Fear, bigotry and ignorance represented as law.

[Osborn F Enready]

(this post taken from E-The People, for debate purposes)
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/43294/view?viewtype=

The apostle Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became an [adult], I put away childish things. (13:11). From this we gather one sure fact: maturity contributes to a fuller understanding of our world. Most of what we believe as children is indoctrination from adults and conventional authority. These means do serve us well in some if not most things. Obviously though not all ”wisdom” of adults and conventional authority is absolute or even true. Much of what gets passed down to us is relevant for a particular time in history and then becomes useless as we progress in our knowledge. Much is based on tradition that once had some basis in fact but again becomes a moot issue as physical and social conditions change and our knowledge of how things work grows. And some of it is based on fear of the unknown.

In ancient times cultures attributed natural disasters as acts of the gods. The insane were seen as “touched” by God. The earth was believed to be the center of the universe and women were second class citizens by some “natural” arrangement. Our limited knowledge of the cosmos and our own physical world led us to do what children do instinctively – create causes that explain their world. This serves their sense of stability but is often inaccurate and when played upon can have tragic consequences in some cases. Fortunately this inquisitiveness that led to this nascent but inaccurate conclusion also drives us to discover more and thus to broaden our views and enhance our knowledge of the world around us.

Sadly though some of this “childish” knowledge becomes so ingrained with large numbers of people that it shakes loose less quickly than it should and can carry over form one generation to the next for thousands of years. This is in part due to our limited knowledge on such issues because we have yet to discover all the “facts” that surround such issues. Demon possession is one such carry-over from ancient times that is still popular amongst large numbers of people. Our institution of knowledge – Science – has yet been unable to explain causes for all forms of psychopathic behavior. With the absence of such affirmative knowledge and a tradition of less scientific knowledge that fills this void, such behavior is “understandable” to these believers of demon possession.

Such too is the understanding of homo-sexual behavior. We are taught from the cradle that this is a behavior of choice and our religious traditions condemn such behavior in toto. It is in fact the apostle Paul who is one of the contributors to this perception.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Romans 1:24

We see from this passage the notion that homosexual behavior is a choice, a lust of the heart. The fact that our science cannot provide absolute assertions on what “causes” homosexuality leaves the door open for many to assert Paul’s notion. “Physical causes for the development of a sexual preference could be certain brain structures or hormones and research is now being done on a certain homo gene. However, there hasn't been enough research to say anything reliable about this. It is important to correct the common misunderstanding that a person is either homosexual or heterosexual.” But studies by Alfred Kinsey indicate the following:

By developing a scale to measure the extent of heterosexuality and homosexuality in individuals it could be claimed that some individuals are entirely homosexual in their orientation, others are bisexual, and others (the majority of people actually) are entirely heterosexual. However, some heterosexual individuals will engage in homosexual behaviour under certain circumstances when access to the opposite sex is prevented (schools, military service, prisons, etc.). SOURCE

So it can be asserted that though Paul may have had wisdom in some areas of his ministry it can be equally challenged that some of what he stated was merely traditional cultural concepts now coated with his theological views.

The basis for this post is that rather than allowing our knowledge to grow and mature on this subject matter we are allowing segments of society to convince us that our “childish” views of homosexuality need to be protected and prevented from being challenged. Last November we saw 11 states pass resolutions to enact laws banning gay marriages. Other states are now pursuing this course and there is even a national move by some to establish a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage.

Rather than having an open debate on homosexual relations we are being led by well-meaning but often misinformed individuals about how we want people to behave in the privacy of their homes. It is being suggested that gay marriages would pose a threat to the traditional family yet there is no scientific data to support this – only fear, bigotry and ignorance. I too am concerned about abusive sexual behavior that has ill affects on our health and our personal and social psyches but I am not willing to concede views that are based on immature notions and traditional wisdom. All change is not necessarily good but neither is it automatically wrong. The adult in us needs to take charge of where we go with this critical social issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this post extremely thought provoking, even though I am not religious. I was wondering if others found this as thought provoking, and was hoping some would post their thoughts or debate.

AS I said, I am not religious, nor am I gay, but I support gay rights. I find it offensive when people blankly claim that homosexuality is wrong at some "moral" level, and I think this sheds a little light on how some even religious people, are not in agreement about gays rights.

[Son of Belial]

"Morality" is dictated by religion. According to the three Judaic faiths, homosexuality is indeed "immoral." So are hundreds of other things, many of which the practitioners either are not aware of or choose to ignore. So, to be honest, it would be expected for members of those faiths to blankly claim that homosexuality is wrong at some "moral" level. I don't know much about the faith, but Hindus probably see eating beef as wrong at some "moral" level. Many people see eating meat at all as wrong at some "moral" level. I strongly support freedom of speech, and if someone wants to call homosexuality, meat eating, race mixing, drinking, masturbation, or anything else immoral I believe they should be allowed to say what they wish.

Now, when it becomes law, or when they begin to push their views with violence or crime, then it becomes a different matter. As you said, the real issue is representing these ideals as law, and then we have a whole different issue. I don't think the article really addressed that properly.

[tinybear]

Well, here's a thought: Why are people who disapprove of gay sex automatically called bigots? Could it be that nowadays we are being indoctrinated (as if we are children) to think this way? :)

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: tinybear Well, here's a thought: Why are people who disapprove of gay sex automatically called bigots? Could it be that nowadays we are being indoctrinated (as if we are children) to think this way? :)

Well, we automatically call racists and things bigots. I think we need to define bigot. I hate being the jerk that pulls out dictionary.com, but it seems relevant that we know exactly what the word means and to whom or what it is applicable.

big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Then we have to define "intolerant." Without pasting another definition, "intolerant" says, in short, "Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself."

So, combining the two, a bigot would be someone who "Is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is opposed to the inclusion or participation of other or all particular groups, races, or political parties." I would include, perhaps, "sexual orientation, class, nationality, and gender" in there as well.

By that definition, the word "bigot" applies to mass numbers of people, and probably many or most on this board. Someone who says "I won't tolerate racism" is by definition a bigot because they are opposed to the inclusion of a particular political party or group.

Frankly, the word "bigot" has become almost useless, since it is thrown around without anyone really knowing what it means. The same can be said of "racist." People are so quick to throw down the word "racist" every time someone says something they dislike that the word barely has any real meaning anymore. Both have become little more than smear words to throw at someone when they say something you dislike and race, sexual orientation, or whatever is involved.

So the bottom line is, someone who disapproves of homosexuality is not necessarily a bigot. I know people who believe it is immoral but do not believe the person deserves any less rights than anyone else. As such, they do not believe the person should be excluded from anything, and are not bigots by definition. I would say, then, that someone isn't truly being a bigot unless they take their sense of morality and try to pass it as law or exclude someone from their own area, group, or actively attack them verbally, whatever. Which is sort of the topic of this thread, so now we come full circle and I'm on topic again. Yay me.

[Osborn F Enready]

Son of Belial said:
I strongly support freedom of speech, and if someone wants to call homosexuality, meat eating, race mixing, drinking, masturbation, or anything else immoral I believe they should be allowed to say what they wish.

Now, when it becomes law, or when they begin to push their views with violence or crime, then it becomes a different matter. As you said, the real issue is representing these ideals as law, and then we have a whole different issue. I don't think the article really addressed that properly.

I say:
I agree 100%.

I have no problem with free speech, it is when these people start trying to pass so called "moral laws" that I have a problem.

How about sin-taxes? This is one of the most under-challenged taxes I know of, and yet, people all throughout the country are against it.

[Critter]

Please define sin-taxes...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Critter Please define sin-taxes...

Unfair taxes levied on people (at the cash register) who would willing consume a product that doesn't necesarrily meet community standards. (alchohol, cigarettes, etc)

[Son of Belial]

Isn't there already a thread about sin taxes?

[Osborn F Enready]

Yes, and I am not marketing this debate topic as a tool to debate sin tax. I am talking about how people brainwashed to the point of not seeing a dividing line between morals and LAW.

[LetThereBe]

What laws would you make? Are laws only to protect others? Are they only to protect others and the self? Or are they to keep some aspects of society constant? I know this argument is way overused, but where does one draw the line?

Personally, I'm against homosexual marriage, but then again I think the government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place.

[zynner]

If your morals ARE that you can force other people to do (or not do) what you want, just because it IS what you want, then you will get all sorts of laws that reflect that thinking.

~ zynner

[Osborn F Enready]

Our law, in the U.S., is against making laws to protect people from themselves as derived from the Constitution.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Our law, in the U.S., is against making laws to protect people from themselves as derived from the Constitution.

Well, that hasn't been the trend lately (seatbelt laws anyone?)

[zynner]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Our law, in the U.S., is against making laws to protect people from themselves as derived from the Constitution.

US Constitution = just another law.

~ zynner

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: zynner US Constitution = just another law. ~ zynner

Well...... perhaps in practice. In theory, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land..... it is above all other laws.

[zynner]

Quote by: LetThereBe is the supreme law of the land.

Like I said.

~ zynner

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: LetThereBe Well...... perhaps in practice. In theory, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land..... it is above all other laws.

...and all other laws must be constitutional to be enforcable on the citizen.

...all other laws shall be in the intent of the constitution.

Quote by: zynner US Constitution = just another law.

As much as some people would like you believe that is the case, it is just not so.


Laws must also emminate from Congress, which is becoming rarer, and rarer in the days of Executive Order Presidents.


You see, the old antiquated constitutional system just doesn't allow a good dictator the flexibility he needs to oppress the masses in the efficient manor in which they have become accustomed, thus they do not obey the law, or their sworn oath of allegience.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes, and I am not marketing this debate topic as a tool to debate sin tax. I am talking about how people brainwashed to the point of not seeing a dividing line between morals and LAW.

So are you saying the law has no function in enforcing the current morals of society?

[Protostar]

Quote by: tinybear So are you saying the law has no function in enforcing the current morals of society?

No. Morals are best kept to oneself. Laws exist to protect people from infriging on the rights of others. Laws should not be used to legislate morals, only to protect people's rights from being infringed upon.

[tinybear]

So you think the laws against incest, beastiality, cannibalism and bigamy...etc ought to be repealed, do you?