theworldofdreams.com

I was going to write a long replied to Nia but I've decided against it. [All of a sudden I'm struck by the realization that msg board posting isn't one of my required cognates for the successful completion of my BA degrees .] Part of that reply included something to the effect that homosexual marriage, and homosexuality in society as a whole, has yet to "prove" the true nature of its character. Only time will tell which side of the argument is right (and I apologize for having done a rather poor job at defending the opposition, since my feelings towards homosexual marriage are mixed).

Oh and please, do NOT confuse separation of church and state with separation of God and state. Our founding fathers never meant for the latter to happen and it is unfortunate that both expressions have been taken to mean the same thing.

I'll keep my thoughts on the real problem in American society (as I see it) for another thread (to which homosexual "rights" activism is partly related to).

Joram Lionheart wrote:homosexuality in society as a whole, has yet to "prove" the true nature of its character.

But they cut my hair and tell me what to wear. Even how to shave and wash my hair. They also have alot of women friends, so you can always get hooked up by your gay friend.

lest we get too carried away with things. it seems it wasn't till 1967 that the US supreme court struck down laws banning interracial marriage to cries that it was the end of western civilization etc etc.
it's also interesting to note that the US is the only economically advanced western nation without a socialized medicine program covering all it's citizens.

Ehran wrote:it seems it wasn't till 1967 that the US supreme court struck down laws banning interracial marriage to cries that it was the end of western civilization etc etc.

One thing that homosexuality and race have in common is that neither of them actually 'exist.' We created them.

we hardly created "race" or "homosexuality". named them but i cannot see how we could claim to have created them. both appear to be objectively quantifiable things which predate our hanging names on things.

Ehran wrote:we hardly created "race" or "homosexuality". named them but i cannot see how we could claim to have created them. both appear to be objectively quantifiable things which predate our hanging names on things.

My point was that what we call homosexuality and race is something we've shaped into what they now are. Homosexuality as we understand it today did not exist in the past. Same-sex relations existed for sure, but we understand homesexuality to be much more than that nowadays. To the ancients having sex with someone of the same gender was nothing 'special' or out of the ordinary. It was just another common practice. There was no concept of homosexuals as being a social/cultural group of its own within society. Today of course we have gay lifestyles and gay stereotypes to fit our mental constructions of what in our minds the idea of homosexuality is.

Similarly, the idea of race did not exist until we created it (probably around the late 15th early 16th century). Before race we had different cultures and ethnic groups (i.e. different peoples), but the notion that people of the world can be accurately divided by the skin of their color, nuh huh that is a strictly western notion. When the idea of race was thought up in Europe, it immediately acquired negative connotations. Weaker races (Africans, Amerindians, Asians) were immediately contrasted against the better, more refined races (europeans, specially anglo-saxons). In fact, one could argue race was constructed precisely with the purpose to justify the mistreatment of the "weaker races" (e.g. enslaving them for economic profit). In actuality, race doesn't truly exists outside our heads today. There's nothing in our DNA strands that make a person from Singapore significantly different from a person from Stockholm (unless you are comparing a man and woman ). Of course, you could make a similar argument about a homosexual and a 'straight' person (another term we were forced to create to contrast it against our new notion of homosexuality).
[I don't suppose you are familiar with structuralism?]

The fact of the matter is there is only one race, and two genders. Everything else beyond that is a human product.

Joram Lionheart wrote:... To the ancients having sex with someone of the same gender was nothing 'special' or out of the ordinary.

It was revered as a special or otherworldly trait among many societies. Nearly all the early Roman emperors were bisexual or strictly homosexual. A large percentage of Chinese emperors were as well. But, as you suggest, during the 'middle ages' homosexuality began to be regarded as a serious aberration, a sin by the Christians of that era. However, this is not to say that all early societies just accepted sexuality of any form.

Weaker races (Africans, Amerindians, Asians) were immediately contrasted against the better, more refined races (europeans, specially anglo-saxons).

Weaker races? Anglo-saxons are better and more refined?

hmmm. I hope you are being ironic with those statements?

[I don't suppose you are familiar with structuralism?]

You are referring to synchronic analysis?

Joram Lionheart wrote:One thing that homosexuality and race have in common is that neither of them actually 'exist.' We created them.

Only in the same sence that we created countries or religions.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Part of that reply included something to the effect that homosexual marriage, and homosexuality in society as a whole, has yet to "prove" the true nature of its character. Only time will tell which side of the argument is right

I would also disagree with this, it is more ususal i think to prove that something is bad and then outlaw it than it is to assume that something is bad and ourlaw it until the assumption is proved to be wrong.

Joram Lionheart wrote:Oh and please, do NOT confuse separation of church and state with separation of God and state. Our founding fathers never meant for the latter to happen and it is unfortunate that both expressions have been taken to mean the same thing.

I don't see how you can separate Church and State, but NOT God and State. Some Americans are Polytheists (Hindu, Asatru, etc.). Some are Atheists. Some are Pantheists. Which God, if any, do we choose to incorporate in State affairs? Which Holy Book becomes law? Whose mythology gets taught as history?

Bayn wrote:Weaker races? Anglo-saxons are better and more refined? hmmm. I hope you are being ironic with those statements?

I wish you'd learn NOT to take my statements out of context. Do you actually do this purposefully to create an argument where there is none? I very clearly stated that the idea of race was thought up to justify 'racial' discrimination (i.e. discrimination by Europeans against other people groups; "the white man's burden"). I couldn't seriously believe that anglo-saxons are 'better' than other ethnic groups. I'm not even "white", I'm hispanic.

You are referring to synchronic analysis?

I was referring to reality being structured like a language. The idea of a pen (signifier) is far removed from what a pen (signified) actually is (if there even is such a thing in the material world). We give meaning and purpose to objects in the real world. Ideas, concepts, categories, all those things only exist in our heads.

There is no spoon.

Or table, or chair, or teapot! Where the hell is all my darn crockery! You can't have a Zombie tea party without any finery! That, and a sundress. Where's my ... oh wait, said too much.

- Marius the Pretty
Always Dressed to Kill

Eldric wrote:

Joram Lionheart wrote:One thing that homosexuality and race have in common is that neither of them actually 'exist.' We created them.

Only in the same sence that we created countries or religions.

Precisely, religion and the nation state (nationalism) are also creations of ours. The nation state is one idea that has turned out to be particularly useful for governments and I don't see it being replaced by internationalism any time soon. One could also make an argument that religion doesn't exist either, it's just the term we have come up with to justify our differences of beliefs in "supernatural" phenomena. I don't seriously entertain the notion that God up there has a list of different personalities and characteristics he has to adopt whenever he deals with different peoples of the world. God is one and unchanging (the same today, yesterday and tomorrow . . .)

Joram Lionheart wrote:I would also disagree with this, it is more ususal i think to prove that something is bad and then outlaw it than it is to assume that something is bad and ourlaw it until the assumption is proved to be wrong.

I think the majority of the people in the world (perhaps America too) already think homosexuality is bad (or at least taboo). This is specially true if you consider the majority of the world's population are either Christian or Muslim (neither of which generally accepts homosexual practices). Homosexual behaviour is only recently becoming mainstream again. Homosexuality, on the other hand, still remains a very much American-European notion, but the American media is making sure the homosexual gospel is preached throughout the world.

Nia Atei wrote:I don't see how you can separate Church and State, but NOT God and State.

There's a difference between forcing people to pray in school, and allowing people to do so wherever they wish. Nowadays to be even talk about religion anywhere is offensive to people (what on earth does that MEAN anyway?). In my school you weren't allowed to pray in public (I'm not sure that's constitutional either). You can also get fired from your job because of talking to a coworker about God (especially if it is the "Christian version" of God). Talk about taking away your freedom of speech . . .

Some Americans are Polytheists (Hindu, Asatru, etc.). Some are Atheists. Some are Pantheists. Which God, if any, do we choose to incorporate in State affairs? Which Holy Book becomes Law

A ha! You don't! that's mixing religion and state. But that doesn't mean people should be discriminated because they have a religion or disuaded from having one (and before you asked, yes I know people that have been discriminated for their religious practices--and I don't mean using peyote either ). Slowly but surely God is being forcebly or subtedly removed from public affairs. In my denomination supporting the separation of Church and state is almost a litmus test of doctrinal soundness. No one would try to contest that point. But separating God and the nation is the equivalent of adopting an anti-God stand which as some atheists have proven before, it can be as powerful and vicious as any religious sect.

Joram Lionheart wrote: I very clearly stated that the idea of race was thought up to justify 'racial' discrimination (i.e. discrimination by Europeans against other people groups; "the white man's burden").

I am sure it was all clear to you when you wrote it. Don't get your panties in a bunch, Joram. I was just asking for clarification and got it! Thanks!

You are referring to synchronic analysis?

I was referring to reality being structured like a language.

Language is most often studied through synchronic and diachronic analysis so I guess you can accurately use 'structuralism' in this instance since you were originally referring to how the term "homosexual" changed meaning.

In fact, part of this silly thread was focused on diachronic linguistics, ie: how interpretations and translations of the Bible are inaccurate due to the changes in various languages over time.

But you bring up an amusing mind game that I used to play. Is that "thing" we call a tree really that? What is a "tree"? Perhaps what we call a tree is actually a rock. Perhaps that elm tree is actually a pair of buttocks! Gosh, the ramifications.

Joram Lionheart wrote:
One could also make an argument that religion doesn't exist either, it's just the term we have come up with to justify our differences of beliefs in "supernatural" phenomena.

Precisely.

God is one and unchanging (the same today, yesterday and tomorrow . . .)

Depends on which 'God' you are talking about. Your Christian God is defined that way in various folklore sources, including the Bible, but don't assume that is the case for all.

Joram Lionheart wrote:I think the majority of the people in the world (perhaps America too) already think homosexuality is bad (or at least taboo).

"Bad" is a relative term. Taboos arise from cultural traditions. Neither is definitive.

Homosexual behaviour is only recently becoming mainstream again. Homosexuality, on the other hand, still remains a very much American-European notion,

When you say mainstream, you are referring to modern media coverage?

You are sadly inaccurate when you say American-European. Do a bit of research on traditional and modern Chinese viewpoints towards homosexuality.

There's a difference between forcing people to pray in school, and allowing people to do so wherever they wish.

That is quite true!

Nowadays to be even talk about religion anywhere is offensive to people (what on earth does that MEAN anyway?).

Offensive
(a.) Giving offense; causing displeasure or resentment; displeasing; annoying; as, offensive words.
(a.) Giving pain or unpleasant sensations; disagreeable; revolting; noxious; as, an offensive smell; offensive sounds.
(a.) Making the first attack; assailant; aggressive; hence, used in attacking; -- opposed to defensive; as, an offensive war; offensive weapons.
(n.) The state or posture of one who offends or makes attack; aggressive attitude; the act of the attacking party; -- opposed to defensive.

In my school you weren't allowed to pray in public (I'm not sure that's constitutional either).

Find a school more suitable to your taste then. That does seem silly to me though. Anyone should be able to pray to whatever god they wish whenever they want.
I pray/talk to my god wherever I am, whenever I want. But then, I don't need to kneel and fold my hands, or lay out a rug and face east, or hop on one foot while chanting things and holding my nose, or other traditional religious observances.

Slowly but surely God is being forcebly or subtedly removed from public affairs.

Let me get my hip boots on, the bull poop is getting deep.

"God" is not being removed from public affairs. Religion is. When the 10 commandments sculpture was removed from the Alabama courthouse, it was an effort to separate religion/church from state, not "god" from state.

Knee jerk reactions, such as your remark above, by religious people who equate God with Religion is what is causing so many problems and misunderstandings.