I wonder if people ever stop to think that when the bible was written homosexuality may have been a sin, but we have come to a new understanding of homosexuality that was not available at the time the bible was written. Understanding that the bible may have been inspired by god according to Christian belief, it is still the work of men who had little or none of the understanding we have today of the science of sexuality.

Many of the assertions in the bible have been abandon or reconfigured as we learn more about the world we love in through science. Could it be possible that this is just another assertions that how been discovered by science to not make as much sense as it use to?

It seems to me, and others, that we tend to come up with our assumptions than look and seek backing for them in the bible, what would happen if we reversed the process? WOuld out conclusions be the same? Myabe for some they would but others may realize that they use the bible to back their own assertions rather than using the bible to give them assertions and using life and science to back them and make them real.....

Just a thought....

1) There is some irony here.
The author admits to making value judgments based on morality regarding homosexuality, but then complains when others make value judgments about his belief...
Soooo, I guess if we were making value judgments on your belief based on morality, that would be okay then??

2) I think there is a LOT more he should be saying to his OWN side about "diversity"...
Where is the "diversity" in supporting employers who fire people just for being gay?
Where is the "diversity" in recognizing only heterosexual relationships?
Where is the "diversity" in the Republican party which makes it a party platform to bash gay rights?

3) "Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." "
"Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion."
I wonder...
Does he really need me to send him "lots of columns" from the other side of the fence?
Does he really expect us to believe that the folks on "his" side of the fence don't also "want everyone to agree with their "religious" opinion"?

4) "That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards."
The Biblical moral code espouses misogyny towards women, allows for slavery, condemns touching pig-skin, ...
"Doesn't fluctuate"???
Has he READ the bible???

5) "As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine."
I think a requirement of "can be civil" involves civil rights.
Respecting the equality of others.
Generically speaking, how can anybody who espouses somebody else's rights should be limited and discriminated against be considered "civil"?

6) "And please don't compare being homosexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word)."
Interesting how he makes the request, but doesn't address the REASONS WHY people make the analogy...

7) "You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from definitive."
1) Michael Jackson...
2) If people could change their skin color, would that suddenly mean the analogy is valid?
This is a trivial rant that Chris has chosen to fixate on. An analogy involves similar issues being compared, but they are NOT IDENTICAL. Here, Chris focuses on an irrelevant difference while ignoring the similarities.
3) "many scientists on both sides"?
I always get a chuckle when somebody tries to summarize some issue like that. It helps them ignore the fact that the vast majority have come to realize one conclusion based on the facts, and the other side, with just a few people, has no facts and refuses to admit the reality of the situation.

And quite frankly, Chris's summary on the "biological evidence for homosexuality" probably has about as much credibility as Tom Cruise's expertise on psychiatric drug usage...

And contrasting Chris Broussard's comments, a hate-filled response to the same NBA athlete coming-out ...

Former Miami Heat superstar Tim Hardaway: "I hate gay people"

"The five time All Star was asked how he would deal with a gay teammate.

"First of all I wouldn't want him on my team," said Hardaway. "Second of all, if he was on my team I would really distance myself from him because I don't think that's right and I don't think he should be in the locker room when we're in the locker room."

Le Batard took Hardaway to task, pointing out that his comments were 'flatly homophobic' and bigoted, but that only seemed to stir up the former point guard.

"Well, you know, I hate gay people," Hardaway said in response to Le Batard. "I let it be known I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. It shouldn't be in the world, in the United States, I don't like it."

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_045205258.html

Professional sports seems to be one of the last abodes of rampant and hateful homophobia as an acceptable thing. There's no excuse for such statements.

Also on that story...

Hardaway apologized for his comments, which came a week after John Amaechi became the first former NBA player to say he was gay.

"As an African-American, I know all too well the negative thoughts and feelings hatred and bigotry cause," Hardaway said Thursday in a statement issued by his agent. "I regret and apologize for the statements that I made that have certainly caused the same kinds of feelings and reactions.

"I especially apologize to my fans, friends and family in Miami and Chicago. I am committed to examining my feelings and will recognize, appreciate and respect the differences among people in our society," he said. "I regret any embarrassment I have caused the league on the eve of one of their greatest annual events."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ks.ap/?cnn=yes

Originally Posted by jyoshu

"I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I'm not a member of the Religious Right). And I'm against homosexuality (I believe it's a sin) and same-sex marriage.
"LZ and I know where each other stand and we respect each other's right to believe as he does.

As long as it stays a belief and stays out of the law he can believe what he wants.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle. Still, we can laugh together, and play ball together.

As long as it stays a belief and stays out of the law he can believe what he wants.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

That's real diversity. Disagreeing but not being disagreeable.

Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- is that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened.

And this would be true. If he is allowed to have the belief that it is wrong or a sin then others are also free to have the belief that he is an progressive or enlightened

Originally Posted by jyoshu

That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system.

No one is asking him to change his belief system he only needs to keep that belief system out of the law that effects the rights of gay people.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Where's the diversity in that?

Where is the justice for gay people that the law is based upon his religious beliefs and ignors the beliefs of gay people.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion.

Once again he doesn't have to agree with them and he can remain an outdated fossil.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Look, I'll accept your right to have your own belief system and to live as you please, but I'm not changing mine. Diversity is not just accepting alternatives to what has long been perceived as normal, but it's accepting the significant number of people who hold to long-standing "traditional" beliefs as well.

As long as it stays a belief and stays out of the law he can believe what he wants. Stopping gay people from getting married is not accepting our right to live as we please.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Millions of Christians who follow the Bible -- and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many nonreligious Americans -- believe homosexuality is wrong.

As long as it stays a belief and stays out of the law they can believe what they want.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree.

As long as it stays a belief and stays out of the law he can believe what he wants. It means exactly that they are out dated and unenlightened. Just because he has this moral code for himself doesn't mean gay people have to live by it.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

And please don't compare being homosexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word).

It is the effects of homophobia and religious hatred towards gay people that parallels white supremecy towards black people.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from definitive."

There are many scientists that can not find a genetic link to race either.

"he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle."
"are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion"

So, it's fine for Broussard to want others to change, but not for others to want Broussard to change? That's a pretty obvious double standard he's promoting there. If he wants to think that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, that's his right. If he wants to go about expounding on those beliefs, he can do that too. And if people want to think he's unenlightened for holding those beliefs, and they want to say so, then they have that right as well. Broussard is outright saying that he has a problem with anyone saying that his views aren't progressive or enlightened, and yet he clearly has no problem with saying that other people are immoral and sinners. I don't know exactly what "Those folks" have done, but if it's just talking, if it's just telling him that they think he's wrong, then he has no legitimate grounds for complaint. If you want to put your opinions out into the public sphere, than you have to deal with the fact that people may critisize them.

For example:
"That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards."
Enlightenment means to see the light, to come to a new awareness. Clinging to an old moral code tenaciously, despite anything that says you should be reexamining your position, is pretty much the epitome of unenlightenment. Refusal to even consider that you might be wrong, that your beliefs might not be correct, is unenlightened. If your thought process runs something like "My religion says X", and then stops, you are unenlightened. So those millions Broussard is talking about? Yeah, it's probably a safe bet that most of them aren't all that enlightened.

Originally Posted by foundit66

...

Originally Posted by article

6) "And please don't compare being homosexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word)."

Interesting how he makes the request, but doesn't address the REASONS WHY people make the analogy...

What he is saying is that the analogy is invalid...and he is correct.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Originally Posted by article

7) "You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from definitive."

1) Michael Jackson...

2) If people could change their skin color, would that suddenly mean the analogy is valid?
This is a trivial rant that Chris has chosen to fixate on. An analogy involves similar issues being compared, but they are NOT IDENTICAL. Here, Chris focuses on an irrelevant difference while ignoring the similarities.

3) "many scientists on both sides"?
I always get a chuckle when somebody tries to summarize some issue like that. It helps them ignore the fact that the vast majority have come to realize one conclusion based on the facts, and the other side, with just a few people, has no facts and refuses to admit the reality of the situation.

And quite frankly, Chris's summary on the "biological evidence for homosexuality" probably has about as much credibility as Tom Cruise's expertise on psychiatric drug usage...

1)Michael Jackson is painting himself with bleach in an effort to look white. The Tattooed Man is decorating his skin with blue ink in an effort to make a walking billboard of something that is actually nothing more than human skin in one of many available hues. Neither of them is changing what they actually are.

2)If people could change their skin color, you'd have no desire to use the analogy.

Analogies use substitutions for objects related by similar characteristics. It is not valid to substitute objects without similar characteristics. Skin color is a genetic thing. Homosexuality is not.

3)You summarized it with no greater skill. Can you post some credible links showing the "vast majority" of scientists, a concise wording of their conclusion and a list of the 'facts' upon which the conclusion is based?

I am assuming for now that their conclusion is that genetics drives all homosexuality and 'we just can't help who we are and how we act'?

Originally Posted by Kronus

Originally Posted by article

"he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle."
"are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion"

So, it's fine for Broussard to want others to change, but not for others to want Broussard to change? That's a pretty obvious double standard he's promoting there. If he wants to think that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, that's his right. If he wants to go about expounding on those beliefs, he can do that too. And if people want to think he's unenlightened for holding those beliefs, and they want to say so, then they have that right as well. Broussard is outright saying that he has a problem with anyone saying that his views aren't progressive or enlightened, and yet he clearly has no problem with saying that other people are immoral and sinners. I don't know exactly what "Those folks" have done, but if it's just talking, if it's just telling him that they think he's wrong, then he has no legitimate grounds for complaint. If you want to put your opinions out into the public sphere, than you have to deal with the fact that people may critisize them.

For example:
"That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards."


Enlightenment means to see the light, to come to a new awareness.

Clinging to an old moral code tenaciously, despite anything that says you should be reexamining your position, is pretty much the epitome of unenlightenment. Refusal to even consider that you might be wrong, that your beliefs might not be correct, is unenlightened. If your thought process runs something like "My religion says X", and then stops, you are unenlightened. So those millions Broussard is talking about? Yeah, it's probably a safe bet that most of them aren't all that enlightened.

What Broussard appeared to say is that he wants the gay guy to change, the gay guy wants him to change, yet they respect each other's opinions and they laugh and play together. What's wrong with that?

Thinking that Broussard and others who hold his view on this issue are "unenlightened" is a crafty misuse of the term. It it used here by you in the same context as in most definitions I've seen of The Age of Enlightenment that occured in the 18th century. The Age of Enlightenment brought about changes. That does not mean that enlightenment always brings about changes...it means that the enlightened person has learned something s/he didn't know before. The word has been around for centuries and was certainly used prior to the 18th.

If you present irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is 100% genetic and does not involve choice, I will change my view. Otherwise, I remain enlightened by all the facts that a am currently aware of...and I do not accept your claim.

Definitions of enlightened on the Web:
· highly educated; having extensive information or understanding; "an enlightened public"; "knowing instructors"; "a knowledgeable critic"; "a knowledgeable audience"
· having knowledge and spiritual insight;
· disillusioned: freed from illusion
· initiate: people who have been introduced to the mysteries of some field or activity; "it is very familiar to the initiate"
· educated: having or based on relevant experience; "an educated guess"; "an enlightened electorate"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
· A rank above Servant in the Excola order of the Vesperan Church, they answer to the Elders and perform many of the adminstrative tasks of the Church.
memorium.puremagic.com/library/terms.html
· A man who became fully aware of his Stupidity and the necessity of its transformation with the help of Highest.
www.iceshower.info/english/dict.html



en·light·en·ment (ĕn-līt'n-mənt)
n.
1.
a. The act or a means of enlightening.
b. The state of being enlightened.
2. Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. Used with the.
3. Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana.



enlightenment
noun
The condition of being informed spiritually: edification, illumination. See teach/learn.







enlightenment
n
Definition: awareness, understanding
Antonyms: bewilderment, confusion, ignorance, puzzlement



Enlightenment
European intellectual movement of the 17th–18th century in which ideas concerning God, reason, nature, and man were blended into a worldview that inspired revolutionary developments in art, philosophy, and politics. Central to Enlightenment thought were the use and celebration of reason. For Enlightenment thinkers, received authority, whether in science or religion, was to be subject to the investigation of unfettered minds. In the sciences and mathematics, the logics of induction and deduction made possible the creation of a sweeping new cosmology. The search for a rational religion led to Deism; the more radical products of the application of reason to religion were skepticism, atheism, and materialism. The Enlightenment produced modern secularized theories of psychology and ethics by men such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, and it also gave rise to radical political theories. Locke, Jeremy Bentham, J.-J. Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Thomas Jefferson all contributed to an evolving critique of the authoritarian state and to sketching the outline of a higher form of social organization based on natural rights. One of the Enlightenment's enduring legacies is the belief that human history is a record of general progress.

The noun Enlightenment has one meaning:
Meaning #1: a movement in the 18th century that advocated the use of reason in the reappraisal of accepted ideas and social institutions
Synonym: Age of Reason




enlightenment

IN BRIEF: The state of seeing or understanding clearly.

Knowing other is wisdom, knowing yourself is enlightenment. — Lao Tzu (c.604-531 B.C.).



Enlightenment
Quotes:

No one who has lived even for a fleeting moment for something other than life in its conventional sense and has experienced the exaltation that this feeling produces can then renounce his new freedom so easily. - Andre Breton

If I could define enlightenment briefly I would say it is the quiet acceptance of what is. - Wayne Dyer

I don't know Who -- or what -- put the question, I don't know when it was put. I don't even remember answering. But at some moment I did answer Yes to Someone --or Something --and from that hour I was certain that existence is meaningful and that, therefore, my life, in self-surrender, had a goal. - Dag Hammarskjold

In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former. That is why we demand education and knowledge. - Victor Hugo

The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness. - Nikos Kazantzakis

The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition. Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness. The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links. - Arthur Koestler

Enlightenment must come little by little-otherwise it would overwhelm. - Idries Shah




In the Western philosophical tradition, enlightenment is seen as a phase in cultural history marked by a faith in reason, generally accompanied by rejection of faith in revealed or institutional religion.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

What he is saying is that the analogy is invalid...and he is correct.

1)Michael Jackson is painting himself with bleach in an effort to look white.

Invalid! Error! Error! Good ole Michael actually has vitiligo, which causes a loss of pigment in the skin, making it lose its color. It was diagnosed by his dermatologist (he also has Lupus). You seem to have fallen for the old myth of him bleaching his skin.

http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html

Says you: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo
<snip>

Famous people with vitiligo
Michael Jackson, famous singer/songwriter. During court depositions in 1994, both Jackson's dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein and his nurse confirmed that in 1984, Jackson was diagnosed with lupus and vitiligo.

So his dermatologist and his nurse both commited perjury, just to say that he had vitiligo. Riiiiight.

Maybe so! ...just like when O.J. committed perjury to get away with murder!

Can you come up with a significant challenge?

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

What he is saying is that the analogy is invalid...and he is correct.

He is saying the analogy is invalid because differences exist. Which is lame.
EVERY analogy has differences. If they were identical, it wouldn't be an analogy.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

1)Michael Jackson is painting himself with bleach in an effort to look white. The Tattooed Man is decorating his skin with blue ink in an effort to make a walking billboard of something that is actually nothing more than human skin in one of many available hues. Neither of them is changing what they actually are.

Same is true with gays.
Research shows that the "ex-gays" are just suppressing their personal desires, never changing to "heterosexual" at all.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

2)If people could change their skin color, you'd have no desire to use the analogy.

Not true, and I have no idea why you would think that.
Would any aspect of racism or racist discrimination suddenly be changed if people could pick their skin color?

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

Analogies use substitutions for objects related by similar characteristics. It is not valid to substitute objects without similar characteristics. Skin color is a genetic thing. Homosexuality is not.

Wrong again.
Homosexuality IS a genetic thing. Proven so by NUMEROUS research articles.

And note you said SIMILAR characteristics. Not IDENTICAL characteristics.
Ergo, there are some characteristics wihch ARE NOT similar.

Here, you claim "objects without similar characteristics", and then you COMPLETELY IGNORE THE SIMILARITY we are talking about in order to focus on a dissimilarity you want to talk about.
By that technique, NO analogy would be valid. You could invalidate ANY analogy if all you had to do was point to a difference between the two.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

3)You summarized it with no greater skill. Can you post some credible links showing the "vast majority" of scientists, a concise wording of their conclusion and a list of the 'facts' upon which the conclusion is based?

I didn't realize that you needed proof on that.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Quite frankly Jim, can you present ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to show it is not genetic?

Who.....really......cares. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's a choice. Stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of yours. Don't make my relationship out to be worthless and I won't vote to make divorce illegal.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

Skin color is a genetic thing. Homosexuality is not.


If you present irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is 100% genetic and does not involve choice, I will change my view. Otherwise, I remain enlightened by all the facts that a am currently aware of...and I do not accept your claim.

There is considerable evidence that homosexuality is at least partly heritable.

What would, for you, constitute "irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is 100% genetic and does not involve choice" ?

And, if you were given that evidence, in what way would that change your opinion of homosexuality?