<p>Thank you for your pleasant response, Lealdragon. TheDad, I suspect that on a personal level we might agree on a lot.</p>
<p>
In another life, I was a classical musician, specifically, a conductor. I also played piano. Those pursuits have given me an uncommon number of friends who are gay, a few of whom I love deeply to this very day. This is not an easy thing for me. But I cant look these people in the eye without having honestly put it to rest.</p>
<p>
I am not looking at the physical body at all. I am looking squarely at the genetic information that gives expression to the physical body and to all other expressions predicated upon the physical body. That information is essentially us because everything that we are is expressed beginning with it. When I look at that information, I see that one half of it comes from exactly one male. The other half comes from exactly one female. The information is indeed so specifically heterosexual, that we now are able to mark our individual parents in it. Even our genes have two genders, and they are always matched heterosexually. Should we detach either the male or female information from its opposing gender, human logic vanishes. And should we reattach it, then human logic reappears. Heterosexuality appears to be our essential structure in nature.</p>
<p>
That is exactly why I am working through this issue. There are real people on both sides of it, and they all have worthy points that I think I need to consider honestly.</p>
<p>
Well, I think they are abominable sinners. But no more than I am. Shoot. I am likely a LOT bigger sinner than most gays. So that is not an issue for me. The last thing I am interested in is condemning some gay guy just because he is trying to make his way. What I am trying to do is see the shape of things as best I can and then conform to it come hell or high water. </p>
<p>
Not exactly. I think EVERYTHING is disposable, not just gays.</p>
<p>
Absolutely. I sense this. Just look at the callousness of the universe even now! It just heartlessly destroys kids as if they don’t even matter at all. I think that is because they really do not matter – unless Something makes them matter. I am trusting in that Something to make me matter</p>
<p>
Of course he also told the prostitute to “go and sin no more”. </p>
<p>
And every single thing that we are is predicated on the essential information that defines us all. That information, not our bodies, but the information that gives expression to our bodies, is heterosexual.</p>
<p>
I realize this, and that is in part why this issue is so difficult for me.</p>
<p>
I also think Sullivan is being a sophist when he does this, unfairly corrupting language, using it pejoratively, as a substitute for valid ideas. I understand his emotional attachment to the gay issue, since he himself is gay. But it is childish to call people names when they are trying to deal with this issue like everyone else. That’s how I see it.</p>
<p>Drossel, you have an open mind and a sincere heart. Keep searching, and I’m sure God will guide you to whatever piece of the Truth is appropriate for you.</p>
<hr>
<p>There’s not a whole lot more I can say on this since my entire foundation is so very different than yours. Since I believe in reincarnation, my philosophy includes explanations for homosexuality, handicaps, suffering, etc. not found in the ‘one life then go to heaven or hell’ view. It also includes explanations for what you think of as us being ‘meaningless.’</p>
<p>
Not at all. The whites employed no such reasoning. In fact, it could not be applied, in the least, to their position.</p>
<p>
Well, they may have said these things, but they come from an entirely different position that what I am seeing. They may say blacks are darker than most normal humans, but all one needs do is put me next to some Greek or southern Italian and the problem becomes quite evident. This is the case on all things humans. We exist not in rigid biological compartments, so that blackness is objective. We exist on a continuum. Everyone has blackness to some degree or other. To divide on this issue necessarily requires some completely arbitrary standard not found in nature. This is not true of gender. Men are biologically distinct from women. And it appears natural logic includes this fact as it gives rise to humans. It demands that human nature be predicated only on this biological distinction. I am not exactly ready to defend this. It only represents how far I have gotten at the moment. Im likely wrong on it.</p>
<p>
Yeah. White Supremacists are like most humans. We develop some aversion to a feature maybe, for example, people who work in the fields tend to have dark skin, due to their being in the sun. Those who are aristocratic remain inside, commanding the laborers, and having lighter skin. A tendency to see un-tanned people as superior develops, which gives rise to a preference for lighter skin. Folks begin to select mates on the basis of lighter skin, and when some resistance emerges to the preference, a justification is sought. Those who make the preference, declare there is some innate problem with dark skin, and they dedicate their lives to proving the declaration not as a matter of reason, but purely as a matter of self-justification. While barbaric, this is, I think, a typically human thing to do.</p>
<p>
No. I am not doing this at all. I am looking at sexuality and questioning whether it exists as we now tend to think of it. I am not sure homosexuality is a biologically human principle. I do not think it is, not when I can only see heterosexuality as the logic on which is predicated all that is human. But people who behave homosexually are obviously human. I dunno, maybe Homosexuality is a condition that emerges in certain circumstances, but one that is not innate, as is heterosexuality, to every single member of our species. I really dont know.</p>
<p>
The single attribute by which we discriminate against blacks exists in every single human being to some degree or other. There is no biological partition between us that justifies this treatment. To discriminate here, one has to do it arbitrarily, while nature sits there allowing just as much fraternization between blacks and whites as it does between blonds and brunettes. Gender is an entirely different matter. Human definition and existence literally depend upon discrimination here. I think it is clear this situation differs RADICALLY from race.</p>
<p>“I dunno, maybe Homosexuality is a condition that emerges in certain circumstances, but one that is not innate, as is heterosexuality, to our species.”</p>
<p>That is exactly what I think. Even if viewed as an ‘aberration’ even aberration are within the parameters of ‘normal.’ In other words, it is ‘normal’ for there to be aberrations.</p>
<p>Here is the thread in which I shared some in-depth views as to the causes of homosexuality. Nothing provable at this point, but it makes sense to me.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=265869&page=8&highlight=taoist[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=265869&page=8&highlight=taoist</a></p>
<p>See my posts starting with #88. See especially posts # 90, 106, and 111, which deal with possible spiritual explanations for homosexuality.</p>
<p>By that logic, that is like arguing that since humans don’t have wings we were not meant to fly. Some things are just obvious: birds have wings and are therefore meant to fly; humans do not. Yet, I don’t see anyone saying we are evil if we fly on airplanes.</p>
<p>Just because you think your explanation for the discrimination against gays is based on biology and the discrimination against blacks is not, does not mean it is justified. It is still discrimination.</p>
<p>Providing a different basis for discrimination does not justify discrimination.</p>
<p>Say, for example, that someday science proves there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality and it is in fact a disease, like cystic fibrosis or any other genetically-influenced disease. Then are you saying that it’s ok to discriminate against people with diseases? </p>
<p>Just because science does not yet have a full explanation for homosexuality does not mean that it is a ‘choice’ like stealing or lying are choices.</p>
<hr>
<p>What if, just WHAT IF, we’ve all been duped and the parts of the old testament that advocate violence and elitism were put here by God as a test to see who could figure out which parts are good and which are not. What if, just WHAT IF, earth is actually a big school and the only way to graduate is to learn how to love, and we keep repeating 1st grade until we get it right? What if, just WHAT IF, Jesus is, right now, extremely dismayed that so few of his students have actually realized that his mission was to teach us how to LOVE, how to FORGIVE, how to be COMPASSIONATE. </p>
<p>What if, just WHAT IF, right now Jesus is dismayed that so many people have rejected his teachings in favor of old books which bear no resemblance to his teachings at all?</p>
<p>What if, just WHAT IF, what Jesus meant by ‘the only way to the Father is thru me’ meant that those who reach ‘heaven’ are only those who figure this out, who choose to follow his teachings of LOVE and PEACE, instead of remaining stuck in the old testament (like the religious leaders of his day that he had so much disdain for).</p>
<p>If in doubt, I would rather trust the principles of goodness, of love, peace, and compassion, than follow a doctrine that advocates hate, judgment, and discrimination.</p>
<p>It that means I don’t get to go to heaven, then I would not WANT to go to a heaven like that. Better to stay with imperfect humans who at least have some love and other qualities that makes humans worthwhile.</p>
<p>Yes, I know, you don’t think humans are worthwhile. Ya know, maybe we’re going about this all wrong. Maybe you are right, that nothng matters to God. But by that logic, if the good things don’t matter, then the bad things wouldn’t matter either. By that logic, why would God bother to ‘save’ just a few of his creation? I don’t know ANY Christians who are perfect (or claim to be) so becoming a Christian obviously did not make them perfect. So the entire argument is based on faulty logic. If God only values ‘perfect’ beings, then all he has to do is say poof and all would be perfect. But he doesn’t do that. He respects our free will, and he allows us the space to grow and learn and make mistakes. So obviously he must think there is some value in us making those mistakes, in those experiences. Why would he respect our free will if we had no value? Do you think about the free will of an ant before you step on it?</p>
<p>Let’s get back to the OP’s original train of thought-a campus religious organization that causes conflict with her daughter. Noone is going to change anyone’s religious viewpoint in this forum, just keep in mind " I’m right, you’re wrong"; just about the only thing everyone seems to agree on. I feel fortunate my son is a rational atheist instead of falling for some religious cult. Do any parents have experiences with their young adult children changing ideas that could either reassure the OP or otherwise help her deal with this situation? It’s time to get back down to earth and offer some concrete advice.</p>
<p>“Do any parents have experiences with their young adult children changing ideas that could either reassure the OP or otherwise help her deal with this situation”</p>
<p>Both of mine have run across a few different youth groups and have been able to maintain their own identities. But they came into these gatherings with a pretty strong sense of who they were to begin with. There’s a slight level of skepticism coupled with observational skills that have kept them from getting sucked into something. While both have their own beliefs, they think these things are extremely personal and private and tend to shy away from religous organizations. Personally we’ve always thought the best place to see God’s work is sunset camping at our favorite eastern washington spot or up in the cascade mountains.</p>
<p>I’m in Campus Crusade at my school, but I’m not particularly attached to or fond of it. Maybe I’m just different from everyone, but it does seem to be high school youth group, times ten. (I quit going to youth group in tenth grade because it annoyed the heck out of me.) I’ve seen the word “cultish” thrown around a bit in this thread, too, and I tend to agree. Crusade people have tossed in the phrase “Our founder, Bill Bright” a few too many times for my comfort. I went to their fall retreat, and thought it felt kind of brainwashy…not to mention that the speaker, I think, assumed we were all conservatives, judging by some of the jokes he told…I wanted to slap him, lol. They also seem to be big on making the organization self-sustaining, in the way that they don’t interact much with other Christian organizations. In its evangelism outreaches, for example, Crusade makes its own stuff–the Four Spiritual Laws booklets, the Jesus videos, and seems to promote only itself. I come from a Christian background where all sorts of people from different religious perspectives (albeit mostly Christian of some sort) work together for a common goal and have no qualms about it; Crusade, on the other hand, appears to me to be very internally focused. Maybe my school’s Crusade chapter is an anomaly in this way, but I doubt it–I was surprised to learn that my mom had the same experience with them when she was in college at UCLA. I still go to Bible studies and meetings, but that’s pretty much because there aren’t many other organizations out there at my campus for evangelical Christians.</p>
<p>Lucky: It’s good to hear from someone who actually has firsthand experience! Thanks for sharing your experience with us. Very informative.</p>