Letters to the Editor

Hateful view

March 28, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

Just when I had about composed my letter regarding Mr. Burkhead’s views on homosexuality, along comes a letter from Ms. Phelps. I can’t understand the mean-spirited and venomous attitudes these people have cultivated. Quoting Bible Scripture to defend their views, they and people of like views seem to have completely forgotten the main message of Jesus: “to love your neighbor as you love yourself.” This seems like a pretty simple philosophy and a worthy goal, not just for Christians, but for all religious groups, agnostics and atheists as well.

Attacking others for how they live their lives, placing blame on them for things not of their doing, proclaiming that anyone that doesn’t believe as they do will go to hell; where does the insanity end? And, to add the further insult of invading the funeral service of a beloved and honored soldier to further some questionable agenda just really makes a person wonder what Bible they are reading.

Scientific evidence is increasingly showing that homosexuality has a genetic, hormonal and birth order basis. Overwhelmingly, respected groups say this is not a disease or disorder to be “cured.” It is certainly not something that is a threat to anyone else.

It’s not news that many have used the Bible Scriptures to promote or defend their actions. The current attitudes seen in the other letters should not be a surprise, I suppose, but are certainly a cause for despair and worry that some people never learn that “loving your neighbor” is a good way to live your life.

Comments

Brent Garner 5 years, 1 month ago

Would the LTE writer be so kind to provide references to the scientific evidence claimed in the LTE? Thank you.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

How many ways and times has the Bible been revised?

Which one is right?

The letter writer said a lot in 250 words or less and managed to provide excellent food for thought.

purplesage 5 years, 1 month ago

Quoting Scripture seems both to be inconvenient (those passages which pass judgment on homosexuality, among other sexual sins, thus placing moral constrains on how humans live) and convenient (when one wants a "pass" so as to live as he or she pleases, so judge not and love as you would love yourself).

Loving one's neighbor does not, of necessity, grant approval of everything that neighbor says or does.

Bradley Kemp 5 years, 1 month ago

Bkgarner: How about some logic? Everything about everyone has its roots either in biology or in culture -- or some combination of the two. There are no other inputs. Complex behaviors like sexuality are likely to be the consequence of both biology and culture. In this way, homosexuality is identical to heterosexuality.

denak 5 years, 1 month ago

Oh lord, seriously, was there no other letter that could have been published. No other letter that was worthy of discussion. No disrespect to Ms. Northway, but is the LJWorld so desperate for readers that they are going to publish, yet another, letter that isn't going to do anything except spiral downwards into name calling,mischaracterizations, anti-religious bigotry and homophobia.

How very sad.

Dena

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

for BKGardner:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association

Pediatrics: Sexual Orientation and Adolescents, American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report. Retrieved 2009-12-08.

Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.

Perrin, E. C. (2002). Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

This is only the beginning of a very long list.

For Merrill:

The only additon discovered to date is at the end of Mark.16:

  1. [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

That is an addition that was apparently added about the year 1400.

The other "versions" you are referring to are merely translations that are more correct in the vernacular of our present language. Hebrew, Aramic, and Greek do not translate well into our modern English, especially when having gone through Latin and Old English in the process. The most accurate translation today is the NRSV.

The origional text is almost certainly accuate, with only a few vowelization problems that do not substantianly change the meaning of the text.

"DIfferent versions of the Bible", in every case, refers to the translation into Latin, and then into Old English (King James). Then, the modern English text appears to be very different.

For example, 1Sam.25, KJV:

  1. [34] For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

"pisseth against the wall" refers to a male person. Today, we would translate that to mean "Male". Old English is a quite different language than modern English.

A modern translation appearing to be different does NOT mean that the origional text has been altered!

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

For those who love to quote Jesus Christ, it would be a good idea to remember what all He personally is quoted as saying about the subject:

Nothing at all.

If the Lord Jesus Christ was silent on the subject, perhaps we should be also.

SnakeFist 5 years, 1 month ago

I have never understood why people care about the sexual acts of two consenting adults. But to argue that its a matter of biology is to suggest that its akin to a physical disability which is no fault of the disabled person - even if its a choice, it isn't a fault and it doesn't need an excuse.

The regressives' hatred for homosexuality can't simply be because its a sin; why do we allow adulterers to marry but not homosexuals, isn't the sin of adultery more relevant to marriage than the sin of homosexuality?

Conservatives are the worst sort of hypocrites: They scream that government is taking their freedom to not have healthcare while they deny others equal protection under the law and the freedom to live and love as they choose.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

RH,

See Bart Ehrman's work "Misquoting Jesus" for multiple instances of changes in the text, and the difficulty of finding any "original" Biblical verses, and, more importantly, learning what Jesus was really about.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

Well, jafs, I'm Jewish, so Jesus is not of any real importance.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

RH,

So am I (and so was Jesus), but I'm interested in what he was really like, if there were any way of finding that out.

And I believe the same issues arise with the Old Testament.

KSManimal 5 years, 1 month ago

RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…

"for BKGardner:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association

Pediatrics: Sexual Orientation and Adolescents, American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report. Retrieved 2009-12-08.

Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.

Perrin, E. C. (2002). Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

This is only the beginning of a very long list."

Thanks for sharing, Ron. Now watch as, with amazing consistency and predictability, the right-wing completely ignores all of it. I'd almost bet they won't even acknowledge that you posted anything.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

Well porch, there is a story that there were at one time over 200 gospels. Only a few could be chosen, since most were obviously pure fantasy, such as Infancy 1 and Infancy 2.

It was suggested that only four be selected, since there were four winds, north, south, east, and west.

And of course, they all needed to be "somewhat" in agreement, and of course they also needed to be in agreement with the opinions of the committee that was doing the selection.

There's another story that all of the over 200 were placed under a table, and the "official four" were to be placed on top of the table by the Lord God himself. Which accordingly happened, some souces claim.

I wasn't there, but I do tend to doubt that story.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

Damn do I ever need an editor to spell check for me.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

In Kentucky, it is illegal to display any reptile at a religious ceremony.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Scientific evidence is increasingly showing that homosexuality has a genetic, hormonal and birth order basis."

Darwinism says it is epic fail mode. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that if survival of the fittest is important, homosexuals are doing it wrong.

Full disclosure: any number of humans of consensual age should be able to freely do whatever they want with their body together as long as nobody's rights are violated, and should be able to charge or pay money for doing it.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Darwinism says it is epic fail mode. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that if survival of the fittest is important, homosexuals are doing it wrong."

The theories have moved past Darwinism, and most humans have a rocksolid and incredibly effective defense against survival of the fittest, called "society."

Perhaps you've heard of it.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"The theories have moved past Darwinism"

I knew somebody was going to do that. Yes, the theories of evolution are more advanced now. You are correct. But I find Darwinism still a useful blanket term for the science. I'm a layman, not a geneticist.

"humans have a rocksolid and incredibly effective defense against survival of the fittest, called "society.""

Did you mean "the great society"? I'll agree with that, given the caveat that the new deal definitely had a wider scope.

headdoctor 5 years, 1 month ago

Good one porche_person. It never ceases to amaze me or amuse me with the amount of stuttering that arises when things like the subject of the Gnostic Gospels/New Testament apocrypha are brought up. I also am fond of the absolute silence that occurs often when one brings up the subject of the texts that were not included into any of those compilations such as the Book of Enoch. The silence is even more deafening when you bring up the Ethiopian Biblical records. Their addition to the records seems to get ignored intentionally.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

In Kansas, is it still illegal to swallow snakes?

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Did you mean "the great society"? I'll agree with that, given the caveat that the new deal definitely had a wider scope."

No, just society. Strength in numbers. It's not like we're the only species that does that, either.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

I love a dog, he does nothing for political reasons. (Will Rogers)

lindsaydoyle 5 years, 1 month ago

If you want to use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "scientific evidence" consider this: Homosexuality was considered a psychiatric condition until the APA bowed to political pressure and changed it in 1973. It was then referred to as "sexual orientation disturbance" and is presently referred to as "gender identity disorder." What currently passes for "science" is mostly conjecture.

JustNoticed 5 years, 1 month ago

Pagels' "Gnostic Gospels", Bart Ehrman's work, Burton Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament?" and Fr. Dominic Crossan's "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" among many others help us understand the Bible as a particular people's and time's response to the Infinite.

Cultural and political forces were at work then as now and the truth of how and why the Bible is as it is today, and the truth of what Jesus truly seemed to be about, is far more interesting than believing that a personal Deity wrote a book.

That doesn't mean you have to throw it all away. If you love your religion as well as what you believe to be your God, then reconciling a modern understanding of the Bible and of Jesus with the real spiritual life your religion helps you live is much more rewarding than shutting down your brain and believing the absurd.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

Best doctor in the world is the Veterinarian. He can’t ask his patients what’s the matter. He’s just got to know. (Will Rogers)

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"No, just society. Strength in numbers."

I misunderstood your point. Sorry.

Your "strength in numbers" theory added to "genetic homosexual" theory asserts that homosexuality is failure even at the societal level, since by definition homosexuals cannot procreate "strength in numbers". So I guess it comes out the same either way.

As for other species, there is a word for assigning them human traits. I forget what it is, but some scholar here will know.

I do know that it is dangerous to use the actions of other species as a sort of justification for human predilections because that opens the door for people like me to ask if lots of the things other species do justifies the same actions by humans. The "all or nothing" nature of that gambit can turn you into a monster or force you into a retraction pretty quick.

OTOH, humans are just another animal.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"In Kansas, is it still illegal to swallow snakes?"

Only if the person swallowing the snake is the same gender as the owner of the snake, according to the statute I found. That would be 21-3505.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Your "strength in numbers" theory added to "genetic homosexual" theory asserts that homosexuality is failure even at the societal level, since by definition homosexuals cannot procreate "strength in numbers". So I guess it comes out the same either way."

Not very well, no. That would only be supportable if you could tie it in a meaningful way to the decline of the numbers of a species population. It's also been questionably theorized that homosexuality appears to keep population levels in check. At any rate, if there is a decline (such as in birth rates), if you want to blame anything, you'll have to blame income levels and education levels, since the higher levels in society have a strong correlation with societies least likely to have replacement levels of new births. See the birth rates of first world countries versus third world.

"As for other species, there is a word for assigning them human traits. I forget what it is, but some scholar here will know."

It's probably anthropomorphism, but that's not what's going on here. Saying that communal behavior is a human trait is simply incorrect. If not disengenuous, as I suspect.

"I do know that it is dangerous to use the actions of other species as a sort of justification for human predilections because that opens the door for people like me to ask if lots of the things other species do justifies the same actions by humans. The "all or nothing" nature of that gambit can turn you into a monster or force you into a retraction pretty quick."

Thankfully, I was doing nothing of the sort. But man, you're sure spinning all over the field, aren't you? That usually means a weak starting point.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says… Would the LTE writer be so kind to provide references to the scientific evidence claimed in the LTE? Thank you

Would this letter writer provide scientific evidence why someone would put themselves in the line of fire for being gay? Why would anyone "choose" to be an outcast? Why would anyone fight the urge so much that they even get married and have children to look "normal", only to never find what they are looking for.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

Actually those people who push their hatred by quoting the Bible turned me into an agnostic. Although I know many open minded loving Christians, these bible thumping haters have turned me away from Christianity forever.

People who are so concerned about another's sexual orientation are nothing short of voyeurs. It's kind of creepy in a way.

Graczyk 5 years, 1 month ago

Has anyone here read anything by Judith Butler, particularly Undoing Gender? If so, what do you think about her ideas regarding sexuality and gender identity?

Thank you, Liberty275. Momma always said I would amount to something, someday.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

I remember something even more creepy. A while back on this forum, a poster described an experience with the Phelp's family. Apparently, they were at the Lied center and a daughter and father were walking by and they shouted to the girl, something about her dad teaching her about "golden showers". Well, even though I'm 50 something, I had to look up what that meant. It's pretty bizarre, and my gay friends said they never do anything like that. So I'm wondering if the Phelp's family is promoting this sort of thing with children? Do they go around peeking into other's windows? Why do they know so much about these strange practices, when a woman like me, who thought she knew a lot, had never heard of such a thing? You just wonder what actually goes on at that church. And why are they so concerned about what others do in their bedrooms. It's just pretty sicko if you ask me.

Deja Coffin 5 years, 1 month ago

Not saying that I believe that being homosexual is a sin but I like to live by the principal of love the sinner, hate the sin. I know that we all have sin and my religious belief is that not one sin is greater then the other so who am I to judge anyone? Unfortunately sometimes it's hard to not judge situations and people but I guess that's a lesson I'll be continually learning. I think some of what is wrong with the world today is we're so worried about what our neighbor is doing and don't pay attention to our own lives. I'm just lucky most of my big life choices such as marriage, morals, etc. are widely accepted because I don't know if I could be as strong as those who are oppressed for what makes them who they are. But, that's just my two cents for the day! :-)

JustNoticed 5 years, 1 month ago

http://blank.org/addict/ Truth about Fred Phelps. Pretty fascinating, horrifying reading.

lindsaydoyle 5 years, 1 month ago

This LTE is basically a straw man argument, painting with a broad brush those who oppose the homosexual agenda and attributing to them qualities which most do not have. I don't condemn to hell those who practice homosexuality and believe they should have a place in society, even the military. But there is a radical element. Kevin Jennings, Obama's "safe schools czar" advocated using the safe schools issue as a means of indoctrinating young children and that is being widely done. Also, there are iconoclasts who want to use the issue to further the degeneration of our culture. Homosexuals would be doing themselves a favor to divorce themselves from this element if they want to make real progress.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"That would only be supportable if you could tie it in a meaningful way to the decline of the numbers of a species population."

If the number of homosexuals are not declining, and homosexuality cannot increase their numbers by procreation, then how can homosexuality be genetic? Are we all genetically homosexual? Is homosexuality a mutation?

"Saying that communal behavior is a human trait is simply incorrect."

I think you worded that incorrectly.

""Saying that communal behavior is ONLY a human trait is simply incorrect."

I think that is what you meant to say.

"Thankfully, I was doing nothing of the sort." "It's not like we're the only species that does that, either. "

I'd say you did something of the sort.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

I take your "only" and raise you an "exclusively." If that level of semantic quibbling is what it takes to save your face to yourself.

"If the number of homosexuals are not declining, and homosexuality cannot increase their numbers by procreation, then how can homosexuality be genetic? Are we all genetically homosexual? Is homosexuality a mutation?"

Are you, then, suggesting that homosexuals are a different species from the rest of homo-sapiens? That's the only way this line of questioning makes any sense at all.

"I'd say you did something of the sort."

I'm sure that you would. But if you recall, the topic of that particular line was not homosexuality, but rather human society, or more accurately: communal behavior, since it seems that we're at that level at this point. I'm afraid that I see no need to justify the existence or even practicality of human society or community by pointing out that it happens in other species. Both seem obvious enough to me to not worry overly about justification. That statement was simply what I would consider stating fact.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Truth about Fred Phelps. Pretty fascinating, horrifying reading."

Truth is almost always found right where you want it to be. How about giving us the cliffnotes so we don't have to waste time on what reads like fiction.

I'm leery because the work is unpublished and I can't find any other work by the alleged author, Jon Michael Bell.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

Liberty - look for Nate Phelps on the web, he had plenty to say about his father, Fred.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Are you, then, suggesting that homosexuals are a different species from the rest of homo-sapiens? That's the only way this line of questioning makes any sense at all."

I think it's part nature (genetic) and part nurture (cultural). Homosexuals for the most part are made by society, but not every human is susceptible to homosexuality. I say "most part" because I realize genes that determine gender and all it entails can mutate and force people's sexual identity and sexuality to become "confused" for lack of a better word.

"But if you recall, the topic of that particular line was not homosexuality, but rather human society"

Yes. That's why the paragraph I wrote in reply didn't say anything about sexuality.

"That statement was simply what I would consider stating fact. "

That's too bad. It was one of the few interesting things about this thread. I don't know about you, but I find mankind's place in the animal world about a thousand times more interesting than goofy superstitions and what people do with their bodies.

JustNoticed 5 years, 1 month ago

"... How about giving us the cliffnotes so we don't have to waste time on what reads like fiction."

pure hubris

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Nate Phelps on the web, he had plenty to say about his father, Fred."

OK. I read one of his speeches. http://natephelps.com/10801.html

I'm not as shocked as you would probably think. My father was not religious at all. I endured far worse at the hands of my father, and my mother endured as bad as Fred's wife. I don't hate my father and I don't suspect you do either. I expect you couldn't care less.

That leaves one difference between my father and Phelps, his religious belief and his unfettered use of his right to free speech. Their isn't a campaign to silence Phelps because he is a bad father. That is just cheap ammunition. If we went after bad fathers, we be after 9/10s of the male world that has served his evolutionary duty. The campaign is because he says things some people don't like and says them as loud and publicly as he possibly can.

You shouldn't count on unrelated ad hom attacks (via his son) against Phelps to silence him or to defend homosexuality. The logical disconnect is too wide and anyone with a shred of honesty will disregard your argument.

I don't support Phelps, or the idiocy his church (or any church) believes. I do support his right to speak. I also support his right to hate. I support your right to walk up to him in a public place and tell him what you think. I also support your right to hate him (if you do). That's your only ammo against Phelps.

I think the real problem a lot of you have with Phelps is that he is just better than you at getting heard. He knows your buttons and he pushes them hard. Maybe in a different America we could have the mind police arrest him for saying words, but we aren't canada yet.

Ron, keep up the good fight, but fight to win. You can do better.

"teaching her about "golden showers". Well, even though I'm 50 something, I had to look up what that meant."

Did you ever look up the word "teabagger"? I know you have seen it before in this forum. I've seen it. I know what it means. I can feel the glee behind the post every time it is spouted. Lucky for me, I am tolerant of words. They do no harm. What surprises me is the tolerance the right wing shows towards the word. They are either more thick-skinned than our left friends think or kinkier than we give them credit for. I imagine its a little of both.

Also, why didn't you look up "golden shower" when Frank Zappa wrote it into one of his very few semi-mainstream hits? I know you are of the appropriate age, and I have a feeling you would be capable of enjoying some Zappa.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"pure hubris"

OK. Post what you think instead of being a lazy copypasta merril wannabe.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"I think it's part nature (genetic) and part nurture (cultural). Homosexuals for the most part are made by society, but not every human is susceptible to homosexuality. I say "most part" because I realize genes that determine gender and all it entails can mutate and force people's sexual identity and sexuality to become "confused" for lack of a better word."

Well, if we're on the subject of personal opinions now, then I'd say that the mistake is to confuse that there's a 0/1 straight/gay comparison. I'd say that there's an obvious sexual continuity, perhaps created by genetics, and then a currently-socialized 0/1 fiction that is entirely the product of cultural training and socialization. Much the same as gender. Sex is genetically determined, and there are a few things that are the province of the different biology of the sexes, but the most part of gender is entirely socialized. On the last subject, though, the only way to suggest that this relates at all to the theory of evolution is to claim that genetic possibilities on homosexuality not only exist, but are transferable through reproduction, ie hereditary. I have no idea if any studies exist on the subject, but I'd say that there is little proof of this, and quite a bit to suggest otherwise. Of course, what we don't know about genetics could fill multiple volumes of books.

"That's too bad. It was one of the few interesting things about this thread. I don't know about you, but I find mankind's place in the animal world about a thousand times more interesting than goofy superstitions and what people do with their bodies."

I find all of these to be quite interesting, the beliefs and behaviors that are a direct result of both, as you say, nature and nurture just as much as how we compare to the other species in this world. But this statement doesn't gel very well with your prior ones on the subject of justification of humans through animal behavior.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

I think that it's so amazingly pervasive that he/she just hasn't quite realized it.

Watch TVs. Watch movies. Watch commercials. Read magazines.

Ever heard the phrase sex sells? It's not, generally, homosexual sex. Not in the mainstream at least.

If we're talking about individuals, perhaps about pride parades or that sort of thing (otherwise, I guess I don't know what you're talking about, and need more specific information in order to respond properly), generally it's only the minority that needs to have self-identification in a prideful way, and that's generally because the majority broadcasts the minority as deviant or deficient in some way.

Olympics 5 years, 1 month ago

Liberty275 wrote "But I find Darwinism still a useful blanket term for the science. I'm a layman, not a geneticist."

Clearly you are not and yet, you make a BOLD statement about evolution that ANYONE who has an intro. biology text would be exposed to the idea of "inclusive fitness".

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Right or wrong, when homosexuals state their "preference" it provides intimate (perceived) details of the person's sex life."

So you're stating that because popular (largely hetero) culture has, rightly or wrongly, associated certain acts with preference, it's then the burden of the homosexual community to not enable that train of thought?

That seems unfair.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

Also, I watch an absolute TON of pron, so I'm now totally picturing you in reverse cowboy and doggie style. It's not pleasant, so please tell me that you're actually into assexual reproduction, like me.

Divide, cells, divide!

JustNoticed 5 years, 1 month ago

first, Liberty275, point taken. I just had no interest in taking the time to provide a synopsis of the book about Phelps. I do appreciate that you take the time to express yourself thoughtfully.

JustNoticed 5 years, 1 month ago

And because the above back and forth and most of the discussions about sexuality on the LJW forums always treat the subject as a black/white, on/off, 0/1 kind of thing - either you're straight or you're gay - I'm going to copy and paste myself from another thread. I think the reality of human sexuality is much more complex and interesting. So...

Sexual preference is best understood as a continuum. That's right, from Way Gay to Uber Hetero and everything in between. And it's a continuum upon which individuals may move back and forth during a lifetime - or a summer.

No, I'm not advocating wanton hedonism although there is a time and place for that depending on what life lessons one might need or want at a particular time. If you can be in love and find God in your coupling, good for you. But don't worry about going to Burkhead's Hell if you don't.

I'm just saying that Gay/Not Gay is a false dichotomy. We are sexual beings who can find pleasure and love in many, many ways.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Well, if we're on the subject of personal opinions now"

Totally off topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves. Everything is personal opinion. That's why I never bother to say "in my opinion".

"But this statement doesn't gel very well with your prior ones on the subject of justification of humans through animal behavior. "

Don't read what isn't there. I might question how far a person will go to justify human behavior based on what other species do, but then I might turn around justify 10 times as much.

"Olympics"

I hereby anoint thee resident expert on intro to biology. I chose earth science instead, and that was in the 80s.

And I always try to make bold statements.

"We've already covered the fact that the "Tea Party" initially called itself "Tea Baggers". "

I've not heard that before, and it makes no sense. The movement takes it's name from the Boston Tea Party. It has nothing to do with bags. However, I would be interested in seeing any report from a credible news source that quotes anyone from the tea party movement identifying themselves as "teabggers".

"Clearly you are not and yet, you make a BOLD statement about evolution that ANYONE who has an intro. biology text would be exposed to the idea of "inclusive fitness". "

If you are going to rag on me regarding Biology 101, at least do it as skillfully as someone that passed English 101. Typos, spelling and even small grammatical errors I don't care about; undecipherable sentence structure is unacceptable.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Totally off topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves. Everything is personal opinion. That's why I never bother to say "in my opinion"."

That's why I put it in my username, but the rest of your line here is total BS. Sorry. There do exist such things as fact, and to that point I stuck as strongly as possible to simple fact, or fact-based logical deductions. You can doubt all that you want, that doesn't mean it's opinion.

"Don't read what isn't there. I might question how far a person will go to justify human behavior based on what other species do, but then I might turn around justify 10 times as much."

Funny enough, that's exactly what I read as being there. If you're happy being inconsistent and potentially hypocritical, then that's fine. Don't expect others not to call you on it, however.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"jonas - My point is that if one chooses to be identified by declaring a preferred method of sex than that will be their identity. Heterosexuals typically do not do this."

I disagree that they do not do this, first. Not as common per-capita, perhaps, but again you're comparing apples and oranges, to the vast-majority that has largely claimed righteousness, to the minority declared as deviant by the majority population. The point is that many gays, when they state their orientation, are doing it not to show off, but to show that they have no need to be ashamed.

It's also foolish to say that by doing this they are making their identity as revolving around their sexuality. It happens because of the fixation on it. I know a few gay people, and not one of them wishes that to be their sole identity. Not one wishes to have to keep it a secret, either. The need to keep it a secret most of their lives is something that a hetero person simply cannot identify with, at least on the subject of sexuality.

You're right, few of those other examples are exactly comparative, because very few of the people that identify with those views wish to be typecase into solely those roles, except in the case perhaps of some internet posters or television pundits, who make those issues their lives. Whatever the assumptions, those labels do not have to reflect their sole identity upon their self-identification, not in the same way that you are suggesting happens with homosexuals.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

You're clearly confusing orientation with position. Is it intentional?

Linda Endicott 5 years, 1 month ago

But heterosexual people DO declare their sexual orientation publicly...they do it all the time...

Every time you go out on a date, you are declaring your sexual orientation...unless your dates are relegated to your own house...

Every time you hug or kiss your significant other in public, you declare your sexual orientation...

Every time you refer to your "husband" or "wife" at work, you are declaring your sexual orientation...

And if you believe that only heterosexuals should be allowed to procreate (though there are many homosexuals who have; just not with their preferred partner), then every time you talk about your children you declare your sexual orientation...

Every time a heterosexual couple gets married, they are declaring their sexual orientation...

As for "positions"...it is usually just in the prejudiced minds of others that any position is delgated to just one group...in fact, any sexual position that is known to mankind has been used by both heterosexuals and homosexuals for countless centuries...

If you are small-minded enough that you can only think of one kind of contact when you think about homosexuals, that seems to be a personal problem...

I for one prefer not to think about the sex lives of any of my neighbors...whether they're straight or gay or bi...

It's none of my business...just as it is none of your business...

Tom Miller 5 years, 1 month ago

...personally, minding ones' own business is ALWAYS good business....

budwhysir 5 years, 1 month ago

Oh look so many different opinions on one topic printed in one spot taking so much time to read, oops the grass is growing, ran out of time to read, I now must go work on my lawnmower. I hope no one gets upset that I am working on my mower instead of debating this issue with a bunch of people who cant change the way others think or act.... I sure hope no one is hurt by my actions, I would hate to see such a long letter and blog about me working on my mower and such, I mean can you imagine me being the talk of the town???

Tom Miller 5 years, 1 month ago

"Copulation is spiritual in essence---or it is merely friendly exercise. On second thought, strike out "merely." Copulation is not "merely"---even when it is just a happy pastime for two strangers. But copulation at its spiritual best is so much more than physical coupling that it is different in kind as well as in degree.

The saddest feature of homosexuality is not that it is "wrong" or "sinful" or even that it can't lead to progeny---but that it is more difficult to reach through it this spiritual union. Not impossible---but the cards are stacked against it.

But---most sorrowfully---many people never achieve spiritual sharing even with the help of male-female advantage; they are condemned to wander through life alone."

Lazarus Long

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Are you saying that one does not determine the other?"

They certainly don't have to.

Jimo 5 years, 1 month ago

Brent Garner - 10 seconds and Google may aid you.

A little less time in Bible study might not hurt either.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"BS. We've already covered that and you were there."

LOL, saying to teabag the dems is pretty funny, but it doesn't even come close to someone self-identifying as a teabagger. Weak. If I were to tell you to teabag someone, would that make me a teabagger?

Doesn't pass muster. Sorry.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Sorry. There do exist such things as fact"

No. At best you are allowed theories filtered through your senses and bigotry. Welcome to humanity. It's pretty fun when you start thinking for yourself.

"Funny enough, that's exactly what I read as being there."

No. You read that I would employ a rhetorical device. You didn't read how I might respond to said rhetorical device. You are seeing what you want, not what is there.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"denial that the facts passed your own threshold"

A: No other threshold matters. B: Your logic regarding the use of the word "teabagger" is plainly false. C: re: facts - see post above.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

Sorry, DeCartes, but I'm not buying what you're trying to pawn off on us. I guess we're probably done, no sense debating someone willing to stoop to that level of empirical doubt for the purposes of backing failed logic and poor reasoning.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

Vertigo, bingo. Except you can't use the "like minded" part as it wasn't even implied on the signs. The signs could have been directed at porchee for all we know.

And really, I'm not sure I buy the "ignorance" argument either. I know that if I said "go teabag a dem" it would mean go commit a weird sexual act on a dem. I've been known to speak much more explicitly and obscene than that (although I have to admit, I did have to look up some of the lesser known acts after a south park episode).

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Remember, you don't care what other people think about your content. You said that, didn't you? Want me to quote you?"

I think you just did. No need to be redundant.

"no sense debating someone willing to stoop to that level of empirical doubt"

You can't win against a nihilist. You get a gold star for realizing that.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"You can't win against a nihilist. You get a gold star for realizing that."

Sure you can. Since a nihilist pretty much automatically fails, you win by default as soon as it becomes apparent.

jimmyjms 5 years, 1 month ago

"But there is a radical element. Kevin Jennings, Obama's "safe schools czar" advocated using the safe schools issue as a means of indoctrinating young children and that is being widely done. "

Whoa. Factually incorrect and just plain wrong. Insanely partisan as well.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.