blogs_blog_146

Everyone is given an equal ability to express themselves on this website.

 

I can speak of my own, personal, religious beliefs as much as you can, Kahi. We're both equals on that ground -- no matter how much it may partake in either of our lives.

 

However, my feelings for the same gender are not the same as your feelings towards your religion. I absolutely love that, if I so choose, I may express things about the man I hold dear, little tidbits here and there that are more romantic in nature. But you can do the same thing! You can talk of your girlfriend/boyfriend whenever you wish, you can write male/female romance stories on the forums (as long as they abide by the rules, of course), you can create male/female romantic artwork, or entries about the person you might find interesting. We're equals here too -- I can speak about the man I adore, and you can speak of the woman ( or man? Not sure of your gender and would hate to assume here ^.^;; ) you adore just the same!

 

At the same time, I (and Gato, for example) can make entries about troubles in our respective lives regarding our romantic feelings, just as you can. Members can talk about how differently their parents treat them based on the person of the opposite gender they like, so why can't anyone else? It's a matter of making it fair for everyone across the board, no matter what gender, or person, they're attracted to.

 

But, to reiterate, homosexuality (or any sexuality) does not equate to religion. Homosexuality is equatable to heterosexuality. Therefore, the two things (homosexuality & religion) fall under completely different rulesets.

 

I hope that cleared up any confusion you had?

I've just noticed something I find funny: The fact that none of us here have been able to argue on the same facet of this argument at the same time.

 

/attempts-to-relieve-tension

@Kahi I will put this as simply and concisely as I can. Simply because I feel it does not necessitate a long drawn-out explanation. There is some scientific evidence that indicates that homosexuality is at least in part genetically-based. Religion is something you are raised into and has no basis in your genetic material. Homosexuality on the other hand is a piece of someone's very innate makeup, a part that cannot and more importantly should not be denied. Two very different things.

 

Asking someone to keep their way of viewing the world and their religious beliefs non-vocalized is different than asking someone to keep a very part of who they are as a human being hidden. It's like saying 'please don't mention that you're a natural blonde on this forum'. Being a natural blonde is not a choice. Science seems to be indicating in our day and age that neither is homosexuality.

 

And another thing, is religion really a part of your identity as a living thing or is it a part of your personality as a person? I personally feel that beliefs and things that one chooses are part of a personality and that identities are more reserved for things that one cannot change and innate parts of self.

 

Well that wasn't nearly as concise as I'd hoped it would be.

But what if I say that being a homosexual is a choice? What if I say you are born a Christian?

 

Kahi I'm sorry but that is a REALLY terrible argument

 

Christianity is a set of beliefs that are passed on from person to person and is up to one's personal interpretation, just like any other religion

 

Like I guess you could be born predisposed to be a religious kind of person that would be more likely to believe what someone else tells them about this stuff but

 

No one is going to be "born Christian" in the sense that they have like the entire Bible in their head or something

 

That's just

 

No

@Kahi I will put this as simply and concisely as I can. Simply because I feel it does not necessitate a long drawn-out explanation. There is some scientific evidence that indicates that homosexuality is at least in part genetically-based. Religion is something you are raised into and has no basis in your genetic material. Homosexuality on the other hand is a piece of someone's very innate makeup, a part that cannot and more importantly should not be denied. Two very different things.

This one. I would also like to point out that being Christian and gay aren't mutually exclusive, as I am both. Some people believe the two are irreconcilable, and I believed that for a while, too. It really messed me up. I'm glad I'm over that hurdle.

Stuff you said that's too long to actually quote

In addition to the great answers already given to you, let me state too that yes, there is a difference here.

 

Your religion may be a vital part of who you are, I get that. Mine is too. We probably disagree very specifically on quite a bit in relation to it, but still, I get that. But here's the thing- our religious views can (and will) change over time. We realize things are wrong, we learn things that challenge our beliefs, and our beliefs adapt. Most sexualities do not do the same thing. You are not born religious, you are taught. You learn your beliefs, and then you adapt them to match the world you live in.

 

Sexuality is something you are born with and cannot change. Attempts to do so are proven to be psychologically damaging.

 

As such, we allow one and not the other.

 

Also, yes, the religion and politics rule is mostly about flamewars. It's also a little about safety and anonymity. We have a lot of kids here and some of the stuff they'd post on both subjects were too personal. Another thing though, is that we allow about the same amount of religion and politics in the blogs as we do about any sexual expression. You can say what your religion is, you can say who you want to vote for, you can talk about how you went to church or camp or how you went and even campaigned for a candidate. You just can't get any more into it than that.

 

When it comes to sexuality, we can discuss things like "I am dating so-and-so!" or "I like girls" or "I like boys". When it goes well (and I'm not sure this entry's comments did), we can even sometimes discuss the ramifications of some major topics.

 

But homosexuality is not inherently religious or political. It may be politicized, but so have race and gender, and we allow both of those to be talked about too. Hello, I am white, and I am a male, who likes girls. There is nothing religious, or political about what I said. For Gato to say "Hello, I am whatever race, I am a male, and I like guys and girls" shouldn't be either. Those are equal expressions.

 

This is an area where yes, a flamewar could happen. Just like when we discussed the inherent sexism in the BIONICLE story, or when we all discussed the LEGO Friends issue. But these are issues that affect how we view others on the site, how others are treated, and religion and politics really have no bearing on that.

 

We want everyone to respect each other, and have an equal ability to express themselves- that cannot happen if our non-heterosexual members cannot express their dating preferences or share their struggles in life just as our heterosexual members can. And expressions of "you are living in sin" or "I don't agree with your lifestyle" are not respectful. And not only that, but they are psychologically damaging. I will honestly say I see them as bullying. You guys may not think you are being disrespectful or hurtful, but you are, and in a way that is far more damaging than us saying you are being mean.

 

(And seriously, being told your views are disrespectful is a lot less hurtful than being told your entire being is wrong. There's no way to say that and then say you aren't being rude or mean no disrespect. You can gloss it up as much as you want, but at the end of the day, you are still telling another person that a vital part of them, something they have no control over and didn't choose, is wrong, and not only wrong, but gross and unnatural.)

Tilius I would request that you don't make borderline flames and what could be constructed as trolling. Implying that one side is non thinking and that people are silly for claiming a certain sexuality is pretty crass. It's also against BZP rules.

But that is kind of how it is. I lack sympathy. But okay.

Also there are numerous problems with the Kinsey scale and not everyone subscribes to it for perfectly valid and logical reasons.

Yeah, but what I mean is it's more accurate to have more specific 'sectors' to assign to people rather than just three.

 

What I do like about this discussion is that most people here seem to be arguing in defense of homosexuality. I feel this is PROGRESS.

 

- Tilius

Mutation isn't natural, sorry.

If this were true, the world would be a very, very boring place.

I don't think I'll comment on this debate or on how irrational some people are being in it, or how the statements of DV make BZP policy inherently contradictory. I think if I did, DV would continue to act most uncivilly, and most likely, that would not end well. Suffice to say that staff in this debate, on both sides, (although I believe Velox was quite provoked) reacted in an unstaffly manner; namely, they debated on this subject. Sorry, but staff are supposed to uphold BZP ruling, not go against it, and last I checked, debating on homosexuality is against the rules; ergo...

 

I will instead give a short reply (as I am able, since BZP rules apparently prevent me saying much on the subject that is not inherently against my beliefs) to the actual meaning of your blog entry.

 

I disagree, in a most compassionate way, with the title. 'Who' refers to the person, and thus it is inaccurate, as well as rather demeaning, to refer to someone's sexuality as who they are. You are Gato, not Bisexual; you are a person (a rational substance) who has, as an accidental or qualitative property a particular orientation as regarding sexual attracting (again, due to BZP's rules I cannot so much as comment on the orientation itself without being labeled as a homophobe and a rule breaker). You may then be ashamed of what is part of you, or what you have... But to think that you ARE your sexual orientation always seems to me to be demeaning to your own self. You are a human being with the same inherent rights as every other human being on the planet, Catholic or Atheist, servant or master, black or white, man or woman.

 

If you wish to think that my statements in that regard are bigoted or homophobic, or even inherently contradictory to 'tolerence' or BZP rules... then so be it. That's just my honest opinion, Gato, of your post and the thoughts expressed therein. I hope that the turmoil you seem to be experiencing right now resolves itself in a way that is both right and just.

 

I myself have friends who have a similar attraction, and I can understand how it can be difficult, especially as people can be intolerant! Again, I can't continue this thread, because, as DV so civilly illustrates, BZP rules inherently contradict my views, ergo I cannot voice them well.

 

In short: your sexuality is not who you are. Who you are is Gato, a human being with inviolable rights, an intellect and will, and many other qualities that are good, bad or neutral, just like everyone else. I can only follow the teachings of the Church in my view on the orientation itself, but I must also follow Her teachings on the person, which I just laid out.

 

Ironic how one doctrine can be acclaimed and the other branded as homophobic! Silly really, because 'Love the sinner' makes no sense without 'hate the sin' attached.

Zarayna, would you care to explain how a facet of someone's personality and existence is not who they are? Because I feel that one item holds the key to understanding your comment, and I currently can't puzzle it out for the life of me.

I don't think I'll comment on this debate or on how irrational some people are being in it, or how the statements of DV make BZP policy inherently contradictory. I think if I did, DV would continue to act most uncivilly, and most likely, that would not end well.

I believe I have adequately explained the policies, and how they are in no way contradictory. You can moan and complain because your view is the one we are not okay with, but that's life, and you'll learn eventually that sometimes things you believe or want to express are hurtful to another person, and that expressing those things is bad.

 

As to whether or not you think I'm being civil- I am, frankly, unconcerned. I am here to uphold the rules and make sure that the comments in here are following them- many are not, and as such, I am required to explain and enforce. Though it is funny to see that only someone who disagrees sees my posts as uncivil... hmmm.

 

That said, I am here to uphold the rules, and debating homosexuality is absolutely NOT what I am doing, and it is also not entirely against the rules. Our rules have been adequately explained throughout this thread, and if you were unable to follow, I will gladly reiterate them to you via PM if you would so like. Homosexuality is not an issue of religion or politics on its own accord, it has been made that way by others. I am not debating- I am standing up for those who are being oppressed, and enforcing the BZP rules. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate. I am not asking for arguments (in fact, I believe I explicitly stated anyone who comes in and argues after my last two posts would be punished for doing so), I am telling you all how it will be in BZPower.

 

You will respect the ability of our non-heterosexual members to express their romantic feelings, discuss their relationships, and share their struggles. You will absolutely not post in these entries telling someone who is not heterosexual that they are wrong, that they are sinning, or that you don't approve of their lives. Those are all in deep contrast to our rules, and they will be reported and dealt with as such.

 

I do not tolerate intolerance. You can argue that this is a contradiction- it is not. Any view that marginalizes another member and strips them of their basic human dignity is anathema and will not be allowed. Again- you get to choose your beliefs, and sexuality is not a choice. That is the difference between the allowed expression on BZPower.

 

This is a final warning. Any comments that criticize Gato, his sexuality, the sexuality of others, or what have you will be deleted without comment, and administrative action WILL be taken. I will not tolerate further deviation from BZPower policy. You may comment on the entry itself, you may NOT comment in a negative light regarding the topics brought up prior.

I hope things get better, Gato.

Zarayna, would you care to explain how a facet of someone's personality and existence is not who they are? Because I feel that one item holds the key to understanding your comment, and I currently can't puzzle it out for the life of me.

 

 

Sexuality is primarily seen as a function of the body; in fact in non humans it is solely a faculty of the body. However, due to our nature as thinking, rational beings, sexuality transcends into the intellect through romantic love. Sexuality (both the bodily expression in sex and the intellectual expression in love), therefore, is a faculty of a person in body and in soul. Note however the 'faculty of' portion. it is a faculty and an important one, but it belongs to something. In specific, it belong to someone: it is not who you are, for that is defined by your someoneness (for lack of a better word on the spur of the moment) It is a faculty of who you are. What you are is a person... Who you are is the individual person. Sexuality is outside the realm of who and what, and in the realm of whose and what's, if you understand; it belongs to someone, it is not someone. For sexuality is too universal a thing to be bound as a person; rather, it is a faculty of people.

 

This may sound dry and complex, but I feel it is very important. To me, it's the difference between a person accepting themselves as a person and a child of God, and a person accepting themselves as... A sexual orientation. Perhasp many people do not understand this.. But it seems to mark a shift in perspective and focus, and one that is destructive to all persons trying to live chastely, regardless of sexual orientation. In short, when man is seen as nothing more than a sexual creature, self restraint, and with it civility and rationality die out rapidly.

To Zarayana: I have never wanted to punch an elipses in the dot more, but I prefer words.

Yes, sexuality is a facet. When someone says they are gay or bi, it means they exist in that state as well as several others, such as human or white or blonde. When I say "I'm blond", I don't mean my blondness defines me as a person. This is just a matter of syntax.

Sexuality is a personal, intrinsic, and most importantly, a born-into trait. It's a part of a person's very being. It defines whom we love romantically, and if that isn't important to you, then you and I have a difference in what we value I fear may be insurmountable. When someone not only refuses to acknowledge a part of you -a part of you that's as natural and harmful to your being as breathing, and a part of you you had as much a choice in- or hates you, hurts you for it, there is something very wrong with that someone and that someone is wrong, comepletely and utterly.

Furthermore, I detest the insuation that someone identifying as bi or gay is somehow less in control of their primal urges than someone who identifies as straight. If I said I'm a heterosexual, you wouldn't think of me as some slobbering bundle of instinct and libido, would you?

And I feel I should mention that, because of what has been mentioned, no chastity is in any danger, nor will anyone catch "the gays".

 

To everyone playing devil's advocate: being tolerant of intolerance isn't just incoherent, it's cowardly. All you're doing is letting intolerance fester and hurt while you try to defend inferior arguments in the interest of fairness. Just because there are two sides to an argument doesn't mean they both hold the same weight or reason, so please stop acting like they do.

 

To Gato: I sincerely apologize for the circus that this heartfelt entry has become and offer you my fondest of bro-hugs. I love you, man.

Zarayna, I think your argument breaks down in that sexuality is not a choice. I did not wake up one day and thought, "Wow I think I am going to like guys today." Instead it was more of a "I am coming to the realization that I like boys." It also does not help that sexuality is linked to genetics. I did not choose to have natural brown hair. I did not choose to have blue eyes. In the same manner I did not choose to be bisexual. Just as I cannot simply choose not to have brown eyes, so too I cannot choose to be bisexual. Therefore it is an intricate part of who I am, and I cannot simply be seperated from it.

It seems to me that Zarayna's argument isn't really an argument, but rather his disagreement with the purely philosophical point that Gato (or somebody) made. Regardless of his other possible views, that postise mostly a clarification of an unrelated point regarding the nature of being.

 

So in other words, Zar's not disagreeing with you. Or maybe I'm wrong.

My argument is not related at all to that. My argument, simply put, is that your sexuality is not who you are, but what you have. Regardless or not of choice, your being is not your sexuality, despite intimate connections therein. No one would be silly enough to say that a human being is eyes, nose, a mouth, or ears. Or to be more specific, no one would say that you are brown hair, blue eyes, etc. They are properties of you, regardless of the level of importance (and sexual orientation is certainly a large property).

 

So yes, I am disagreeing with you; I'm saying that your sexual orientation is a faculty or (philosophic) accident of you, while your substance is Gato; namely your unique person.

 

I believe you can be separated from your sexuality, due to the fact that I believe in the duality of the human person; as a being of matter, chemical reactions, etc, but also a being of intellect, will and rationality. It's like how an apple is still an apple even if all its color is gone; there is not enough accidental change (change of the material properties) to warrant a substantial change (namely the apple no longer being an apple).

 

Furthermore, I detest the insuation that someone identifying as bi or gay is somehow less in control of their primal urges than someone who identifies as straight. If I said I'm a heterosexual, you wouldn't think of me as some slobbering bundle of instinct and libido, would you?

 

Identifying with an orientation already means that you accept that (you) are identifying or unifying with a particular orientation, not that you are that orientation.

 

In short, a person can identify with something but they cannot become that thing, as it is a separate thing from them inasmuch as their being is, well, their being; it cannot change. I could not, for instance, wake up one day and decide I was, Gato, or you. Well, I could, but I'd be living in an illusion, because I'd still be me.

 

My point is that saying that person is a sexual orientation infers inherently that they are simply a sexual orientation, that their orientation is their being.

Yes, but Gato's sexuality isn't just a faculty. What we are referring to by saying "Gato's sexuality" is the complex connotation that it has developed. His entire past. Gato's thoughts on it, and society's thoughts on the matter all make up what we are referring to.

 

Especially his past, which has influenced his will fundamentally. I may not literally be my parents, but their influence is so great that when I say they are part of me, I mean that they have shaped me incredibly, and that who (emphasis on who, not what) I am is deeply connected to them.

Wow. I just had a huge speech right in my text box there and then it just dissapeared. How annoying.

Ill start again.

Dont be ashamed of who you are. Just be glad you have accpeted it. Too many people live for year bottling things up inside, but you have over come that.

 

Also Parents always live ion the past. Just let em' get on with. Unless they abuse YOU(their own child), in which case, you pop em' right in the jaw.

 

Good luck buddy. hope everything works out for you

Yes, but Gato's sexuality isn't just a faculty. What we are referring to by saying "Gato's sexuality" is the complex connotation that it has developed. His entire past. Gato's thoughts on it, and society's thoughts on the matter all make up what we are referring to.

 

I don't see how those external things modify it.

 

Especially his past, which has influenced his will fundamentally. I may not literally be my parents, but their influence is so great that when I say they are part of me, I mean that they have shaped me incredibly, and that who (emphasis on who, not what) I am is deeply connected to them.

 

And it's a good thing to be able to say that your parents own you to the point where you are them in a certain sense? IMO, the only thing ideally you should be able to say that about is your will and intellect.

 

But anyways, I think I've stated my opinion well. This conversation really is getting pointless.

 

Best of luck to you, again, Gato.

@Zarayna:

Sexuality is an intrinsic part of who you are, no matter what way you try to spin it. Sexuality is hard-wired into your genes, and unless you can change that, you can't change sexuality. The emotions, love, etc. are hard-wired into your very personality, which (in my opinion) is a part of your "being", as you describe it.

You know what I love? Telling people, explicitly to stop with the negative arguments, and then seeing them ignore that. When I say "Stop or else", that is a message that is not to be ignored.

 

From the rules:

 

Respect the Staff. They have been chosen by the Administration to enforce the rules. You will listen to what they say. If they ask people to stop posting, stop. If they ask you to remove something that is inappropriate, remove it.

 

BZPower does not condone intolerance. If a member treats another member with disdain or contempt because of race, religious preference, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or a similar quality or belief, the member will face administrative action up to and including banning if severe enough.

 

 

Punishments are being levied, and I hope that everyone STOPS. You can post in this entry and say "Gato, I'm sorry for how things have been, it gets better, keep your chin up, love you man". Or "the world sucks" or whatever. You cannot come in here and make a negative comment about homosexuality or non-heterosexual orientations. Every comment after this one that continues to speak negatively towards homosexuality or non heterosexual orientations will receive a proto drop and, if this is not enough of a deterrent, if the perpetrator is a Premier Member, and one proto drop does not stop the comments, I will suspend your blog for a month.

Good luck Gato. That's really all I can say.

So, Zarayna, you're a fan of Aristotelian metaphysics, yes? Interesting line of thought, though, perhaps, unlikely to lead to a productive line of discussion here, owing to confusion over the actual intent behind the line of discussion - namely a lack of distinction regarding whether saying that something is part of the 'substance' of someone rather than a modifying and changeable property has an impact on whether that thing is chosen and how important it is.

 

For my part, discussing the matter in the context of Aristotelian philosophy, I would say that sexuality in an emotionally mature person is probably an essential characteristic, one that cannot be changed without fundamentally changing the person.

 

On the larger conversation... there is nothing I have to say that has not been stated several times, and more eloquently than I care to say it at midnight.

I'm disappointed in a lot of what has happened today, but I have to express my love and support for Gato and a bunch of other people.

 

There are gonna be some people who never understand, but there are people who will support you.

 

-Janus