[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Perhaps it would have been good to have taken the time to have 
constructed a full reply.

Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Maybe it's a good thing I don't have time right now to give a full 
> reply to this, but I find that I cannot let it pass.  Too many 
> friends taking the brunt of this nonsense about "morality" - perhaps 
> that's what we need to find a cure for, Wayne: this so-called 
> "morality" that is so blind and ignorant and fearful that it mainfests 
> itself as hate, bigotry, support for centuries of brutal oppression.
>  
> I once had a conversation with my grandmother about gods and 
> devils.  In those days I was young and naive and believed in 
> everything my family taught me about gods and devils, as well as 
> morals.  I still believe what they taught me about morals.  I asked my 
> grandmother, if a person hears an inner voice (or reads a tract, for 
> that matter) how is a well-meaning human being to know whether it is 
> the voice of angels/god/Jesus or the voice of devils?  By what the 
> voice says, she told me, by what the voice says. 
>  
> I am not a religious person, so I generally do my best not to lecture 
> religious people on religion.  I have a big mouth, however, and I am 
> very mindful of ethics - and as in this case I feel obliged too speak 
> up against evil.  This bigotry against people whose *desires* are 
> different (of all things!) is evil.  It is as evil as racism, as 
> woman-hating (whatever you want to call it), as the hatred of heretics 
> and witches.
>  
> Not only is it not based on the biology it claims - anybody who has 
> ever had dogs should know this, or quite a few other animals, anyone 
> who knows much about actual and not idealized animal behavior, that 
> is, humans or other animals, incl. mammals, birds, reptiles, 
> amphibians (see "Biological Exuberance" for an excellent cataloguing 
> of non-missionary-style animal sexual behavior) - but, most 
> importantly, it is not based on the *morality* it claims.
>  
> Friends, morality cannot derive from gods or other supernatural beings 
> or the fear or love of them, any more than it derives from human 
> legislation.  The question my old philosphy teacher (actually, my 
> mother's - I was a guest in the class, playing hookey from school) 
> raised to make his students think - Is the Good good because God wills 
> it, or does God will it because it is good? - can have only one moral 
> answer, if we accept the premises.  Our gods, if we have any, must 
> always be judged by our morality and not the other way around.  My 
> hillbilly grandmother knew that much.
>  
> This is contrary to certain teachings in the Torah, the Bible, 
> the Koran, like the story of Abraham and Isaac.  So be it.  Our fellow 
> human beings are more important than these texts, upon which in any 
> event I understand that many adherents disagree.
>  
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> *To:* John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* loriserb at loriserb.info; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2009 7:27:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right
>
> Alienated?  Strong disagreement doesn't have to necessarily lead 
> people to be disagreeable.
>
> If your friend had chosen a different lifestyle he may have lived 
> longer. 
> The life expectancy of homosexual men and women is 20 to 30 years 
> shorter than
> the general population, not just due to "AIDS" but also due to 
> accidents, heart disease, homicides,
> and suicide.  It seems that the benefits of working out a cure for 
> homosexuality rather than
> assimilating it are significant.
>
> I havent been ignoring your questions. I will go back and see what I 
> missed. 
> I should not shy from controversy nor your questions.
>
> Your hypotheses are interesting but difficult to test, but I don't 
> believe that homosexuality is
> obligatory.  One might be hot tempered but not allow rage to proceed 
> to homicide.  One could
> be tempted by something seen, but not be a thief.
>
> Going to look for your other questions that I must have missed...
>
>
>
> John W. wrote:
>> Wayne, you're diggin' yourself a deeper and deeper hole, man.  Your 
>> "reasoning" is based on Scripture much more than on biology, and a 
>> number of folks on this list have made it clear that they don't 
>> subscribe to the Bible as the ultimate repository of all Truth.  I 
>> know you do, but further attempts to convince everyone else will be 
>> futile and will alienate you from the rest of the group.  But what do 
>> I know?  Perhaps you WANT to be alienated.
>>
>> If I based my opinions only on Scripture, I would believe as you do.  
>> I used to believe as you do years ago.  But then I got to thinking a 
>> bit, or rather looking around me and observing what was actually 
>> happening in the real world.
>>
>> My best "double-dating" buddy in high school turned out to be gay, 
>> and eventually died of AIDS, one of the early casualties.  In high 
>> school he dated girls, but he didn't really treat them the same way 
>> that other guys treated girls.  He loved to dance, but mostly so that 
>> he could be admired for his dancing skills.   He loved to look at 
>> himself in the mirror.  His favorite activity with women was to sit 
>> and talk about fashion, hair styles, makeup, etc.  At the time I 
>> thought he was a little odd compared to my other male friends, but I 
>> had never even heard of homosexuality in those days.  I was naive.  
>> And he was my friend.
>>
>> Eventually Marty got "turned out" by an older British gentleman, and 
>> ended up living in San Francisco for quite a few years with male 
>> roommates.
>>
>> Looking back, I can't IMAGINE that my friend Marty made a "choice", 
>> at age 13, to have those feminine characteristics.  It's clear to me 
>> that he was born with a predilection to be gay.  And how can you hold 
>> someone morally accountable for something that is not a choice?
>>
>> You call yourself a biologist, and you say that homosexuality is an 
>> aberration.  Let us try to reconcile seemingly disparate viewpoints.  
>> Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that something goes 
>> slightly awry in the womb during the period of gestation, and more 
>> specifically during the time of sexual development.  It is not 
>> inconceivable that the male fetus, for whatever reason, receives 
>> slightly too much estrogen and not enough testosterone.  For the 
>> female fetus it would be the reverse.  So they're born with a slight 
>> imbalance of hormones, which would be sufficient to alter their later 
>> gender attractions.  Is that not at least a biologically feasible 
>> hypothesis?  And if it is, how can you hold the child/adult morally 
>> accountable?
>>
>> I note in passing that even my suggestion above will be utterly 
>> unacceptable to some on this list.
>>
>> I also note that you, Wayne, tend not to reply to my questions.  I 
>> wonder why that is?  Am I simply too stupid for you?  Or could it be 
>> that you recognize that I know what is in your mind and heart a 
>> little too well?  Just asking.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:26 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag 
>> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
>>
>>     As I recall, we got into this via a celebration of Obama "Getting
>>     it Right".
>>
>>     'Twas not I who brought up the issue of Homosexuality but I did
>>     offer my opinion
>>     once it was broached.  I think it was the rearing of children by
>>     homosexuals which I
>>     responded to, as that is definitely a case of the effect of adult
>>     behaviour negatively impacting children.
>>     Since the state is involved in legal adoptions, I would not
>>     favour the placement of adopted children
>>     or foster children into homosexual environments, nor into single
>>     parent homes, recognizing that
>>     some people I consider to be friends will disagree on this point.
>>     There are others, potentially enemies of the US, who view this
>>     society as decadent and they
>>     do seek to condemn and threaten this society and thus provide
>>     stimulus to our warmongers.  I did not suggest
>>     any particular action against homosexuals.  Finding the cause and
>>     treating the problem at its
>>     roots seems desirable as an option.  Some people in our society
>>     have even suggested capital punishment. I did not.  I do want to
>>     see a halt to the recruitment and promotion of homosexuality.
>>     While I think that law is rather incapable of inducing morality,
>>     I don't think immorality should be celebrated.
>>
>>     We don't celebrate political corruption or theft or warmongering
>>     as acceptable behaviours.
>>     Homosexuality is likewise immoral and it is in the same class of
>>     pathologic sexual behaviour as
>>     adultery,  rape, and child molestation.  Some aberrent sexual
>>     behaviours include a component of
>>     violence and some do not.  It does contribute to the
>>     destructuring of the society.
>>
>>     Dr. King whom we celebrated last week, also taught that Reality
>>     hinges on Moral Foundations.
>>     I don't think that we can achieve full potential as a society if
>>     we embrace and promote immoral
>>     behaviours.  There is a general negative effect on the
>>     non-participants.
>>
>>     I would not agree that the practice of a homosexual lifestyle is
>>     a private matter because
>>     it is becoming pervasive and widely advertised as a reasonable
>>     alternative option to a heterosexual
>>     lifestyle.
>>
>>
>>     Bob Illyes wrote:
>>
>>
>>         Mort wrote "Indeed, I wish and recommend that discussions of
>>         God's immanence, how "we" are a Christian country, and why
>>         women's ability to decide their own lives should be forbidden
>>         are inappropriate for a peace-discuss list. (I wouldn't
>>         recommend Nazi propaganda on the list either, but I suppose
>>         to some that would be bigoted.)"
>>
>>         Indeed. Why strive for peace when we can have wars over
>>         sexuality and religion, eh? This sort of thinking gave us the
>>         Spanish Inquisition, witch burning, and the Holocaust. Why
>>         stop now?
>>
>>         Wayne commented regarding same-sex couples with children that
>>         he is "amazed that this sort of sick stuff is going on so
>>         close by." WHAT???
>>
>>         Want to take this back, Wayne? Calling people you don't agree
>>         with "sick" is really out of line.
>>
>>         I agree with Lori's "Amen, Mort".
>>
>>         Bob
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090129/a89cd276/attachment-0001.htm