Post by shegeek72On Jul 24, 7:31 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72Religion varies from acceptance of homosexuals,
You miss the point. Bimms did not say 'all', he said 'most'.
Which is also untrue. Two religions don't count as "most."
Post by Matthew JohnsonNot 'some'. ALL. Any 'christian' group claiming otherwise is a fraud.
In your opinion.
Ah, but it is NOT just "my opinion". That is the crucial difference
you refuse to understand.
You could, but you would be dead wrong. in fact, you _are_ dead
wrong. Perhaps that is why you feel you have nothing to lose by
resorting to such transparent fallacies.
Post by shegeek72i.e. any 'Christian' group claiming homosexuality is a "sin" is a
fraud, based on misinterpretations of bible passages, particularly
not taking into account time period and context.
And just as I said, you are dead wrong. It is you, not they (or us)
who fail to "take into account time period and context". It is
you. The 'context' you provide is a forgery. The context _I_ provided
is backed up not only by historical study but by thousands of years of
scholarly commentary on the verses, and even by thousands of years of
Canon Law among Christians.
We have been over this often before.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72The "mahu," or feminine gay male, was and still is well-accepted in
some Polynesian cultures like Tahiti and Hawaii (where I lived for 20
yrs).
And what 'religion' is that? ONE. So that does not contradict
Bimms's cla im.
It's another religion where homosexuality was (and is) accepted, again
contradicting his claim of "most."
Have you ever learned to count? By no means does it contradict his
claim of most.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonThis is absolute nonsense. It is still considered 'jain' sexual
immorality, one of the 'gokai', the 5 sins forbidden to Buddhist
laity. Opinion is not 'neutral' at all. On the contrary: the earliest
Buddhist practice clearly considered it 'jain', even though the
'scriptures' of Buddhism never explicitly listed it as 'jain'. Seehttp://=
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Buddhismfor details.
I did. It is you who failed to read. See below. But before I get into
detail, I have to explain why, in a group titled
soc.religion.christian, we are spending so much time on the _Buddhist_
position: it is because of your dishonets method of counting, claiming
that most religions do not condemn homosexuality. But you cannot
fairly include Buddhism in your count, since at best, Buddhist opinion
is split on this issue.
Post by shegeek72"Buddhist teachings are usually disdainful towards sexuality and
distrustful of sensual enjoyment and desire in general[1].
And how did you miss the significance of this, the _very first_
sentence of your own citation? This implies that ALL sexuality, not
just homosexuality, is sinful, in the sense at least that it brings
upon the doer the need for more reincarnations before he/she can enter
Nirvana.
Post by shegeek72Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to
refrain from all sexual activity but take vows of celibacy. Though,
there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist
scripture be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana..."
Why did you break off from the citation? If you had continued, you
would have discoverd that several major branches of Buddhism, and ALL
of the ancient ones, condemn homosexuality as sinful, even without the
explicit condemnation.
Why, the words you so slyly left out contradict you _VERY_ directly:
for it continues with:
SOCIETAL AND COMMUNITY ATTITUDES and the historical view of
practitioners HAVE ESTABLISHED PRECEDENTS: Yielding some sangha that
EQUATE HOMOSEXUALITY WITH SCRIPTURAL SEXUAL MISCONDUCT prohibited by
the Five Precepts;
----------End quote (capitalization mine)
So despite your facile claim, yes, a significant plurality of
Buddhists DO consider homosexuality 'sexual misconduct'. So you cannot
claim that Buddhism can be counted as one of the religions that does
not condemn homosexuality -- not with gross dishonesty.
Unfortunately, you do keep returning to various forms of gross
dishonesty to support your claims.
Post by shegeek72"According to the ancient Indian understanding, homosexuals were
thought of simply as being 'the third nature' (t=E7t=E3ya prak=E7ti),
rather than perverted, deviant or sick.
But that "ancient Indian understanding" is not even Buddhist at
all. Nor is it shared by many branches of Buddhism (as shown by the
rest of the article).
Why, if you had read a little further down, you would have discovered
that the "third gender" are forbidden to become monks, forbidden to
hear sermons, and even forbidden to give alms to monks!
You would also have discovered that 'pandaka' (one of the many words
to refer to at least some kinds of 'thrid gender') are "filled with
defiling passions", which conincides pretty well with the conservative
Christian view.
Post by shegeek72With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges
acts, including sexual acts, by the intention behind them and the
effect they have.
You are quoting the article out of context. This idea of judging
solely on intention behind them is NOT shared by all Buddhists. This
should have been clear enough from the citations I have already
given. But the citation about "nine hells" below leaves NO room for
doubt!
Post by shegeek72A sexual act motivated by love, mutuality and the desire to give and
share would be judged positive no matter what the gender of the two
persons involved.
Therefore neither is this claim shared by all Buddhists. on the
contrary: as that same article makes clear a little further down:
In Chinese Buddhism, homosexuality was a third level sin punishable in
one of the nine hells
-----------------End quote op. cit
Post by shegeek72Therefore, homosexuality as such is not considered immoral in
Buddhism or against the Third Precept.
Nor is this shared by all Buddhists. See above. See also the words of
the Dalai Lama himself: "From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and
women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct."
You cannot fool anyone by contradicting the Dalai Lama so boldly. He
knows Buddhist ethics better than you do. He even knows it better than
Dhammika, the author of the book with the stupid title "Buddhism A to
Z", which is the book you are relying on in your Wikipedia citations.
Post by shegeek72None of the legal codes of traditional Buddhist countries
criminalized homosexuality per se,
But this is irrelevant, since the separation between 'Church' and
state in those countries allowed for a great divergence between
Buddhist ethical code and civil code. none of these coutnries ever
tried to criminalize all the offenses against Buddhist ethics.
Post by shegeek72although of course there were penalties against homosexual rape and
homosexual acts with minors just as there were for such offences
committed by heterosexuals. In most Buddhist countries today,
homosexuality is usually considered strange although not wicked [n]or
evil."
But this too proves nothing, since most of these countries also
considered nothing odd about drinking alcohol or eating meat, _also_
forbidden to Buddhist laity (as 'gokai').
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonWicca is a made-up religion, so it doesn't even count.
Wicca is based mostly on pagan practices, that existed long before
Christianity. So you cannot state it's a 'made-up religion.'
Yes, I can. After all, Masonry is based on old pagan practices too,
but just like Wicca, it is made-up. After all, if pagans themselves
accepted Wicca's 'base' as genuine, that would make it the same
religion as paganism, so only ONE religion, not two. But if it is not
accepted as genuine, then how is it even a genuine religion? It would
be no more genuine than Dianetics.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72This reasoning does not stand up because homosexuals have always
hovered around 2 - 4 percent of the population,
You don't know this. This statistic has been popular among liberals
for decades, but there is no solid research behind it.
It is the accepted percentage from various sources. If you can produce
research that contradicts it, I'd like to see it.
No doubt you would. But since it was you who made the claim, it is you
who have to back it up. If you actually do the homework required to do
this, you just might figure out that your so-called "various sources"
are all relying on the same unreliable source, such as Masters &
Johnson (no relation) or Kinsey, who came up with the notoriously
wrong "10%" figure.
But their claims for the population _always_ having this percentage
are sheer fiction. It is _completely_ unverifiable.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonYou miss his point. If it were genetic, then it would be a trait
clearly selected against.
It is a regressive trait, like red hair, that can be passed
genetically.
No, it is not. That is sheer pseudo-science. Besides: didn't you know
the regressive traits can be selected against too?
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72Indeed, heterosexuals are responsible for over-population of the
planet (thus China's 'one child' policy) and homosexuality could
be one of nature's ways of population control.
Not a chance.
This doesn't even need stats to prove.
It needs more than just stats. But you don't even provide the barest
minimum.
Post by shegeek72Heterosexuals are responsible for births - children just don't pop
out of thin air. The Chinese 'one- child' policy is well known.
Duh. But _neither_ of these support your claim that "homosexuality
could be nature's population control".
Besides: have you already forgotten how you contradict yourself? It
was you who long ago claimed that natural selection might favor a "gay
gene" because of their influence on increasing survival among children
of heterosexuals. This was, of course, a ridiculous claim, but if it
were true, then homosexuals _would_ be contributing to
over-population. So you are contradicting yourself.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72We do not still live in a time when we should "go out and procreate"
to increase populations, as was needed in nomadic tribes in ancient
times.
Another popular sentiment, but seriously flawed.
You have a penchant for making claims without proof.
Well, I would call this a clear case of the pot calling the kettle
black, but it is more like the pot calling the whiteboard black;)
Post by shegeek72If it is flawed_prove_it.
No, the burden of proof is on you. You claimed it was true, you cough
up the evidence.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonNo, it is not. Your so-called 'scientific evidence' is no more
scientific than the 'evidence' the tobacco companies found in favor of
their product.
The Am. Psychology Assoc. and Am. Psychiatry Assoc. both disagree with
you.
So what? The philosophical underpinnings of both Modern Psychology and
Psychiatry are seriously flawed. That is why they were able to accept
these political conclusions as if they were scientific. Don't you
remember the days when even Psychology Today was talking about one
"nail in psychiatry's coffin" after another? I remember those days
well.
Post by shegeek72But, of course, these respected organizations,
They are not that well respected.
Post by shegeek72who've studied thousands of cases, are wrong and you're right.
Ptolemy studied "thousands of cases", too. Yet we all accept today
that Ptolemy was wrong and Copernicus was right. Ironic then that you
should try to rebut me with your misunderstood reference to his work
Post by shegeek72And the universe revolves around the earth, too.
As I pointed out in another thread, if you choose the correct
geometry, you can indeed say that the universe revolves around the
earth. The error of flat-earth faddists etc. is to insist that you can
combine Euclidean geometry with this assertion. That is what does not
work.
Besides: in a metaphorical sense, the universe _does_ revolve around
the earth. Loosely speaking, this is what the "anthropomorphic
principle" is about.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonThis is dragging the thread off-topic, but yes, it is unnatural. When
is the last time you have seen a non-human animal practice it?
When was the last time you encountered harm from oral sex?
You are asking the wrong question. Your wrong question is like a
person who lived in LA all his life asking what harm there is from
breathing smog all his life. If you have ever _refrained_ from the
sins that produce this harm, you would be in a much better position to
understand the answer. But like the LA resident, you are so _used_ to
taking it in with every breath, you have no idea how liberating it is
to be free of it. You cannot understand it, you cannot even
countenance it. The loss is yours. Its the "nine hells" for you;)
Post by shegeek72Perhaps if you loosened up a bit you wouldn't be so condescending and
adamant. ;)
Another popular misconception: that adamant opposition to outrageous
falsehood comes from a need to "loosen up".
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72Unfortunately, most anyone who considers homosexuality "wrong" is
contributing to discrimination, rejection, violence and murder of gays
and lesbians.
This is not only nonsense, but slanderous nonsense. Hypocritical, too.
Slander is illegal. I suggest filing charges against me if you think
such.
Ah, but the problem with this is that different legal jurisdictions
define 'slander' in different ways. And they have different standards
of proof.
However, there is a good chance that in a few weeks, I will be
traveling in a jurisdiction that would be much more interested in
taking the case against you or those who think like you and slander so
freely. Remember that the Internet is international now. You can no
longer rely on the protection of US civil law and procedure.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72This can be manifested in many ways, from voting for anti-gay
measures, such as bans on gay marriage (that I believe will be
overturned because they violate the 14th Amendment's requirement of
equal protection of the laws.
They do no such thing. This is another popular fiction.
They most certainly do.
No, they most certainly do not. See below.
Post by shegeek72Denying one class of people rights accorded to
another is clearly not equal application of the laws.
Ah, but this is where you stubborn error lies. They are _not_ being
denied the same right. You are deliberately hiding what that 'right'
is. They do to have the right to marry someone of opposite sex, which
is what the right to marry is. There is NO right to 'marry' someone of
the same sex.
Post by shegeek72It's the same as in the 50s and 60s when blacks were supposedly
"separate but equal."
Ah, but this is the fiction you keep repeating over and over. It is
not the same at all, since they are free to marry after all, as long
as they meet the basic requirements, avoiding forbidden degrees of
cousinage, being of opposite gender etc.
Marriage has NEVER been a "right to marry whomever I love" regardless
of what gender that person is. That is your fiction.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by shegeek72A case in Oregon was recently overturned on this basis) to firing
someone for being gay, or even on the_suspicion_of being gay (which
is still legal in most states), to teaching this viral thinking to
children.
But this case is COMPLETELY different.
It was based on the same principle.
No, it was not, as I just explained above.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonAnd if you actually knew anything about Law, you would know that the
young son in your example would bear the responsibility entirely
alone. The parents are not to blame.
Baloney. Parents are responsible for their children's actions until
they reach 18.
Nonsense. Parents are not normally punished when their children are
convicted of a crime in the juvenile court system. Rather, as
http://www.juvenilejusticefyi.com/juvenile_justice_faqs.html says:
Are parents responsible to pay their child's court fines? Parents MAY
be required to pay fines charged to their children. Such fees may
include victim restitution, court reimbursement, and state
fines. Although THE YOUTH IS EXPECTED TO WORK TO PAY HIS OR HER DEBT,
the parent(s) are ULTIMATELY responsible for the fine.
--------End quote, capitalization mine
So the parent is held only partially responsible, and that only at the
discretion of the court. Not at ALL as you claimed.
Besides: Federal standards put the dividing line at 17, not 18. But
not all states follow that. Connecticut and New York try 16-18 year
olds in the _adult_ system. So you are wrong yet again.
Post by shegeek72Besides, the fact remains that if the parents hadn't
instilled that thinking into their child's mind in the first place he
most likely wouldn't specifically target gays.
This is pure fiction. According to your own words in your 'example',
the parents never instilled the idea of making gays the targets of
violence. Besides: you are still missing the point. The parents do not
bear responsibility for their sons' gross misinterpretation of their
upbringing. But that IS what your example shows: the son's gross
misunderstanding of his own upbringing.
Post by shegeek72Post by Matthew JohnsonSo this example of yours is also completely different. You are 0 for
2;)
I guess they taught you the 'new math' when you attended school. :P
And since I actually _learned_ it, I avoid the gross logical errors
you make in every post including this one. Even more topical, I _did_
count correctly: you really were 0 for 2; but now you are 0 for lots more than
just two;)
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)