlike Stephen Green.
June 25th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
[...] loyees are allowed to flirt… If they’re working in Germany. Christian Bigots: The Co-Op takes a stand.
Posted by Paul in Civil Liberties and Human Rights, European and W [...]
June 25th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
I don’t like the idea of banks withdrawing services from customers whose opinions they disagree with. Isn’t there an important principle at stake here?
June 26th, 2005 at 11:51 am
It amounts to people not being able to state facts. I don’t know, without checking, SG’s precise views, and they may include non-factual and/or rhetorical ones. In which case the Co-op would be right. In general, however, the Co-op’s stand is not a good one, because they are paying no attention to whether or not what CV says is factually true. Truth is the least of their concerns (and where’s the sense in that?). They are only concerned with how it might make people feel.
They are therefore denying the obviously true fact that there are bound to be some facts in the world that make people feel bad, but are, none the less, facts. Their factual status is changed not one jot by how people do or dont ‘feel’ about them. How can feelings be the main issue?
These facts include:
(a) the level of STD-susceptibility of a given ‘active’ homosexual (as compared to heterosexual) on average;
(b) the life-expectancy of a given ‘active’ homosexual (as compared to heterosexual) on average;
(c) the average promiscuity of a given ‘active’ homosexual (as opposed to heterosexual);
(d) the fact that homosexuality is clearly less biologically obvious than heterosexuality. For 2 different reasons: (1) relative productivity, and (2) physical ‘fit’ or compatibility (re: anal intercourse, it’s worth bearing in mind that even for the uncontroversial practice of heterosexual intercourse this is often warned against as unhygienic, dubiously natural, and increasing the chances of disease. How much more, then, would this be the case when we come to the more controversial practice of homosexual intercourse? Yet anal intercourse is the staple here; practised by 90%. How often does anyone discuss the -presumably fairly clear - connection between this and the disease-rate? Why don’t they? Social pressure? Which is the more important? - one’s cool image or the lives and deaths of people?)
(e) the fact that people generally go along with what is fashionable in their own culture and time-period, often with little understanding of any other culture or time-period, or their relative merits and demerits;
(f) the fact that people’s stances and views are so often the result of wishful thinking (or, alternatively, a fear of seeming fuddyduddy) rather than research. This can be demonstrated by asking two questions:
(i) ‘Are your views any different from the views you would ideally/emotionally wish to hold?’
(ii) ‘Have you ever researched the topic with an open mind?’.
Those who answer ‘No’ to both are not yet in a position to speak with any authority on the topic.
This is the point where ppl habitually fall silent, change the subject, make amusing remarks. Anything rather than address the point?!
But this time Im expecting ppl will address the 6 points in order, just to prove me wrong. So fire away!
June 26th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
As far as I am concerned they are BOTH wrong.
Much as I completely disagree with Stephen Green’s view, as a seasoned anti- (unjustified) censorship campaigner, I’d be a hypocrite, if I said he wasn’t entitled to express them, and the Co-Op bank clearly shouldn’t try to censor Green, by denying him access to their finanacial services. That makes them, as bad as he is.
It is my opinion that Mr. Green is completely misguided in his beliefs. That does not mean that the bank should do what they have done.
June 26th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Shell, religious people seem to have a pathalogical obsession with what others do in bed, especially when it comes to exactly where the active male introduces his sexual equipment.
This obsession is clearly harmful, and religious people ought to concentrate on being nice, which according to their dieties, and prophets, is what they are supposed to be doing.
BTW it is said that 20% of the heterosexual population indulge in the pratice of which you so vociferiously disapprove. Or was it simply rampant homophobia becoming manifest ?
June 26th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Some questions for YOU “doctor” Shell:
Do you really think that sensible sane people would choose:
1: To be gay and have their lives end early, (if what you say is true) because of their homosexuality ?
2: To be gay and risk the ridicule and repression of (in my opinion) narrow minded bigoted types like your “good” self ?
3: To be gay and isolated from parenthood, because their sexual situation prevents them from reproducing ?
4: To be gay and in many cases, have to live in constant fear of their family finding out the truth about them, and facing complete rejection in many cases, if ever they do ?
Have you ever spoken to any gay people Shell ? Do you know any ? Have you any in your family ? Have you any of them in your circle of friends ? Have you talked to *them* yourself about their sexuality, and why they are like they are ? If not I’d ask by what authority (and please don’t say god’s)gives you the right to condemn them other than as an apparent homophobic bigot ?
I know MANY gay people, though I am not gay myself. Every one of them I’ve been close enough to discuss this with, has told me the same thing: That being gay is not something they CHOSE to be. It is something they ARE.
Just as I was born with ginger hair, and loads of freckles. Along with the price I had to pay, in ridicule and bigotry, just for being that. I think the percentage of ginger haired freckle faced people is about the same as gay ones. Some are both of course.
{sorry about the spelling error of ‘pathological’ in my other post. Is there any way these can be edited ?}
June 26th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
I’ll gladly answer all those questions. But I dont want anyone avoiding answering mine, since they were asked first. So we’ll answer mine first, and then give our full attention to yours. Good - some proper debate.
June 26th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
I will try to answer Dr Shell’s questions, briefly.
Questions (a), and (b) are effectively the same question, and are an attempt to persuade those who answer it, to accept a justification for restriciton on gay lifestyles for health reasons. But it isn’t the gayness itself, which would cause any health problem. I know gays who have lived to their ninties… Again it is not their sexual orientation, but what they do with it, and exactly the same applies to heterosexuals too.
(c)
Aids aside, I don’t think there’s much difference between promiscious gays and promiscuous straights. Again, it boils down to one thing - Have lots of sex with different people, and fail to protect yourself, and you are likely to catch something. Gays are more likely to be promiscous simply because they are MALE, not because they are gay. Males are genetically programmed to be so. Many straight men would be MUCH more promiscuous if they could get away with it.. It is hardly surprising that males are more promiscuous in a relationship where there is no female influence.. Again it all depends on how many risks you take what happens to you, on average.
(d)
[anal sex question cut for brevity]
The quesitons here, are borne from the religious person’s obsession with the act of anal intercourse. I have covered this in another post where I assert that 20% of straights also indulgle in this. They are the only ones who admit to it too…
“(e) the fact that people generally go along with what is fashionable in their own culture and time-period, often with little understanding of any other culture or time-period, or their relative merits and demerits;”
Other cultures and time periods have little relevance to most people. In the past, they were not born, and in the future, they will be dead. For most, the past is a curiosity and the future, is unknown. We cannot tell what will happen in time periods in the future. But sexualty has become more liberated, because of contraception, and modern ways of communicating. People are simply more honest about what they really think, and do not fear saying so. As you go back in time, so the repression increased.
Given the advances in science, in communications, and in any generally free and open society, this was bound to happen. Only in societies which are ruled with an iron fist, does it fail to happen. Even then history has shown their leaders to often be hypocrites. There has always been gays. There WILL always be gays. No amount of ridicule, persecution, repression, or hate prevents this.
In my other post I say people do not choose to be gay. They just ARE. If they did choose it, I would question their sanity for doing so even in today’s world. I would certainly question it in yesterdays culture, or in Iran, and other similar countries where they EXECUTE you for it. Perhaps Dr. Shell agrees with them ? Yet despite that, it is still found there.
(f) the fact that people’s stances and views are so often the result of wishful thinking (or, alternatively, a fear of seeming fuddyduddy) rather than research. This can be demonstrated by asking two questions:
(i) ‘Are your views any different from the views you would ideally/emotionally wish to hold?’
My views are the ones I choose to hold. Nothing to do with fashion. Or religious dogma. Only common sense based on logical reasoning, and a proper analysis of the facts, lead me to my beliefs. Unlike Dr. Shell who seems to rely on a supernatural influence, which I have reason to believe either does not exist, or if it does, it doesn’t care all that much.
(ii) ‘Have you ever researched the topic with an open mind?’.
Of course. But have you I wonder ? (and I in fact doubt..)
June 26th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
I wonder Dr. Shell, if your aparrent hatred of homosexual people simply comes from your religious beliefs ? You go on about the fact that people die and all that. People die, from rock climbing. They die motoring. They die, flying ligh aeroplanes, like a chap a few doors down the road from us did. Nowhere do you condemn such activities. People having sex with other people involves a certain amount of risk, as does many other things one can do. The people involved should be free to choose, for themselves. Not to have it imposed upon them, by religious repression, which happens all too often, even in this (so called) free society of ours.
June 26th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
It’s true - one can’t talk about every topic at once. This post is about homosexuals and that’s therefore what Im talking about. But there are other risky activities too, and there comes a point where they are too risky to be justified. Especially where other people’s lives are involved - which, come to think of it, they always are.
Hatred - no. Attention to facts & stats - very much so. We all know which societies wanted to suppress facts.
Now, Shaun, I would give your points more and deeper attention were I convinced of your openness & even-handedness; the rhetorical content of your comment 11 is not helpful - almost as if you have prejudged the issue. Even prejudged the issue of my character without having met me. But where issues are prejudged that is not a proper debate. On teh other hand, the factual content is well worth commenting on.
I agree with you that my (a) and (b) are closely related. What I want to stress is that these are serious points involving the lives of real people. Every person and society wants to minimise anything that leads to disease or earlier death. Supposing that even homosexual orientation were, on average, such a thing. It might be - there is no logical reason why not.
(Leaving aside the questions of the sources & permanency of such orientation. Everyone is ‘oriented’ to many things - some helpful and some harmful. The idea that the orientation itself is sufficient is obviously a non-starter. We have first to see whether the thing is helpful or harmful. What if someone were ‘oriented’ towards bashing old ladies? They wouldnt be helped to overcome this by a society that approved this - quite the reverse: it would give them justification for their activities, and possibly confuse them.)
I agree with your point that promiscuity is central. That is why Christians regard homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity in the same light and on the same level.
I agree with your point that maleness is central. Whether this is genetic I am not competent to say; common sense might indicate that social reasons alone (males having more power than women to do as they pleased) might be sufficient. After all, as soon as women have had more power, they have become more promiscuous - ie sunk to males’ level in this regard. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the genetic thing is true as well. What better reason could there be for societies seeking to minimise and not normalise male-male sexual congress, knowing the possible consequences of a whole subculture of human beings untrammelled by the superior sexual conscience of women? Recipe for chaos. If promiscuity is always or generally bad news, it’s scarcely likely that the community whcih head-for-head produces most of it is going to be good news.
(d) One mention of a highly relevant topic qualifies as obsession? It is central to the whole debate that people call a spade a spade. Like it or not, what homosexuals actually get up to is bound to be central. You’re not suggesting that it is peripheral?
(e) I think is important, since limited historical perspective is bound to mean limited understanding. Especially in this case, when our society has already progressed such a distance from barbarism and towards civilisation that the stable family became normal - only to sink back in the direction of barbarism when it became less normal again. Obviously we will learn from societies and historical periods whose stats were better than ours - in some cases, much better. There cant be any argument about that.
(f) Im puzzled about, since I dont think I referred to supernatural influence once. Indeed, I called for a debate based on the common ground of reason.
Hope this is clear - and I welcome future contributions.
June 26th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Perhaps “hatred” of homosexuals was too strong a term. “Complete condemnation” of them, might be better. I don’t need to have “met” you, I have read enough of your posts to realise where you come from and how you arrive at your views. What I’ve never read about you, I can predict reasonably accurately, because of your strong Christian faith. From what I’ve read, you are part of the same mindset and belief system as the rest of them.
If you really want to call a spade a spade, then I will: You Christian people clearly have an obsession with the fact that some people fuck other people up the arse [*] now and then, and believe something ought to be done about it ™ most likely with a prohibition. But your desire to interfere in the goings on in the bedrooms of other freeborn people, or to comdemn them, well that is both unwarrented, and unnecessary. Not everyone wants to minimise early death.
Some are happy to take that risk. Which is why I mentioned rock climbing etc. I’d sooner have fify years as a freeborn person without unwarrent repression, than to live my life for seventy years, as a repressed Iranian, or be subject to unchecked fundamentalist Christian authority all my life. Do not claim to know what we all want, or to know our minds. You clearly do not.
If someone is disposed to bashing old ladies, then they need to be monitored to protect the public, and separated if need be. The same would apply to paedophiles who sexually assault children, which cannot be tolerated. Old ladies do not consent to be bashed, and young children do not consent to be screwed or otherwise sexually assaulted by adults.
Gays are another matter. They do not hurt me, and they do not hurt you. What thet do to each other is by consent. If they want to bum each other off, every night of the week, that’s up to them. The same as if the straight couple across the road are into a bit of bum bashing now and then, well that’s also their OWN business, not mine, and certainly not yours.
On obsession: I meant that religious people in general are obsessed with other people’s anal activities. Obsessed with controlling it, hating it, and condemning it whenever they can. You appear to be just the same as the rest of them… I have no reason whatsoever from what you have written to presume you are any different.
Family stability has been eroded for many reasons. Sexual freedom is very little to do with anything. You can learn this, by studying other countries. Denmark, and Sweden both have lower divorce rates than us, at 2.81, and 2.79 divorces/1000 with Britain at 3.08. America, generally held to be sexually more conservative than we are, and certainly more puritan, stands at nearly FIVE! Indeed I see an slope contrary to your expectations here!
Spain which has no media censorship, and is far more open about sexuality than Britain, and has a significantly LOWER age of consent than we do (was 12, but might be 13 now) has ONLY 0.88 divorces/1000 Less than a THIRD of our rate. In the old days - divorce rates were lower. Women could get beaten up, or even raped by their husbands, and could not do a think about it. They could get thrown out of their homes, and be made virtually destitute.
Forcing a narrow mindend sense of morality on others will not aid you in your quest for “family values” I’m afraid. Do you think a husband and wife should seperate and be happy, or stay together and be miserable ?
[*] I make no apology for the mode of expression which was clearly invited, with reference to calling a spade a spade.
June 26th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Ok, a few points:
(1) Suppose that the facts of the matter tended to point to the actual practices of homosexuals being central to the issue as a whole. One can’t deny that this is a possibility. What does one do? To mention this at all is to be accused to being obsessed by it. But such an accusation sidesteps the main issue: namely, maybe these practices, of dubious hygiene & biology, are a weak link in the homosexual argument. What we should all ask is that such issues be addressed head-on. Changing the subject to obsessions is just a red herring.
Analysis of the whole western world, I think, supports my big picture: namely, that the moral sea-change of the sixties (which was never properly argued for rationally, just imposed carnally by popular demand) has led to sexual/divorce/abortion stats becoming overwhelmingly more negative. Small regional variations are a secondary issue.
On quality/quantity of life, I agree with you. Actually, they are both important in their own way, and overwhelmingly the best option is to have both. After all, it’s not as though we have to make a choice between EITHER quality OR quantity, as you seem to imply.
Re: what homosexuals get up to in private, I guess you are a victim of your own culture and its presuppositions, which is why I emphasised historical perspective. All sorts of dodgy presuppositions here:
(1) The whole private/public ‘divide’, as though one did not affect the other, and as though the edges were not blurred; (2) The whole idea that one can approve something that ‘does no harm’ as opposed to something that does positive good. Doing no harm is not a good reason for doing anything. In any case, I have already detailed the harm that this particular thing does do, so it does not qualify.
(3) The whole consent principle. No man is an island - and the guy who aimed to disprove that, Hugh Grant in ‘Man and Boy’ (what was the title? that Nick Hornby one), was about as selfish an expletives-deleted as you can get!! You don’t seriously think that our lives can be in isolation from family, from those who care for us, from our future children and the ‘us’ whom they will have to live with etc etc. No doubt the two burglars ‘consented’ to the robbery - but were they the only interested parties? Hallo? Christians are always interested parties, because Christians - and all good people - care for everyone’s welfare. It’s only selfish people who don’t. (So Boo!!!)
Looking forward to continuing the debate.
It amazes me that you think that there are Christians everywhere making the same points as me. I wish there were! So far as I can see, I am a pretty typical Christian in my stances; a pretty atypical one in the way I arrive at those stances; and also a pretty atypical one re how much I speak up about it. Why, for example, do you think I am the only one to comment regularly on this blog?
June 26th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
What the Co-Op did would have been wrong if it were dealing simply with a private individual, but CV is (allegedly) an organisation, with publicly stated policies on assorted issues. It is quite within its rights to deny itself profit by refusing to conduct business with any given organisation, for whatever reason it sees fit. Good on them!
June 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
What can one do about the actual practices of homosexuals ?
One can simply forget all about them, and get on with your own life, and leave them, to live theirs, as they wish provided it is consensual. Just as the government, have in fact decided to do.
I dont think Christians care for everyones welfare. They seem to think the world would be a better place if everyone was legally forced to adopt their so called standards.
It wouldn’t.
Don’t you know how fundamentally rotten it is to impose narrow minded notions of how to live on others, without the strictest of justification for doing it ?
Having anal sex, isn’t so fundamentally bad as to justify the kind of controls you want. People have been doing it, since there’s been humans. They will do it whilst ever there are humans. They will do it, whether it is legal or not. They will do it EVEN if you threaten them with death. Now leave them be. They cause you no harm.
Unlike religion which is the cause of so much chaos in the world….
June 27th, 2005 at 1:12 am
PS: Dr Shell -
Have you ever considered that there might be many people, in this world, who actually like taking it/giving it up the arse, who otherwise are very decent, well behaved people ? People who have contributed so much (and probably more than you’ll ever do) to mankind, and to culture ?
It was your sort of attitude, which brought about the persecution of Oscar Wilde for example. The originator of satire, in the theatre, and a fine author and playwright, who happened to be one of those gay human beings you seem to despise… There are many others who contributed so much who were gay. I can say nothing about their preferences in this area. Piotr Ilyitch Tchaikovsky was persecuted for his sexuality.
Look what we’d have lost there, had his persecutors been wholly successful. W. Somerset Maugham was gay. So was Leonardo daVinci. Elton John, George Micheal, Frankie Howard, Nigel Hawthorne (A favourite of Mrs Thatcher, apart from section 28 issues), Michelangelo,Justin Fashanu (a famous black footballer, persecuted because of his sexuality),Franz Schubert (it is said), the brilliant (Sir) John Gielgud (prosecuted for homosexulity), Liberace, Sir Alec Guinness(who was prosecuted for it) and many many more…
You “christians” who are supposed to “care” about people have a bloody lot of misery to answer for.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:45 am
You know, Christopher, the arguments you deploy here would appear to be, mutatis mutandis, indistinguishable from the arguments advanced by eugenicists for the elimination of ‘certain classes’ of person.
You mentioned before that you’re more a New Testament person than OT. How about you share Jesus’s teachings on homosexuality with us?
June 27th, 2005 at 9:24 am
What I find interesting is that virtually all debates regarding homosexuality, especially those where religion is brought into the mix, concern only male homosexuality and in particular a certain act. Lesbians tend to be left out of the discussion all together. This tends to add weight to the view that the anti-gay zealots have a pathological fascination with anal sex that they seem unable to see past.
June 27th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Indeed Kate. Like I suggested. It’s an obsession with them.
June 27th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Maybe it’s because, like a lot of men they actually quite like the idea of two women having sex, so they don’t mind it too much. Reminds me of someone I used to work with, who was capable of the most sickening homophobia, but was eventually fired as porn was found on his computer. The vast majority of the porn was of the variety featuring two women.
Hypocrites the lot of them.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Queen Victoria omitted to make lesbianism illegal because she had a mental block re believing such things could happen at all. (Or so I heard!)
By the ‘unproductiv-ity’ barometer it obviously rates the same as male. By the promiscuity barometer it obviously rates less bad. So I suppose that makes it rate overall less bad (as opposed to actually good, which would be more to the point).
June 28th, 2005 at 11:48 am
1st paragraph is true.
But the 2nd paragraph…. what the hell are you on about?
June 28th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
To translate:
Lesbians have no more offspring than male homosexuals to show for their claim to biological authenticity.
However, they have the saving grace (by comparison) of being somewhat less promiscuous.
So that makes them rate higher (or less low) overall - unless other relevant criteria are cited.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Shaun-
Absolutely true - and boy, do I appreciate Tschaikovsky. But how is it relevant? Every great person - indeed, every great person - has weaknesses of idfferent kinds. The fact that they were great does not mean that this characteristic/orientation was a strength rather than a weakness. That would need to be shown on independent grounds.
Hi Joe-
Jesus’s teachings on homosexuality:
(1) For all I know, he may never have mentioned it. It was not a controversial topic among any other of his contemporary Jews whose voluminous writings/sayings we have, and the fact that we have no recorded sayings of his about it suggests that it was not controversial with him either. There is no reason why this should surprise us. Why would we expect the central preoccupations of first-century Jewish rabbis to match (coincidentally) those of 21st century western men and women?
What does it mean to say it was uncontroversial with him? That he had nothing to add. ‘I refer the Right Honourable Member to [what has already been said on the topic].’
(2) The argument from silence can at times be strong (the dog in the nighttime). But it is perilous to rely on it. Mark 7.21 shows Jesus speaking against sexual impurity (as defined by Jews of the day) in general. But he does so only in passing, without any need for emphasis, as his stance is the default one. Who would have questioned it in that day and geographical location? (The Romans, of course - enlightened butchers that they were.)
(3) In no place does Jesus suggest he holds anything but the existing view of the severity of sexual impurity. I think this is correct - if not - chapter and verse wd be good.
(4) At times he stiffens the law on related matters - e.g. divorce in Mark 10.
(5) At other times he strengthens the emphasis on mercy and compassion. He never changes the laws but he does change people’s perspectives on their own reactions to transgressors (Luke 7 and John 8). He doesnt condemn (hallelujah) and he doesnt condone (which is his main difference from modern liberals). He just tells it as it is.
Hope this gives a rounded picture.
June 28th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Instead of John smiley-sunny, pls read ‘John 8′
June 28th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
So the short answer would be ‘not a sausage’, then?
June 28th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Shell - What would you want do about gay people ?
Do you not accept that that’s how they are.
All scientific reseatch says that they CANNOT change so why not simply accept them ?
Is your religion so pathetically constraining that you cannot do this ?
I would argue that to subcribe to unproven religious dogma is a weakness. For people who need a crutch to lean on…
Being gay is neither a strength or a weakness. It is a certainly a disadvanage whilst ever the world is full of people like Dr. Shell…
June 28th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Hi Shaun-
Which scientific research is this? People can do all sorts of things with their willpower. If you are right, this would be about the only life-change impossible for human beings to accomplish.
Re: dogma - you’d need to consult my other comments. I am always making the point that dogma is the enemy of scholarship. Nor am I a fan of religion, I just follow an historical individual.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Hi Joe
Yes, your 10-word summary is a fair precis of my 18 lines…
NOT…
and you know it!!!
A good place to start would be to take my five points and engage with them one by one.
Looking forward to the debate.
(Sorry to be a total beast!)
June 28th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Christopher Shell: “For all I know, he may never have mentioned it”
Frankly, Christopher, I’d say that that is the crucial line and that it validates Joe’s precis rather nicely.
If you fundamentally object to the gays because 1st century rabbis did, then you’re a bigger fool than I thought. What’s your view on pork?
No cult that is hoping to grow into a religion would mark itself out as the gay cult by countering the prevailing sexual mores. Look at christianity now, where the african bishops are blocking gay bishops in britain because they don’t want to lose converts to the muslims who, they fear, would see christianity as the gay religion.
Wherever there are stupid people you’ll find intolerance and bigotry. All you’re doing is wilfully aping 1900 year-old bigotry, and pretending that you’re better than ignorant bigots because of it.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:17 am
“Nor am I a fan of religion, I just follow a historical individual” (rather than “an”)
Jesus I suppose you mean. Well, that’s religion in my book. He claimed to be the Son of God. Religious enough ?
Basically you follow all the dogma that is the Christian teachings… which have of course been greatly corrupted over the last 2000 years or so…
One has to examine issues with modern eyes, not historical ones. What relevant was Jesus’s life to ours ? There are some similarities, yes. But did he ever realise that we would be able to travel to the other side of the world, in less than a day ? Did he ever realise we would talk to people at the other side of the world virtually simultaneously ? No! He knew NONE of these things were going to happen. If he really was the son of an all knowing God, he’d have had something to say about our modern way of life, I’m sure.
My bet, too, is that he would have thought that societies persecution of homosexuals, had he a vision of modern understanding of them, and scientific understanding of them was ROTTEN TO THE CORE. I reckon Jesus would have condemned YOU, rather than homosexual people.
All dogma, (which is what you are patently guilty of) does is cause misery.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:51 am
So lesbians are the two-headed, fire-breathing children of Satan aswell then? Marvellous, I was feeling rather left out.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
I do find it laughable that having an ethical basis to who you will do business with amounts to censorship!
The issue here is not that Christian Voice disapproves of homosexuality, but that they conduct vociforpous hate campaigns against homosexuals and those that don’t activly discriminate on grounds of sexuality.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Tom-
It’s be good to assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus never mentioned it specifically. (Though, of course, it is covered by his unsurprising disapproval of all extramarital sex: Mark 7.21.)
The question then becomes: why did he not mention it specifically? You suggest: because he possibly didnt especially disapprove of it. I suggest: because he had nothing new to say on it, and assumed the default position. The main evidence for this being Mark 7.21.
I have offered evidence for my ‘why’. If your ‘whyt is to be considered on a level with mine, you need to provide eqully good or better historically-grounded reasons for yours. And in particular:
(a) Why do you think Mark 7.21 doesnt cover it? It seems to me to cover it. Clearly if he disapproved of extramarital sex between male and female, he can scarcely have approved of it between same-sex couples when there’s no evidence that
(b) The chances of Jesus and Paul having diametrically opposed views are also small.
(c) If Jesus really had revolutionary views on this topic, or even views at all different from those of his own day and culture, then why didnt he say so?
(d) Don’t you see that the only reason you are wanting Jesus to have any interest in this topic at all is that every age wants Jesus to be a bit like them, and for his interests to be a bit like theirs? That is bad history. We will never stand a chance of understanding him unless we let him be himself and take the trouble to understand his culture, which is far more relevant to the case than our own.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Paul never met jesus. Is this correct?
If so, then I’d say that the chances of them having opposite views on some things are quite high. I understand that jesus wasn’t anti-women, where as paul chucked in a load of stuff about no women priests and such-like (which is the vatican’s basis for their sexist stand to this day). Is this correct? If so, then it rather shows that on some things they did hold different views. Also, what does it matter what Paul said? having never met jesus, his books in the bible are no more worthy of the position of holy documents than the christian voice website.
I don’t give a monkeys if my views chime with jesus’, in fact the point of what i (and others) have been getting at is that jesus didn’t explicitly disapprove of gay sex any more than straight sex, and it’s only prudes and bigots who profess to follow him who seek to persecute the gays, not those who could genuinely describe themselves as christians.
You are clearly very knowledgable about christian scripture, and also clearly disapprove of extramarital sex, and it is this disapproval that, at least in part, forms the basis of your disapproval of gay sex. With these in mind, are you in favour of gay weddings, and if not, why not?
June 30th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
(1) I think it is very unlikely that Paul met Jesus. He seems to have been a high-up Pharisee who studied in Jerusalem, and was moreover based in Jerusalem around the time of the crucifixion. He was a more or less exact contemporary of Jesus age-wise. So his not having encountered/seen Jesus is slightly surprising - but apparently he didnt.
He was so devoted to Jesus that he sought to identify completely with him. Every letter of his bears witness to this. One example: he saw himself as completing the sufferings of Christ in his own body.
(2) Re women: I find it difficult to make any statement about women with which one of them (Jesus or Paul) would have agreed and the other disagreed. Maybe someone else can help here.
(3) ‘Jesus didnt explicitly disapprove of gay sex’ - wow! This dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
-Firstly, the question is not whether he didnt disapprove of it (double negative) but whether he did approve of it. Every cultural consideration points the other way. He didnt explicitly disapprove of child sacrifice either. And there are a thousand other harmful things which, so far as we know, he didnt mention. Homosexual issues were pretty unmentionable in his time and culture.
In any case, in normal circumstances, you’d agree that the argument from silence is perilous.
Don’t you think that Mark 7.21 has quite a lot of bearing on the issue. Here, Jesus assumes that all extramarital sex is out of court.
-Secondly, if he disapproved even of extramarital sex between opposite genders, he is not in the slightest degree likely to have approved of extramarital sex between identical genders. Gay marriage being a concept that no-one in his culture would ever have considered.
June 30th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
I was accepting that. But how about you? gay marriage, yes or no? (nb, this is not a proposal)
June 30th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Christopher, you seem to be a veritable fount of knowledge about attitudes to same-gender sexuality in first-century AD Roman Palestine. So I’m presuming you have decent primary sources on this matter, rather than just making stuff up and deciding it must be true because it sounds ‘right’ and ‘natural’ and happens to chime with your personal beliefs. Would you care to share them with us?
July 1st, 2005 at 10:54 am
Tom - a definite ‘no’ - wouldnt even consider it.
Joe - There is one sure thing: had Jewish beliefs on the topic been any different in the first century than in any other century, we would have heard about it.
There is no culture that has recorded the sayings of its first-century sages in such details as the Jews: in the first instance, in the Mishnah, and (building on the Mishnah) in the Talmud, perhaps the most massive book ever written, or certainly at that time.
Some of the main rabbis of the time: Hillel, Shammai, Akiva, Gamaliel.
If there were even one saying that suggested that any of the first-century Jewish sages (who disagreed with each other about many things) had really been 21st century westerners in disguise, we would certainly have heard of it. But they weren’t, any more than we are remotely interested in the preoccupations of 41st century orientals.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:35 am
So what you’re saying is, again, there’s no actual evidence for any of this, but you like the sound of it, so it’s almost certainly true, ‘natural’, ‘right’ &c&c. Plus my issue was more with sweeping statements like “[h]omosexual issues were pretty unmentionable in [Jesus's] time and culture” - how on earth can you claim to know this with any certainty?
And I’m intrigued by your implication that approval of same-sex relationships is unique to westerners in the 21st century, which I’d have said was clearly and demonstrably untrue. On what are you basing this?
July 1st, 2005 at 11:38 am
Chritopher - why not? It would reinforce the concept of fidelity and partnership among the gay community, helping to counter the associations of gayness with promiscuity and attendant increased risk of STDs, one of your beloved (or should that be reviled) ‘negative statistical trends’.
I can’t think of any reasonable argument against gay marriage, so i’d be interested to see if you can.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Tom-
One can’t misuse words in that way. ‘Marriage’ is a gender-specific term. If it ceases to be that, there’s no reason why it should not also cease to be age-specific, or number-specific (leading to three or more getting ‘married’).
Joe-
The very fact that the thoughts of first-century Jews survive in such massive bulk helps us to know what they talked about a lot and what they didnt talk about much, or at all.
It is a fact that approval of homosexual acts is not unique to 21st century westerners. I would never ‘imply’ that it was, since I know very well it is not. (And in any case, we never know what other people are ‘implying’, only what they are actually saying.) Compare the prevailing Hellenistic culture of Jesus’s own day, for example. But 21st century westerners sometimes want to import their own preoccupations into cultures which did not share those preoccupations.
However, my main gripe is that you’re not engaqging with most of the specific points I raised. :o( !!
July 2nd, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Well, we could start by wondering whether you’ve quite grasped how fluid ‘life expectancy’ actually is - that, for example, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old may be greater than that of a 20-year-old. Or by looking at what the authors of the paper (based, it should be noted, on data gathered in the late 1980s and early 1990s) whose findings on the life expectancy of gay men you hover around actually have to say. The full article can be found at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499 -
I would also point out that the life expectancy of black men in both the UK and US is significantly less than that of the male population as a whole. People of Afro-Carribean origins have a much higher rate of certain diseases, most notably sickle-cell anaemia, than the population at large. Do you feel that there should therefore be official discrimination against black people?
July 3rd, 2005 at 10:07 am
Yes - gay life expectancy is improving, for well-documented reasons, thanks to the medical ppl who have worked to counter the inherent risks of their lifestyle.
It is still, given the above figures, presumably appreciably below heterosexual life expectancy.
The black-people thing is a separate matter. There are no lifestyle considerations here, therefore changing their lifestyle would not necessarily produce any difference. This is very different from the situation with the homosexual community.
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:31 am
they can’t change their lifestyle Christopher….. they’re gay…….
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:50 am
That is exactly the question. If a society preaches that point of view, those tempted in that direction will find it nearly impossible to resist. Just like if people preached that heterosexual promiscuity was more beneficial than abstinence, the number of promiscuous would rocket, and the number of those feeling able to resist would drop. A lot of it is about society and social pressures: what is preached to be normal in a given society.
Bear in mind that internet search engines prove conclusively that there are millions of people who are (according to your presuppositions) irredeemably paedophile. It is frequently said (maybe accurately) that they find it extremely difficult to change. Yet you are saying that the mere fact that someone has a strong sexual ‘orientation’ demonstrates that that orientation is ok. The above example shows that it demonstrates nothing of the kind.
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:55 am
Consider drug abusers. They too are engaged in a lifestyle which will knock (on average) years off their lives. They find it at least as difficult to change or abstain as do homosexual people.
Would you argue that it is best if the drug-abusers abstain and the homosexuals do not? There would be no consistency in that point-of-view.
July 3rd, 2005 at 2:12 pm
There is no comparison to be made between drug abusers and homosexuals. Homosexuality is perfectly natural, drug abuse is not.
Thing is, nondy is ever going to change your mind “Doctor” as you are an irrational bigot who has absolutely no genuine intention of looking at the facts.
I’m glad that we live in a world where bigotted morons like you are becoming less and less common.
I do have to wonder why the obsession with homosexuality? I find that most sraight people just don’t give a shit about homosexuality. It just doesn’t bother them. I’m beginning to think that maybe you’re not entirely comfortable with your own sexuality.
After all, it is often found that the most violent homophobes are actually gay themselves.
Of course, despite you not actually living in the rational world, you’ll want some evidence to back this up. So here goes….. form this website: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm&e=912
[blockquote]One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don’t have to worry about being aroused by him.[/blockquote]
Of course you’ll then come out with your old argument about stats being rotten, which you do whenever there’s a chance that they show that your arguments are a load of bollocks.
July 3rd, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Wow!!
I suppose that with most men, it only takes a picture of a beautiful woman to wonder why anyone would want to be homosexual. But that’s irrelevant - there are lots of unhelpful things that we are tempted to, and homosexuality is not necessarily the worst or the best of them. Even those not tempted to homosexuality are bound to be tempted to other equally bad things. There’s nothing special about homosexuality in this regard. In its topicality, however, it is special, since it is a topic being hotly debated at this point in history. Im not the only person debating it.
As for killers of gay men, homophobia etc, that deserves nothing but contempt from any rational person. The ground rule is not to let emotion (fear / prejudice / hatred / ‘phobia’) affect rational judgment.
How do we determine what is and isnt ‘natural’? I should say that there’s no way that voluntary activities that cause earlier mortality are likely to be ‘natural’. These include, for example, smoking, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexual activity, eating unhealthy food, hanging around in gangs, excessive drinking, and so on.
July 3rd, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Homosexuality is natural “Doctor”, all but the most irrational bigots (like you) agree on that.
It is evident accross the animal kingdom, including amongst our fellow primates.
And do you have any actual evidence that just being homsexual is dangerous? Could you please explain how a man being attracted to another man is actually physically harmful?
And anybody who believes in such an obviously ludicrous concept as god can not possibly talk to anybody about rationality.
July 3rd, 2005 at 6:29 pm
I was under the impression that incidence of homosexuality varied widely from species to species.
Are we supposed to find out how we should be behaving by observing the bonobos? They are more advanced than us, right? ;o)
By your definition, apparently, anything that happens is ‘natural’. OK - mugging of old ladies happens. Therefore it is ‘natural’. The holocaust happened. Therefore it is ‘natural’ for human beings to treat each other that way.
Yes, it is natural. It is attested in nature. So are all sorts of things, both good and bad. But…is it good?
Among the class of ‘things that are natural’, there are some that are beneficial, and others that are not. The question we are engaged on discussing is not ‘Is homosexuality natural?’, since by one definition anything that happens is thereby natural. We are, rather, discussing the question: ‘Is homosexuality good/beneficial?’.
July 3rd, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Tell you what “Doctor”….. how is heterosexuality good/beneficial? Answer that if you can.
Also demonstrate how homosexuality is bad/non-beneficial, without referring to anal sex.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Sorry, are you seriously saying that you think “hanging around in gangs” is “unnatural behaviour” that “cause[s] earlier mortality”? Rather than, say, a very basic human trait that pretty much underpins all civilisation?
July 4th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Stupidest. Argument. EVER.
July 4th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Hi Andrew-
Heterosexuality makes biological sense, and produces a tangible and wholly delightful product.
It is not possible to discuss homosexuality without anal sex - that is an abstraction which doesnt exist (unless we ignore the vast majority of homosexuality). We already mentioned that altered life-expectancy (as with drugs or smoking)is one non-beneficial fruit - but you know that already.
Joe-
Of course! Supposing gangs were eliminated from the world tomorrow, would life expectancy go up or down? You know the answer already.
Re #57 cd you explain why you think the argument is ’stupid’? After all, whatever effect a picture has, that effect will be multiplied by a real life woman. (Gasp!)
July 4th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Not possible to refer to homsexuality without referring to anal sex? That’s the biggest load of bollocks you’ve posted here.
How about lesbians? Not much anal sex there is there?
Come on “Doctor”, demonstrate that homosexuality is bad/un-beneficial. That’s homosexuality itself, not acts that homosexuals may perform….. you seem quite sure about this, so it should be easy for you to demonstrate.
July 4th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
And your argument which joe quite correctly called stupid, is stupid because you make the incorrect assumption that sexuality is a choice. Nobody wants (in the sense of choses) to be gay, they just are gay.
And one more thing, you say that if gangs are eliminated then the world would be a better place. Comments on this site indicate that you also think the world would be a better place without homesexuals. Can we assume that you would support a worldwide extermination of all homosexuals?
July 4th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Christopher re comment 45 - Why is marriage a “gender-specific” (sic) term? Because it is in law? If so, why is it so in law? Because it is a specific term. It’s just circular reasoning.
Your answer is not a good reason for why it should be woman-man only.
Also, the muslims and many other religions have multiple-partner marriages, so you can’t say that it inherently means two people either.
Now, using intelligent, rational, sensible, logical arguments, why not gay marriages? All it requires is a change in the law to remove the heterosexual imperative.
Oh, and the reason for age limits is clear, to prevent the abuse of children, so don’t even think of bringing up that pathetic argument again.
July 5th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Worldwide extermination of homosexuals would make about as much sense as exterminating one’s child when they told a lie. One hopes (and works) for a future where they dont tell lies. The positive solution is always best.
If it were that obvious that homosexuality were natural, this would have been universally accepted by different societies and at different points in history. I’d be more impressed if someone told me this from a society which was not already that way inclined.
The point I dont get is re whether homosexuality is beneficial or not. Ive already pointed out the life-expectancy issue (cf. drugs, smoking) a couple of times. No-one (hopefully) says drugs or smoking are beneficial.
There are plenty of aspects of homosexuality that do not include anal sex - but what Im trying to work out is why you want this rather central aspect omitted in the first place? Isnt that artificial? Why pick on this particular aspect to omit, rather than another aspect? Because you are then more likely to get the answer you want?
Hi Tom-
What is it that tells you that marrying youngsters (and, indeed, abuse of children) is wrong? Is it reason or instinct?
What if someone told you that the instinct on which you possibly base this position is no better or worse than the instinct that tells them there’s something not right about homosexual practice?
July 5th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I pick on this aspect to omit because anal sex is not exclusively part of homosexuality, and homosexuality is not dependant on anal sex. Just as heterosexuality is not depandant on vaginal sex. I am still heterosexual even when I am not having sex.
Most people would agree that anal sex has it’s risks, but you are arguing that homosexuality itself is bad.
So, please stop avoiding the question and explain what is bad about homosexuality. Thats the act of just being gay, not the acts performed by those who are gay.
Also, please show some evidence that homesexuality reduces life-expectancy. Again, thats homosexuality itself, not acts that homosexuals may perform.
Just to come back to your first paragraph…. could you describe how a future without homosexuality is going to be acheived? Considering that people are born gay, how do you hope to stop this? What would your vision of the future do to anyone who was gay? Imprison them? Lock them up in the loony bin? Or, as I suspect, would they be executed?
You really do seem to be getting stupider with each post you make Christopher, do something to redress the balance.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Oh dear, I’d better go and stand in the dunce’s corner at once!
It’s interesting that when one speaks of ‘hate the sin and love the sinner’ homosexuals generally protest that their actions cannot be separated from the persons they are. So I repeat: take away anal sex, and what you have left bears little resemblance to homosexuality in the round.
You could equally well say: ‘Come on, Christopher - what have you against smoking? I insist that your answer fails to mention nicotine/tar, but I am patiently awaiting your answer.’
What if nicotine (or tar), which are inseparable from smoking, were the main point in the answer?
If you mean: What have I against people having an orientation that sees them drawn to love and help members of their own gender, the answer is that although I have nothing against it, I have plenty of points in favour of it, which is more to the point.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
It’s reason, of course, and you know it is.
If someone made the fatuous statement that you made, I’d call them a twat and point out all the many reasons why they were such a fucking retard. But, of course, nobody, not even you, would be so arrogant as to assume such a thing or so stupid as to make such a statement, would you?
It’s about consent and whether a child can be said to be consenting. For a legal contract, especially one which lasts ad mortem which is what marriage is, a child cannot consider all the options and be said to have consented, it’s as simple as that.
It’s for the same reasons that we have laws against sex with kiddies.
Now, having tried to bring up children getting married and derail the discussion away from your hatred of the gays, why are you against gay marriage? Please answer without recourse to pathetic semantic arguments as you did above. I should point out that I’m not talking about in church here, simply marriage as a legal agreement, such as signed in a registry office.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Well, well the allegeded Doctor ducks the question yet again.
The reason why I am pressing you on this “Doctor”, is that there is no sexual act performed by homosexual individuals that is not also performed by heterosexual individuals.
So answer the questions I asked in comment 63.
And another question too….. if we take away anal sex from homosexuality, what is left does not resemble homosexuality, does this mean that if we take away vaginal sex from heterosexuality, what is left does not resemble heterosexuality? In other words does this mean that a celibate individual is not heterosexual? By your definition it would.
Here are the 3 questions I asked in comment 63, for you convenience.
Explain what is bad about homosexuality. Thats the act of just being gay, not the acts performed by those who are gay.
Also, please show some evidence that homesexuality reduces life-expectancy. Again, thats homosexuality itself, not acts that homosexuals may perform.
Just to come back to your first paragraph…. could you describe how a future without homosexuality is going to be acheived? Considering that people are born gay, how do you hope to stop this? What would your vision of the future do to anyone who was gay? Imprison them? Lock them up in the loony bin? Or, as I suspect, would they be executed?
You want rational debate “doctor”, then answer those questions. Rationally.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Tut! I would think your aggression and unintelligent swearing was enough to put anyone off the antiChristian movement for life - if that is the sort of products it puts out. (Awaits predictable answer.)
Now, as to the issues:
Tom-
Your emphasis on consent has sociological sources. It’s the emphasis that you’re used to in your own society.
There are, of course, plenty of other factors besides consent. Ther are all sorts of other barometers for measuring whether a given practice produces better or worse results than the norm. Does it produce more disease per capita, or less? Does it produce longer life expectancy, or shorter? Does it produce happier people, or sadder? Does it produce stabler societies, or less stable? And so on. How else can one determine which things are positive and which are negative? Is anything wrong with these bnarometers? If so, what? Which alternative barometers would you propose?
I am sure that there are not stats on every one of these things - Im just listing considerations that are relevant. Consent is one relevant issue, rather than being the only one.
Consent is not that easily defined either. Children can consent, to a degree, largely because they are not in a position to know about negative long-term consequences. But there are also plenty of adults who are not aware of negative long-term consequences. And there are also plenty of adults who are aware of the possibility of negative long-term consequences, but prefer to concentrate (for now) upon short-term pleasure.
The gay marriage question I dont understand. If I understand from the statistics that homosexuality itself is (on average) unbeneficial, in addition to failing the tests of biological fruit and physical ‘fit’, then surely its formalising and normalising by the state would be even less beneficial. It would encourage people to see things as life options which they might not previously have seen that way. And there’s one sure way (proven day in and day out by certain societies) of minimising negative practices: failing to present them as possible options in the first place. For example, when (and where) I was growing up, drugs were not even an option, and Im not even 40 yet.
Hi Andrew-
The dubiously healthy practice which is a marginal practice for heterosexuals is the mainstream diet of homosexuals. Wherever something dubiously healthy is the no.1 mainstream practice, then it stands to reason that something is wrong.
I dont believe (tho’ I may be wrong) that you would seek to make me omit this consideration from my verdict unless you already realised that it is a weak point in the homosexual case.
Again, if we omit from consideration all who are actually sexually active - as you propose - we have a very skewed sample.
The closest analogy I have found is with smoking, alcohol abuse or drug-taking.
‘People are born gay’? That is just what requires to be demonstrated. I havent found many gay babies or gay children. Just as I havent found many suicidal babies or children. Just as I havent found many smoiking or drugtaking babies or children.
Would you kill or imprison someone for being suicidal? For smoking or drug-taking? For being promiscuous? No - you’d try to help them - to supply whatever it was that they were missing, whichever lack may have made them that way in the first place. (Tho’ bear in mind that ppl are not just victims of their circumstances. They may have negative tendencies or habits - or acts of will - within themselves as well.)
I don’t know whether anyone has data on family backgrounds of homosexual ppl? - but I feel that a 100% emphasis on genetic factors (which in any case are amoral or morally neutral) and 0% on environmental is not right. Let’s have both/and.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
You still haven’t told us what is so bad about being gay Christopher. Answer that question. You have stated that homesexuality is bad. There are homesexuals who never have anal sex, just as there are heterosexuals who never have vaginal sex.
Your entire opinions on homosexuality seem to concern the risks of anal sex. Homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing.
At what point does homosexuality become bad/non-beneficial? Is it when a man puts his penis in another mans anus? In this case are gay men who only engage in oral sex OK? Can you explain what is bad about lesbianism? Is it harmful to simply be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex? I really can’t see where you’re coming from on this.
And anal sex is the mainstream diet of homosexuality? Let us assume for a while that homosexuals are equally distributed amongst both men and women, ie. there is the same number of homosexual men as there is women. This is unlikely as annecdonatl evidence would indicate that women are more likely to be homosexual than men. But we’ll assume it anyway. As some homosexual men do not engage in anal sex, or are celibate, that means that less than half of all homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. Is less than half really mainstream?
Your analogy with smoking/alcohol abuse/drug taking just doesn’t work. People choose to smoke/abuse alcohol/take drugs, but they do not choose their sexuality. Try asking a homosexual when they chose to be gay.
You claim to want rational debate from other people, while at the same time avoiding it yourself.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
No: characteristically, people dont ‘choose’ to do any of these things. That’s the definition of an addiction: something which one can’t prevent oneself doing even though one might (or might not) wish to. ‘Choice’ is a matter of reason and rationality. Whereas cravings for drugs and alcohol are a matter of bodily instinct. Im not sure why people confuse reason and physical craving, or will and physical craving. Surely they must have known the experience of the two of them fighting each other, since their interests often conflict.
For sure, anal sex is mainstream for homosexual men: that we are agreed on.
Lesbianism covers a variety of quite different things: (1) women who are fed up with the unreliability, cruelty and lack of character of men but still need their physical needs met; (2) women who feel they can only be understood properly by other women, or communicate deeply with other women (again, possibly because of some male deficiency), and who naturally associate sex with understanding and communication; (3) ‘butch’ women who feel lust for feminine women; (4) asexual relationships based on companionship - so far as I know, lesbians are less sexually active on average than homosexual men.
I find it hard to deal with such diverse phenomena under the single heading of ‘lesbianism’. Two things seem clear: (i) the extent to which the sexual act is mimicked is presumably sightly less with women; (ii) two women together seems less biologically natural than a man with a woman, and a clear instance of ‘lack of fit’ / ‘lack of physical compatibility’.
Finally, it’s far from the case that my only point is anal sex. I have made the other points several times: life expectancy, average susceptibility to STDs, lack of biological ‘fit’ and of biological fruitfulness.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Answer the questions Christopher.
July 8th, 2005 at 10:54 am
What a funny answer! Several of the questions have already been addressed in #69.
Now - let’s see if we can find some that weren’t.
(1) What is bad about being gay? Ive mentioned the answers repeatedly. Pragmatically, one obviously knows how good something is by the end result. If the end result is a lower life expectancy, a greater chance (per head) of STDs, a higher level of promiscuity, and no fruit (added to there being no biological fit in the first place) - then it follows (to you) that homosexuality is something we should recommend.
(2) The oral sex issue. There’s a good barometer here. Something counts as sexual intimacy if a partner would normally be jealous about it if it were performed with someone else. Oral sex is included in this, & therefore counts as a form of sexual intimacy. (Sorry, Bill Clinton.)
Male-female sexual intimacy has biological integrity for two reasons: fruitfulness and ‘fit’. Same-sex fails on the first of these criteria, and does less well than heterosexuality on the second criterion.
You mentioned that homosexual acts are also performed by heterosexuals. This prevents anyone from needing to perform them on homosexuals.
So far as I can see, these were the only two questions I didnt address, though please highlight any others if there were any - thanks.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:10 am
How does being attracted to an individual of the same sex lower ones life-expantancy?
What has caused you to be an irrational bigot?
July 8th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Also…..
Increased risk in STDs: Risk is negated by correct use of condoms/dental dams
Naturality: No homosexuality for you is not natural. It isn’t for me either. It is for a homosexual.
No fruit: I assume that by this you mean no children. So you would also say that heterosexual sex where one or both individuals is sterile is also wrong?
You say that if homosexual acts are also performed by heterosexuals, there is no need for them to be performed on homosexuals. What kind of bollocks is that? They’re gay Christopher! They only want to have sex with people of their gender!
You had little credibility on this site to begin with “Doctor”, you’re losing it with every post.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
And one more question.
You think homosexuality is wrong. Fair enough, that’s your choice. But why does that mean that homosexuality should not be allowed?
July 8th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Anticipating Andrew’s next answer!!
‘Doctor’ Shell, you must be the most *****ing ****** it has ever been my bad fortune to encounter. If anyone posted half as much *****ing ********* on this site as you, anyone would think they were a *********ing ***********.
Back from the world of dreams……
(1) Homosexuality is something that intrinsically produces no fruit, & never could: that’s the difference from heterosexuality. In the same way that intercourse between different species could not (generally) produce fruit.
(2) You write: ‘They only want to have sex with…their own gender’. Im not sure what ‘wants’ have to do with it. We all probably have things we ‘want’ to do which we know we can’t - e.g. go to Bermuda free. It’s only children who count ‘I want’ as an argument.
(3) In the real world, the susceptibility of homosexuals per head to STDs is significantly greater than that of heterosexuals. Of course, ppl might like them to use condoms - not that that would get to the root of the problem - but the question is more how far they actually do so or not.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Questions “Doctor”.
1) How does being sexually attracted to an individual of the same sex lower ones life expantancy?
2) As heterosexual sex where one partner is sterile is something that intrinsically produces no children, and never could, does this make it wrong or not?
3) Why do you not accept that people are born gay, and thus have absolutely no desire to form heterosexual relationships?
4) How do you explain the presence of homosexuality in other speices? Why does this not indicate that homosexuality is perfectly natural?
5) Should homosexuality be made illegal?
6) If yes, what would be the sentence for someone found guilty of homosexuality?
7) Is it acceptable to deny people basic human rights simply because of the way they were born? If no, then why do you wish to deny homosexuals basic human rights?
9) Do you have a problem with sex that is purely for pleasure? If so, why?
They’re in a random order, but I’d appreciate an answer to all of them. One rule though: As you claim to want rational debate, you must not use any religous teachings in your answers, nor must you use your opinions, except where I’ve asked for them.
For question 1 I want some evidence to back up your answer.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
(1) The life expectancy will be lowered on average - not by a simple direct causation between the two things you mentioned, but by a direct line of causation none the less. This line is: being homosexual - being more likely than most to indulge in risky practices - having a lower average life expectancy. We are talking averages here, since there’s no point looking at the small picture, only at the big picture. Every small picture is just part of the big picture anyway.
(2) No - because it is a mechanism that intrinsically makes biological sense. I wonder whether you would disagree on this point, that one mechanism is intrinsically biologically fruitful and the other is not?
(3) Evidence? This is a hotly debated point, so I am not sure why you are treating it as a fact. Remember that some bodytypes are born with a greater predisposition to crime than others. Being born a certain way proves nothing. But in any case, environment plays a massive role. And how many ‘gay’ babies or children have you met?
(4) First, it varies from species to species, so that there is no one species from which we could gauge what is the correct level of human homosexual activity. For some species it is rife, for others non-existent.
Second, since when have we been learning how to live from the animal kingdom. Can you enumerate the other aspects of life in which you learn how to live from the animal kingdom? They have more to learn from us than we from them, given that they are -more or less to a species - creatures of instinct & habit to a greater extent than we are.
Third, how could anyone deny it was natural? Everything that happens is natural, both the good things and the bad things. Im especially interested to know why you make a close connection between ‘right’/'beneficial’ and ‘natural’. ‘Beneficial’ and ‘natural’ are as different as chalk and cheese. So why is it that you apparently assume a connection?
(5) Yes. Let’s take other things that have bad (or worse than average) effects. Drugs can be illegal, and people are steadily criminalising smoking. I wouldnt personally mind restrictions on fatty foods, since people won’t generally make the life-change unless they are encouraged to do so by the system. In particular, there’s no point having schools that engender good habits into children, only for those same children to go out into a world that doesnt much care whether they have good habits or not. If children can develop good habits, those same habits whould be expected all the more of adults, since the word adult means ‘mature’.
In any case, people will still do things whether they are legal or not. Legalising them gives the message they are ok - which would be inaccurate. Hopefully things that are illegal will be done less often than things that are legal (I guess there are exceptions to this - everyone cites prohibition).
There’s nothing strange about something being illegal which has been illegal in large numbers of countries for large periods of history. People always think their own period of history (and their own country) is the best and most normative, but obviously, as they must know, it is not necessarily any better or more normative than any other period, or any other country.
(6) No sentence. What are they lacking that can be provided for them? Character? Something lacking in their family circumstances? Counselling? A better environment? Psychological maturity within their own gender? What is the point in punishing people when something more obviously positive can be done? Punishment will just prolong the agony.
(7) ‘Basic human rights’ dont drop down from heaven. They are agreed by committees, and whatever the committees agree, they can later on change their minds. ‘Rights’ are all in the mind - a human invention - which is not to say that they are not important. They are very important.
Something can’t be classified as a ‘basic human right’ when it was not even seen as a human right at all (basic or unbasic) until recently.
Why is sex for 14 year olds not a ‘basic human right’? How does one define what is and what isnt?
(8) This one I have already answered. I don’t know why ppl ask the question in such a negative way often: ‘What is wrong with being attracted to ppl of your own gender?’ Let’s see it in a positive way: there are plenty of benefits that can come from devoting your life to helping ppl of your own gender, if that is your special gift. That his thoroughly good. But what has that to do with treating a man’s body as though it were a woman’s body? I don’t see the connection.
(9) Yuck, a thousand times yuck. You have just uttered my least favourite phrase: ‘Do you have a problem with…?’. What on earth is this nonsensical phrase supposed to mean? All I do is note that there are negative statistical patterns associated with homosexuality, and therefore homosexuality is to be treated with caution. But those statistical problems are public things: not private to me, but available to everyone. It’s nothing to do with my feelings, emotions etc. - in fact, nothing to do with me at all. It’s to do with publicly available statistics.
‘Religious teachings’? As you look back over my answers, you will note that I never use appeal to biblical teachings as an argument. It would be a circular argument, which is what rules it out of court. As I often say, dogma is teh enemy of scholarship.
On the other hand, where historical matters are concerned, or where the issue is what a writer actually said, then I often appeal to the Bible.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Now, I see I failed to answer your final question - stats on life expectancy.
There was a rather unsatisfactory, though useful, study done around 1985 by Paul Cameron. He estimated average life expectancy from obituaries in gay newspapers and came up with a figure in the 40s. Of course, given an average like this (which may well be inaccurate to some degree) one is unlikely to end up with a life expectancy as good as that of heterosexuals, even on the most generous estimate.
The more recent standard (known to me - Im not an expert) is RS Hogg et al., ‘Modeling the Imapct of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gays and Bisexual Men’ (International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997) 657-61. This gives a figure of 8-21 years’ less life expectancy than average.
In 2001 in the same journal (p1499) the same authors wrote a disclaimer: they had not meant their findings to be used by homophobic people - because their findings were descriptive not prescriptive. Im glad they were against homophobia, but can’t understand their attitude otherwise. Are they completely indifferent about lifestyles that lead to people living 8-21 years less on average? This is inconsistent with the view we take of smoking, for example. Obviously, we want people to maximise their life expectancy. Moreover, it can safely be assumed that those people who live less long are more likely to be unhealthy while they actually are alive, and very often to be unhealthy for the same reason that eventually produces their death. Common sense is to choose life.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
I asked you to show how the act of being sexually attracted to an individual of the same sex reduces ones life expantancy. You have not shown this at all.
You have not answered question 9.
Also, homosexual men do not treat a man’s body as if it were a womans body. They treat it as if it was a man’s body.
You keep bringing in the “have you seen any gay babies/children” question. Of course I haven’t. Nor have I seen any straight babies/children. They aren’t developed sexually.
Why do you think that people’s sexuality can be changed with counselling, or the other methods you mention?
One more question, have you ever sat down and had a good long sensible and friendly conversation with a homosexual?
You are glad that the people you quoted were against homophobia? This surprises me, considering your extreme and sickening homophobia.
You also keep using the smoking/drugs/alcohol analogies. These analogies hold no water. Al these things are choices. People choose to smoke/drink alcohol/take drugs. They do not choose their sexuality. All gay people I’ve ever talked to talk about when they discovered they were gay, not when they chose to be gay.
Yes some people do choose to be gay, anecdotal evidence would indicate this, especially amongst lesbians, but these people are in the minority.
All evidence would indicate that sexuality is not a choice.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Hi Andrew-
(a) being sexually attracted to the same sex does mean on average (c) a decreased life expectancy. That is where the stats point. We have to go by stats and prevent speculation. But the chain of causation is not directly from (a) to (c). (b) comes in the middle, and (b) is whatever these ppl on average get up to. That is what (on average) directly causes the lower life expectancy.
Question 9 I did answer. The answer is that it’s nothing to do with my feelings on the matter. It is to do with the statistics. I examine the statistics and any feelings I have are not mere gut reactions, but are the direct result of the statistics. What you are portraying as a matter of private taste is a matter of publicly available information.
If homosexuals were treating men’s bodies like men’s bodies, men’s bodies would be suitably constructed to accommodate this. But they aren’t.
Re babies/children: they are the product of heterosexual intercourse, and heterosexuality is obviously the default option for them, in the long term. What I’m pointing out is that it’s suspicious that gay tendencies tend to enter some ppl’s lives at the same age as other unwholesome tendencies, e.g. smoking, drug-taking, antisocial behaviour. This therefore seems to be an age-related matter.
The choice matter I have already answered, and this one would be good for you to grapple with. An addiction by definition cannot be a choice: it is the very reverse of a choice. An addiction is something that people feel themselves powerless to stop even if they choose.
I have spoken at resonable length with several homosexuals, both within and outside discussion of this question. But there’s no big deal about that. They haven’t got 3 heads or something!! They may have weaknesses, but don’t we all?
July 9th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
You know, I really don’t see the point in this discussion any more. You’re obviously a bigot, and will never accept homosexuality.
I’m just glad we live in a world where irrational bigots like you are becoming few and far between.
Your vision of the future is one where homosexuality doesn’t exist. My vision of the future is one where people like you don’t exist. The world would be a much better place then.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Hi Andrew-
How else is one to tell which people are truly open-minded than by seeing whether they are prepared to debate or not?
July 9th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
You’ve done nothing to suggest that you yourself are open-minded. Indeed your opinions on homosexuality reveal yourself as a close-minded bigot on this issue. I stand by my comments in my previous post.