A Change of Protocols for the Tol Eressëa Forum
What Cerin said.Cerin wrote:I think you are an absolutely tremendous person and I enjoy your company and admire you terrifically.
Impenitent - you and I may not have talked much on the MBs - you're one of those posters about whom I think, 'oooh, she's interesting and intelligent'
and yet somehow I never seemed to end up talking to much, because I think we seemed to mostly inhabit different forums - but I would certainly miss your posts if you left. Funny old world, the internet community, isn't it ... some people you get to know really well, other people are really cool but it's more like passing them in the corridor rather than engaging with them ...
Anyway. If you read this ... you will be missed.
Hey, Hal!
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
narya - I just figured out the was to me (I think?) on the previous page. Thank you, and sorry if I seemed to be ignoring you.
Also, I appreciate the very gentle nudge re: my words on adultery. I was speaking in theoretical terms about something with which I have no experience (normally a good reason to refrain from using broad, condemning language), and I'll edit my post accordingly. I was unnecessarily harsh. But I do see adultery as part of a very different genre of acts than homosexual acts occurring within a committed relationship, and I will continue to object to any analogy drawn between the two. And, for clarity, I'm not condemning homosexual or heterosexual intimacy outside of marriage/committed partnership either, but I'm trying to distinguish those because I realize that some others are more likely to condemn casual intimacy even if I'm not.
The rest of your post was excellent; one of the finest in this thread.
Holby - I'm happy to start separate threads but I'm not sure what you want to see more discussion on. I can start a thread entitled "Holby's questions and comments about homosexuality and religion" if you'd like, but maybe you could provide a more specific topic
Di - of course sexuality is more complicated than the two poles of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Not only do I believe that, I think that gender is more complicated than the two poles of male and female, and that trans issues are integrally linked to these questions about sexual orientation and morality as well. I started several threads back in Manwë on the morality of bisexuality, the concept of multiple genders, and related matters. However, many heterosexuals seem to struggle with the morality of the simplest, textbook case of "pure" gay and lesbian individuals - 6s on the Kinsey scale. In light of that, I tend to hold off on introducing any of the fascinating questions of morality and identity pertaining to the rest of the GLBTQIQPALPHABETSOUP community unless people are really explicitly interested in discussing them. I didn't mean to espouse a monosexual (hetero/homo only) view of sexuality. Just that it's easier to discuss single variable calculus before multivariable.
Cerin -
Once more with feeling, here's what I meant about disingenuity.
1. I find the view in question disingenuous.
2. It is my personal belief that history will find the view in question disingenuous - just as, for instance, history now finds the assertion, "Interracial marriages are immoral" not to be a valid/acceptable/nonbigoted/nonhateful religious belief.
3. However, for me to label an individual person disingenuous is for me to view them as "calculating" or "lacking in simple frankness" - again, according to the dictionary. That I am not willing to do. Hence, my wording choice, on which you picked up.
Regarding my assertion, "That's not love; that's hate," I find the interracial marriage example again instructive.
A religious white person in the early 1960s might have stated in all sincerity, "I don't hate people who choose to act on their attraction to members of different races. However, I sincerely believe that God initially placed the races on different continents for a reason, and I believe that they were not meant to intermingle. For this reason, I believe that these people are making an immoral choice, which I hate and view as evil. Indeed, they are doing something that I believe is unnatural - that goes against God's very design for humanity. But still, I feel only the utmost love towards the people involved."
In 2006, it's likely that we're all united in thinking two things about such a belief:
1. That's not an acceptable belief, and reformulating it as a "religious" belief does NOT make it any the more acceptable.
2. It has hate-based antecedents. It's racist.
Guess how I think people are going to view "religious beliefs" that condemn loving, committed homosexual relationships that include physical intimacy as "evil", "immoral", or "sinful" in 2056. One way rachet.
Well, yes. But, where these people view heterosexual intimacy as something to be celebrated within marriage, at least, they view homosexual intimacy as something to be condemned at all times. That's not an insignificant difference. The woman who is having premarital sex with her boyfriend can choose to transform her relationship into something that these people view as celebration-worthy via marriage and its accompanying commitment. But the woman who is having sex with her girlfriend cannot make any commitment to her girlfriend, in these people's eyes, that validates and legitimizes a physical expression of their love. At least to say that these people hate homosexual relationships does not seem to me to be stretching too far. It's not merely "an act" they are condemning, but, again, they are condemning and delegitimizing the most important relationship in a homosexual's life. To me that seems to be a clear, potent manifestation of hate - one which I understand, as I contended with religion-based homophobia myself even before I had occasion to question my own sexuality.
was to me (I think?) on the previous page. Thank you, and sorry if I seemed to be ignoring you.Also, I appreciate the very gentle nudge re: my words on adultery. I was speaking in theoretical terms about something with which I have no experience (normally a good reason to refrain from using broad, condemning language), and I'll edit my post accordingly. I was unnecessarily harsh. But I do see adultery as part of a very different genre of acts than homosexual acts occurring within a committed relationship, and I will continue to object to any analogy drawn between the two. And, for clarity, I'm not condemning homosexual or heterosexual intimacy outside of marriage/committed partnership either, but I'm trying to distinguish those because I realize that some others are more likely to condemn casual intimacy even if I'm not.
The rest of your post was excellent; one of the finest in this thread.
Holby - I'm happy to start separate threads but I'm not sure what you want to see more discussion on. I can start a thread entitled "Holby's questions and comments about homosexuality and religion" if you'd like, but maybe you could provide a more specific topic
Di - of course sexuality is more complicated than the two poles of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Not only do I believe that, I think that gender is more complicated than the two poles of male and female, and that trans issues are integrally linked to these questions about sexual orientation and morality as well. I started several threads back in Manwë on the morality of bisexuality, the concept of multiple genders, and related matters. However, many heterosexuals seem to struggle with the morality of the simplest, textbook case of "pure" gay and lesbian individuals - 6s on the Kinsey scale. In light of that, I tend to hold off on introducing any of the fascinating questions of morality and identity pertaining to the rest of the GLBTQIQPALPHABETSOUP community unless people are really explicitly interested in discussing them. I didn't mean to espouse a monosexual (hetero/homo only) view of sexuality. Just that it's easier to discuss single variable calculus before multivariable.
Cerin -
Once more with feeling, here's what I meant about disingenuity.
1. I find the view in question disingenuous.
2. It is my personal belief that history will find the view in question disingenuous - just as, for instance, history now finds the assertion, "Interracial marriages are immoral" not to be a valid/acceptable/nonbigoted/nonhateful religious belief.
3. However, for me to label an individual person disingenuous is for me to view them as "calculating" or "lacking in simple frankness" - again, according to the dictionary. That I am not willing to do. Hence, my wording choice, on which you picked up.
Regarding my assertion, "That's not love; that's hate," I find the interracial marriage example again instructive.
A religious white person in the early 1960s might have stated in all sincerity, "I don't hate people who choose to act on their attraction to members of different races. However, I sincerely believe that God initially placed the races on different continents for a reason, and I believe that they were not meant to intermingle. For this reason, I believe that these people are making an immoral choice, which I hate and view as evil. Indeed, they are doing something that I believe is unnatural - that goes against God's very design for humanity. But still, I feel only the utmost love towards the people involved."
In 2006, it's likely that we're all united in thinking two things about such a belief:
1. That's not an acceptable belief, and reformulating it as a "religious" belief does NOT make it any the more acceptable.
2. It has hate-based antecedents. It's racist.
Guess how I think people are going to view "religious beliefs" that condemn loving, committed homosexual relationships that include physical intimacy as "evil", "immoral", or "sinful" in 2056. One way rachet.
In the following paragraph, "these people" is shorthand for "people who consider homosexual practices wrong".If they use them for sexual pleasure outside of marriage with male partners, many of the same people who consider homosexual practices wrong would also consider these actions wrong. But that wouldn't mean they hate women who are sexually active outside of marriage. They just have an opinion about the rightness of what they're doing.
Well, yes. But, where these people view heterosexual intimacy as something to be celebrated within marriage, at least, they view homosexual intimacy as something to be condemned at all times. That's not an insignificant difference. The woman who is having premarital sex with her boyfriend can choose to transform her relationship into something that these people view as celebration-worthy via marriage and its accompanying commitment. But the woman who is having sex with her girlfriend cannot make any commitment to her girlfriend, in these people's eyes, that validates and legitimizes a physical expression of their love. At least to say that these people hate homosexual relationships does not seem to me to be stretching too far. It's not merely "an act" they are condemning, but, again, they are condemning and delegitimizing the most important relationship in a homosexual's life. To me that seems to be a clear, potent manifestation of hate - one which I understand, as I contended with religion-based homophobia myself even before I had occasion to question my own sexuality.
Well, I wouldn't challenge that. But - and I mean to make a theoretical point, here, not be crude - you do not believe that you are a sinner BECAUSE you are a practicing heterosexual. So if you believe (and I honestly don't even know whether or not you do) that a gay person on this board is a sinner BECAUSE she or he is a practicing homosexual, then that is a different, more targeted assertion than to say that we are all sinners.I think practicing homosexuals and everyone else on this board are sinners (including me, of course).
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
nel
I'm going to start a thread in Lasto to respond to your last post in. Meanwhile, everyone else who wants to comment more on any thoughts triggered here by the non-TE-related elements of this discussion is welcome to post them there!
See you all over there!
eta: As it turns out, the subject matter of the thread turned out to be more suitable for Tol Eressëa, so that is where it is now.
I'm going to start a thread in Lasto to respond to your last post in. Meanwhile, everyone else who wants to comment more on any thoughts triggered here by the non-TE-related elements of this discussion is welcome to post them there!
See you all over there!
eta: As it turns out, the subject matter of the thread turned out to be more suitable for Tol Eressëa, so that is where it is now.