Is Homosexuality Immoral?
A Fraternity Discussion

What follows is a reprint of a heated discussion that took place on my fraternity alumni listserv. I'm including it here so that people can get a better idea of what I'm like through conversation with my indigenous people. It was also just a really interesting discussion.

-- Toaph

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:11:42 -0500 (EST)From: RehabTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Clinton humor&serious
You've probably already heard this one but I don't care...
Whats the difference between Clinton and the Titanic?Only 1,500 went down on the Titanic!
-Rehab
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:43:23 +0000From: DongerTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re[2]: Clinton humor&serious
     Oh yeah, does this mean we may finally see a head line in the paper      that says:     
     'BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!'     
     Just a thought     Donger
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:05:28 -0500From: ZiggyTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: RE: George Bush
For the most part, I really liked George Bush as President. He was astrong leader during the Gulf War, he had a lot of respect in the worldcommunity, he championed sound economic policies, he was a fan of smallgovernment. and he was in good physical condition (yes, I think this isimportant for a leader - how effective is Boris Yeltsin from hishospital bed?). It was just that pesky support for right wing socialissues that really stuck in my craw. But hey, what the hell - you can'thave everything. I'd vote for Bush over Gore in a minute.
Ziggy
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:52:31 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: RE: George BushIn-Reply-To: <51C8AD58995BD11187A700805F1A7E8C086973@DILBERT>
I think that Bush was a strong leader during the gulf war, but by the endof his first term the entire executive branch was spinning its wheels.Every single thing that came his way, he would just say, "This needs moreresearch," and nothing would get done.  It was a marked contrast whenClinton came in and actually started making things happen.
Actually Bush used to be a very moderate Republican.  He was even prochoice.  But when he became Reagan's running mate in 1980, he had to towthe party line.  If the Republican party could liberate themselves from theChristian right, and embrace some more moderate stances on social issues,I'd be much more likely to support Republican candidates.  Truth is, I'mregistered independent and have very moderate views.  I only supportDemocrats because the Republican party would just as soon see me thrown injail for my core identity.
-- Toaph
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:43:14 -0500From: PopsTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject:  RE: George Bush
Ziggy,
Here I go for the first time in my life laying out my political views inpublic, but some things just strike nerves.
George Bush???  I never thought that George Bush was all that respected asa leader.  After amassing the popularity of the winner of the Persian GulfWar, what did he do to piss the American public off and lose within thetimeframe of two years to a small-time backwoods governor of theintellectual paradise of.....Arkansas????  Maybe folks nowadays are alittle pissed off that their president got a little on the side (I ambetting not much more than a blow job in this situation), but I think weneed to prioritize which things in American history are more catastropic. Does the Iran-Contra Affair ring a bell?  It doesn't take a genius todelve a little further into the cause/effects of foreign and domesticpolicy to see a direct correlation with our  suppling weapons to theIranians, who are (or used to be before they started to see what side ofthe butter the bread is on) much more fanatical than the Iraquis everwere.  Remember our hostage crises and the demolition of the Marinebarracks in Beirut in the 80's?  I blame 257 deaths on the weapons thatthe Iranians placed in that suicide truck and ask if they were purchasedwith funds from the South American side of the equation.  Of course,special prosecutors didn't go into that one with the fervor reserved forthe current "crisis", if you really want to call it that and I don't trustthe American public to get upset until the media tells them to get upset.
But much of all that was Reagan, "The American President" as the videotape offer calls him.  What happened during George's administration? Perhaps the S&L scandal, at the unestimated cost to the American taxpayersof such proportions that they (we) still haven't got done paying that off. Strange we don't hear much about that anymore.
In the long run, I don't automatically respect a president as a leader. The job is too big for any one man and by voting for a president, we electa whole group of advisors who collectively do the job.  The days ofLincoln and Washington are over.  I believe that it is any president's jobis to listen to us, the American citizen and affect what is good for us. The Republicans didn't do that in the early 90's and lost the presidency.  
And it is the job of the party not in office to provide the "loyalopposition" for balance and perspective.  It is nasty now and has beennasty before.  Politically, I have lived through many more days in thecamp of the opposition than I ever have as a supporter of the president. Bill Clinton is the first president that I have voted for that has wonsince I started voting in 1968.  So maybe the common ground is that it'struth the American public should seek, not merely what is shoveled at us,nor what politician is in office (there are skeletons on most of them I'mwilling to bet); nor should we not seek the truth when we should (this iswhat I get upset about).  So if a blow job is more important than thelives of Americans overseas or billions of dollars of American tax moneylost, then I guess we should be more concerned about our society ingeneral.   And remember...this is the society that again allows bloodshedover nipples.  Shouldn't we get a little more perspective and concernourselves with what is really important??
#############
After all that, a joke.  The Pope and Clinton died, but were erroneouslysent to Heaven and Hell incorrectly; the Pope to Hell and Clinton toHeaven.  When the error was discovered, they were sent back in the properdirection.  As they passed, the Pope told Clinton that now he wouldfinally get a chance to meet the Virgin Mary.  Clinton smiled, pulled uphis pants, and said "You're about a half hour too late for that!"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:43:23 -0500From: ChewieTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: George Bush
Toaph wrote:
> Truth is, I'm registered independent and have very moderate views.
    YOU????  Moderate views????  GET OUT!  You do not!
        Chewie
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:58:24 -0500From: ZiggyTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Bush/Gore
Pops,
You make some good points. I absolutely agree that lives are moreimportant than blowjobs.
The Reagan years were a mixture of great triumphs and critical errors.Ultimately, I believe that history will credit Ronald Reagan for thefall of the Iron Curtain.
George Bush, as I recall, lost his reelection bid because taxes went upand we hit a mild recession. Bad timing for him.
Clinton's greatest asset is his ability to adapt. Remember his "HealthSecurity" plan? Ah, big government! Luckily, he got the message duringthose early years that he was missing the mark. Problem is, sometimes anindividual's personality or foibles get in the way of his achievementsand message. Clinton is suffering this right now, and he has onlyhimself to blame.
Ziggy
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:29:44 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: George Bush
>> Truth is, I'm registered independent and have very moderate views.>>    YOU????  Moderate views????  GET OUT!  You do not!
Sure I do.  I mean, if we're getting loaded and I'm talking about themeaning of life, I suppose my views are not very moderate.  But when itcomes to political issues, I'm very much middle of the road.  Sure I'm forrelatively liberal social issues, like civil rights for gays and safe legalabortions, but I'm also for conservative issues, like welfare reform andsmaller government.  I hate extremists on both sides of the aisle.  I doadmit that I tend to be a bit more anti-conservative than anti-liberalbecause, like I said, they'd just as soon round me and my kind up and shootus, but I'm also anti-left-wing-liberal.  I was reading some liberal tripeby some left-wing dyke on the web the other day, and it really turned mystomach.
-- Toaph
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:19:28 -0500 (EST)From: RehabTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: PGA & other stuff
Toaph, Being a registered Republican I have to take defference to what you saidabout Rebublicans wanting to kill people who were like you (I know itwasn't exactly what you said, but something to that effect).  Having saidthat, I am embarassed that there is this Christian Coalition and RadicalAnti - abortion that insists on attaching itself to the Party and Republicanleaders who embrace that reactionary b.s.I personally am against abortion, but what a woman chooses to do to herbody is her own business and not some outside group.  I hope that a moremoderate Republican leadership takes control of the Party of Lincoln.I would model the model republican after NYC mayor Rudy Guliani-  (Eventhough I think he has gone a little too far with actually ticketingJ-walkers; and that he also includes the dreaded "L" word on his ticket)But in terms of his crime reducing and generally making life better forALL people in NYC.
-Rehab "Do you think we would have this problem with Saddam if RonaldReagan were President?"
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:51:31 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Republicans
>Toaph, >Being a registered Republican I have to take defference to what you said>about Rebublicans wanting to kill people who were like you
Alex,
I know I was making a broad generalization and over-stating my case, butthe truth is that the Republican party, as an insitituion, is opposed toany and all form of gay rights.  Cornell has an official policy ofprotection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The RepublicanParty has an official policy of being vehemently opposed to this.  As aregistered member of that party, you are a representative of this view,even if you individually are opposed to it.
The Republican Party now states that they made a huge mistake 30 years agoby opposing civil rights for blacks.  I am certain that 30 years from nowthey'll be saying that they made a huge mistake by opposing civil rightsfor gays.  "Memory is a stranger."
There *are* moderate, forward-thinking Republicans out there, for exampleCalifornia Governor Pete Wilson, and former Mass. Governor George Weld.I hope that you use your voice and your vote to try to effect change withinthe party to support candidates who are fiscally conservative, but sociallyprogessive.
-- Toaph
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:02:59 -0600From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'ConnorTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Republicans
Toaph .. I am a Republican an I believe you are extending yourself as far as your interpretation of the Republican policy ... You are referring to a track record of opposing legislation that entails the gay rights issue .. They do not vehemently oppose gay rights ... it has been dealt with on a case by case basis .. So if you want to misconstrued their track record for an established policy that seems so "Not You" ... but .. hey thats the beauty of Politics ...
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:35:29 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Republicans
>You are referring to a track >record of opposing legislation that entails the gay rights issue .. They do not >vehemently oppose gay rights ... it has been dealt with on a case by case basis 
Mick,
There seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement.  It seems tome that a proven track record is a pretty good indication of officialpolicy.  But beyond that, I still stand behind my statement.  Politicalparties have platforms.  Do the words "Traditional Family Values" ring abell?  That was the OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PLATFORM in the last Presidentialelection.  It is somewhat veiled, but it means, among other things, "Wevehemently oppose gay rights."  That had nothting to do with case-by-caselegislation.  It was an overriding policy.  Once again, not everyregistered Republican supports the Republican platform 100%, but the RNCsets the policy, and anti-gay-rights is part of it.  If you really want meto, I can research the matter further.  I assure you, I'll be able to comeup with a wealth of official Republican policy that blatantly states theiropposition to gay rights.
-- Toaph
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:42:36 -0600From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'ConnorTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re[2]: Republicans
Your on tough guy ... I want examples ... figures .. slide shows ... Give me what you got tough guy ... You called down the thunder now you are going to get  it.
Mick "Spoken words can be turned into whatever the listener wants them to be .... But facts on paper are concrete"Then I am going to kick you ass in golf!!!!
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:12:19 -0600From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'ConnorTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re[2]: Republicans
>Do the words "Traditional Family Values" ring a>bell?  That was the OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PLATFORM in the last Presidential>election.   
YEAH THEY DO RING A BELL ... THATS WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN ... IF THATS SO WRONG INTO TODAYS FUCKED UP SOCIETY I GUESS WE CAN READ INTO THAT STATEMENT AS FAR AS YOU WANT ... I PLAN ON BRINGING MY CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD WITH THAT PHILOSOPHY 
... You would have to be on another planet if you believe that any political parties policy would be Anti-Gay or Anti-Black or Anti anything in the nineties ... Its the age of give me this because I'm this ... I'm Irish ... No Irish Need Apply .. Give me a Job ... Cmon' ... Everyone wants a piece of something .. If we don't get exacltly everything we want ... you must be Anti - or you are a racist ... Isn't it kind of Ironic that this Subject is going around the same time the Subject about a hanidcap golfer wants a cart to play in a sport were they do not use golf carts ... It's the nineties baby... made it all the way to the Supreme Court ... It's not The Republicans .. its not the Democrats .... Its the Society ... They blame it on my generation and the generation after me ... but these old pricks on capital hill are the ones who created this society .... they let it go this far .. Not to get off the subject Toaph .. It's not the platform party to be anti-gay.... CMon .. you  are better than that ... Do you really think that shit flys in the nineties ... It apparently looks that way though ... Nobody has fucking old fashion Morals ... I believe in the Wife, Kids .. white picket fence .. dog .. Old fashion good wholesome family ... Apple Pie and baseball ... Those are my beliefs ... I will not put others down for skin color , sexual preference .. etc .. But not today .. not anyday will I be swayed on what I believe is right ...EVER ... I believe in GOD and MARY his Mother ... and family ... That is just me ... I am a number ....!!!! I want everyone to believe in what they believe is right .. Go Nuts .. How Wide Open Can we make this society ... Drugs ... Gang Wars .. Diseases ...  Should we keep being laxed or should we try and take hold of this ship before it lies next to the Titanic on the ocean floor.    It's funny ... I am registered Republican but in this day in age I will vote for the president that will benefit me the most ... tax breaks .. etc {Single-White Male in the 90's}.  It doesn't matter what puppet is in there ... You can blame my beliefs on being raised in an Irish-Catholic Parents ... I am telling you this ... I would not push my religion down anyones throat ... I am not even telling you to believe in God .. But how bad is a family that promotes .. Family .. Love you neighbor ... Forgive ... I guess that is kind of radical in this one-dimensional society ... HOW CAN I BENEFIT FROM THIS !!
Mick Sorry for the long drawn out response ... emotions running on high} 
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:19:43 -0500 (EST)From: ChakaTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Re[2]: Republicans
Mick,
	God bless you Mick, well said.  I may not be as "old fashioned" (NoIrisih-Catholic upbringing either), but I do agree that the issue ofunfounded accusations of people being called Anti-whatever (I'm not talkingpolitical parties either), just because thier views are confliocting,or (as you stated) they don't get exactly what they want.  Sometimesyou just have to suck it up (like a sc%#^?), roll with the punches, get up, brush yourself off etc. etc.. When things go wrong it should hardenyour resolve to correct the situation, not WHAH! WHAH! WHAH! till you getyour way.
Sorry it unexpectedly turned out to be a little too philosophical (a littleoff topic too). I'll stop now.
-Chaka
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:37:45 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Re[2]: Republicans
I don't want to belabor this, but I do want to respond.  If the word'traditional' refers to the 'values,' I'm all for it.  If it refers to the'family,' I can't support it.  The problem is that the Republicans used theterm to target gays and abortionists rather than irresponsible fathers whosire a dozen children by a dozen women and don't support any of them.Clearly this country has lost sight of its values, but anyone who says it'simmoral for me to fuck other men is gonna get a fight from me.  I'm notsaying that you're saying that, Mick, but I contend that it is the officialpolicy of the Republican party to categorize gay sex as immoral.
The problem with "tradition" is that it doesn't keep up with the times.Things are changing.  Our value system has to change with the increasinglycomplex society we're in.  That doesn't mean abandoning "values."  But itdoes mean re-evaluating what worked yesterday and seeing if it continues towork today.  If tradition works for you, then fine.  More power to you.But if a national political party, trying to get control of the leadershipof the country, is touting tradition as their platform, then I think it'ssafe to say that they're trying to push it on me.  I think that's wrong.
>Not to get off the subject Toaph .. It's not the >platform party to be anti-gay.... CMon .. you  are better than that ... Do you >really think that shit flys in the nineties ...
No I don't.  By the way, who lost the last election?  Why do you think thatis???
-- Toaph
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:26:32 -0500From: Ken DollTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: RE: Re[2]: Republicans
>"Clearly this country has lost sight of its values, but anyone who says it's>immoral for me to fuck other men is gonna get a fight from me."
I don't care who or what you sleep with as long as the individualsconsent and are old enough to consent, but the government has notauthority to grant you EXTRA rights because of it.  The constitution say"All men are created equal" it should be changed to say "all people(men, women and children) are created equal".  That's it. Done. Nothingmore.  No Gay Rights, No Minority Rights, No {insert group of choicehere} rights.  All people are equal.
That DOES NOT mean life is fair.
>"I contend that it is the official policy of the Republican party> to categorize gay sex as immoral."
I don't think the government should be in our home at all.  I think youshould be able to grow, smoke, or do anything on your own property aslong as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
>"The problem with "tradition" is that it doesn't keep up with thetimes."
NO that's simply wrong.  Tradition to me says "treat others as you wouldwant to be treated".  You respect other peoples and realize thatdifferent does not mean better or worse.
I coach 4-7 year olds in hockey.  The hardest thing to teach is torespect your opponents and your team mates.  Our society has made itacceptable to trash talk.  I had a seven year old bring a 4 year old totears and then I had to be try to explain to the seven year olds parentswhy trash talking it is not acceptable behavior for a 7 year old.Parents scream at other kids or referees if they make a mistake.Coaches yell at 10 year olds, Players choke coaches, someone else isalways responsible for your problems and you can always sue em.
I agree that times change, but how do these traditional values (treatothers as you would want to be treated) not keep up?  And I agree withMick the primary teacher is the family so, maybe they are "familyvalues".
Ken
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:43:56 -0600From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'ConnorTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re[4]: Republicans
   Well to address this from a non-bias point of view because my emotions did flow a little bit which may have distorted my opinion...but ...First let me take the easy one ... Why did the Republicans lose the presidency ... well they held the oval office since Jimmy Carter and made it through the critical "Late 80's period where all this controversy started ..." and well to be honest ... We did not have a strong candidate that I would even want to see as a president ... Bush the Mush .. Did some good ... really got nowhere with a democratic congress ..now that I think about it ... hasn't that been an ongoing issue since the first Regan term ...One political party controlling the Presidency and the other party controlling Congress "I would like to buy stalemate for $1000 Alex". And Dole ... Being a War Veteran is great ... president .. might as well take a long walk off a short stage ..oh he did that ... He shot himself in the foot any chance that he could.   You know .. I love to see people fight for their right to live the way they want and be themselves when under the threshold of oppression ...Thousands and Thousands of Irish gave their lives for the cause ... Many Americans gave their lives for the cause ...Do you honestly feel that gays/minorities are targeted ... targeted ... do you really believe they are targeted ... It's funny how we cringe at the word family ... I am done expressing my personal views ... Please ... I don't care it your black/white/yellow/gay/straight ... Just pick up the paper .. watch the news ... It's not about all those discriminatory categories ... it's about the people of today as a whole .. I tell you ...This society is made up of bunch of whiners ... I swear ... if I there was nothing to gripe about they would gripe about that there is nothing to gripe about.   It kills me how anyone who thinks of trying to establish themselves in politics be Anti- anything or target a particular race/gender/sexual preference.That's like being elected as an Irish Pope  saying you like Catholics but only certain types ... I like Irish Catholics ... but I hate those English Catholics ... they don't play by our rules .. they are not like us ... They are different ... Do the English Catholics get mad knowing that the Pope is Irish{Work with the ethnicity portion} and are under the assumption he dislikes the English Catholics because they are different? ... But in the end as a Denomination ...aren't we all Catholics ....Americans are Americans ... Humans are Humans ...They shot down the Irish  because they wanted the United States Governement to Recognize March as Irish History Month .. for the historical figures that gave their life ...{Rory O'Connell, Brendan Bean, Roddy Mcuurddy} ... and all those soldiers in the Civil War that came over from Ireland to fight for the cause here in America ...  You know what ... they have already shot that down here in America .... God bless the Hiberian Society for trying ...You are familiar with Black History Month ....HMMMMM....   Did you see the tone I have created from writing from an Irish/White/Straight/Catholic point of view .. I did that on purpose for you to realize that this is what goes on today ... Everyone cries about what has happen to their race/religion/sexual preference/right down the line ... Nobody makes any assessments about society as a whole ... I would have probably taken this with a grain of salt if it was "Boy, those damn republicans have not contributed anything to the welfare of the United States ... because ... lately ... I might even agree with you .... It's not about targeting any race ...its about targeting society as a whole ...  Where does the nonsense end .. when do we stop  drawing lines ... This society is going in the crapper because we accept everything and anyone "The big melting pot has been abused and has some cracks in it."  ... Little country in Africa ...you need money ... hey the U.S. is here to give out money and police the world ..
Mick
Shit ... I wasted my whole lunch time wrapped in the American Flag ... 
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:14:07 -0800From: SkipTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: RE: Re[4]: Republicans
> >> But in the end as a Denomination ...aren't we all Catholics ....<<
 What?  Are you kidding me?  I enjoy reading a lot of yourrationalizations, Mick, but this statement is simply stupid...andwrong.-Skip
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98  15:15:51 ESTFrom: SpedTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Toaph
Toaph,
Exactly what rights are being held from you?Not to be meant too direct, but...
Sped
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:25:25 -0600From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'ConnorTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re[6]: Republicans
SKIP .... CATHOLICS BEING THE ORGANINZATION ... IRISH BEING IRISH .. YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING THIS HUGE ... I KNEW IT SOUNDED AWKWARD WHEN I WAS DIPLAYING THAT EXAMPLE ... YOU ARE READING INTO I WAY TOO FAR!!!!! ...  THINK OF THE OVERALL CONCEPT .. DO NOT PICK APART THE ACTUAL REFERENCES ... I KNOW WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT .... FORGET IT ....   I AM WRITING WAY TOO MUCH EMAIL TODAY ... BYE
MICK
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:14:54 -0800From: SkipTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: RE: Re[6]: Republicans
Denomination means:  classification, label, category, class, group.  Idon't know, but I just don't get it, buddy.  Can anyone else elaborateon this and help me understand exactly what he's trying to say?
-- Skip
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98  15:28:14 ESTFrom: SpedTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: cathloic comment
I think that Mick was saying that an Irish Catholic could complain about anEnglish Catholic being a Popebecause an Irish Catholic would feel slanted dueto t he nature of history in the Isles. But in the end these two groups arestill and most importantly Catholics as opposed to Here's an Irish Catholicand Here's an English Catholic or an American Catholic or any other kind ofCatholic. It's ludicrous to separate themselves, they all believe in the sameprinciple so they are all Cathloics. Similarly, there shouldn't beAfro-American, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, French Americans or anyother such group because we are all Americans first. For most of us ourancestors left those places because of the problems they had there. So whyrevel in being Something-American when the something caused so many problems.I am not a heterosexual-American. I'm an American (that's one statement), I'mheterosexual is another statement not related. A great program was on PBSabout the Irish in Beaute, Montana. There lived a people who were very Irish,and celebrated being Irish, but when an old man who had lived in Montana hiswhole life died in Ireland on his search for his home, his one request was tobe buried in his homeland...Beaute, Montana.
Sped
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:37:14 -0600From: Christopher Ernest Mick O'ConnorTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re[8]: Republicans
O.k. Skip ... Religious Denomination {Catholic} ....I am sure you have filled out forms that say Religious Denomination:  It was a stupid example , I'll grant you that , it was referencing a situation to discrimination among the same overall group ... if the word Denomination is scaring you ...Broken Down ... all this example was trying to demonstrate : A poliitical figure is representing  all of us {Whites, Blacks, Irish, Gay ...} ... They represent us all ... the problem stems when we break the representation into each group of race/color/sexual preference instead of an overall representation.  Thats it ... I hope this answers the question ... It was no more than that .... I promise you ... It was an "off the hip" example that I knew was going to be questioned ... Sorry
Mick {If you read the book instead of reading the cliff notes ... you still would have rented the movie ...    What??} 
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:45:47 -0800From: SkipTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: RE: Re[8]: Republicans
Ah, an analogy of sorts.  Me shutt up now.  Feele dum.(I am a piece of hot broccoli with cheese sauce)
- Skip
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:31:10 -0500 (EST)From: ChewieTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Republicans
JESUS CHRIST!  If the Republicans AND Demoacrats put as mucheffort into solving the problems of this country as you mornonsspend bitching about which ones stand for what, we'd all bemillionares!
LISTEN UP, PEOPLE!  POLITICS IS BULLSHIT!  It's a way fora fat old man (who would otherwise be unemployed beggingdollars on the street to pay the cover charge at a sleazystrip club) to get paid millions for doing NOTHING!
LOWER MY TAXES!  MAKE POLUTION ILLEGAL!  INCREASE THE EDUCATIONLEVELS OF OUR CHILDREN!   Solve some of those problems, andI'll start paying attention to Politics.  Until thenm, it'sall hype, hot-air, and name calling, and quite frankly, notas interesting as Bay Watch.
> >You are referring to a track > >record of opposing legislation that entails the gay rights issue .. They> do not > >vehemently oppose gay rights ... it has been dealt with on a case by case> basis > > Mick,> > There seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement.  It seems to> me that a proven track record is a pretty good indication of official> policy. 
  Isn't this one of those "Past Performance is not an indicationof future returns?"
  Chewie
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:14:41 -0500 (EST)From: RehabTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Republicans
Your last paragraph was exactly my point, well stated.  
-Rehab
> There *are* moderate, forward-thinking Republicans out there, for example> California Governor Pete Wilson, and former Mass. Governor George Weld.> I hope that you use your voice and your vote to try to effect change within> the party to support candidates who are fiscally conservative, but socially> progessive.> > -- Toaph> 
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:05:59 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Republicans - final word
Wow, I thought I was going to get flamed WAY worse than I did.  Still, Ithink I'll make this my last comment on the subject.
>I don't care who or what you sleep with as long as the individuals>consent and are old enough to consent, but the government has not>authority to grant you EXTRA rights because of it.  The constitution say>"All men are created equal" it should be changed to say "all people>(men, women and children) are created equal".  That's it. Done. Nothing>more.  No Gay Rights, No Minority Rights, No {insert group of choice>here} rights.  All people are equal.
Basically I agree.  All humans are created equal.  Amen.  The problem isthat they're not all treated equally.  The reason we need {insert group ofchoice here} rights is because {insert group of choice here} can be treatedunequally.  I'm not talking about EXTRA rights.  I'm not asking foranything extra.  I'm saying that if you're trying to deny me something(employment, housing, etc.) based on the fact that I'm an {insert group ofchoice here}, it's the govenrment's place to force people to treat meequally.  30 years ago, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.  Theywere being denied their God-given equality.  It was minority rights thatallowed them to sit anywhere they wanted.  Is that an EXTRA right?
This comes back to the PGA issue that somehow started all this.  I thinkthat the Americans w/ Disabilities Act is all about EXTRA rights.  Thatgolf player is asking for extra rights.  No one is allowed to ride in agolf cart, but he says he should be able to.  That's an EXTRA right.  Forthat matter, handicapped parking spaces are an extra right.  I'm not sayingit's wrong, but there is a distinction.  I'm not asking for extra rights.I'm just asking for legal recourse if I'm being denied my equality.
>>"The problem with "tradition" is that it doesn't keep up with the>>times.">>NO that's simply wrong.  Tradition to me says "treat others as you would>want to be treated".  You respect other peoples and realize that>different does not mean better or worse.
Whoah, what dictionary do you read?  A tradition is an activity or practicethat is continued from generation to generation.  I would say that "treatothers as you would want to be treated," the so-called "Golden Rule" is anEXAMPLE of a tradition.  This particular one, in my opinion, does stand upto the test of time.  Not all traditions do.  Getting pledges so drunk theybecome violently ill is a tradition.  Is it a good one?  We've had somediscussion here that would suggest it's not.  That is something that needsto be re-evaluated in the present context.
>I coach 4-7 year olds in hockey.  The hardest thing to teach is to>respect your opponents and your team mates.
I laud your efforts.  I wish we had more parents like you.
>I agree that times change, but how do these traditional values (treat>others as you would want to be treated) not keep up?
Again, if it's the values that are traditional, I'm fine with that.Loyalty, support, responsibility, are all traditional values that apply tofamilies, and will never not keep up with the times.  But traditionalfamilies are a working father, stay-at-home mother, and 2.5 kids.Traditional families are becoming a thing of the past.  That doesn't meanthat traditional values need to be discarded.  It's the deadbeat dads whoignore traditional VALUES whom I think need to be spotlighed, notunconventional relationships that ignore traditional FAMILIES.  The reasonthat I brought this up in the first place was because I felt that theRepublicans in '96 were focusing on the latter, when I felt they should befocusing on the former.  Not only did I think that was grossly misguided,it gave me the impression that the had a policy of being anti-gay.
>From: Sped>Exactly what rights are being held from you?>Not to be meant too direct, but...
A fair question.  I have to conceed that my life has been pretty free fromdiscrimination.  But consider this.  Suppose I fall in love.  We want toform a contractual union that will allow us to file a joint tax return,share health benefits, exercise medical power of attorney, etc.  That is aright enjoyed by heterosexual couples.  It's being held from me.  I don'twant to start a whole other can of worms with this example.  This would bea non-traditional family (so non-traditional that a lot of people see redat just the thought of it).  But anyone who knows me knows that I wouldbring traditional values to it.  I would be loyal, supportive, responsible,etc.
-- Toaph
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 22:38:08 -0400From: DonkerTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Republicans
I guess we just threw traditional morality out the window...We rewrite it every day, don't we?Where do we draw the line?
Just the first thoughts that came to mind, Toaph.Answer my question Bro., want to hear your point O' view.
Donk
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:30:27 -0500From: ZiggyTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Morality?
> I guess we just threw traditional morality out the window...> We rewrite it every day, don't we?> Where do we draw the line?> OK, come on now. All of this theoretical "traditional morality" is fine,but are we simply using it as a conversation piece?
I'll tell you what's traditional in America - Dad does what he wants(and shrouds his selfish career aspirations with the assertion that he'sworking all those hours to build a better life for his family). Momholds down the fort and is thankful to even have a fort. Girls areraised by their dads to be virgins until they're 30, and boys are raisedby their dads to go out and bed down every women they possibly can bythe time they're 21. Alcoholism, adultery, and spousal abuse runrampant, but they are simply not talked about, because those are"personal" matters. Wasn't this the America of the 40's, 50's, and 60's?Isn't that what everyone was tossing out the window in the 70's and80's? There are two differences between now and the 50's - women havereal rights in society and don't have to take our crap, and every detailof personal life is laid bare to the public. We can't hide from thesethings anymore.
Any of us who laments the decline of morality in modern society issimply blowing smoke unless we're out trying to do something about it.It's about giving a damn about the other person *every time*, not justwhen it's convenient for us.
Ziggy
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:20:51 -0500From: ToaphTo: Psi Phi Alumni ListSubject: Re: Republicans
>I guess we just threw traditional morality out the window...>We rewrite it every day, don't we?>Where do we draw the line?>>Just the first thoughts that came to mind, Toaph.>Answer my question Bro., want to hear your point O' view.
Donk,
The problem with a charged word like 'morality' is it means differentthings to different people.  If you're asking me, I would say that moralitycomes down to whether what you're doing hurts someone or not.  Peopleshouldn't do things that hurt other people.  If someone steals fromsomeone, that is hurting them.  If someone neglects their kids, that'shurting them.  I think that Ken summed it up best with his 'do untoothers' line.  That is a traditional moral that is timeless.  But there isa lot of traditional 'morality' that should be out the window, in my opinion.
Let me give a real-life example of a 'traditional' moral that's out thewindow.  My Army boyfriend was in Ithaca visiting for NYE.  At one point,he and a mutual friend went off by themselves.  I met up with them at theother guy's place later that night.  I walked in on them fooling around inthe guy's bedroom.  They were caught in the act.  You know what I said?"Oops, sorry.  I'll come back."  I did not consider this to be a breach ofmorality, because my boyfriend knows that I differentiate between physicalaffection and emotional attachment.  I know that my boyfriend is in lovewith me.  I am confident in that knowledge.  I know that he has the hotsfor the other guy.  I know that him getting it on with the other guy is nota threat to what we have, but a purely physical act based on a healthylibido.  He knows this is how I feel.  He knew he was not hurting me by hisaction.  The "traditional moral" that is out the window is, "Thy must bemonogomous."  That does *not* mean that it's fine for anyone to fool aroundin any situation.  I contend that it should be replaced with "Thy shall notharm another."  I know another gay couple.  One of the guys is the jealoustype, and would be devastated if he found his boyfriend fooling around withsomeone else.  If that happened, his boyfriend would be guilty of harminganother, and would have committed an immoral act.  My boyfriend, on theother hand, was not harming anyone, and was not behaving immorally.
This comes back to traditions changing with the times.  It hastraditionally been immoral to fool around with someone other than yourdesignated partner.  I'm saying that this should be out the window, andshould be *replaced* with a moral value that people shouldn't do thingsthat harm other people.  The problem with reactionaries (note I didn't say'Republicans') is that they get stuck in tradition.  ConservativeChristians will say that my boyfriend was committing an immoral act, eventhough he, I, and the other guy think everything's fine.
I'm not saying that we don't need morals.  We need morals now more thanever before.  What I'm saying is that what has traditionally been immoralisn't necessarily immoral today.  Times are changing rapidly, and our moralcode needs to be updated with the changing society.  Not discarded.  Updated.
-- Toaph

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:15:26 -0400From: DonkerTo: ToaphSubject: Re: Republicans
I can understand what you're saying about "not harming others", and my usualattitude has been, "to each man his own".  It's difficult for me, coming from atraditional christian background, to accept homosexuality as a moral act.  As faras coming down on gay people, I can't help but agree completely with Bryan'sexcerpt from the Bible, "do unto others, as you would have others do unto you".That's really what it comes down to,  I have to put myself in your shoes (to aminimal degree) and attempt to understand the scorn and public harrassment yourgroup must endure.
I'm attempting to understand your rationalization for moralizing homosexuality.Still can't say that I understand it.
Anyway,  Seqvere Optima, that's what really matters.
Donk
To: DonkerFrom: ToaphSubject: Re: Republicans 
Donk,This went on a little longer than I expected it to.  I've just had a lot ofthese thoughts in my head for a long time, and it was your message thatfinally got me to put them down on paper.At 11:15 AM 2/7/98 -0400, you wrote:>I can understand what you're saying about "not harming others", and my usual>attitude has been, "to each man his own".  It's difficult for me, coming from a>traditional christian background, to accept homosexuality as a moral act.  As far>as coming down on gay people, I can't help but agree completely with Ken's>excerpt from the Bible, "do unto others, as you would have others do unto you".>That's really what it comes down to,  I have to put myself in your shoes (to a>minimal degree) and attempt to understand the scorn and public harrassment your>group must endure.>>I'm attempting to understand your rationalization for moralizinghomosexuality.>Still can't say that I understand it.>>Anyway,  Seqvere Optima, that's what really matters.>>Donk
You say that you're attempting to understand my rationalization formoralizing homosexuality.  By "moralizing," I'm going to have to assumethat you mean asserting that it's not immoral.  For example, I would saythat something like volunteer charity work is a moral act.  I wouldn't saythat gay sex is a moral act any more than I'd say that playing tennis is amoral act.  It's neither moral nor immoral.  It just is.  
Also, before I go any further, I have to reiterate that "morality" meansdifferent things to different people.  The Catholic church believes thatpremarital sex is immoral, and for that matter that any sexual activitythat is not strictly for the purposes of procreation (within theinstitution of marraige) is immoral.  Even innocent, solitary masturbation,in their eyes, is an immoral act.  If you agree, then I'm not going to beable to get anywhere with this discussion because gay sex clearly involvessexual activity between unmarried people with no intent of procreation.
For the purposes of this argument, I will have to assume that you believethat sexual activity between consenting heterosexual couples as anexpression of love and affection, though not intended for procreation, isnot an immoral act.  Yet, you believe that sexual activity betweenconsenting same-sex couples as an expression of love and affection, is animmoral act.  Again, if you can't accept this premise then there's not muchpoint in going on.
The most common argument I hear for gay sex being an immoral act is that itis a crime against nature.  The quote is, "God created Adam and Eve, notAdam and Steve."  It's hard to contradict the notion that gay sex iscontrary to survival of the species.  I'm going to come at this from acouple different angles.
The most explicit condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is from thebook of Leviticus.  In there you will find all manner of commandments forhow people should behave.  It's important to understand the historicalcontext in which these commandments originated.  Life was extremelydifficult.  Infant mortality was high, life expectancy was low, and justmaintaining the size of a population, let alone increasing it, was a verydifficult endeavor.  There were fewer people on the face of the earth thancurrently reside in the greater Dallas Fort Worth area.  Clearly the natureof these commandments is going to be geared towards survival andprocreation.  That is why, in my opinion, homosexuality was strictlyforbidden.  It is not directly involved in making babies.  I think theyalso had a lot of misbeliefs, like a man is born with only so much "seed,"and no semen should ever be wasted.  I'll have to look up some verses ofLeviticus to see what his other commandments are.  I think that there are alot of really weird ones that were also based on such misconceptions.
Now I'm going to say something that you're probably going to consider assacriledge.  Traditional Christians consider the Bible to be the word ofGod.  I don't.  I consider it to be the word of man, represented as beingthe word of God.  The leaders during Biblical times were, by and large,prophets.  People like Moses were the spiritual leaders, as well as the"political" leaders.  It was their stories, their teachings, and their lawsthat were eventually written down and collectively became the OldTestament.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that theywanted what was best for their people.  Unfortunately, people don't alwayswant what's best for them.  These prophets, faced with enemies on allsides, no medical technology, and encountering natural dangers every day,had the difficult task of getting their people to do what is best for them,even if they don't want to.  It is my belief that these prophets claimedtheir laws to be the word of God, and used their peoples' fear to get themto obey the laws.  Some of these prophets may have sincerely believe thatGod was speaking directly to them.  I am cynical enough to believe thatsome of the prophets also deliberately lied about the influence of God justto intimidate their followers into compliance with their own mandates.Either way, I don't believe that God speaks directly to humans.  I cannotbelieve that the contents of the Bible are the words of God.  I also cannotaccept that laws that were used millennia ago are necessarily pertinent toour situation today.  Things like, "Though shalt not kill" are asapplicable today as they were 4000 years ago.  But things like, "If a manlies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what isdetestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their ownheads" don't cut it with me in 1998.  Now, if I was living 4000 years agoand the survival of the tribe was the most important thing going, I'd behaving sex with women all over the place, no matter who I was attracted to. But we're simply not living in the same situation today.  If I don't havekids, the society as a whole is not going to be significantly diminished.
Let me go on a bit more about the Bible.  For the record, just because Irefuse to believe that it is the word of God does NOT mean that I don'tthink it has value.  The teachings of Christ, in particular, are all aboutpeace and love.  That's totally what I promote.  I know that traditionalChristians do believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that's finefor them.  I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone.  But one problem Ihave, and this is one that I'll never be able to get past, is that all butthe most staunch fundamentalists are very selective about the Biblepassages that they do or don't follow.  If you're going to follow the Bibleselectively, that's fine.  That's essentially what I do.  But I can'taccept that someone says I'm being immoral because I've selectively omitteda teaching of the Bible that they haven't omitted.  This comes back to thegeology thing.  According to the Bible, your very career is heresey.  Yourfield of study, by its very nature, delves in sacrilege and spreads lies.You are immoral for believing in it, let alone fostering it.  Do you buythat?  Do you think that a belief in geology makes you immoral?  The samegoes for evolution.  Do you believe we descended from the apes?  Do youpromote that belief?  Is that an immoral act?  The problem with this whole"word of God" things is that as soon as one part of it is proven wrong, thewhole house of cards comes crashing down.  I don't believe thathomosexuality is immoral any more than I believe that God created Adam froma lump of clay.
Now let me come at this "crime against nature" concept from another angle.As I suggested before, I can accept that it is contrary to the naturalorder of things.  The thing is, practically everything we do is contrary tothe natural order.  Lets go back to the very beginning of civilization: theagricultural revolution.  As soon as man started collecting and plantingseeds, and harvesting the crops that grew, we were behaving contrary to thenatural order of things.  God intended seeds to be cast upon the wind andtake root wherever they fell.  Taking that function into our own hands wasa defiance of God.  Lets move on to the next step: animal husbandry.  God'screatures were intended to wander the Earth freely and mate randomly.  Whenwe penned them in, forced them to do our bidding, and bred themselectively, we were again defying God.  The mule, by all rights, should bean *abomination* before God.  Forging metal is contrary to the naturalorder of things.  Cutting down trees, erecting buildings, digging wells,burning fossil fuels, rolling down roads in vehicles, flying through theair in planes, splitting the freakin' atom; all these things are againstthe natural order of things.  The truth is, it is contradicting nature thatmakes us human and sets us apart from the animals.  I can't accept thepremise that contradicting nature is automatically immoral.  Diseases arenatural.  Is someone committing a crime against nature if he survives adisease?
All this comes back to things changing with the times.  According to theBible, we're forbidden to eat pork.  That came about because in Biblicaltimes swine were carriers of disease.  But the prophets of the time didn'tsay, "Don't eat pork, you might get a disease."  They didn't know aboutmicro-organisms and disease.  They assumed that the pigs were wicked, andit became an immoral act to consume their flesh.  When medical science cameinto being and the diseases were cured, it no longer became immoral to eatpork.  The morality associated with it evaporated because people came tounderstand that the commandment was based on a misconception and ultimatelyhad no moral grounds.  Jewish people continue to abstain from pork simplyout of a sense of tradition, even though they know that there is nothingphysically wrong with it.  For them, eating pork remains an immoral act,not because you're consuming something wicked, but because you're doingsomething you're told not to do.  
There was a time when left-handed people were persecuted as being evil.The word 'sinister' used to mean 'left' or 'left-handed.'  Since themajority was right-handed and there was no explanation why someone wouldbecome left-handed, and there were no advantages to it, it was perceived asdeviant behavior.  Deviancy is treated as immoral.  This is an interestingparallel to homosexuality, because people could hide it and pretend to belike everyone else, while deep down inside they had to secretly live withthe knowledge that they were different.  They also probably lived inconstant fear of being discovered.
Today this seems silly.  In modern times we know that there's nothing*wrong* with being left-handed.  It's just different.  It's not deviant orimmoral.  It's just different.  I firmly believe that in the distant futurethat persecution of homosexuals will seem as silly as persecution ofleft-handed people seems to us today.  Back then,   right-handed peoplesimply couldn't understand why anyone would deliberately use their lefthand.  There was no reason for it, it provided no advantages, and actuallyintroduced some disadvantages.  Today people feel the same way abouthomosexuality.  I know that the 'born that way' argument doesn't hold a lotof credence with traditional Christians.  But you have to trust me on this,Donk.  I'm not lying to you.  When I was a kid and started looking at dirtymagazines, I was much more captivated by the male anatomy than the female.I never made a decision, any more than I made a decision to be left-handed. That's not to say that there aren't *any* people out there who made aconscious decision to engage in gay activity.  I'm sure there are lots ofpeople who decide they want to take a walk on the wild side.  It's like aswitch hitter in baseball.  He was born right-handed, but made a decisionto engage in left-handed behavior in certain situations.  What it comesdown to is the "core identity" issue that we had so much fun with a fewweeks back.  If someone's core identity is straight, but he gets it on withguys from time to time, he's not going to 'catch' homosexuality.  He's notgoing to suddenly be converted.  When I was dating women and fucking fatchicks, I actually made a conscious decision to be heterosexual.  It wentagainst all my natural feelings.  But just engaging in the activity didn'tmake me 'catch' straight.  My core identity is gay, I was born that way,and nothing can change that.
In the end, it all comes back to the concept that you identified with fromthe beginning.  I ask myself, "Is this hurting anyone?"  I don't feel thatit is.  Sure, some kids are hurting their disapproving parents, but theparents are also harming their kids with their disapproval.  Which is theimmoral behavior?  Van Gogh chose to be an artist against the will of hisparents.  Does that make it an immoral act?  But traditional Christianswill make the case that it *is* harmful.  Of course the first thing they dois bring up AIDS.  Spreading disease is harmful, and could be consideredimmoral.  I don't dispute this.  But it's a nonsequitur.  "Spreadingdisease is immoral; some gays spread disease; therefore all gays areimmoral."  Plenty of heterosexuals spread disease too.  Are allheterosexuals immoral?  The proper statement would be that irresponsible,unprotected sex is immoral whether it's gay or straight.  I would agreewith that.  But traditional Christians will say that deviant behavior harmssociety at large because of the degradation of moral values.  For me,immoral behavior is something that is harmful.  I can't accept the argumentthat the reason it is harmful is because it is immoral.  I think that thisself-referential logic is also falacious.  If you can give merepresentative evidence that something is harmful, like spreading disease,or deceiving a spouse, or whatever, then I can accept that that specificbehavior is harmful, but I can't accept a blanket condemnation of an entirepractise.  Plenty of people are being gay without hurting anyone.
I've pretty much laid out my thinking as to why homosexuality is notimmoral.  I don't know if I've convinced you or not, but I can say fromexperience that traditional Christians are not swayed from their views.  Idon't mean to sound judgemental, but it always strikes me as a "don'tconfuse me with the facts" scenario.  I think that there are a number ofreasons for this.  
One problem is that there are a lot of misconceptions based on the behaviorof closeted gays.  I can see how people get the impression that someone can'turn' gay.  Take me for example.  No one would ever suspect that I had gayinclinations.  I went for years without anyone suspecting.  Then when Ifinally decide to be honest about it, especially after fucking chicks for along time, it looked like I just suddenly decided to fuck guys instead.The complicating factor is that closeted gays are *very* good at concealingtheir true nature.  When you live in fear, you *have* to be good atconcealing it.  But this doesn't make it any less your "core identity."Just because it looks like an overnight transformation doesn't mean that itis.  Now, here is a point that I will conceed.  Deceit hurts other people,and in my opinion is immoral behavior.  That means that if you gay, Ibelieve that it is immoral to be closeted about it.  It's not that simple,and it's easy for me to have sympathy for someone who is engaging in thatimmoral behavior, but I think it's best for everyone to be out of thecloset from the very beginning.  I know that it was a really bad situationwith your brother, but I have to congratulate him for dealing with the fearand being honest about it at a relatively early stage.
I also think that there is something very deeply rooted in some people thatjust makes them utterly disgusted and disturbed by the very thought ofhomosexual acts.  It's like some primal thing.  Beliefs are very much likesexual orientation.  You never sit down and make a decision about what youbelieve.  Either you believe something or you don't.  As a traditionalChristian, I'll assume that you believe in the immaculate conception, theresurrection, etc.  I can't picture you saying to yourself, "Should Ibelieve this or not?  Yeah, I think I will.  Sure."  It doesn't work likethat.  You believe it because you believe it.  It's the same thing withbelieving that homosexuality is immoral.  There's no reason why people do.They just do.  And nothing is going to get them to believe otherwise.There seems to be a very large number of these people among traditionalChristians.  I think it's merely a convenient coincidence that the Bibleactually has some few passages openly condemning homosexuality.  I thinkthat these people would consider it immoral on a religious basis even ifthere was no mention of it in the Bible at all.
I'm going to wrap this up because it's already gone on a lot longer than Iever expected it to.  I would be happy if I was able to convince you tosome degree that homosexuality is not immoral, but that was not my goal.  Iwant you to believe what ever you want to believe.  But I do hope that Iwas able to help you understand my point of view better, and to know why Ifeel the way I do.
Seqvere Optima!
-- Toaph 
To: ToaphSubject: Re: Republicans
Your right Toaph, I didn't expect such an explanation, but anyway, read on....
> You say that you're attempting to understand my rationalization for> moralizing homosexuality.  By "moralizing," I'm going to have to assume> that you mean asserting that it's not immoral.  For example, I would say> that something like volunteer charity work is a moral act.  I wouldn't say> that gay sex is a moral act any more than I'd say that playing tennis is a> moral act.  It's neither moral nor immoral.  It just is.>
Just as you know that you feel deep down inside that you're a homosexual, I alsofeel deeply that it just isn't right, I can't explain it, it's just a gutfeeling.  Maybe due to my upbringing, I don't know.  But you're right aboutmorality, each man (or woman) , or society for that matter, makes their owndecisions about their moral standings, I believe it relates directly to eachindividuals life experience.  I've seen nothing but bad things come of it(besides the fact that it makes me nauseous-sorry), especially in my own family(my brother Mike).
> Now I'm going to say something that you're probably going to consider as> sacriledge.  Traditional Christians consider the Bible to be the word of> God.  I don't.  I consider it to be the word of man, represented as being> the word of God.
Then Sodom and Gommorah will have little meaning to you, seeing as though it wasan Act of God. Right?
>These prophets, faced with enemies on all> sides, no medical technology, and encountering natural dangers every day,> had the difficult task of getting their people to do what is best for them,> even if they don't want to.  It is my belief that these prophets claimed> their laws to be the word of God, and used their peoples' fear to get them> to obey the laws.
I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding this, but...you're saying the Bible wasused as a political? device to sway the "morals" of the people?  Maybe, moralsisn't the right word........how 'bout social beliefs?
> But I can't> accept that someone says I'm being immoral because I've selectively omitted> a teaching of the Bible that they haven't omitted.
True.  We all "selectively" obey the Laws of God (Ten Commandments).
> This comes back to the> geology thing.  According to the Bible, your very career is heresey.  Your> field of study, by its very nature, delves in sacrilege and spreads lies.> You are immoral for believing in it, let alone fostering it.  Do you buy> that?  Do you think that a belief in geology makes you immoral?  The same> goes for evolution.  Do you believe we descended from the apes?  Do you> promote that belief?  Is that an immoral act?  The problem with this whole> "word of God" things is that as soon as one part of it is proven wrong, the> whole house of cards comes crashing down.  I don't believe that> homosexuality is immoral any more than I believe that God created Adam from> a lump of clay.
Ha Ha.  Now you're hitting home.  You wouldn't believe the number of times I gotinto this discussion with my old man.  Whew!  Good point, and yes, I strugglewith Evolution / Creation every day.  If I could figure that one out, I'd win aNobel.  I don't care to discuss it any further, it's like apples and oranges.The scientist relies solely on facts and physical data, on the other hand, theChristian relies solely on "faith".
>Diseases are> natural.  Is someone committing a crime against nature if he survives a> disease?
??That's stretching it Toaph.
> My core identity is gay, I was born that way,> and nothing can change that.>
Born that way.  I can't accept that.  You're beliefs/activities/"morals" weremolded from "life experience". Is the Heisman Trophy winner born with the abilityto be a great football player? Are you saying there is some chemical orbiological mixture that favors homosexuality in newborns?  Touchy subject, butthe heart of the matter nonetheless.
> Plenty of people are being gay without hurting anyone.
So, in the years to come, when my 14 year old son/daughter tells me they are gay,do I encourage them to pursue that path in life?
> I've pretty much laid out my thinking as to why homosexuality is not> immoral.  I don't know if I've convinced you or not, but I can say from> experience that traditional Christians are not swayed from their views.
True. They're a stubborn bunch.
> I'm going to wrap this up because it's already gone on a lot longer than I> ever expected it to.  I would be happy if I was able to convince you to> some degree that homosexuality is not immoral, but that was not my goal.  I> want you to believe what ever you want to believe.  But I do hope that I> was able to help you understand my point of view better, and to know why I> feel the way I do.
I guess immoral is too relative.  It seems each person formulates his or her ownmoral standard.  I've just seen my brother's (Mike) life go down the shitter, soI'm personnally pissed off in regards to homosexuality.  It hurts the most whenit hits home, bro.Anyway....We may feel differently about this subject, but you're still my brother, andnothing can interfere with that.  Seqvere Optima.
Donk
To: DonkerFrom: ToaphSubject: A Couple Follow-up Points
Donk,
I'm glad that you are interested in trying to understand where I'm comingfrom, and I have a lot of respect for you for taking a level-headed,open-minded approach to the subject.  I just have a couple of follow-uppoints.
>Then Sodom and Gommorah will have little meaning to you, seeing as though it was>an Act of God. Right?
I don't know much about the story, but I've seen a documentary or two wherethey found the original site and were trying to determine what kind ofnatural disaster destroyed it.  I don't believe it was a deliberate act ofGod.  I believe that some natural cataclysm befell the cities, and the onlyexplanation that the people of the time could come up with to explain itwas that God swept them off the face of the earth.  
>I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding this, but...you're saying the Bible was>used as a political? device to sway the "morals" of the people?  Maybe, morals>isn't the right word........how 'bout social beliefs?
The thing is, at that time the Bible didn't as-such exist.  Stories werelargely passed down verbally from generation to generation.  Finally, somepeople had the foresight to write them down.  When this happened more andmore, they were put together collectively and then became the Bible.  Imean, Moses wasn't walking around with a Bible in his hand reading Exodusand saying, "Okay, next we head for the Red Sea."  
This comes back to Sodam and Gommorah.  There was some horriblecatastrophie, and the story of it was passed down from generation togeneration.  Stories can undergo changes and embellishment through thatprocess.  Who knows if the cities were actually filled with wicked peopleor not.  That may just have been how the story evolved as a way ofexplaining why these particular cities were destroyed.  I formulated someof these ideas way back when I was active, and was close with alumni VicJames.  He had a lot of insights on this.  Take the story of Moses partingthe Red Sea.  I don't believe for a minute that the hand of God actuallycaused the waters of a major body of water to part.  But what could havehappened was Moses devised some ingenious way to get his people across thesea without the Egyptians being able to follow them.  Then, as the storywas passed down, it kept getting embellished until it got to the point thatthe waters actually parted.
So I'm not saying that the Bible as such was used as a political device.I'm saying that the fear of God was used as a way of intimidating peopleinto following the morals, values, and social beliefs set down by theleaders.  As time progressed, the teachings and laws of the leaders becamewhat today is the Bible.
>Born that way.  I can't accept that.  You're beliefs/activities/"morals" were>molded from "life experience". Is the Heisman Trophy winner born with the ability>to be a great football player? Are you saying there is some chemical or>biological mixture that favors homosexuality in newborns?  Touchy subject, but>the heart of the matter nonetheless.
How people become homosexuals is a mystery, and probably will be for a longtime.  I've always considered my situation to be an interesting case study. I am the middle of three boys.  We all had essentially identical lifeexperiences.  My parents were very fair between us, treated us all equally,and we were brought up in a "moral," church-going environment.  Why is itthat I turned out gay and my brothers didn't?  
Regarding your football player example, consider this.  Take like 12 peoplefrom birth.  Put them all through the same football training throughouttheir whole lives.  Some will be better than others.  Some will bepathetic, and some will be championship material.  Some people are justnaturals at things.  The Heisman Trophy winner wasn't born with the abilityto be a great football player.  But he *was* born with the potential.  Idon't believe that he succeeded above all others just because he trainedharder.  I believe that he was born with a natural talent that allowed himto excel.
This is a touchy subject, and one you and I will probably never agree on.
>So, in the years to come, when my 14 year old son/daughter tells me they are gay,>do I encourage them to pursue that path in life?
I would say that you should neither encourage nor discourage them, butallow them to be free to pursue what they perceive to be their own path inlife.  Just remember that they're not doing this to intentionally rebel, bedeviant, or be immoral.  They're doing this because they feel it's what'sright for them.
>We may feel differently about this subject, but you're still my brother, and>nothing can interfere with that.  Seqvere Optima.
Right back at you.  I'm proud to have you as a brother.
-- Toaph