From the darkness of my mind...

[silveradept]

...comes something silly.

I am an Intellectual



Which America Hating Minority Are You?

Take More Robert & Tim Quizzes
Watch Robert & Tim Cartoons



And something not so silly.

Two things, actually. The first is that I think I've pinpointed the reason why I 'm worried about welah so much. As silly as it sounds, I want him to be happy. There are too many unknown factors out there, (no offense, tkarrde98) and so I'm worried that things won't go smoothly and that I won't be able to fix it. Plane tickets are kind of expensive, ya know? Like I've said, it's a silly, irrational fear, but it just won't leave! I guess he'll just have to assure me that things are going well once he gets out there or something.

Second thing from the darkness is actually a two-person insanity. I was talking with a friend on IM tonight (ravenfrost, incidentally. Small world when people I've met for only a few days off of LJ turn out to have LJ...) and we got to discussing the nature of homosexuality. This was after I had commented that I was not fond of the president's stances regarding the matter. My interlocutor believed that homosexuality wasn't quite kosher with evolution. Something not quite biologically right about it, I suggested as a phrase to describe it, and he agreed.

His remark was that "Men are meant to be with a woman, and vice versa." (Biologically speaking) I thought his reasoning had shortcoming on biological grounds, and he added that society, while had keeping homosexuality as a taboo, nonetheless had to acknowledge that it still happened anyway, could point to one of a host of factors - biological, societal, or otherwise. A quick repartee about our society being more accepting of the prospect (although he said that the future wouldn't look on it so well as we do today, but that it would still be miles above what it was in the past), and an interesting comment about the etymology of the slur "faggot", (apparently witches and homosexuals both got the burning, and the homosexuals were used as faggots for the fire. I'm not sure if it's true, but it's interesting. Can anyone tell me whether it's true or not?) and we both landed at the agreement that until the matter can be proven one way or another, we're not quite sure what may be the cause. All in all, while I didn't really get to figure out what he did think about the causes of homosexuality, it was still interesting watching the mechanics of another mind.

(Edit/Update: Check out the comments that have been left for more of my interlocutor's mindset. It may be helpful.)

The conversation degenerated into politics from there, unfortunately.

Either way, I'm going to go off to bed soon... yay for a 1:00 P.M. start tomorrow. And the beginning of UMMUN... and one basketball game. Funny how in the off-season, my schedule is still as busy...

Comments

[miyabiarashi.livejournal.com]

Well, you know where I stand on the homosexual issue, mainly because I've got some of 'em as my pals/mentors.

However, in the end, I'm just "live and let live." In other words, I'd rather just agree to disagree. Saves energy.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Brings up interesting biological questions in general.

Specifically, how did we (the evolutionary family) get from asexual reproduction (mitosis and budding) to sexual reproduction? Your friend's comments themselves suggest a design: there must be a "who" for there to be a "meant". Evolution or special creation, the leap to sexual reproduction is a jump of interstellar proportions without a driving force.

The more I look at evolutionary theory, the more I see there simply must be a God that did it all.

-=TK

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

People are indeed unable to stop using the word "meant" when they talk about feeling homosexuality is somehow wrong.

This leaves them with two choices.

1) Accept that the arbiter of what is "meant" or not meant is God, at which point you are arguing from an unauditable authority and therefore have no intellectually valid point.
2) Say it is not God, at which point the *only* valid arbiter of what is meant or not meant becomes the individual who is participating in, and therefore defines the purpose of, the action. To say that "society" or anyone else defines the purpose of the action is not logically supportable because the action becomes entirely subjective without an objective observer (i.e. God).

In other words, dey be smokin' da crack.

Noted...

[silveradept]

...and agreed. This was, for the most part, judging from our conclusion, trying to get at something that we could hold as truth or knowledge and generally only finding lesser materials. Noble pursuit, with no tangible result yet.

[ravenfrost.livejournal.com]

As I told SA, I know some homosexual people- they're very good people. I like them, we don't have issues at all.

From a biological standpoint, I have to say, it just doesn't make sense. It could be a genetic thing(Since there are tomboys, can't there be, say, janegirls?), it could be sociological thing, it could merely be sexual urges.

When I said men are meant to be with women, the context there was that men and women are designed, biologically, to reproduce, to make little copies of their combined DNA and so on. Two men cannot do this. Two women cannot either.

Simple logic, but the best you'll get from me at one AM when I'm zoned out and wanting to sleep.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

You are arguing from an unauditable authority and therefore have no intellectually valid point.

So what you are saying is that theology is an exercize in stupidity?

-=TK

[silveradept]

Valid points, both of them, but can one have an observer that isn't the participant and still be able to make a statement about the act in these cases?

D'oh.

[silveradept]

...and thwacks to me for not being able to repersent your point of view accurately... but it's also one o'clock here, and I was trying to get the gist without posting chatlogs or something like that.

[miyabiarashi.livejournal.com]

That'll do. ^_^

And you're right in the biological/reproduction context. I see your point there.

Still, I suppose whatever makes somebody happy, as long as it's not harming anyone else, is really OK.

[silveradept]

We're either very lucky, or have been guided by an invisible hand. Perhaps in discovering the universe and other potentials we'll be able to firmly decide on one or the other.

[ravenfrost.livejournal.com]

Love between two men and/or two women is not wrong. As a matter of fact, kudos that you can have a loving relationship with SOMEONE. It won't work in the "Real" Biological level, though. You need science to reproduce...

Getting to Theology-
God won't damn you to hell because you love someone of the same sex. God is a loving God, not a wrathful, spiteful one. He loves homosexuals as much as a faithful priest. His core essence is LOVE. Not anger.

[miyabiarashi.livejournal.com]

Word.

You rock. XD

And hey, there's adoption if the homosexuals want kids. So everybody wins.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Yay for the Grand Unified Theory!

-=TK

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Well, yes and no. God doesn't condemn anyone. We bring condemnation down upon ourselves by chosing to disobey God and the Law. But homosexuality is no greater or lesser than any other sin, and since the Bible is very clear on the fact that "there is no one righteous, not even one", we're all in the same boat.

But you are right that God is merciful and loving. Which is why there did come one who was righteous. And by his death and resurrection, we are offered the chance to escape death and torment. Thank God for that-- literally!

-=TK

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

Not ethically speaking, since the act does not affect the observer.

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

Not at all. I'm saying theology has nothing to say about sexual orientation.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

No, but it has plenty to say on acting it.

It's not a sin to be attracted to people of the same sex. But God's first commandment to any life form was "be fruitful and multiply". Two men can't exactly do that.

Oh, and before anyone rails against me, I am bisexual, and have a boyfriend. I am chosing disobeience, another sin.

-=TK

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

That seems... inconsistent.

And "be fruitful and multiply," like the rest of the Bible, has an extremely wide range for interpretation. Suppose you and your boyfriend chose to live together as a married couple and adopted 10 children. In doing so you would be giving kids who might have died on the street a good, loving home, which I think contributes to the "be fruitful and multiply" instruction (which was really more of a suggestion and not a commandment whatsoever).

Besides, the idea that "be fruitful and multiply" and practicing homosexuality are mutually exclusive is simply scientifically and technologically outdated. It is not inconceivable (pardon the pun) that you could find a surrogate mother for a child born of your genetic material.

Sex and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked, and thank God for that - amen.

Anyway, the species could do with quite a bit of human reproduction stagnation and perhaps a short period of decline.

(In point of fact, I am a practicing Catholic... one who eyes the Bible and doctrine alike with an extremely critical eye.)

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

As you said, being fruitful can be interpreted many ways. But then, so can the idea that "Jesus is King", as demosntrated by First-Century Jews. The justification for his execution was based on misinterpretations. However, the Truth is what enabled him to rise again.

Back to the point: scripture does indeed explicitly forbids homosexual sex. I would rather not quote the specific laws at this time, but if you require them, I will.

It is good that you are critical of Scripture. I hope that will lead you to actually opening the Bible and reading it, to see what treasure it holds. You may find much of Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and non-Denominational doctrine are, in fact, wrong (and in this age, that the list is growing at an alarming rate). But that does not invalidate the church, nor scripture. It proves how the former must be dependent on the latter and not ignore it.

-=TK, who has a sharp tongue

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

What is inconsistent? I have made no claims one way or another... yet.

-=TK

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

Forbidding of homosexual sex is done in two places; Leviticus, which also includes such star examples as "do not eat the honey from a beehive which has grown in the stomach of a lion corpse, it is abomination unto the Lord," and from the words of Paul, whom I trust approximately as far as I could throw him.

I read the Bible plenty, thanks.

You might find what's here (http://www.atheistsforjesus.com/) to be interesting.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

A brief scan of the web page you referenced demonstrates that it is written by people who take no time to learn what they criticize. I have seen their argument against Paul many times, and it is a tired one based in fallacy and ignorance: their quotes against the Pauline Epistles are based on historicity that is, by nature of the chronology, pointless and invalid. I should not even have to mention the fact that most of the so-called experts they quote are people who have absolutely no theological authority whatsoever!

Paul did not intentionally disregard the teachings and statements of Jesus: he, in fact, never heard them. He also did not have the convenience of a Gideon's New Testament lying around for him to research them, either. Paul's education, as is explained briefly in Acts and more in-depth in Galatians (and hinted at in Corinthians), came from the desert, in the same manner as the Old Testament prophets. He was tested by the leaders of the Jerusalem Church at that time, and was sent out as a missionary from the church when they found his message was in accord with theirs.

In my own research of Pauline and Gospel teachings, I see much that is accordant, and none that is dischordant. Paul was taught the Good News by divine revelation, while the Gospel writers were taught by direct interaction with Jesus. Their messages and audiences were different. They are parallel, not divergent; complimentary, not contrary.

It is almost as ridiculous to hear these same old arguments against Paul as it is to hear people refer to God as two separate entities between the Old and New Testaments.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

"I and the Father are One" (John 10:30).

"For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews" (Galatians 2:8-9).

-=TK

[silveradept]

So the observer cannot make an ethical judgement because he doesn't experience what he is judging? If that is what you mean, then the only people qualified to make any statement at tall about a vice is one who has engaged in it - only murderers could make ethical judgements about murder, etc... which somehow seems very wrong.

[silveradept]

Now all we have to do is find it...

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

It was late, let me amend that.

It does not affect the observer, and no wrong is received by either participant.

[silveradept]

Okay, so the observer can't make a judgement on something that doesn't affect him and that doesn't obviously cause harm to either of the participants, yes?

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

... I'm certain I'm missing a hole, but my brain is frozen thanks to the zero-degree weather, so for now I'll cautiously agree.

Qualify that with "value judgement" and I'll go along with it.

[silveradept]

Okay. I'll change that to value judgement, and I can see your point, then, since there are no obvious symptoms. However, there are still a lot of things that we make value judgements about that we neither see nor that appear to have any detrimental effects. Reading certain books comes to mind as a broad example. Are we, then, unqalified to make judgement on that until we experience it?