It's All a Blur to Them (Dressing across genders)

[galia]

I'd like to add that I'm 100% for the rights of gay people to civil marriage. I don't think it means much anyway, but if it legalizes their union and gives them the same rights as straight couples I think they should have it. Just don't try to reform religion, it's not concerned with the same plane of existence

I have contributed this to correct some lazy intellectual shortcuts that were used to bash religions. However, I feel it is best to keep one's beliefs on a low key in an intellectual debate, as it can easily be perceived as bible thumping and is more detrimental than helpful to the cause you are trying to promote zam. You can defend the soundness of your position without bringng god into it explicitly. I don't know why believers don't see that this is in most cases detrimental to their case (if convincing is the goal. If it isn't then fine)

[LittleTombo]

Galia:
Where did I write that slavery was born from religion? I don't think homophobia or sexism is born from religion either.
Bad human behaviorism is the mutter of all bad things going on in this world.
...regarding the excisting slavery going on right now- I'd like to point out that it's just another good reason to not shop at H&M.

Peace

[galia]

I'm happy to see that agreement can be acheived on here, at least on the important stuff

[casem]

I've stayed out of this cause Zamb and I have gotten into it before and had to agree to disagree. I suppose there is no arguing faith because by it's own definition it defies logic, so I'm not sure we can get anywhere with this argument. I do appreciate the valiant efforts in defense of us homosexuals by so many members. Much of the following is not necessarily directed at Zamb or a reaction against anything in particular he has said, it's more general thoughts on the debate going on.

On the civil rights vs. gay rights debate. Yes, of course they aren't the same, but I also don't think it's offensive to make a comparison. Of course I can never understand the systematic repression that African Americans experienced (and still experience) but neither can a straight person understand all the implications of being a gay person in America. Just like other minorities, I'm aware of my "otherness" every single day. I'm aware that if a parent has strong feelings against gay people, I may lose work as a teacher, I'm aware that I have to call my boyfriend "roomate" when looking for a 1 bedroom together, even getting denied because 2 people can't split a one bedroom (unless of course it was a boy and a girl). I'm aware that I can't hold my boyfriends hand in public or do any of the other fun things that legitimize a couple in public without facing harassment and being ready for a fight. Yes, it's not the same as being black, but I also think it's easy to underestimate how difficult it can be.

Furthermore, I would think a group of people that have been systematically repressed would be especially sensitive to others who are being treated similarly. I think if I wasn't gay, I wouldn't be nearly as aware as I am of other disenfranchised groups, from women, to African Americans, to people of low social class. So I'm always disappointed when I don't get the same compassion from across the (a)isle. But I suppose it's true that the powerful stay in power by turning the powerless against each other, just look at all the crime in low income neighborhoods against other low income people.

On marriage, Galia I get what you're saying about making intellectual arguments in a debate, not faith based ones and I agree. But I disagree with your assessment of marriage. This first problem is, once again you refer to "religious marriage." I'm not fighting a churches right to be as exclusionary as it wants to be, the problem is that marriage is also a state sanctioned institution that comes with a whole slew of rights for the couple. I can't believe gay marriage is even a debate because it's such an obvious violation of separation of church and state, but I'm not surprised, our country was a Theocracy less than a year ago. Further, the idea that there is such a thing as "traditional" marriage is a myth. The current idea of boy meets girl, falls in love, makes a baby is a rather modern invention. Marriage during biblical times and until recently was about power. Women were dependent on men and needed to find one and engage in this social contract to exist. Also, marriages were most often fixed, had nothing to do with love and were a means for families to move within social structures using their beautiful daughters as collateral. To think that marriage is a fixed tradition unmoved by time, or any religious idea for that matter, is a fallacy. It's function and purpose has changed drastically and continues to change to this day. But, from the moment legal rights got wound up in marriage, all couples deserved same the right to be married.

Of course we could take away all legal rights that accompany marriage as Zamb has implied, but one, that will never happen and two, I tend to fall toward granting more rights, not less.

Marriage is just a drop in the bucket toward full equality of all disenfranchised people (gay or not) so sometimes I feel weird defending it so vehemently. It should hardly be the end point of the gay rights debate, but I'm not one of those radical queers who thinks gays shouldn't strive for marriage. Like I said before, the more rights the better, so if people want to be married and gain the same rights as every other citizen in marriage, they should have that option.

I also just want to say that I think Zamb is a good person. I can see the internal struggle in his sometimes contradictory posts between being the compassionate, tolerant person he wants to be and following the religious doctrines he believes. Personally, I couldn't live with such a conflict and would have to drop one (and it wouldn't be the compassion). But, I know religion is important to people, but it's difficult to see when it forces people into conclusions they know are wrong.

I have a ton more to say, but I'll stop here, I know sure any of this does any good or is appropriate here...

[galia]

I think you have failed to see my distinction, as what you are talking about is the social application of religious marriage. I was speaking in terms of the essence of what the christian marriage is and why is cannot apply to gays. However, there is a separation on churchband state and there is no reason for gays not to be able to marry civilly

Btw your generalisations on traditional marriage are true only in part, as history has a way of being varied and changing

[LittleTombo]

Galia
"Religious marriage is based in large part on the idea of natural procreation, the couple becoming one and in producing a child are like an image of god creating mankind. Since a gay couple needs a third party to procreate, it wouldn't make any sense"

^^Btw your generalisations on religious marriage are true only in part, as history has a way of being varied and changing ^^

[galia]

I was speaking of christian marriage which hasn't varied at its core. Its social applications have, but what it IS deep down is that. You don't have to believe me, you can look it up. I didn't think something as basic as the distinction between the essence of something and its empirical existence would be so hard to grasp

[LittleTombo]

Procreation
You still have to be able to procreate in order to get married?
A couple,who by various reasons have chosen to adopt a kid instead of producing one by themselves can't get married in the year of 2009?
What about Old people?
what about divorse?.."Till death do us part" etc etc etc

luckily christianity isn't as black and white as your trying to make it
society evolves--religious institutions evolve--and thank God for that.

[Fuuma]

This thread is amazing. Fuuma, I really admire the construction and expression of your ideas. Look forward to getting my hand on a few of the books noted in here.

edit: I think best to ignore zamb's opinion.

I was re-reading this thread because it was bumped and must say I disagree with that. Zamb's idea must be engaged for a few reasons, IMHO:

1) Past experience and contribution; he's not some random guy but a forum e-friend so why not show ourselves this courtesy. I understand that I'm presenting a fallacy within the context of traditional rhetorical rules but SZ is mainly friendly territory so let's be nice.
2) He discusses them in a civil manner and provides explanations and examples not the constant reiteration of a talking point.
3) The things he says and believes in are very common and all-around us so acting like there isn't a significant portion of the pop that thinks like that isn't productive, there is a need for dialogue, we can't act like millions of people simply don't exist because we'll have to interact with them anyway.
4) I prefer engaging people whom I disagree with, we might all learn something.

[Fuuma]

Yeah, they're going straight to hell with those who wear mixed fabric.

And the gluttons, I am eating while I type this and must say the gluttons are destroying the fabric of modern society.

[Fuuma]

what is the point of you asking me to "correct you if you are wrong" when you have already ascribed a presupposed belief to me..............
How do you know what happens in my mind, with respect to hell or any other such concept whether real or imagined?
Also, the word "fag" or any variation of it is not a part of my vocabulary, as I find such words to be disrespectful and derogatory, so I would appreciate that if you want to have a conversation (which I have no problem doing) that you would communicate in a civil and respectful manner...............................

Fag comes from "faggot" (french fagot) and initially designated small pieces of wood that were used to start a fire. That's because religious authorities along with their secular counterpart thought it was a good idea to burn them. I'm not saying you share their ideas but if you stick closely to the old/new testament texts and decide to take them as gospel their interpretation is as defensible as the more moderate one you have and they share the same DNA.

Some of Paul's letters can also clearly be used to have a similar attitude towards Jews...

I guess what I'm saying is that there are multiple and contradicting things you can get out of the Bible and I have a hard time seeing as to why the focus on homosexuals is so strong in the Christian community, if I rely solely to sacred texts to find meaning.

[zamb]

Casey,

Ive been busy and away from the forums in part because I have a few deadlines to meet,
However, , I must say that I really appreciated your post. While there are many aspects of it that I disagree with, i think there isn't any point in restating them. What I do like about it is the time you have taken in stating your positions in a respectful and civil way.While there may be disagreements between us on a particular aspect, albeit an important one, more than anything else, we out to see each other as Humans first, and recognize the fact that we share and interact on a multiplicity of levels, with sexuality only being one of them. I would like to think that if ever we should meet in person, we could share and interact, even amidst out different perspectives, that if you ever come to new york again to do a concert, I could attend without our disagreements becoming an issue.
After all, we do interact here on the forums, and this thread is only one among thousands.

Also, I would like to say that there is no contradiction between the religious doctrines I believe and the compassion that I have for my fellowmen.
Compassion is at the very essence and core of my religious beliefs, it is my religious beliefs that at many times allow me to remain calm and compassionate even when my human nature and instinct is telling me otherwise.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who willingly gave his life for the salvation of mankind, if His love was so great, how then could I be a follower without being compassionate?
One of the last things he did before he died, was to ask forgiveness for those who were crucifying him! " (Father, forgive them for they know not what they do- Luke 23:34).
We also remember the story of the good Samaritan,(Luke 10:23-37) which shows us that even those we disagree with, are capable of great acts of love and compassion, and sometimes those we expect to be there for us, can disappoint us in our greatest time of need.

these examples among many, shows us that we have a great responsibility, to show love, not just to those who agree with us, but even (at times) those who are in opposition to us. And I will tell you this, ANYONE, who would disrespect you, maliciously sabotage you and show you hatred because of a disagreement is not living in the spirit of Christ. to disagree with something and to honestly express ones disagreement, and respectfully give reasons why is certainly not the same thing as hate...............

[zamb]

Fag comes from "faggot" (french fagot) and initially designated small pieces of wood that were used to start a fire. That's because religious authorities along with their secular counterpart thought it was a good idea to burn them. I'm not saying you share their ideas but if you stick closely to the old/new testament texts and decide to take them as gospel their interpretation is as defensible as the more moderate one you have and they share the same DNA.

Some of Paul's letters can also clearly be used to have a similar attitude towards Jews...

I guess what I'm saying is that there are multiple and contradicting things you can get out of the Bible and I have a hard time seeing as to why the focus on homosexuals is so strong in the Christian community, if I rely solely to sacred texts to find meaning.

At best there is sketchy evidence to show that homosexuals were burnt at the stake for such acts. I do know the origin and meaning of the word, but in our modern American sense, I don't use it because I consider it disrespectful, or at least can be perceived as such.........
There is more evidence to show that those who were considered heretics (many of which were Christians that didn't subscribe to the Roman Catholic and Imperial Romes interpretation (and blatant misuse and disregard) of the scriptures

While there may be inconsistencies and seeming contradictions in the scriptures, its message and theme is clear to anyone who takes the time to study and understand it, and as such there is no denying or misunderstanding its message(s). whatever inconsistencies and contradictions there seem to be, are so minimal, as one has to "major in the minors" to make any issue with them.
Paul was a Jew, with an endless love for the Jews and Jewish tradition. I would love to see some of the examples of his writings that you think have such attitudes.

One of the fundamental mistake that many Christians and Westerners make is the fail to see the validity of Judaism in relation to Christianity, for me there is no disconnect between the two faiths, as Jesus Christ was, as a human, a Jewish Rabbi. The core of the apostle Paul's lifework, (and many of the earlier apostles) was to bring the message of Judaism, as clarified by Jesus Christ, to the World at large. the covenant was (and is) still valid, all that Christianity did was to broaden the covenant from a single nation, to encompass the whole world, and to take the natural application of its principles and show that they have universal (transcending time and location) spiritual value.

For me, homosexuality, is just one thing among many, I cannot speak for other Christians/ Churches, but I don't see it as any greater than the other things the scriptures speak against, I must admit that there is some amount of hypocrisy among many Christians, as things like, sex before marriage, Greed (not gluttony, but materialistic greed) have become acceptable norms................
the problem we have among many churches is that sometimes people try to interpret the scriptures to fit their life instead of living a life thats in line with the scriptures

Also, I don't see how one could be a christian without accepting the sacred text, as they are the most comprehensive source (with few extra biblical writings) that we have of the life and work of Jesus.

[LittleTombo]

For me:
-Christianity is at it's core a pagan,sunworshipping religion just as so many other religions throughout history(just look at the history of the cross, one of the most ancient symbols in the history of the world).
-The Catholic church in rome with a phallic obelisk in the middle and a Hitler Jugend pope on top is something that I could never support.

I believe in God. I don't believe in the religious institution. Religion is what seperates us in our eternal quest to unify as human beings and connect with one another.What are you? male or female?straight or Gay?BI?Maybe even Bi curious? .Constantly putting labels on eachother is just getting us nowhere slowly.

Various religious scriptures are completely irrellevant when what is boils down to is that we are all one and the same. And why then shouldn't we all have the same rights?And think that everyone else deserves the same benefits as ourselves?

The concept of love has noting to do with Jesus.

Male and Female energy is represented in each and every human being.It's called the right and the left brain(or Ying and Yang whatever you wanna call it). Our procreative tools has nothing to do with what we as human beings are at the core= one and the same.

People in the military wear uniforms,people in the police wear uniforms.
I would never wear a uniform based upon my sex. What's the point?
I can recognize a human being when I see one.

[zamb]

For me:
-Christianity is at it's core a pagan,sunworshipping religion just as so many other religions throughout history(just look at the history of the cross, one of the most ancient symbols in the history of the world).
-The Catholic church in rome with a phallic obelisk in the middle and a Hitler Jugend pope on top is something that I could never support.

I believe in God. I don't believe in the religious institution. Religion is what seperates us in our eternal quest to unify as human beings and connect with one another.What are you? male or female?straight or Gay?BI?Maybe even Bi curious? .Constantly putting labels on eachother is just getting us nowhere slowly.

Various religious scriptures are completely irrellevant when what is boils down to is that we are all one and the same. And why then shouldn't we all have the same rights?And think that everyone else deserves the same benefits as ourselves?

The concept of love has noting to do with Jesus.

Male and Female energy is represented in each and every human being.It's called the right and the left brain(or Ying and Yang whatever you wanna call it). Our procreative tools has nothing to do with what we as human beings are at the core= one and the same.

People in the military wear uniforms,people in the police wear uniforms.
I would never wear a uniform based upon my sex. What's the point?
I can recognize a human being when I see one.

your arguments are either not very well thought out, or not articulated properly,
there are numerous things you say that misses an essential point.
however, in the interest of time, can yo explain what do you really mean, in the two points I highlighted?