The Ultimate Brokeback Forum

Author Topic: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II  (Read 306611 times)

Offline jnov

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4550
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2008, 10:51:10 PM »
i'll have to let my friend know that you all think he is brilliant too!


 :)


Petrus Christus

  • Guest
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2008, 11:32:53 PM »
  Osprey Quote:   "(Zad)....., I will never cease to call things as I see them and if you don't like it then get the hell out".

 
Oh well, sorry I took so long to respond to your post, but I was occupied by other things.

  I'm wondering if you would apply your 'ultimatum' sounding quote to yourself?
I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of us on this thread, "...never cease to call things as (we) see them", and I am equally sure that on occasion some of us "...don't like it", i.e., what we read in others' posts; but, just because we might not "like" what another has posted, does not mean that we should "....get the hell out"!
  To my knowledge, Dave Cullen himself, would be the only person in authority, to request the departure of a member.
  One should remember that above all, this is a place of dialogue, a place where we can express our thoughts on various matters. It is also a place where one can and should expect replies, yes, even disagreeable ones, to our published thoughts.

  Where I find published thoughts given over to hyperbole, embroidering, or shoddily unsubstantiated and historically fuzzy, I reserve the same right as you do to:

  "...never cease to call things as I see them",.........but, I would never tell another member of this thread that if they didn't like that, they "should get the hell out"!!

  Speaking of 'historical fuzziness', in the same post that I exerpted the quote that I headed this reply with you stated:
  "As for the Turks and the Armenians", (since I had cited the genocide of 1 to 1 1/2 million ethnic Armenians 1915-1925 in a response to you) "that was a civil war as I recall......"
  May I suggest that you re-check sources that cover that atrocity, for by no stretch of the imagination or facts, ...........was that "....a civil war as (you) recall....."

  Zad
 
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 11:41:34 PM by Petrus Christus »

Offline Osprey

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2008, 08:06:05 AM »
Tefferg,

I have very mixed feelings about the UN.  In some ways it does more harm than good.  People want to believe in it and respect it and they keep waiting for it to do something about the terrible things that are going on in this world.  Sadly, they almost never do anything but wring their hands and moan.  For the life of me I will never understand why some many of these right wing whack jobs fear the UN almost beyond comprehension.  From somewhere in their silly religious extremism they have conjured up the notion of a "One World Government" led by the UN.   Shit, that will be the day.  They can't agree on anything to speak of. 

The UN is is the victim of the very thing that would prevent the notion of a "World Government" from ever happening.  That thing is called nationalism.  Can you just imagine the French ever taking orders from anyone but a French Secretary General?  Yeah, right.  Can you ever imagine how the Untied States would react if Iran were placed on the Security Council.  I can see it all now.  The UN is pretty much as ineffectual as was the League of Nations before it.  Rwanda, Darfur, and on and on, nothing is done, nothing.  History just keeps repeating itself and we never seem to learn.

Zad,

I am not going to play your little game any more, you check the sources for me, alright?  I am not some hussy's cheap entertainment.  ;D 

Petrus Christus

  • Guest
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2008, 07:13:14 PM »

Zad,

I am not going to play your little game any more, you check the sources for me, alright?  I am not some hussy's cheap entertainment.  ;D 

  Rance,

  Aw....shucks!  Did you have to go and ruin this poor old hussy's cheap entertainment....??!! ;=

  I've called you on your evasiveness before, and true to form, you whisk off refusing to respond and exit hurling insults.
  The one thing that I am grateful for, is that by doing so, you've finally revealed who you really are...!
  And you have done so on this "World Wide Web", a web I might add, that has the capacity to snare and entangle.
  I will leave you with this one phrase:  "The whole world is watching"! ;D

   Zad
 

Offline jnov

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4550
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2008, 10:47:26 PM »
Tefferg,

I have very mixed feelings about the UN.  In some ways it does more harm than good.  People want to believe in it and respect it and they keep waiting for it to do something about the terrible things that are going on in this world.  Sadly, they almost never do anything but wring their hands and moan.  For the life of me I will never understand why some many of these right wing whack jobs fear the UN almost beyond comprehension.  From somewhere in their silly religious extremism they have conjured up the notion of a "One World Government" led by the UN.   Shit, that will be the day.  They can't agree on anything to speak of. 

The UN is is the victim of the very thing that would prevent the notion of a "World Government" from ever happening.  That thing is called nationalism.  Can you just imagine the French ever taking orders from anyone but a French Secretary General?  Yeah, right.  Can you ever imagine how the Untied States would react if Iran were placed on the Security Council.  I can see it all now.  The UN is pretty much as ineffectual as was the League of Nations before it.  Rwanda, Darfur, and on and on, nothing is done, nothing.  History just keeps repeating itself and we never seem to learn.



here is a TED video that speaks, briefly, to these situations.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/84

Offline Osprey

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #65 on: May 25, 2008, 08:37:46 AM »
jnov,

That was a great video, it isn't rocket science is it.  I just hope that the world can pay the price when the note comes due.

Being gay and Christian in the World of Today is sometimes a tough little row to hoe if you know what I mean. 

Zad, let the world watch away, that is fine with me. You get what you pay for and for me you pay nothing.

Well, the great state of Texas has appealed the Appelate Courts ruling to the Texas Supreme Court in the FLDS case. As the great Jackie Gleason would have said, "And away we go!".  What a bunch of Peckerwoods.  The Appellate Court was very conservative and their decision was unanimous.  I think that is a very good indication as to where the Supreme Court is going to land.  The states case was unraveling anyway.  The state had seized 31 females they said were between the ages of 12 and 17.  Well, as it turns out, all but 13 of them were over 18 and one of them was 27 and had three kids.  They had this poor woman in a Foster Home!!! Morons. Of the other 13, only one of them was not a virgin.  One out of 467??  Shit folks, the odds aren't that good in our high school.  Not even in the ball park. Hell, I think the only virgins left in this community are ugly three year olds. ;D

Hell, if I were old Judge Walther, or what ever the hell her name is, I would be looking for another line of work as jurisprudence doesn't seem to be up her alley if you know what I mean.

The lawsuits haven't even started, but man oh man, is that going to be a hayride. It is a great time to be a Texas lawyer.   I don't think that the innocent taxpayers of Texas, all four of them, are going to be amused.  If they thought they paid a steep price for Waco, wait until they get shed of this son of a bitch.

Offline SilverLake

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #66 on: May 25, 2008, 08:36:18 PM »
I know I'm a couple of weeks late but I've always loved the Feast of the Pentecost.  Our friend Dave has some wonderful images on his web site.  Here are a couple more.

An El Greco:


And here's one I really like.  It has the sense of overwhelming power and non-rationality of the experience.  The faces are wonderful, I think.


I can be much too rational and analytical about the experience of God.  But it's not that way at all, is it?

Edited to force smaller image display size
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 09:26:19 PM by BrokenOkie »

Offline jnov

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4550
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2008, 12:22:31 AM »





sorry, i had to do this so i could see the whole thing at one time.



Offline desertrat

  • Sunflower
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21916
  • No angel ;-)
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2008, 03:50:59 AM »
Tefferg,

I have very mixed feelings about the UN.  In some ways it does more harm than good.  People want to believe in it and respect it and they keep waiting for it to do something about the terrible things that are going on in this world.  Sadly, they almost never do anything but wring their hands and moan.  For the life of me I will never understand why some many of these right wing whack jobs fear the UN almost beyond comprehension.  From somewhere in their silly religious extremism they have conjured up the notion of a "One World Government" led by the UN.   Shit, that will be the day.  They can't agree on anything to speak of. 

The UN is is the victim of the very thing that would prevent the notion of a "World Government" from ever happening.  That thing is called nationalism.  Can you just imagine the French ever taking orders from anyone but a French Secretary General?  Yeah, right.  Can you ever imagine how the Untied States would react if Iran were placed on the Security Council.  I can see it all now.  The UN is pretty much as ineffectual as was the League of Nations before it.  Rwanda, Darfur, and on and on, nothing is done, nothing.  History just keeps repeating itself and we never seem to learn.

Zad,

I am not going to play your little game any more, you check the sources for me, alright?  I am not some hussy's cheap entertainment.  ;D 

i agree with you, rance. sadly. (not that i'm sad that i agree with YOU, but the fact in itself is sad, of course  ;D).

the same happens to the european union. it would be such a wonderful and at the same time powerful instrument, if the countries could just, for one moment, forget about being a nation, but realize that we are a CONTINENT. the sad thing is that it usually takes an enemy from outside to get groups to work together. in the case of the UN (whom i greatly apprechiate and really believe in), we can only wait for the first visitors from other planets and galaxies, i'm afraid.  :-\
Minds are like parachutes... they both work better when opened.

Offline Osprey

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2008, 07:54:39 AM »
Martina,

Yep, Nationalism is always the greatest obstacle to unity, be it the European Union or the UN, Nato, or any of these organizations.  The problem of course, goes back to the very essence of humanity, human nature.  A good example is religion itself.  The Catholics think that they are the "most correct", the Mo Mo's think they are, the J Dub's KNOW they are and on and on.  Due to human nature, we always miss the forest while we are looking so hard for the trees.  Then you have the heterosexual majority feeling threatened by the idea that two people of the same sex can share a love as pure as any on earth.  They are so afraid that their silly, ancient notions are somehow threatened that they again miss the forest while swinging their axes at the trees.  If we would just all stop and think once in a while. 

Forget the box, forget our habits, forget the bullshit that has been crammed down our throats by years of traditions and just THINK.  Perhaps then we would understand that we are all in this together, that when one of us is diminished, we are all diminished, when one couples love is disrespected, all love is disrespected.  That when one couples desire to sanctify their relationship is belittled, sanctity itself is belittled.  When one man's faith is ridiculed, the very nature of God is ridiculed.  Why oh why to we feel we have to proselyte.  When we try and inflict our form of government on a nation whose history and culture make it impossible, we threaten all government, in all its forms, including our own.  All nations are not geared for democracy, any more than all relationships must be heterosexual.  It is just plain stupid. 

This entire episode coming down in Texas is simply, at the end of the day, Baptists against the FLDS.  No one stops to realize that there are nearly as many polygamist societies as there are monogamous societies in this world.  At the end of the day, what is the real difference between the FLDS, who are going "against the grain" and we gay people?  Are we not also "going against the grain" in the eyes of many?  It is the norm to have only one wife in our culture and it is also the norm for a man to love a woman.  Do we not realize that diversity, be it in our personal lives, the lives of our communities, our states, our nations is the very thing that makes us who we are, that anchors us one to another and makes our lives interesting, individual, and good.

Offline desertrat

  • Sunflower
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21916
  • No angel ;-)
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2008, 10:08:32 AM »
rance, i totally agree with the problem of boxes and the inability of most people to see beyond what's directly in front of their nose. i wish things were different and humans would finally start using their brains.... ::)

where i have to disagree is the area of polygamy. heterosexuality is NORMAL for humans. homosexuality is NORMAL for humans. polgamy IS NOT. it is not part of our evolutionary heritage and we are not programmed to live in polygamist societies. it is a drive in men to monopolize as many women as possible (in that respect, polygamy would be more natural in men) but it is not in the best biological interest for women, and therefore has been banned by the majority of societies (it also is rarely found in indigenous peoples - it only spread in patriarchial societies with a certain standard of development. for so called "primitive" societies, it is not a form of society that would help survival and therefore has rarely developped). one of the main reasons for polygamy being a bad choice in a so-called "primitive" people is that it upsets the male-female balance. there are slightly more female births in nature, to compensate for the higher mortality that occurs among females due to childbearing. of course, this balance is completely upset today, since females live longer and healthier than men, therefore there are slightly more women on earth than men. but the balance is 49% to 51%, so there is no call for one man taking multiple female partners to outbalance that number!

our natural social structure is called serial monogamy. in biological terms, it means that the male stays with the female to father a child (to make sure that he is the biological father) and then helps raising it until a certain age (in humans that's about 4 years) until the female is able to live more or less independently again and is ready to have the next child. if a couple procreates and cooperates successfully, it is very likely that they cooperate again for the next offspring, resulting in a long-term monogamous relationship.

we can argue back and forth that we have developped so far that the laws of nature don't apply to us any more - but some things are genetically programmed into us, and we can not change them. one of those facts is that women are genetically "programmed" to monopolize one man, most likely the father of her children (in reality, it is not necessarily the father of her children, but that would lead to far astray from the original question). in nature, women need a man to take care of her and her children, to help provide food and defend their territories and lifes. we don't need that any more today, and yet it is still in women to be more eager to live in a relationship than men. therefore, the poligamy setting might be nice for the flds men - but it certainly is not nice for the women. if they had a chance to speak up, would they really want to share their partner with a couple of other women ? i'm open to different life models, but in this case, i see that the women don't have a choice. and that's against human rights.
Minds are like parachutes... they both work better when opened.

Offline jnov

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4550
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2008, 11:21:01 AM »

where i have to disagree is the area of polygamy. heterosexuality is NORMAL for humans. homosexuality is NORMAL for humans. polgamy IS NOT. it is not part of our evolutionary heritage and we are not programmed to live in polygamist societies. it is a drive in men to monopolize as many women as possible (in that respect, polygamy would be more natural in men) but it is not in the best biological interest for women, and therefore has been banned by the majority of societies (it also is rarely found in indigenous peoples - it only spread in patriarchial societies with a certain standard of development. for so called "primitive" societies, it is not a form of society that would help survival and therefore has rarely developped). one of the main reasons for polygamy being a bad choice in a so-called "primitive" people is that it upsets the male-female balance. there are slightly more female births in nature, to compensate for the higher mortality that occurs among females due to childbearing. of course, this balance is completely upset today, since females live longer and healthier than men, therefore there are slightly more women on earth than men. but the balance is 49% to 51%, so there is no call for one man taking multiple female partners to outbalance that number!

our natural social structure is called serial monogamy. in biological terms, it means that the male stays with the female to father a child (to make sure that he is the biological father) and then helps raising it until a certain age (in humans that's about 4 years) until the female is able to live more or less independently again and is ready to have the next child. if a couple procreates and cooperates successfully, it is very likely that they cooperate again for the next offspring, resulting in a long-term monogamous relationship.



this is very interesting information!  i have read several books on social darwinism but not sure it has been put in this succinct way before.

thanks for the info!!

Offline desertrat

  • Sunflower
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21916
  • No angel ;-)
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2008, 02:40:34 PM »
social darwinism does not always explain things...unfortunately, it is philosophy based on a single fact from biology. it does not give the whole picture of nature. imho, the best approach is when we see human societies just as we see animal societies (that's why i used "male" and "female" instead of "men" and "women"). regarding things from that point of view, human behaviour can often be explained very nicely.  ;)
Minds are like parachutes... they both work better when opened.

Petrus Christus

  • Guest
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2008, 08:16:56 PM »
Rance,

where i have to disagree is the area of polygamy. heterosexuality is NORMAL for humans. homosexuality is NORMAL for humans. polgamy IS NOT. it is not part of our evolutionary heritage and we are not programmed to live in polygamist societies. it is a drive in men to monopolize as many women as possible (in that respect, polygamy would be more natural in men) but it is not in the best biological interest for women, and therefore has been banned by the majority of societies (it also is rarely found in indigenous peoples - it only spread in patriarchial societies with a certain standard of development. for so called "primitive" societies, it is not a form of society that would help survival and therefore has rarely developped).

we can argue back and forth that we have developped so far that the laws of nature don't apply to us any more - but some things are genetically programmed into us, and we can not change them. one of those facts is that women are genetically "programmed" to monopolize one man, most likely the father of her children (in reality, it is not necessarily the father of her children, but that would lead to far astray from the original question). in nature, women need a man to take care of her and her children, to help provide food and defend their territories and lives. we don't need that any more today, and yet it is still in women to be more eager to live in a relationship than men. therefore, the polygamy setting might be nice for the flds men - but it certainly is not nice for the women. if they had a chance to speak up, would they really want to share their partner with a couple of other women ? i'm open to different life models, but in this case, i see that the women don't have a choice. and that's against human rights.

  Bravo Martina....!!!!!

  It's about time somebody on this thread presented a rational, objective assessment of the issue of polygamy, one based not upon conjecture and sweeping generalizations that cannot be substantiated.
  Your presentation is so like a breath of fresh air....!!

  Re: Women who choose to surrender their individuality and subsume themselves in an organisation 'ruled' and dominated exclusively by Men.

  As you probably already know, early on Freud postulated that women were born masochistic.
We do know that on some level he associated surrender and submission with masochism, and since as you said above that "....in nature, women need a man to take care of her and her children, to help provide food and defend their territories and lives.", women from time immemorial have exhibited 'surrender and submission' in the domestic situations of patriarchical societies.
  Of course, Freud was educated and began writing at the close of the Victorian Age, and thus exhibited gender biases so prevalent in that era. 
  Regarding his view on masochism, his model of the 'healthy' self seeks to maintain and increase control over itself and its surroundings, whereas the masochist seeks to relinquish control.
  The 'healthy' self seeks to maximize its esteem, whereas the masochist seeks out situations that minimize their self-esteem and individuality, through exercises in humiliation.

  In the boldened statement above, you state that submission to a polygamous situation with men as the dominators...."....is not nice for the women....", and that "....if they had a chance to speak up would they really want to share their partner with a couple of other women"?
  Your question, formulated as it is by an independent, accomplished, well-educated scientist who has a healthy ego, possessed by more than a modicum of self-esteem (and IMO, justifiably so...!!) is almost inapplicable in this case, for in many ways you are a near-perfect model of 21st Century post-industrial or 'modern' womanhood.
  For the FLDS, 'Waiting for Zion' women, have chosen to renounce their individuality, in exchange for a 'group identity'.  That they have done so is clearly in evidence by their uniformity of dress, hairstyle, overall personal appearance and comportment.

  In some ways, the submission and surrender they exhibit is akin to more well known rituals of 'the taking of the veil', where women take vows, are 'married' to Jesus Christ and even receive a wedding ring in the quasi-marriage ceremony ritual of nunhood.
  They too wear a 'uniform' and vow fidelity to one 'man', the Son of God.
  The only pleasure akin to erotic arousal they are allowed, although it is not to be sought after....!.., is ecstasia.
And that is only granted by a special grace from God, as in the ecstasies of St. Teresa of Avila, and Bl. Ludovica Albertoni, so graphically illustrated by Gianlorenzo Bernini.

  In closing, I'd like to add that if you "....see the women (of the San Angelo FLDS church) don't have a choice....", that is because they have decided to relinquish choice, and have given over control into the hands of their husbands, the men of the FLDS Church.
  I remember hearing one woman state, after she was questioned by a reporter to describe her life at the FLDS compound, that her existence ".....was like Heaven on Earth".

  Zad
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 08:32:28 PM by Petrus Christus »

Offline cruel2Bkind

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
Re: Gay and Christian in the World of Today II
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2008, 09:12:10 PM »
... when one couples love is disrespected, all love is disrespected.
The world may well have been a better place without the love between some couples:
Fred and Rosemarie West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Bonny Parker and Clyde Barrow.
When one man's faith is ridiculed, the very nature of God is ridiculed.
So the "very nature of God" is determined by the thoughts of humans?
Scientology is a religion, and is ridiculous.
There are religious beliefs, unfortunately still in existence, that sanction sacrificing children:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4903390.stm -- Horror of India's child sacrifice
      http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=17379&sec=39&con=55 -- "Report: Child sacrifice ring feared"