Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
So as not to take any more away from the "Skating Rink" thread I started over here to address some of the comments in that thread.

I offer the following perspective as a means of considering the biological v. decision debate.

I have been told that I was born an alcoholic. The case can be made that I have a genetic pre-disposition for addiction to alcohol. i.e. I was born this way.

It has been scientifically shown that the brains of alcoholics don't produce endorphines at the same rate as non-addicts. It has also been shown that the bodies of alcoholics use the chemicals in alcohol to replace the endorphines that they don't naturally produce, thereby making it necessary for an alcoholic to consume in order to experience the same level of happiness that non-alcoholics experience on a daily basis.

So, this is who I am. I didn't choose this for my body, I was born this way.

Why then, is it unacceptable for me to live the alcoholic lifestyle?
I have been categorized, shunned by peers, ridiculed by the community, fired from jobs, thrown in jail... talk about oppression.
I was just being the person I was born to be.

Why is that lifestyle not acceptable?... because it is destructive! It tears apart lives, homes and communities.

What is the difference between an alcoholic lifestyle and a gay/lesbian lifestyle? The only significant difference is that an alcoholic lifestyle is both emotionally and physically destructive and the gay/lesbian lifestyle is primarily only emotionally destructive. Even in light of all of the scientific proof, addicts are expected to choose not to consume. Why should gay/lesbians be any different? The only reason that society doesn't hold them to the same standard is because they don't pose all of the same physical threats. But the bottom line remains the same...It is a choice to participate or not participate in either lifestyle.

William S: In the other thread, you posed a series of questions. Ask all of those same questions about an addict and see if you still come up with the same answers. You also talked about hate - Know this: The hate should be for the lifestyle not the person living it.

I know that in my life and in the lives of all the addicts, gays and lesbians with whom I have been acquainted, the real issues are not about genetics, biological make-up or pre-disposition. The real issues are about our own feelings of inadequacy and our inability to deal with the realities of our own lives, making it necessary to hide from those realities and replace those feelings.

If you can get passed the facades and the bravado, you will not find anyone living an addict, gay or lesbian lifestyle who is truly fulfilled in their life. I know that I wasn't.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
I have viewed probably 90% of your posts on this board as constructive, well thought out and on track with the subjects being discussed (with 10% being Boninism's )With this post though... wow you are pretty far off.

You're really reaching to compare alcoholism with homosexuality. I am going to assume you're fully aware of this and why you did it and not go into long details to make you look ignorant, that's not my goal here.

You obviously have a limited view of the gay/lesbian lifestyle. In most area's where the lifestyle is widely accepted (San Fran/Berkely, Miami, Some parts of LA and Chicago) homosexuals live just like everyone else. There is no confusion or bravado or anything of that sort, just life like anywhere else. Rent, bills, mortgages, drama, gossip and even kids!!!(omg nooo) For the most part, just as with racism, a large part of the misconceptions come with these issues being reinforced in the media. In fact, when a homosexual from some of those area's is exposed to the *real world* outside where they grew up they are pretty amazed at how it is.

I agree with you that in a LARGE % of the Gay community a lot of those issues do exist. This though has largely to do with growing up in an intolerant environment. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to group up and go through adolescence, puberty, the drama of highschool and wanting to fit in and all that crap while feeling things that you KNOW will most likely ostracize you harder then any single other issue.

Just to be straight on this and so you know where I am coming from I would call myself "tolerant" towards the homeosexual community. I have had and still do have friends/coworkers and peers who are gay, both privately and openly. I accept them for who they are and don't make any judgements based on their sexual preference. I DO HOWEVER pray to GOD that neither of my children grow up homosexual. I don't want them to have to go through the pressures of living that way and while I know I would love them as fiercely as I do now, I can almost guarantee that thier lifestyle would both scare me from it's risks along with make me uncomfrtable. I am not afraid to admit this. When it is all said and done though, I do understand that this is not something they "wanted" to have happen, it just is what it is.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12372) 16 years ago
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural
things- like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has
legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and
divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage
would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay
couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry
because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why
we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to
raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never
adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the
service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
Apparently, independent studies have discovered that the internet is an addictive agent which, they say, is just as powerful as drugs or alcohol. However, researchers go on to say that the internet is actually much more dangerous than these addictive substances since it is a terminal addiction.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
I don't know. I still maintain that some of the gays were born gay. I can look back at my school years and think of kids that seemed gay in 5th grade. It's awfully early to seem gay, but then they up and turned out gay in adult-hood. It's difficult to explain.

Had to edit this:

No bravado in communities where homosexuality is accepted? Please.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (edited 2/22/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
"You're really reaching to compare alcoholism with homosexuality."

Actually, he makes a very valid point and the comparison is appropriate. Here is why:

The gay life style gained "acceptance" by using the "biological" argument put forward by those who were convinced that alcoholism is a "disease". They pointed to supposed genetic differences between alcoholics and non-alcoholics to convince us that biological differences "exist". Many people over many years uncritically accepted the theory of the origins of alcoholism. And if it was true for alcoholics then it must be true for homosexuals.

The problem is that there is no scientific primary source documentation verifying the claim that alcoholism is a true "disease" in the pathological definition of the word. It may be a theory repeated in scientific literature, but it has no basis in fact.

The notion that being gay has a biologic component is equally lacking any scientific primary source documentation.

Just because a behavior is "accepted" does not necessarily legitimise its existence, especially when that behavior violates the design of creation.

It used to be taught that humans and monkeys were related because both had an RH blood factor. That theory was repeated throughout scientific literature for many years. The truth is that there are many species of animals that have the RH blood factor. Yet people persist in their acceptance of the idea that humans came from monkeys because it is repeated so many times in the literature.

To use science to justify a behavior requires that primary source evidence exists beyond any doubt. In the case of the biology of homosexuality the evidence clearly is lacking. Thus, we are left to conclude that it is a personal choice and the behavior becomes subject to the critic of society, using the belief system used by that society to establish morality.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 2/22/2006).]
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
J.Dyba: I gotta know...was the pun intended? "Just to be straight on this..."

After having put some of the most difficult issues of my life in print, being made to look ignorant is not really a concern for me so go ahead and explain why you think my analogy is such a stretch. I'm here for the discussion.

Are you saying that a pre-disposition for homosexuality is more predominate than a pre-disposition for addiction to alcohol? i.e.We have to accept homosexuality because "that's the way they are", yet we don't accept an alcoholic for similar genetic makeup because they can choose not to consume.

Bear in mind that I acknowledge that there are physical differences between the two lifestyles. The point I am trying to make is not based on the manifested lifestyle, rather it is based on the origination of the lifestyle.

If an alcoholic lifestyle were not pysically threatening to someone else, would it then become acceptable?

Question for thought: If your grade school son/daughter got drunk at school would you react any differently than if they came home and told you that they were homosexual?

One more thing: If you are truly "tolerant" towards the homeosexual community, why would it make you "uncomfortable" to have your kids grow up homosexual.
Top
Posted by Scot (+46) 16 years ago
Only in Montana would this subject keep coming up.
Where is love they neighbors?
My Wife and I have Children and we love them, no matter what. Even if they were Gay.
We have been taught to treat everyone how we would wanted to be treated. If someone isn't nice to use or our Children, then we just stay away from that person.
It really doesn't matter if a person is Gay, Black, Orange or a different Faith than ours. We give everyone a chance, at least once.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
Richard : Your entire argument about science and biology was invalidated when you said "especially when that behavior violates the design of creation." I don't need to explain why, because if I did then we are to far ideologically to debate this in any beneficial form. I do however respect your opinion.

And yes, in areas where a person grew up gay in an accepted way, not someone who moved there to BE accepted, they are very normal and lack the *snap**snap*snap* bravado of a lot of homosexuals. Again, it is all about the environment.

Duncan:
I'm tolerant, exactly what it means. I tolerate, it sounds harsh but it is the truth. I stated that so you know I am not approaching this from a personal position of zealousness. I don't embrace that lifestyle, I can't ever see myself wanting to live that lifestyle but I understand it isn't a determing factor in how I treat or act towards someone

I am in no way at all racist, descriminatory or otherwise. Someone being black makes no difference to me whatsoever. One of my close friends from my Navy years is black and grew up in Gary, Indiana. I would not want to grow up in his household, his mother cooks to much, his father wasn't around enough and he had too many brothers and sisters for my taste and black households are just different then what I am accustomed too. That lifestyle would have sucked to grow up in. Doesn't mean I am going to hate him for it, or that there is anything wrong with that lifestyle, it's just not my cup of tea. Doesn't change the fact that I would drag him halfway across Hong Kong, while drunk, being chased after by a gang of teen thugs... hypothetically speaking of course... because he was/is my friend and his race had nothing to do with that.

As to your original post. You weren't debating the origination of the issue, that was just an excuse to try and make the post look legitimate. The crux of your post came down to:

"Why then, is it unacceptable for me to live the alcoholic lifestyle?
I have been categorized, shunned by peers, ridiculed by the community, fired from jobs, thrown in jail... talk about oppression."

That is not debating any origins and is ironically almost the answer to itself. The issue is that the part above in bold is that those are results of an alcoholics affects on their environment and the results of the environments affect on the homosexual.
Top
supporter
Posted by Van (+559) 16 years ago
J. and Duncan you both are very intelligent people and you can argue until you are blue in the face- to no avail. Albeit, I believe that this discourse is healthy and is something that Montanans need to think about.

Duncan I agree with J., that when you used the statement, "especially when that behavior violates the design of creation." At that point you threw out your Socratic scientific method of argument and reverted back to Christian rhetoric.

Using versus in the Bible, which you did not, one can make a case against just about everything- from drinking alcohol, masturbation (my personal favorite), to crop rotation. Ya, I said crop rotation, if you do not plant the right crops in the right order you are subject to stoning. (Leviticus: something). J. and Duncan you two are having a great philosophical discussion on the merits of being different keep up the good work and do not let the ignorant masses interrupt your discourse.
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
Van: Check your sources - "Duncan I agree with J., that when you used the statement, "especially when that behavior violates the design of creation." At that point you threw out your Socratic scientific method of argument and reverted back to Christian rhetoric."
I believe that Richard made that statement, not me. You need to put that in context with what he said, not with anything that I said.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1274) 16 years ago
If Duncan, or anyone else for that matter, drinks in a forest and no one is there to see it, does anyone care?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
"Your entire argument about science and biology was invalidated when you said "especially when that behavior violates the design of creation.""

Not really. It is your assumption that I had in mind a Christian viewpoint. Bull are used to breed cows. A steer won't get the job done. A stud horse won't produce a calf. You don't plant corn and harvest radishes. Those are all part of the created order.

There are male and female humans and they need to "breed" in order to have offspring. It is part of the created order. Females don't under any circumstances produce sperm. It is part of the created order.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
"To use science to justify a behavior requires that primary source evidence exists beyond any doubt. In the case of the biology of homosexuality the evidence clearly is lacking. Thus, we are left to conclude that it is a personal choice and the behavior becomes subject to the critic of society, using the belief system used by that society to establish morality."

And the world is flat. I don't like to take sides(lie), but the fact that science has yet to discover that which will be discovered (eventually, it will and people will have to eat crow. And those fake lesbo's will all look like fools.) doesn't make it any less true.

The argument that it's unnatural almost justifies that it is a genetic predisposition. It really is so unnatural that only those predisposed would consider making the "choice" to live the lifestyle. I can't even figure out why women are attracted to me, I can hardly deal with my own grossness.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (edited 2/22/2006).]
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
You are speaking strictly in terms of procreation, not creation. These are seperate idea's altogether. In terms of procreation I will agree that homosexuality does tend to be against the grain. This is of course balanced by other aspects of creation as evidenced by the overpopulation of our planet.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 2/22/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
Who's talking about procreation? Me? Nope.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
Talking to Richard so shut the buck up
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
My bad, my bad.

Now sign up for Fantasy baseball.
Top
Posted by L G (+79) 16 years ago
Jesus hates bigots. He told us to love EVERYONE, even if we cannot condone their behavior. I personally have no feelings about the general gay community, because I believe in interpreting the individual. If you hate or are biased against everyone of a certain persuasion, you miss what the individual can offer.
Loving someone has nothing to do with chemicals in your brain, sicknesses, or the overpopulation of our planet. It has everything to do with who someone is from inception, and who will love them back.
Why bother with it if it isn't about you?
Top
supporter
Posted by Van (+559) 16 years ago
Ok a got the wrong Bonine but the rest remains the same. Sorry. To use philisophical method is to use scientific method no more no less. That means it is Ok to be gay- let it out you been in the closet way to long.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
Jesus doesn't hate anyone. Buck Showalter thinks you're a dumbass though.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1274) 16 years ago
Buck.....HAHAHA

It would appear that in this area of who to love and who not to, some have forgotten the one in the bible.... "thy neighbor". Oh yeah, and "To error is human, to forgive divine."

Now I'm not a bible man by any means, but it would appear to me that some are throwing the bible out there to tell us about who the sinners are, but are conveniently forgetting all the parts that tell us to be tolerant.
Top
Posted by Danny T (+53) 16 years ago
"Jesus hates bigots. He told us to love EVERYONE, even if we cannot condone their behavior."


Is it ok to hate bigots? I thought we were supposed to love everyone.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2816) 16 years ago
For those who believe that there is no scientific evidence to show that being gay/lesbian is biological, I'd suggest you look up (Google) the works of Simon LeVay. His scientific work has demonstrated inherent differences in the brains of gay vs. straight men. Just my 2 cents.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
Thanks for pointing out that author. He is a great example of what I was talking about in terms of the problem of primary source documentation. In the 10 minutes I spent during lunch, I found many references to this authors work that jumped to unsupported conclusions. The following link is a representative sample.

http://www.freetobeme.com/r_biol.htm

One of the problems with his approach is that he used the behavior to isolate the cause. Seems like if this were biological you should be able to look at the brain and predict behavior.

They are going to have a hard time developing a test for free will.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
Yeah, I pretty much disregard any science of homosexuality to this point. I don't believe it will physically manifest itself, but appear as a mutation on a gene. Not that I'm sure "mutation" is the PC word to use.
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
One of the drawbacks to being afflicted with Bonineism (yes it is genetic ) is that it comes with an anticipation for others to be creative thinkers, to be able to see the irony of parallels and to draw inferences from abstract thoughts. I apologize for that expectation.

J. Dyba - I appreciate your willingness to attack the manner in which I present an idea, while avoiding the content of the idea. (As evidenced by your complete failure to address any of the questions that were posed for discussion) You should be aware that it gives you the appearance of being totally non-committal. (Yet you claim absolute tolerance) How nice for you!

Let me connect the dots...

There are two physical, biological conditions in which the affected bodies of both do not produce, process and/or respond to hormones, pheromones, endorphins and chemicals in the same manner as the larger majority of bodies do.

On the physiological level, both conditions are very similar in nature.

Both conditions have apparent scientific evidence to support their existence.

Both conditions have shown some tendencies to have been affected by, or the result of, genetic structure.

Both conditions are widely considered to have been "born-in".

In neither condition, is there a choice made to have been afflicted by said condition.

Obviously, the conditions to which I am referring are homosexuality and alcoholism. For the sake of this analogy, I will consider these collective characteristics to be the "origin" of behavior.

While the origins of these behaviors are nearly identical, the manifested behaviors that result are very much different. Likewise, they are viewed very differently by society.

On one hand, it is widely promoted and accepted that homosexual behavior cannot (because of the characteristics of origin) be changed or controlled. It then (because of the characteristics of origin) has become acceptable behavior.

On the other hand, alcoholism (in spite of the characteristics of origin) has largely been deemed unacceptable. It is understood and even expected (in spite of the characteristics of origin) that an alcoholic choose not to participate in the manifested behavior.

For the sake of literal comprehension, I have to say that I am not drawing this analogy to promote the acceptance of the manifested behavior of alcoholism.

The "crux" of the analogy is this: In spite of the characteristics of origin, the homosexual can choose (as is expected of the alcoholic) not to participate in the manifested behavior of that condition. As is displayed regularly in the lives of alcoholics, the characteristics of origin can be overcome.

In the "Skating Rink" thread, William S. presented this statement:
"1.) The obvious statement, why would anyone choose a lifestyle that makes him/her the target of ridicule and hatred and often alienate him/her from family and friends."

The same can be said for the alcoholic. I cannot imagine anyone waking up one day and saying "Today I want to become an alcoholic. I want to hurt my family & friends, while submitting myself to mass paranoia. I want to destroy my body and give up everything that I have in life."

Neither the homosexual nor the alcoholic intentionally chooses these things to happen, yet they do choose to participate in a behavior that can cause these to happen.

All that said, I recognize that this analogy in and of itself is probably inconsequential, except that is raises a glaring question:

Why, in the face of all of the potential consequences, would anyone choose either life?
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
See, now you are actually debating, instead of baiting. I apologize if you feel I am attacking you, that is not my intent. The first thing you learn in the communications field is that if someone didn't understand you, it's your fault. To that I guess we have both failed To your post though I submit this:

An alcoholic being an alcoholic is physically unhealthy. Scientific fact.

A homosexual being a homosexual is not physically unhealthy. Scientific fact.

Both lifestyles tend to carry a higher level of risk then a normal one, but then you could easily make the case against Skydiving, Lion taming, Shark diving etc etc etc.

Bottom line is that you can try and compare the two because they *Seem* similiar in nature, but when evaluated from an intelligent and objective perspective, they are two completely different issues.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 2/23/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
"A homosexual being a homosexual is not physically unhealthy. Scientific fact."

If this is true why in the United States is HIV infection so much higher amoung homosexuals?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
Without the notion that alcoholism has a biological basis, (and I believe the primary source science supporting that conclusion is lacking) the notion that being gay has a biological basis would have never been postulated.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 2/23/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1274) 16 years ago
Duncan, while I'm not still not clear of what side of the issue you are on, I have to say this:

"On one hand, it is widely promoted and accepted that homosexual behavior cannot (because of the characteristics of origin) be changed or controlled. It then (because of the characteristics of origin) has become acceptable behavior.

On the other hand, alcoholism (in spite of the characteristics of origin) has largely been deemed unacceptable. It is understood and even expected (in spite of the characteristics of origin) that an alcoholic choose not to participate in the manifested behavior."


First, homosexual behavior is not promoted as "acceptable behavior". Many, many people do not "accept". Crimes against a drunk are not considered hate crimes.

Also, while I suppose it could be said that it is "expected" that an alcoholic choose not to participate, there are many programs and facilities designed to specifically assist alcoholics to overcome their behavior.

However, if homosexuality was truely considered "fixable", wouldn't there be some kind of 12 step program?

Step 1 "I accept that I am powerless to the evil feelings brewing inside of me!"

Step 2 "I will make amends with all people close to me that are embarassed by my condition."
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1274) 16 years ago
Richard -

Being homosexual is not unhealthy. Poor choices are unhealthy. Some get it by things they did, others by things out of their control.

Drug users also get HIV, women get HIV, childern get HIV, people who get blood transfusions get HIV.

The Associated Press wrote on Feb 25, 2005:

BOSTON - The HIV infection rate has doubled among blacks in the United States over a decade while holding steady among whites - stark evidence of a widening racial gap in the epidemic, government scientists said Friday.

Other troubling statistics indicate that almost half of all infected people in the United States who should be receiving HIV drugs are not getting them.


Guess being black makes you more likely too.

[This message has been edited by Cory Cutting (edited 2/23/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
Wow Cory, I was going to hit him with those same quotes.

The choice to be homosexual can be made. You can deny your homosexuality and live a traditional lifestyle, but you are no less homosexual than an alcoholic who has recovered. Still an alchoholic.

Also, the alchoholism analogy is not completely verifiable in that brain chemistry may be changed as a result of alcoholism, rather than being measurable before hand.

It's difficult to determine if one is born alcoholic or if nurture plays an important role. If alcohol were never present, it would be a non-issue.
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
Cory: You are correct in your statement "Many, many people do not "accept"." My Bad.

Nonetheless, I maintain that homosexual behavior is increasingly
promoted as "acceptable" especially in the context that it is a behavior that cannot be changed.

Why aren't crimes against drunks considered hate crimes? Hmmm...

I believe that the reason there are recovery programs for alcoholics and not for homosexuals is because of the difference in the physical threat and harm that comes from alcoholic behavior. Because society has determined that an alcoholic lifesyle is unacceptable (because of the physical threat), these programs were implemented. Because society does not consider homosexuality to have the same threat, nothing is done. I think that a 12 step program could be effective to that end, but as there is no physical threat, there is no need.

I have tried to allude to this difference in previous posts, but it was mistaken for the only intent of the post. (I'm kind of new to this whole communication thing)

In my opinion, this does leave a huge void in our (society's) system of determining what is "healthy". I think that a person should have balance between the physical, mental, spiritual and emotional.

While homosexuality doesn't pose the physical threat or harm that is seen in alcoholism, I believe that they both can create severe mental, spiritual and emotional harm, both to self and others.

Buck: If homosexual activity were not entered into, it would also be a non-issue.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1274) 16 years ago
Duncan, So what's the issue here? Are you saying that the gays should be treated and helped to overcome their condition?

Crimes against alcoholics do not happen because they are alcoholic. He might get the 'burning bed' because he drinks and he's an a**hole and beats her, but it's not the drinking that her rage is against. A group of 270 pound guys don't stop down the street from a bar and beat someone just because he's an alcoholic. That may lead to the easiness of him being a target, but that's not why they do it.

And what kind of severe mental, spiritual and emotional harm is caused by being gay? Other than the discomfort people feel from their lack of understanding and acceptance....

If homosexual activity were not entered into, it would also be a non-issue. Well, lets get everyone in a 12 step program if you have a religion you believe in, are in a marrage (though this might be helpful to some!) etc.

Being close minded is not an attractive feature for anyone. Now I'm as conservative as any other right-wing, republican Montanan, but I also think that if it doesn't affect me, let it be. Who am I to say what someone should or should not do in their private lives?
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
Duncan, your view of homosexuality is just so odd to me, to view it as a possible disease that causes harm is very odd to me.

Put 24 alcoholics on an island with access to alcohol and eventually they will all be dead of their alcoholism.

Put 24 homosexuals on an island and eventually they will all be dead of natural causes.

If you can't see the blindingly different set of parameters effecting these two populations (you got me in scientific mode now ) then I am at a loss.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 16 years ago
"One of the drawbacks to being afflicted with Bonineism is that it comes with an anticipation for others to be creative thinkers, to be able to see the irony of parallels and to draw inferences from abstract thought. I apologize for that expectation."

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that was written with an unposted behind it. That is an awfully self-righteous statement. I'm pretty sure that most if not all of the Bonines can quote me at least three biblical passages dealing with God's view of the self-righteous.

Duncan, by the way, your statement "You will not find anyone living an addict, gay or lesbian lifestyle who is truly fulfilled in their life. I know I wasn't." is absolutely not true. How is it that you are able to determine another human being's level of fulfillment? That is an accurate statement for you and you alone. Please look down and take a careful step off of the moral soapbox. It is apparently a steep drop.
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
Since we all seem to be well aware of the physical effects of alcoholism, here's some more food for thought:

http://www.gfcbaltimore.o...Things.htm



Denise: What's wrong with a little morality?

[This message has been edited by Duncan Bonine (edited 2/23/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 16 years ago
Duncan, let's see,

"Moral indignation in most cases is 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy." ~ Vittorio De Sica

"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. So aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." ~ Thoreau

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." ~ H.G. Wells

And my all-time favorite and the reason I mentioned the moral soapbox,

"No author can be as moral as his work and no preacher as pious as his sermons." ~ Jean Paul
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
So then... any level of morality is moral indignation?
Top
Posted by Duncan Bonine (+290) 16 years ago
Is it only societal law (the fact that it is a crime) that keeps you from going out and murdering someone that bothers you?
Top
Posted by Russell Bonine (+236) 16 years ago
Sad to say but its perfectly legal so long as the one which is a bother to you, has a feeding tube.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
"Being close minded is not an attractive feature for anyone." That is really good news. Consider the following:

I believe that sexual relations between a man and a woman in the context of marriage are a gift given by God. He created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Sex is a gift of God. The Bible also states that God gave wine to gladden the heart of man. (Ps104:15) Wine is another gift of God. To misuse any gift of God is sin. The misuse of wine is drunkenness. The misuse of sex is immorality. The misuse of food is gluttony

I am as depraved a sinner as anyone else. I am totally dependant on the grace of God and the imputed righteousness (not self-righteousness) of Jesus Christ to save me from my sin. I don't think of myself as better than anyone. Biblical salvation is a life long process, not a one time event.

I cannot in good conscience be tolerant toward behavior that God calls sin. Such an action violates my conscience and who I am. If that makes me a religious bigot so be it. After all I am not trusting in you for my salvation.

I recognize that most of you consider the Bible as useful as a steer on a sheep ranch. I also know that there are many of you lurking in cyber-space that consider yourselves "Christian", but you would use the "critical-historical" view to interpret the Scriptures. I have a question for you...hopefully I will get some straight answers! If homosexuality does not fall into the category of "sexual immorality"... than what is the Bible talking about when it uses that phrase? What other perversion could it be concerned about?

Okay... I am done now and feel much better, and you know what I think. That and $2.50 will buy you a small cup of Starbucks.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 2/23/2006).]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12372) 16 years ago
Never mind. Nothing I say will ever get through your Bible bubble so I'm wasting my time.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (edited 2/23/2006).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 16 years ago
1.) Duncan, no, my issue is not with morality per se, although I threw in the three famous quotes regarding morality for fun. My real point is expressed in the famous quote by Jean Paul. My comments are more in regard to your manner of preaching morality. I think that the two quotes of yours I have posted are fine examples of a righteous tone that appears to be quite condescending (this may be a consequence of Bonineism, I'm not sure; however, I am sure that many of us who grew up in Miles City did so with Bonines and can understand that "a preacher is never as pious as his sermons" ).

2.) Duncan, I think this is addressed by the above.

3.) Russell, don't be facetious. Oh, maybe that's another symptom of Bonineism.

4.) Richard, I cannot give you a "straight" answer, no pun intended. I find this question very difficult to address. I grew up with a young person who you could tell from the beginning was not like the others I knew, and was never remotely interested in the opposite sex. How can anyone say a five or seven year old has made a conscious decision as to sexuality, when they aren't even old enough to know what that means? How do you rectify this? I look at my seven year old daughter. She has crushes on all the latest cute pre-teen boys on tv and in the movies. It does demonstrate itself at this young of an age. I don't know how to explain it or understand it, but until I can, I am certainly not going to condemn it. It's not my place to. For me, the Scriptures do not override my first-hand experience.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 16 years ago
Heaven is for Bonines
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
Not nice of you to try and play this off as "not a christian thing" causing me to try and debate your issue intellectually. I assumed it was bible-driven but tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now I see I was right in the first place and should have refrained from this conversation. You may not believe in the right of a homosexual to be who God created them to be, only God knows why; but you certainly do not have the right to try and force your belief systems onto other people.

News flash for you; people more corrupt then George W. had their hand in what your current bible looks like, and reads like. If you personally feel gays to be immoral and sinful that is fine and we should respect that. As soon as you start using the bible to justify viewing them as less then people and justifying hateful actions towards them you are overstepping your personal liberties and being a hypocrite.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
Where did I say that I hated gays? I do separate this sin from the sinner, love the sinner hate the sin. Love without accountability and justice is not love.

Maybe I was born with a Biblical world view. I have always been this way.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 2/24/2006).]
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
Perhaps hateful was to strong, you mention sin and immorality and such with suche ease there seems to be little regard for the actual person behind the brand of homosexual.

To go back to your original topic how do you explain the fact that Christianity has killed exponentially more people then alcoholism or homosexuality put together. Following your original logic why do people, when faced with the choice of believing in an ideology responsible for more deaths then any other single thing, still choose to do so?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
I believe that you have to separate the Divine message from the sinful messengers of the time. What happened during the Crusades was wrong. There is no way of justifying their behavior. It should have never happened and I in no way condone their actions.

But just because the messengers did a bad job of delivering the message does not invalidate the message.

For example, just because Nixon was a crook of republican persuasion does not necessarily invalidate the entire republican belief system.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 16 years ago
You just answered the original question. Yay for us!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
When one types out of both sides of their keyboard, it is hard to know what the original question really was. But, if you are happy and think you have won something then good for you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1274) 16 years ago
Amen to Amorette and Denise.

I agree with Amorette, this is not a winnable, or even a worthwile argument to be involved in anymore.

The only question that still rings in my head is what brought this line of thought on? Duncan, did a gay question your alcoholism?

As for "winning" the debate to this point, the score is biblically superior people one, common folk zero.
Top
Posted by Gary Bonine (+98) 16 years ago
we might as well be trying to walk a steer down the stairs.
Top
Posted by Holly (+23) 16 years ago
This is all my fault becuase I prefer vaginas

[This message has been edited by Holly (edited 2/24/2006).]
Top
founder
Posted by KELLY BABCOCK (+187) 16 years ago
Up until now, I've been very proud of myself, and have stayed out of these kinds of loaded discussions........until now:
Holly, it is OK, you are not alone. So do I!!
Sincerely,
Mr. Nathan Kelly Babcock
Top
Posted by Morhead (+123) 16 years ago
HOLLY,

I agree with Kelly. "So do I!"

Mr. Morhead
Top
Posted by Jeremy Orthman (+436) 16 years ago
Richard,


What did you mean by this? ""critical-historical" view of the Bible?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
Jeremy:
The historical critical view uses the "norms of society" to decide whether a concept in the Bible is relevant for today. In the case of homosexuality the historic-critical view would say that the social standards in New Testament times may have been the prohibition of homosexuality and sexual immorality, but what the Bible says about these things is not relevant for today, because we live in a different culture.

One of the the problems with this "methodology" is that it allows you to essentially make the Bible say anything you want. This method of interpretation is how several denominations have come in recent years to change their views on homosexuality, women's ordination, etc. They have changed how they interpret the Bible. It denies many long standing doctrines. If one can pick and choose what Biblical truths they want to believe and those they don't, then God becomes nothing more than a cosmic genie and the message is little more than therapeutic moralism.

I believe that the central purpose of Bible is to show me how sinful I am, persuade me that my sin separates me eternally from God, and then proclaims the good news that Jesus is the one who died and rose again to save me from my sin. It tells me how to live before Him in righteousness. I need a savior, not a cosmic genie.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 2/25/2006).]
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+588) 16 years ago
Wow, you guys in Wyoming are really worried! It's OK, "Brokeback Mountain" is just a movie!
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2816) 16 years ago
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+160) 16 years ago
I would guess that the impetus of the discussion was not about brokeback mountain. It will be interesting to see how Wyoming as a state and the people of Wyoming deal with the new popularity.

It surprises me how quickly everyone likes to say "didn't Jesus say love your neighbor?" He is also recorded saying such things as "Be perfect as your father who is heaven is perfect," (Matt 5:48) and "Get behind me Satan!" (Mark 8:33) If you want to bring Jesus into it, don't get too selective, without acknowledging it.

There has been considerable discussion about whether or not homosexuality can be cured, and if it even should be cured. At one time, homosexuality was listed as a mental/psychological disorder.
Largely because of social pressure and "acceptability", it is no longer listed. Any attempt for a Psychologist to encourage someone who is homosexual to consider changing is in violation of ethical standards. Does homosexuality cause physical harm? (I don't know) Does homosexuality cause emotional/psychological harm? The question cannot be asked or studied because of social pressures.

There have been some attempts at "reforming" homosexuals, but it is highly controversial and not accepted by many people, especially the gay community. It is actually something like the 12 program for alcoholism. The general objection is "why can't people accept me as I am?"

Duncan's comparison of alcoholism and homosexuality is valid, if the idea of a biological/genetic component could be found for homosexuality. Others have pointed out that it hasn't been found YET. The one scientist who claimed he had found a "gay gene" has been questioned because his results have not been replicated. One concern is that his advocacy of homosexuality has biased his research.

Is it possible for there to be a discussion over the "correctness" or morality of homosexuality without it becoming a religious discussion? Only if people are willing to acknowledge where their understanding of morality comes from. For some people, it is the bible. For others, it is community standards. Other people's sense of morality seems to be "whatever makes you happy" Are all these equally valid? From the discussion, it doesn't seem so. If you hold to a biblical understanding, you must be homophobic and hypocritical. (Jon's sarcasm)

If a preacher doesn't live up to their pious message, does that invalidate their message, or make them imperfect like everyone else? Having prepared a sermon or too, any time that the message doesn't cut the preacher to the quick, he isn't doing his job. Is he a hypocrit? Maybe. Or maybe he is a forgiven sinner.
Top
Posted by William S. (+73) 16 years ago
Duncan,

Sorry for the late reply to your first post on this thread. I have been out of town.

Duncan stated, "William S. In the other thread, you posed a series of questions. Ask all of those same questions about an addict and see if you still come up with the same answers."

Okay, my series of questions are summarized as follows:
1.) Why would anyone choose the lifestyle?
2.) Brain response
3.) Physical stereotypes
4.) Sexual confusion from a very young age
5.) Conscious decision

I have re-read my post numerous times, and fail to see how your argument addressed the bulk of my questions. The only comparison I see is to a portion of #2. How does any of the rest relate?

Why would anyone choose the "alcoholic lifestyle"? Let's see, to be the life of the party, to escape from some traumatic childhood event, to escape from a boring, mundane life, to mask feelings of inadequacy, to feel a sense of belonging with a group, to drown out all emotions in general, etc., etc. There are many reasons one chooses to be an alcoholic, and I hate to use this term, as it is absolutely not clearly defined. I have seen some psychiatrists/psychologists define it by actual number of drinks/occasions on which one drinks, and others define it as simply indulgence in alcohol, whatever that means. There is no hard and fast definition of alcoholism. It is what someone deems it to be. This is not the case with homosexuality. It is very clearly defined, and I cannot think of a single reason why someone should choose this lifestyle.

What physical manifestations are alcoholics born with? Hmmm. Perhaps the telltale red, bulbous nose? Nope, that develops years after hard drinking. The pot belly? Nope again. The bloodshot eyes, lack of concentration, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, puffy face, swelling of the liver, etc. etc.? These are all physical effects of alcohol. Are alcoholics born with these traits? No. As I stated in my questions, there is a reason that the sterotype of a gay/lesbian person exists. Because it is so common. We all know what I'm talking about. The extremely feminine nature of a gay man, the sashay, certain fold of the wrist, flick of the hair, lisp and very delicate physical features. The extremely "butch" nature of a lesbian woman. These physical traits are evident at a very early age. I can think of a few kids in grade school right now I would make a bet on. How can this be? Do they know they are gay when they are nine and somehow morph these physical characterics? Explain.

I also addressed sexual confusion from a young age. I have seen this right down to four years of age. Do we have children this young exhibiting confusion with dealing with alcohol? I think not.

I discussed it being a conscious decision. Did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual? Why then would anyone make a conscious decision to be homosexual? And why would it be something to be chosen? What you, and most don't seem to understand, is that to a gay man, the thought of being with a woman is as repulsive as being with a man is to you. There is no choosing one or the other. That is like telling you you are capable of choosing one or the other. I seriously doubt that you would entertain this thought.

Duncan, you posed the question about it being unacceptable for you to live the alcoholic lifestyle. Community pressure, yada, yada. I submit that you could visit the Country Club or Miles City Club any night of the week and see a whole lot of Miles City's finest doing that very same thing, yet being accepted by one and all. A whole lot of alcoholics are functioning alcoholics and continue to hold down jobs and spend time with their families. Again, I guess it comes down to your definition of alcoholic.

Well, this is long enough. Didn't want you to think I was dodging your aim.
Top
Posted by William S. (+73) 16 years ago
Great piece on this very same issue on last night's 60 Minutes, entitled the Science of Sexual Orientation. If you missed, it, check it out here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml

An interesting little factoid from the piece:

While biologists look at hormones for answers about human sexuality, other scientists are looking for patterns in statistics. And hard as this is to believe, they have found something they call "the older brother effect."

"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay," says Bailey.

Asked if that's true, Bailey says, "That is absolutely true."

If this comes as a shock to you, you're not alone. But it turns out, it's one of the most solid findings in this field, demonstrated in study after study.

And the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb.

Now, to my question. How many Bonine boys are there again?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15369) 16 years ago
Which proves Mark Twain's point: "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."
Top
Posted by Sis (+19) 16 years ago
Wow Duncan you sure have opened up a big discussion here. I just wanted to add my thoughts. About a year ago I started working with a lady that is very open about the fact that she is a lesbian. In fact I only worked a few days before I met her partner. It was a few weeks later we (meaning my family) got invited to a BBQ at the ladies home. We had a great time and a friendship was established. She was married for 7 years and has a daughter that is the same age as our girl. She invited our daughter to be on her daughters bowling league...and is very well liked.
Not long after our daughter had started bowling she had an occasion to ask her new found friend where her daddy was...and the girl answered her by stating that she had two mommies...as I watched my darling seven year old ( and holding my breath) she thought for a momment and looked at her new friend and said " Well you are lucky you got two mommies...God must have thought you needed them." Sometimes I feel like when I am searching for answers I find them in the best places... I wish as an adult I could be more like my daughter...so innocent.
I do wonder this though Jon I pose this question to your statement about the preacher and "forgiven sinner" aren't we taught that ALL sinners are forgiven even those whose lifestyles we don't agree with? IE the abusive alcoholic, the open gay/lesbian,and those who are predjudice?
I also don't know why people choose the lifestyles they do, my only consolation on this is that at sometime they will have to answer to this choice; and it is not up to me to judge if they are right or wrong. Have a great week everybody.
Top
Posted by Jon Bonine (+160) 16 years ago
Sis,
All sinners are forgiven. But who wants to be called a sinner? Deep down, I don't want to be called a sinner, even though I am. Is the person who is an abusive alcoholic, and open gay/lesbian or those who are predjudice willing to admit that they are sinners? Are they willing to confess their sins and be forgiven?
Top
Posted by Holly (+23) 16 years ago
[DELETED BY WEBMASTER]
Top
Posted by Morhead (+123) 16 years ago
MY EYES OUCH!!!!!!!!!!




Dear Heavenly Father Please Forgive Me for what I read

Dear Web master Please forgive Holly for what she posted















[This message has been edited by Morhead (edited 3/16/2006).]

[This message has been edited by Morhead (edited 3/16/2006).]
Top
newbie
Posted by Jesus Christ (+11) 16 years ago
[DELETED BY WEBMASTER]
Top
Posted by Eric Brandt (+846) 16 years ago
Quite possibly the poorest taste I have ever observed in my life.

I would ask that the webmaster remove that post and block that user - under ANY other assumed names they may be using.

[This message has been edited by Eric Brandt (edited 3/16/2006).]
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10021) 16 years ago
"Holly" (a/k/a "Jesus Christ") is now spending her time in purgatory.
Top
Posted by Sis (+19) 16 years ago
Wow wish I had not had to be gone yesterday...seems Holly really had something to say!!!
Jon I agree with you as to everybody is a sinner...and guess that was the point I was trying to make. As far as them being willing to confess their sins, well I work in a Hospice enviroment and I see all sorts of different ways people come to terms with the wrongs or sins they have commited in there lives. I have prayed with many people about those very things,and sometimes go away wondering if that was enough;just to be there for them.
Top