Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it gets tricky, to say the least, determining what parts of ourselves have been shaped by our interactions with other people and what was inherent.
This is one of the most difficult things to try and answer. What is essential and unchanging about me? What qualities can change? Answering these questions really means answering what it means to be a 'person.' And the really difficult thing is that answering this is going to have major moral implications. It involves a value judgment of some kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges
I didn't realize that historically, it was not widely-believed that people are who they are innately, that nothing could change any of that. I have read (just a little) indicating that sexuality is something constructed a few centuries ago at the most, that it wasn't any kind of identifier before.
Historically, people have thought we have unchanging, innate qualities. Which qualities fit into this category, though, has been extremely controversial. This is a debate that goes all the way back in philosophy--the search for the "essence" of man, or the distinction between "essential" and "accidental" qualities. What I was referring to is the modern notion of the self, where there is a large emphasis on freedom and autonomy. So in today's world (different from much of history) we see ourselves as having the "right" to not only do what we want, but also to decide for ourselves what is right for us. It's a very existentialist notion of the self. And this modern outlook on "who we are" has enormous impact on the moral debates of our time. But people have not always seen themselves as having such freedom--that nobody can, or has the freedom to, tell you what is morally best for you. This view of personal freedom has been coupled with the view that "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" is an innate, unchanging quality of persons. But there are other ways of seeing both of these issues. That's part of the debate.
I agree with you that it is sad we all push for our own view on society. For good or ill, however, that's part of the freedom we have in many Western countries--the freedom to influence society and culture. But I tend to see it as both good and bad.
Some Christians push to limit or prevent movies and media that have openly gay themes, that "promote" homosexuality. Other people push for our children to be more exposed to homosexuality at an earlier age, in order to "normalize" it, to make it more accepted down the road. There are battles over "gay-rights" legislation (e.g., marriage and adoption issues). One side calls the other "sinners," the other side calls them "homophobes" and "bigots."
The central issue is education. This goes back to Plato, who in The Republic tried to outline his idea of a "perfect" society, where the goal of education was for the benefit of the state, to produce good citizens. Plato realized that education is always moral education, it always involves the inculcation of values. And today, this is why there is such a battle over public schools, and what ought to be taught (intelligent design, sex education, religious education, etc.). Education has this inescapable moral dimension to it.
And because we are divided along moral lines, it is easy to forget that the other side is often pushing for what they think is the compassionate position. Those who promote gay rights do so, not because they are evil, but because they see what they do as the compassionate thing. And religious people who try to encourage homosexuals to "change" do so, not because they are homophobes, but because they think they're being compassionate. So even what we think counts as "compassion" is a source of extreme disagreement. One person's "compassion" is another person's immoral behavior.
In an earlier post, mams1559 mentioned trying to distinguish between the person and the action, with regard to homosexuality. As I said earlier, I think this is probably consistent with Christianity (since the Bible only talks, as far as I am aware, of homosexual actions and passions, but not of homosexual persons). But what of the labels "homophobe" and "bigot"? Are these directed at persons, or actions? I don't know. But the more we start seeing persons, rather than labels, the better it is for all of us. This won't stop the moral debate in the least. But it surely can't hurt.
Matrix...I really enjoyed reading your post. I like the way you express things and you come across as being really understanding, human & compassionate.
Here are my thoughts on the subject (and all other "Christian vrs gay" subjects on this forum):
I am not gay, never have been gay, and choose not to be gay. I have no close gay friends and/or gay family. I have met gay people over the years, and never thought about it one way or another. So therefore my opinion should be considered impartial and objective since it does not affect me PERSONALLY.
Here are the problems I see....A "gay" person, whether born that way, or at some point in their life, choosing to be so, is a human being and should be accepted as such and treated as such by all humane groups, churches, etc. etc. It appears that when someone refers to the "gay lifestyle" people such as Ted Haggart & Larry Craig come to mind. I FULLY believe THEY are wrong and immoral in their behavior due to their own circumstances (being married, having family, the positions they are/were in, etc. etc.). But (ah, and here's the but....), I see absolutely nothing wrong with a "committed" COUPLE (gay, straight, married, single) who are together on a one-on-one relationship. I AM against the idea of people having multiple (sexual) relationships in ANY circumstances (straight, gay, married, whatever). A close relationship between two consenting adults who love and care for one another should NOT be considered or treated as an "immoral" or "bad" thing. I strongly believe if more people and groups would treat it as such, that we'd have alot less problems to deal with, and more love and compassion around us.
I don't express myself nearly as good as many on this forum, and I apologize if it doesn't come out as clear and concise as I would like it to be. Anyway, thanks for listening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
Historically, people have thought we have unchanging, innate qualities. Which qualities fit into this category, though, has been extremely controversial. This is a debate that goes all the way back in philosophy--the search for the "essence" of man, or the distinction between "essential" and "accidental" qualities. What I was referring to is the modern notion of the self, where there is a large emphasis on freedom and autonomy. So in today's world (different from much of history) we see ourselves as having the "right" to not only do what we want, but also to decide for ourselves what is right for us. It's a very existentialist notion of the self. And this modern outlook on "who we are" has enormous impact on the moral debates of our time. But people have not always seen themselves as having such freedom--that nobody can, or has the freedom to, tell you what is morally best for you. This view of personal freedom has been coupled with the view that "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" is an innate, unchanging quality of persons. But there are other ways of seeing both of these issues. That's part of the debate.
I agree with you that it is sad we all push for our own view on society. For good or ill, however, that's part of the freedom we have in many Western countries--the freedom to influence society and culture. But I tend to see it as both good and bad.
Some Christians push to limit or prevent movies and media that have openly gay themes, that "promote" homosexuality. Other people push for our children to be more exposed to homosexuality at an earlier age, in order to "normalize" it, to make it more accepted down the road. There are battles over "gay-rights" legislation (e.g., marriage and adoption issues). One side calls the other "sinners," the other side calls them "homophobes" and "bigots."
The central issue is education. This goes back to Plato, who in The Republic tried to outline his idea of a "perfect" society, where the goal of education was for the benefit of the state, to produce good citizens. Plato realized that education is always moral education, it always involves the inculcation of values. And today, this is why there is such a battle over public schools, and what ought to be taught (intelligent design, sex education, religious education, etc.). Education has this inescapable moral dimension to it.
And because we are divided along moral lines, it is easy to forget that the other side is often pushing for what they think is the compassionate position. Those who promote gay rights do so, not because they are evil, but because they see what they do as the compassionate thing. And religious people who try to encourage homosexuals to "change" do so, not because they are homophobes, but because they think they're being compassionate. So even what we think counts as "compassion" is a source of extreme disagreement. One person's "compassion" is another person's immoral behavior.
In an earlier post, mams1559 mentioned trying to distinguish between the person and the action, with regard to homosexuality. As I said earlier, I think this is probably consistent with Christianity (since the Bible only talks, as far as I am aware, of homosexual actions and passions, but not of homosexual persons). But what of the labels "homophobe" and "bigot"? Are these directed at persons, or actions? I don't know. But the more we start seeing persons, rather than labels, the better it is for all of us. This won't stop the moral debate in the least. But it surely can't hurt.
Well i would say that people are not born gay they choose to be gay and that is why i think that being gay is a sin. God made Adam and Eve straight not gay. If people were born gay then i would say that being gay is ok but they weren't. When you are born the doctors don't say, "Here is your child sorry but he's gay". They don't say that because we are all born straight. Other proof behind that is that it takes gay people a while to figure out if they are gay which means they make an unconsious (but still constious in a weird sort of way) desision to be gay.
We all know why - because the bible says it's wrong. But my real question, is why do you care? I mean, if these people choose to sin, so be it. What two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms really is their business, is it not?
Why the need to express your personal belief that this preference is immoral, abhorrant, or wrong? It's a concept I've just never understood.
I am a christian, and I have learned many things from reading the bible. One of the biggest lessons I learned is not to judge others harshly, or even slightly. It is not for me to worry what others do, only for me to worry about what I do. It is unfortunate that many people have to express their disagreement, always in a failed attempt to change what they cannot change or understand.
Well i would say that people are not born gay they choose to be gay and that is why i think that being gay is a sin. God made Adam and Eve straight not gay. If people were born gay then i would say that being gay is ok but they weren't. When you are born the doctors don't say, "Here is your child sorry but he's gay". They don't say that because we are all born straight. Other proof behind that is that it takes gay people a while to figure out if they are gay which means they make an unconsious (but still constious in a weird sort of way) desision to be gay.
How do you know that people aren't born "gay"? How do the doctors tell that infants, for all intents and purposes nonsexual, physically, mentally, socially, culturally, and in every other way possible, are "straight"? And more importantly -- and tellingly -- why would they be sorry, if they were able to discern the sexual orientation of given child?
I would watch my usage of the word "proof." Have you ever considered that the reason that some gay people don't come out -- even to themselves -- until their late teens or twenties (or even beyond) is that people like you tell them they're straight, or at least should be? We live in an overwhelmingly heteronormative society, and it takes some people a while longer to be able to break from the mold than others.
I've been avoiding this thread, because of its mind-numbing repetition and largely closed-minded thought, but... sheesh.
To know the difference between good and evil I have to judge people. In order to judge fairly I have to know the difference between good and evil and more importantly: I have to know the difference between what is love and what love is not.
My conclusion is that gays love their partner the same way heterosexuals do. The only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is that gays are of the same sex. If people call this a sin they can only be ignorant, no matter how they justify their behaviour.
I have met a few gay people either single or in a monogomous relationship with someone they were much in love with Some of these people were christian and very involved with the work of God through their church..They were at peace with the Lord and went about His work in love and faithfullness..While so many other christians were filled with loathing and judgement of something they didn't want to understand..It would be very hard for me to do the work of my Lord while hating my brother, because of the way he was born that made his choices different from mine..
Early Christianity took on the moral teachings against homosexual practices and relationships from Judaism. Homosexual activities were certainly prevalent in the larger societies and cultures just outside the Middle East, such as in Greek city states and in the Persian dynasty societies.
Well i would say that people are not born gay they choose to be gay and that is why i think that being gay is a sin. God made Adam and Eve straight not gay. If people were born gay then i would say that being gay is ok but they weren't. When you are born the doctors don't say, "Here is your child sorry but he's gay". They don't say that because we are all born straight. Other proof behind that is that it takes gay people a while to figure out if they are gay which means they make an unconsious (but still constious in a weird sort of way) desision to be gay.
Huh??? Do you think the doctors know EITHER sexual orientation at birth? I was just at my niece's birth, and I don't remember them announcing heterosexuality or otherwise. You aren't really anything at that age, since you haven't developed sexual awareness and orientation... it's only when people begin to notice these feelings, that they might realize they're attracted to the same sex. I didn't like boys when I was born, since I didn't even know I was supposed to (I'm a straight woman, fyi) - but when puberty hit, that's what my eyes were drawn to automatically. My gay friends all had the same basic experience, but found themselves checking out the same sex instead. Get it?
Oh, and the reason it "takes a while" is because they STRUGGLE with the feelings - which are already there, and coming to the surface around the age of sexual maturity. People like you (and most of society) tell them being gay is abnormal, so of course they'll grapple with these feelings and decisions! Also, like I said above, nobody knows their orientation until they reach a certain age... so just like a 5 year-old doesn't realize they're straight, they also wouldn't realize they're gay quite yet. But trust me, my brother (adopted) is gay, and we knew even before he did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If people call this a sin they can only be ignorant, no matter how they justify their behaviour.
You aren't really anything at that age, since you haven't developed sexual awareness and orientation... it's only when people begin to notice these feelings, that they might realize they're attracted to the same sex. I didn't like boys when I was born, since I didn't even know I was supposed to (I'm a straight woman, fyi) - but when puberty hit, that's what my eyes were drawn to automatically. My gay friends all had the same basic experience, but found themselves checking out the same sex instead. Get it?