|
|
|
|
A sort of funny thought crossed my mind looking at the first line of your thread here:
>Now that I'm in a relationship that is pretty much everything I could ever hope for, why do I still want to be with other guys?
* My answer: Because the relationship is not actually everything you could ever hope for & dream of.. so the mind naturally wanders & keeps looking..
* Have you ever looked long before making a large purchase? After you'd decided & bought the item, didn't you still look at little more?? Just to be sure you were happy with what you'd gotten? I sure have, agonizingly at times..!
Hope your happy! Tell us how you'd met your someone special in my new thread GAYDAR!
Thanks, TeddyB. 
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I didn't mean to come across as hostile to you as an individual, though I cannot deny that I am very hostile to the activities of the religious right.
The rest of the Western world accepts the overwhelming medical and psychological evidence that homosexuality is neither a choice nor an illness. It has not yet been established whether it is purely genetic, a consequence of some post-conception event or a combination of both factors, but it IS accepted that it cannot be cured and that attempts to interfere with orientation may lead to severe psychiatric damage. The religious right condemns homosexuals as an abomination and campaigns against any move to extend to them the same rights as heterosecxuals.
Though my country is very far from perfect, it does now have strong laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. I admit that the race and sex regulations (which have been in place for some time) have occasionally been misused in a way which amounts to 'positive discrimination'; to me, discrimination of ANY kind is utterly abhorrent and I hope that the orientation laws are not tainted in the same way. We now also have legislation which gives same-sex civil partnerships the same rights as married couples; one of the first couples to take advantage of the new law included an Anglican (=Episcopalian) clergyman from my own locality.
Though I reject the validity of their beliefs, I accept the right of creationists to worship as they wish. I would accept that right in relation to any belief system, so long as it did not infringe the freedom of those whose beliefs are different. The American religious right does not extend that courtesy to others; it actively condemns and campaigns against policies which do not seek to interfere with its own religious beliefs but simply seek to improve the human rights of those who do not share them. It jealously guards the Constitutional separation of religion from the State when it perceives any State interference with religion, but does not hesitate to attempt to use religion to influence the course of government.
Ken, I will happily discuss with you any subject under the sun, and I bear you no ill-will whatsoever. However, viewing the present topic from my standpoint, the pain that has been caused to innocent - and in view of social pressures, often reluctant - homosexuals by the religious right makes it very difficult to feel much sympathy for their sensibilities when it comes to the use of the word 'marriage'. I accept that this issue is of little importance in itself, and that negotiation on the point might well be possible - but concessions and accommodations are made where there is a mutual desire to find middle ground - and I see no sign of any wish on the part of the religious right to attempt any form of compromise.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This message is possibly redundant, now that Cossie has replied to the parent post, but as this is an open discussion I assume it is okay to draw upon one of his points in a little more detail.
You say --
>You fellows just don't seem to understand me at all as most of you assume I am hostile to all you believe.
-- presumably meaning me, Cossie, and everyone else who has argued in favour of evolution or against the agendas of certain organised religious groups.
Ken, I must point out that several times you have also assumed me to be hostile to everything you believe, when in fact it is far from the case -- even when I have repeatedly pointed it out to you. On almost all subjects, there is potential middle ground, provided you're willing to consider our point of view. However, your consistent failure to concede points -- even when you are proven, factually, to be wrong -- indicates to me that you are not really interested in doing that. That makes intelligent discussion very difficult.
I know I said I would rather steer clear of these topics, but I am not referring to any specific issues; only to your way of thinking, which would apply whatever topic we were discussing.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would have replied earlier to you both but I wasn't able to get to the board here until I was helped by Tim as I was a victim of some sort of misdirection of sorts.
Well certainly guys if I really have given you the impression I haven't conceeded anything to your point of view, I appologize to you. I dont necessarily agree that I have been proven to be factually wrong as you stated here: "On almost all subjects, there is potential middle ground, provided you're willing to consider our point of view. However, your consistent failure to concede points -- even when you are proven, factually, to be wrong -- indicates to me that you are not really interested in doing that."
What this means to me is that unless I do concede that I am totally wrong on those points and that my opinion is not even worthy of consideration, then you would be considering a middle ground. This middle ground as you are stating it does not seem to have room for me to stand on it.
I have also repeatedly stated that I did concede to some of your views on things and that I have not rejected it "lock stock and barrel" as some would say I have. I do have an open mind and I do not also make a snap judgement but would like to be able to consider the point you made and take another look at things. If I never did that, I would not be at this place at all.
What does hurt me is that I tend to get lumped in with all those who are right wing bigots and I am glad to see that cossie does not necesarily view me as one. Thank you very much for saying that you dont think that of me as it causes me a lot of feelings of worthlessness and all those things that I felt as a kid. I cant exactly explain that whole thing to you as to how it makes me feel, but it does cause me to feel a lot of rejection. I am not able to give the words here to explain it and I hope you can understand what I am getting at.
I am prone to argue with the guys I know from Courage too as I dont readily accept everything from the religious point of view either. I cannot stand the test of what it would mean to be Catholic nor really to be Lutheran although that is the church I attend. I dont agree with much more than the basic idea of what it means to be a Christian...........like it probably was when Jesus first died and before all the power struggles tended to pervert some of the message He gave.
I will probably try to write some of this down at a later time to explain what I do believe in exactly and then I will welcome all you guys to give me all the reasons I am probably wrong. It is just not easy to explain it all. I am conflicted in a lot of ways but I always felt that God didnt have much to do with it. Well, more on this whole mess I call my life at a later time.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken,
I agree with your views in some ways: you will notice that I have not commented on the "marriage vs. marriage-substitute" debate, as I do not feel very strongly one way or the other. (However, I am in full agreement with Cossie over the hijacking of the political definition of marriage for religious purposes.) It's unlikely, though, that I will say, "Bravo! Good post!" because I worry that, if I do, I will be assumed to believe the same things as you. Which, I am afraid, I already know I do not. The lack of such posts does not mean I am at odds with you over everything, even though it may seem that way.
I won't quote from your emails, as obviously they are private and I don't have any right to post them on a public forum. But the reason I find it so difficult to talk to you is that you keep switching tack -- you will drop an issue and suddenly raise another, then when I reply to that one you move on to another without allowing us to come to either an agreement or an agreement to disagree on what we have already said. That method never lets us come to the root of any of your or my beliefs, which is possibly why we continue to misunderstand each other.
If you look at what I have said to you in the past, I have said things like (paraphrasing): "I have no problem with you believing that there is a God", "I accept that there is no evidence that God does not exist", "There may well be grave problems with evolutionary theory as it is at the moment" etc. If it does not count as middle ground for me, as an atheist and a scientist, to say things like that, I don't know what does. I have no problem with discussing theological issues as if God does in fact exist (though I will usually put a disclaimer that I don't think he actually does) but you don't seem to be able to achieve the rudimentary mental gymnastics required to do that in a consistent manner.
Regards,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
As you accept in your letter, in no way am I hostile to you. My hostility is directed at the religious right and its activities, which I see as being potentially a very real danger to world stability. Creationist beliefs are an integral element of fundamentalist Christianity, and as you at least tentatively subscribe to those beliefs, I suppose you inevitably get caught in the crossfire - but I'm shooting at the political application of the idea, not at you as an individual!
Religious liberty is allegedly a pillar of the American Constitution, but the right demands liberty for itself while seeking to deny freedom to others. An appalling example is the attempt to enforce teaching of 'intelligent design' as if it were science. It isn't scientific, because it does not meet the rigorous scientific requirement that a theory must be capable of proof, and ultimately of disproof. I would not have a problem with the teaching of 'intelligent design' as part of religious studies - provided, of course, that it was acknowledged as only one of a wide spectrum of Christian belief systems - but equating the theory with science is gross misrepresentation.
As I said in my previous post, I accept everyone's right to seek a creed of their choice - PROVIDED that it does't infringe the freedom of others to think differently. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church was guilty of appalling crimes against humanity - for example, the Albigensian 'Crusade' and the Spanish Inquisition - in pursuit of its claim to be the only true interpreter of Christianity. Despite the enormous scientific - and indeed theological - advances of the intervening centuries, the US religious right is eagerly promoting the same claim, and in the interests of peace and humanity its doctrines must be firmly opposed.
On a more personal note, perhaps I might comment on the recent exchanges between yourself and Deeej? When discussing general principles or broad theories, there is - given goodwill on both sides - always room for middle ground. It's when we discuss facts that the shades of grey disappear. In simple terms a 'fact' is a bite-size piece of information that is either true, or is false. The conventions of intelligent discussion demand that facts should be mutually accepted or rejected; they cannot be allowed to hang in the air. Thus, as an example, let's look at the 'Lucy' discovery. You said that 'you knew for a fact' that it consisted only of a jawbone. Deeej and I contend that as a question of fact the discovery included more than 40% of a complete skeleton. We can't reasonably proceed beyond that point until all parties agree which view (or an alternative view) is correct. There are any number of independent archaeological reports available on the internet, but you have merely said that you will think about the matter. Logical development of the discussion is impossible until you respond. Again, I stress that this isn't in any sense an attack on you - for a 'creationist' you seem to have a remarkably open mind! - it's simply a question of developing a discussion in a logical, sequential manner.
I very much hope that arguing about the fundamentals of life does not prevent us from being friends!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey David and Cossie I definitely want your friendship and I am going to look into that Lucy thing as soon as I have a chance. I shouldnt really be here writing this at the moment, but I should be doing my taxes and doing all the stuff for the end of season for my two bowling leagues where I am secretary. I do think we have a lot more in common about things than otherwise and I will make an effort to try to look at that instead of trying to pick at the differences.
I really do actually agree with you about intellegent design as when I have seen it presented by some of my own leaders in my church I was highly critical of it and was probably one of the only persons to find fault with it. Just because I dont accept evolution as some kind of absolute truth does not mean I embrace intelligent design wholely either. I am just a lot more simplistic about creation than that. I dont think God went about "fine-tuning" things with the result we have evidence of "evolution" as is the explanation being given by those who favor intelligent design.
Like I have said, I promise to take some time about the Lucy thing as it is a profound point that I picked on and I will either prove my point of view or acknowledge what you said.
I am happy to see you do understand a lot of what I say and you do have the right to reject it of course. I am satisfied enough to be understood at least. Thanks. More later in the week I hope.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Fidelity is no guarantee that a relationship will last. That takes mutual hard work.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Fidelity is no guarantee that a relationship will last. That takes mutual hard work.
There are no guarantees of any sort reguarding anything that involves people and their relationships....
But.... not screwing around is certainly a step in the right direction at making a relationship work.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
HI Saben, 
