Full human rights & respect for all humans!

One topic that seems to have been missed in the broadcast and the comments – the God-like lust to harm someone and get away with it that featured so prominently in Republic as the “Ring of Gyges” story.

I see this as a foundation of most of our sexual attitudes wherein some people are set-up by circumstance (gay men are an example) to be victims of would-be gods who get lucky enough to find them and are able to harm them, often to great adulation.

The anti-abortion movement is entirely about playing anti-sex god focussed on women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. Consider the possible harms described in arguments presented to the supreme court yesterday (Wednesday 11/8). Suppressing homosexuality (as far from the topic of abortion as possible) has always been important to them.

Hate and hurt are part of being human. The best of societies suppresses both and the worst promotes both. Which are we?

Second, I’d like to add a postscript to my other post in this thread. (And thank you very much, Potter, Ben, rc21, et.al. for your overly generous words about that post – you seem happier with it than I was!)

From the peerless Shirley Manson:

“Sex is not the enemy

No evolution
Sometimes it depresses me
The same old same
Oh we keep repeating history
The institution curses curiosity
It’s our conviction
Sex is not the enemy

A revolution is the solution
A revolution is the solution

I won’t feel guilty
No matter what they’re telling me
I won’t feel dirty and buy into their misery
I won’t be shamed ’cause I believe that love is free
It fuels the heart and sex is not my enemy

A revolution is the solution
A revolution is the solution

True love is like gold
There’s not enough to go around
But then there’s God
And doesn’t God love everyone
Give me a choice
Give me a chance to turn the key
And find my voice
Sex is not the enemy

A revolution is the solution
A revolution is the solution
Sex is not the enemy
A revolution…”

http://www.alwaysontherun.net/garbage.htm#bl7
&
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6840788&BAB=M

It is unrealistic and not at all helpful to demonize those in same sex relationships any more than others for unwisely engaging in unprotected sex. If we hope to address the issue, we must see if for what it is: a human one. Putting one group on the defensive as a particularly bad offender and creating divisiveness distracts us from looking inward and helping one another.

Another comment for you, one to answer your question from Monday night about the Lesbianism issue. The answer is found in the “Christians” vilifying certain sins at their discretion to secure for themselves a sense of righteousness. In “Letter’s To Arthur Greeves” C.S. Lewis deals with this issue in a more broad scale of Christian behavior. I want to post the quote in an edited format that I used recently in another venue. This is not a direct quote but an editing of a couple paragraphs together to summarize the thought.

“That the system [Puritan Bibliolatry] denied pleasures to others as well as to the votaries themselves: whatever the merits of self-denial, this is unpardonable interference… [since] It inconsistently kept some worldly pleasures, and always selected the worst ones-gluttony, avarice, etc…

‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ Have they the marks of peace, love, wisdom and humility on their faces or in their conversation? Really, you need not bother about that kind of Puritanism. ”

The issue is this selective self denial for the purpose of self righteousness rather than actual understanding of the Bible’s teachings. The Bible is far closer inline with liberal politics (peace and justice) than with conservative politics. However those matters are not measurable for a selection of who is in and out within these circles. So instead these true measures of spirituality are replaced with “convenient sins” that the fundamentalist pastor can assume most members of his church do not struggle with. Therefore, since MANY Christian men have strong addictions to internet pornography, and lesbianism is a major element of internet porn, it is excluded from the named avarice list.

I am deeply regretful more Christan’s do not understand the games being played. I am deeply regretful that so many I share a faith system so embarrassingly went to the polls in TN and other states thinking that darkening an oval against gay marriage was what defines “Christian Service.” I am deeply regretful we can not work together on issues like poverty and social justice because of a militant hijack of the conversation by people who want to define the nature of who is in and who is out.

Despite all my regrets. They are the people who speak for what Christianity means in the public square. They are the people who will continue to make lists that are convenient for them and their parishioners. Never lose site of the truth that there are MANY of us who they do not speak for!

That is my point. I do not want the Bible to be used by anyone to compel anyone by it’s authority, but I want it to be my authority and in the case of this broadcast, Ted Haggard wants it to be his authority, and I was disappointed with the tone that he was wrong for that.

I can assure you that I get as angry about people like Haggard and his cohorts claiming that you should be bound by by the Biblical moral system as any non-beliver. But we are suppose to be social liberals. That means he should be awarded the same courtesy by us we want him to extend to people not agreeing with his sentiments. The broadcast did not do that, instead it condemned him and his belief system, that disappointed me. Haggard should be welcome to find counseling for his “issue”

It depends on the extent of the alleged “authority”. The problem is not one of “taking” it as authoritative – the problem is one of “giving” it as authoritative, ir more to the point, FORCING it on others as authoritative.

Feel free to use it as an authority over yourself, but since I don’t subscribe to its authority why should I feel bound by it?

Which is why I was equally disappointed with this broadcast because it present the same agenda as the “crazy fundamentalist” Christians. The ideas presented here seemed to argue that belief in a Biblical moral system that governs sexual behavior was a “social sin.” I find that Ted Haggard has the right and the freedom to his moral belief system. He has the right to find a behavior sinful that you do not. In this case we are speaking of his own personal judgment of his own lifestyle.

If we are free, and we want to share in living in a free world, I need to be allowed to feel that homosexuality is sinful as much as you need to be allowed to feel it is not, and the government should not encroach on either of us as we seek to live life and love those we love.

Laws preventing legal rights (marriage) are not the only risk for homosexuals. There are still physical safety risks, as well as economic, psychological, and health risks. By allowing any radical religio-political entity like the evangelical dominionists or any other sect of fundamental literalists to set the tone of conversation and make homosexuals (or any sexuality other than the narrow doctrine) appear as less than human (fallen, in need of correction) puts all of us human beings at further risk. It should be rigorously challenged and attacked and shown for the bigoted destructive path that it is.

I’ll add that homosexuals are something of an indicator group, and this culture of dogmatic radical religious doctrine is becoming more powerful and can have far reaching effects into other areas of culture and law. It shouldn’t be hard to extrapolate that what is happening here can happen to another group.

As to the literalism of any “scripture” lending any validity to demonizing these human beings and reducing their rights? If the interpretation is used negatively toward goals that lower the value of other human beings, then that speaks volumes about the interpreter and the audience that receives it.

(sorry for the long post – I have to add to the chorus OldNick, nice one)

I naively attended a meeting during my first year on campus, thinking that “non-denominational” meant that it was a truly ecumenical, open, ‘Christian’ organization. (I am a pretty liberal Catholic – we do exist!) I got an earful of rabid, hardline anti-gay, pro-’family values’ rhetoric. The guest speaker was spouting a 1950s conservative call to arms, and an auditorium of 500+ college students were eating it up.

While my affiliation with Crusade ended as quicly as it had begun, I watched many friends grow more and more involved. While I believe in their right to subscribe to and practice any religious belief they choose, what scares me the most is the cult-like control that Crusade, and the Evangelical movement, seems to have over them. They follow the party line, they use the rhetoric, tossing about evangelical buzzwords like Fellowship. They participate in gender-separated Bible studies, which I attended a few times. Study leaders talked about the importance of men being together, ‘without the influence/distraction of women.’ Raising men to be MEN, in the old-school sense. I can only imagine the 1950’s values the women’s Bible studies probably talked about. Some of my male friends also participate in “accountability,” in which they tell a group of other guys about their moral lapses: impure thoughts, masturbation, etc.

I apologize for the long winded post, which probably revealed far too many of my own personal biases. Just wanted to talk a bit about how some of the things discussed in this edition of Open Source are happening in America’s youth as well as in adult communities.

The show was excellent, unexpectedly so: deep and revealing, a welcome relief from all the prurient and vindictive gotcha chatter. Chris was at his probing best (ie not the Christianity he knows) yet after one good hour still scratching the surface. What was exposed last night again (the personal unhappiness, dysfunction, it’s repercussions, manipulations for power and influence) will again be buried hopefully a little less deeply for the seriousness of this discussion and others like it. The slow process of enlightenment shows, now in the move towards sanction of same-sex marriage.

This should be very interesting. Maybe there will be an upsurge of common reason followed by a call to impeach the dangerous fool.

To emiliyf ; Did you really expect a fair and balanced show? Shows run by people who are liberal will usually try and find the most extreme example of an opinion they dont agree with. Thus making their belief seem more credible. It is an old trick. Have a show on affirmitive action. They will bring in some well spoken college proffesors who will speak of the need for cultural diversity and all the nice sounding positive reasons to support affirmitive action. To counter the liberal side they will bring in David Duke or some other crazy racist. By doing this they try to infer that if you are anti affirmitive action you must be racist. The same is done with the gay issue. If you are not in favor of homosexuality or gay marriage you must be a homophobe or some wild eyed bible thumping idiot. It’s called liberal bias. It will be denied by the shows producers,who will claim they do everything possible to give a fair and equal forum to both sides.

I agree with you that post-Jesus, Christian dogma as eventually cannonized by various writers of varying versions into what is now known as Scripture appears to support — or is interpreted by people to support misogny. But I think it stemmed from the concurrent rise of materialism and the desire to identify your off-spring for the purpose of passing on accumulated wealth or power and as a tactic to ward off mortality, among other things.

Chastity is a psycho-drama developed to protect property rights. It’s sad to see how suggestible we are, emotionally; how much shame and sadness has been created by this idea.

I think gay-bashing, to a certain extent traces to the time when birth and survival rates were low enough that men were admonished not to ‘waste their seed’. Otherwise, I agree with Nick; human sexuality is a continuum.

In these days of excess population, gays and lesbians — and others who choose not to pro-create – should be recognized as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

It seems there is strong animosity to view the bible as the ultimate authority. Those on the program seemed to present this point of view as intolerable. I find this interesting that they are intolerable of this view.

What is wrong about taking the bible as authoritative?
If the bible isn’t authoritative then how do the evangelical guests on the show define “Christianity?”
Is it an objective truth or is it just subject to pluralism?

Now the guests on the program interpret scripture in a way that the doesn’t portrait homosexuality as sin. This led me to a few other questions that I would like some responses too.

Do these guests believe in sin and how do they define it?
What is there response to other sins described in the bible? Should adultery, or pride, or selfishness or betrayal be embraced?

One of the guests also responded quite negatively to the idea that a Christian could hate the sin and love the sinner.

What does God do in scripture? Does God encourage sin or does He separate the sin and the sinner?

Ok that is enough for now. If I could please receive rational responses and not emotional reactions, that would be wonderful. Thank you!

I take it you are refering to…

Leviticus 18:22 states: “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Wherein God/The Bible does NOT say homosexuality is an abomination. The bible says to lie with a MAN is an abomination. Sounds to me like God wants us to become lesbians.

That is actually a fascinating aspect of this topic.

You practically can’t find straight erotica (dirty magazines and videos, if you need to know) for straight guys that does not feature at least some lesbian sex. There is definitely a double standard among the straight redneck crowd who will hardly shake hands with a gay man, but who will pay good money to watch two women have sex.

This depends entirely on the type of sex the couple has. There is no kind of sexual practice two men can enjoy that a man and a woman can’t enjoy.

‘Homosexuality’ as an identity is a fairly recent socio-historical development. I cringe when I read about ‘gayness’ in anything other than a post-19th century context. Ancient Greece – Athens in particular – is often cited as an example of uncloseted ‘gayness’ – as if, by implication, homosexuality is actually a secret cultural norm that Abrahamic religions are entirely right to constrain and demonize.

The truth, as usual, is a good deal richer than and different from these simplistic sorts of stereotypes. In Courtesans and Fishcakes, James Davidson paints a very different picture of ancient Hellenic passions. To summarze, Athens was no more ‘gay’ than any other culture that doesn’t demonize same-sex activity. In Athens, most men had wives; and women were commodified as sexual ‘properties’ just as in more recent and modern homophobic societies. Plato represented one end of the continuum: a man attracted exclusively to other men; Xenophon (an Athenian general and historian) represented the other end: a man sexually attracted to women only.
Now, and in truth, ancient Athens was an unseemly morass of misogyny and xenophobia, but at least it didn’t evince much homophobia. Instead, it was a culture wherein sex was much more openly ‘bi’ than we post-Christian moderns can easily understand. Sex was a continuum whose poles might be recognizable to us as ‘straight’ and ‘gay’, but whose reality was much more diverse.

What I’m trying to lead up to is this: Ted Haggard isn’t likely ‘gay’. He’s probably no more gay than your typical Athenian male whose sexual activities took place mostly with his wife (or with courtesans – again, try the Davidson title linked to above), and maybe only occasionally involved liaisons with other men or youths.

We in the post-Christian West are socialized to perceive sexuality as either ‘straight’ or ‘gay’. I suggest that’s a profoundly flawed lens: focused only on the two poles. Although I’m not qualified to explain male-to-male attraction, I can assume it’s different from my own attractions only in direction, not in quality.
Because we culturally limit our comprehensions to the straight/gay poles, the full bisexual truth of the continuum eludes us. Our taboos nudge us away from bisexual experimentation and toward the polarized straight/gay sexual preferences that would be our strongest—but not our exclusive—attractions if we lived in a less judgmental culture.
Ancient Greece allowed its people to live along the continuum; cultures afflicted with the ‘morality’ of the Abrahamic faiths do not. Most ancient Athenians were predominantely heterosexual, and yet occasionally homosexual too. There were no ‘gay’ Athenians, and no ‘straight’ Athenians.
I rue the profound misunderstanding and false sense of polarity we’ve inherited as a consequence of patriarchal monotheism’s attempt to control human sexuality in general, and sexual access to females in particular.
Enough already.

Demonizing non-heterosexual attraction and activity is a terrible blight on humankind. Ted Haggard took part in it. Ted Haggard also seems to have ignored one of his faith’s finest contributions to human ethics: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” – Matthew 7.1
How ironic that his own preferences include many a moment along the continuum of human sexual possibilities instead of exclusively at the ‘straight’ pole his ‘flock’ expect him to adhere to like a trained dog. And how ironic that this simple human reality proved stronger than his willingness, based on the edicts of benighted and bigoted men dead now for millennia, to repress his honest preferences.

plnelson is right: we’ve got to grow up and understand our desires for sex as a biological appetite every bit as real and valid as hunger and thirst. To accept the fullness and diversity of our human realities, and to admit that acting to slake our desires is more humanly fulfilling than repressing them.
And to ignore the judgmental legacy of a demonstrably bigoted and superstitious era of our species’ evolution from ignorance toward enlightenment.
Christianity might flourish if it took the lead in this, instead of continuously trying to turn the clock back to eras long passed, and, frankly, unlamented.