Bisexuality - does the morality of acting on sex. orient. change with "choice"?

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby tolkienpurist » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:41 pm

Greetings, fellow TORCers!<BR><BR>Mandatory disclaimer - did a search, found nothing on bisexuality whatsoever, unless it's come up under the rubric of homosexuality. <BR><BR>Standpoint - I'm writing this as a young adult who might be called bi-curious/bi-questioning in orientation, though purely heterosexual in conduct at this point. In essence, someone who is questioning and is trying to work out things. Fun stuff, being a young adult <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> I wouldn't feel that any explanation was owed, but I don't want what I'm about to say to come out as anti-bisexual, because it is certainly not. <BR><BR>So, my question is this - does the morality of bisexuality vary from that of heterosexuality or homosexuality, given that bisexuals can "choose" where neither of the other two groups can? I realize that your standpoint on this would vary considerably depending on your religious background or worldview. It's just that it seems that a lot of the greater acceptance of homosexuality today derives from the argument that, "Well, they can't help being attracted to people of the same sex, and they can't be in (sexually, or attraction-wise) fulfilling relationships with people of the opposite sex." Of course, this rationalization does not apply to bisexuality, where the group in question CAN, in fact, engage in meaningful, sexually fulfilling relationships with the other sex. The counter to this that I have most frequently heard is that regardless of the element of choice, it does not make sense to deny yourself the opportunity to engage in a loving relationship with someone who you care about, just because others say that you should.<BR><BR>I can just see the objections to what I just wrote. Inherent in the language is the implication that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not equal, and that same-sex relationships are to be engaged in only by those for whom the alternative is entirely unacceptable. I did not phrase it that way because that is what I personally believe, but I phrased it that way because that is what AMERICA (and my guess is, the rest of the world) seems to believe, given prevailing justifications for becoming more accepting of homosexuality (many of which center around this notion that homosexuals have no alternative, so how can they be faulted?)<BR><BR>I'm also interested in hearing from those who believe that homosexual conduct is a sin, a standpoint with which I do not personally agree. Would you view bisexual conduct as a "greater" sin, given the element of expanded choice...or are the two merely equivalent in your view?<BR><BR>Any thoughts, opinions, comments on this subject or anything, in fact, relating to bisexuality would be appreciated. I am frequently frustrated that it is continually marginalized relative to heterosexuality and homosexuality.<BR><BR>- TP
User avatar
tolkienpurist
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:30 am
Top

Postby RELStuart » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:44 pm

<em>Nope. What consenting adults do, anw with whom, is nobody else's business, as a rule.</em><BR><BR>Are you married Ax? If so is it any of your business what your spouse may do with some other consenting adult?<BR><BR>tolkienpurist are you talking about marrying multiple people? Or just sleeping around?
User avatar
RELStuart
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:55 am
Top

Postby tolkienpurist » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:49 pm

Neither. I am talking about the relative morality, if there is any difference at all, between:<BR>a bisexual adult choosing to engage in consensual homosexual sex vs. <BR>a homosexual adult choosing to engage in consensual homosexual sex vs. <BR>a heterosexual adult choosing to engage in consensual heterosexual sex.<BR><BR>For the purposes of illustration, all three could be within monogamous, committed, long term relationships. Bisexuality has nothing to do, per se, with sleeping around or polygamy, and I don't know why you assumed that from my post.
User avatar
tolkienpurist
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:30 am
Top

Postby Axordil » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:02 pm

Hey, where did my first post go? Edit--oh, new thread. Never mind.<BR><BR>REL--Neither the range of acts themselves nor the gender of the other person makes the activity immoral--the violation of trust does, which is a separate issue.
User avatar
Axordil
Mariner

 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Sardo » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:04 pm

I think that bisexuals have just as much choice as hetero-/homosexuals when it comes to "determining" with whom they fall in love. I don't believe love is a matter of choice. It happens to you, regardless of gender.<BR>
User avatar
Sardo
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:44 pm
Top

Postby FairGoldberry » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:07 pm

tp, I completely understand your first post and sympathize with what you are going through. As a comfort, your language did not imply any superiority of orientation, it actually equalized the sides quite appropriately.<BR><BR>I live in America and see exactly the kind of prejudices you are talking about; the "they can't help it and that's why we shouldn't persecute them" argument. Even if homosexuals and bisexuals <em>could</em> choose their preference, there is no reason to persecute them. NONE whatsoever! I don't even see why it matters, quite frankly, if you can choose or not. It is not a sin for man to sleep with man nor woman to sleep with woman, independent of choice. As it may be, scientists have actually proven that homosexuality is in genetics and can not be helped, although it really should be completely irrelevant.<BR><BR>It is my opinion that you can not declare yourself un-bi until you have been together with both man and woman, and only then can you truly say "I don't like girls" or "I don't like boys." I find it foolish to look at the same sex and automatically assume that you are not attracted to them. And this paragraph is mostly directed at young adults like yourself, and myself.<BR><BR>Furthermore, it is my personal belief that no one is entirely straight or entirely gay. This seems incomprehensible to most people, but I firmly hold that stance.<BR><BR>FGb
User avatar
FairGoldberry
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:48 pm
Top

Postby bessthebard » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:38 pm

FgB--missed you at Auntie's!<BR><BR>It is based entirely on personal opinion, but I, too, think that there is a sexuality continuum and we all fall at different points along it. At one end would be those who are 100% homosexual and at the other end would 100% heterosexual people. Along with continuum would be a mix of sexual orientations. <BR><BR>I will say that being bisexual may complicate romantic relationships in a lot of ways. I have a lesbian friend who has fallen in love with and is living with a girl who recently declared herself bisexual and wants to also date men. Very tense situation for them. The bisexual woman does not feel like it is being unfaithful since she has both inclinations. Personally I feel being faithful means being with one person at a time.
User avatar
bessthebard
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 6:29 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:07 pm

I'll start with a joke - bisexuals are just greedy.<BR><BR>Ok, those who insist that everyone should be heterosexual will consider bisexuals to be as bad as homosexuals, because both of them are violating the standard of the one doing the judging. They will see no difference, which is a shame because there is a difference.<BR><BR>Psychologically, everyone is bisexual. Everyone has a hetero urge and a homo urge, it's just that in most people, one urge is much stronger than the other. In the majority of peopel, the hetero urge is by far stronger, and in some people the homo urge is stronger. In some people, both urges are close to each other in strength.<BR><BR>Technically anyone can experience pleasure against their primary gender preference, although most of them will find it odd, strange, difficult, etc. For some it will be a one-time experience, for some a disturbing fantasy they don't want to admit they have.<BR><BR>From my point of view, morality only comes into play with regards to relationships. Whether gay or straight, or bi in a gay or straight relationship, most people consider it moral to have only one partner at a time. My take is unless the relationship is understood to be open by both partners, then only one partner at a time is a pretty good moral standard.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Guruthostirn » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:15 pm

<em>The bisexual woman does not feel like it is being unfaithful since she has both inclinations.</em><BR><BR>She's nuts. She's ascribing to a position that the different versions of sex are so different that doing the other one than you do with your partner isn't cheating. Cheating is being with another person in an intimate way without the consent of your current partner. If she's asking her current partner, that's fine. But if she isn't, that's messed up.<BR><BR>Looks like the anti-gay group aren't hanging around here...I thought I'd see a lot more flames.<BR><BR>I'll agree with CG that morality is relationship based, not gender based. I've never seen anything to indicate that, biologically, homosexuality/bisexuality changes the relationship capabilities of a person. Yes, a lot of gays/bi's sleep around, but that's more part of the socio-cultural environment such people are in (yes, that's a generalization). Those statistics say nothing about the underlying biological capability of a person to be in a lasting relationship. If there is such a thing for hetero people, bi/gay people have it as well.<BR><BR>TP, your question is pretty much weighted towards an "equality" answer. Christians, I'd assume (after seeing many comments) would say that if homosexuality is bad, bisexuality is at least as bad, if not worse. The people that don't have a problem with gays won't have a problem with bi's.
User avatar
Guruthostirn
Mariner
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:28 pm
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Top

Postby Smallbottle » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:18 pm

Right and wrong are not one thing among straight people and another among bi's and gays. Whatever your orientation, you have the same obligations. Treat people with respect, as ends in themselves and not as means to your ends. Take advantage of no one. Do not betray a trust. Do not break a promise to be monogomous. <BR><BR>Doesn't anyone read the Kinsey report any more? On the Kinsey scale, only 6's are 100% homosexual, 1's 100% heterosexual. There is a vast spectrum in between where many people find themselves, at various points in their lives. <BR><BR>BTW, I have always felt that those most obsessed with sexual "sins" are those struggling the hardest with their own feelings. The debate over gay marriage has reinforced that opinion. Here in Massachusetts, those defending gay marriage talk about love, commitment, keeping families together, and so on. Those against it talk about bestiality, polygamy and incest. Look at where their minds are, for goodness' sake! <BR><BR>The most astonishing example, of course, is the Catholic Church. The hierarchy came out in full-force against gay marriage, spending money and lobbying at a furious pace, with dedication they have never given to such issues as the death penalty or social services for the poor. One of the major Massachusetts bishops to speak out against gay marriage has since resigned under accusations of pedophilia, and the latest statistics (from the Church itself) indicate that approximately one out of every twenty priests was a child molester.<BR><BR>So it may not be a universal rule, but when people tell you bi or gay is sinful, there's a good chance you are simply a bystander in their own struggles with themselves.
User avatar
Smallbottle
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:15 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:18 pm

<em>The people that don't have a problem with gays won't have a problem with bi's.</em><BR><BR>No, some people say bi's are just greedy. Straights look at the opposite sex, gays look at the same sex, and bis look at everyone.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Guruthostirn » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:27 pm

<em>Straights look at the opposite sex, gays look at the same sex, and bis look at everyone. </em><BR><BR>Is that a bad thing? At least they've got more eye candy out there for themselves...<BR><BR>Hmm, maybe that makes them more picky...
User avatar
Guruthostirn
Mariner
 
Posts: 5055
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:28 pm
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Top

Postby Wandering but not lost » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:33 pm

Here is as I see it:<BR><BR>Neither are immoral. Personally, I do not engage in sexual activity before I feel a relationship has taken a serious level. That is my morals however I do not perscribe morality onto others. If you have similar morals, then you might view it as a bad thing to engage in sexual activity unless you plan to take the realtionship seriously. HOwever, as long as you are careful, then I dont see anything wrong with trying to understand this aspect of yourself. <BR><BR>The illusion of choice is an interesting one. If you have bisexual tendencies, can you choose not to be attracted to the same gender? You can choose to express it or not but you cannot choose to have the attractions. Homosexual people likewise cannot choose to have attractions to the same sex. They can choose to express them or not though. As I see it, there isnt a choice really. Indeed, bisexuals can choose one gender or the other but there is still the attraction to the non-selected gender.
User avatar
Wandering but not lost
Mariner
 
Posts: 5022
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2000 1:00 am
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:58 pm

Personally, I don't think the religiously-motivated are going to let ordinary gays off the hook even if it's shown beyond doubt that sexuality is 100% determined by biology. There's evidence for genetic predispositions toward violence, alcoholism, adultery, etc., but that doesn't make those things excusable. If you believe a particular behavior is fundamentally wrong, you're not going to change your mind just because you find out the motivations behind it are different from what you originally thought (though perhaps you'll be a tad more understanding).<BR><BR>I also think bisexuals are more likely to get flak from everyone because there's a tendency to believe they're making the whole thing up just to be trendy (and it doesn't help that some of them undoubtedly are).<BR><BR>And just to be clear, I don't have a problem with either one.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby MerlintheMad » Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:47 pm

<em>"As it may be, scientists have actually proven that homosexuality is in genetics and can not be helped, although it really should be completely irrelevant."</em><BR><BR>That's an exaggeration: science has only begun to address the evidence that way. It is FAR from proven.<BR><BR>But that is beside the point. Dave_LF said it well: tendencies do not make the actions excusable if they are fundamentally wrong.<BR><BR>Judeo-Christian morality is thousands of years old. The implication of changing the morality is that the scriptures no longer can be trusted as having come from God through inspired men: because if you change something so fundamental as sexual morality, then you are claiming that God is a changable being who doesn't really care what people do sexually: that there is (by inference) no prophecy, no commandment, no religion revealed by God.<BR><BR>That is what will happen if homosexuality and bisexuality enter into our societies as equally valid expressions of "love" in a monogomous relationship (called "marriage" lately, if homosexuals have their way). The determinant, of whether such practices are right or wrong, is not monogomy: it is whether or not God said it is wrong.<BR><BR>Those who believe these things are sins will never be convinced by scientific evidence to change their convictions. Likewise, those who do not believe that morality is anything more than relevant to the times and places in which it is *remodelled*, will not accept that God would even care (if they claim to believe in him at all).
User avatar
MerlintheMad
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:20 pm
Top

Postby bessthebard » Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:05 pm

Hi Merlin, <BR>As hard as it may be to accept, it is possible to believe in God, in the Bible as inspired by Him, and that sexual orientations other than mine are acceptable as His creations. I do. You probably think I'm wrong and I don't know all the facts, figures, and scriptures to prove I'm right. I just know what's in my heart and what I've experienced of God's unconditional love in my own life. <BR><BR>What's more, I believe in the Book of Mormon, modern revelation, and women and homosexuals in the priesthood. How's that for holding mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time?<BR><img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
bessthebard
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 6:29 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:25 pm

<em>Judeo-Christian morality is thousands of years old. The implication of changing the morality is that the scriptures no longer can be trusted as having come from God through inspired men: because if you change something so fundamental as sexual morality, then you are claiming that God is a changable being who doesn't really care what people do sexually: that there is (by inference) no prophecy, no commandment, no religion revealed by God.</em><BR><BR>Judeo-Christian morality is not the only morality that is thousands of years old. Argument by age is a fallacy, and just because something is old doesn't mean it is correct.<BR><BR>Some of the many thousands of years old moralities have a more open sexual morality. And by trying to disagree with those other other non-Christian moralities by imposing Judeo-Christo-Mormon morality, you are saying that God is a changable being who doesn't really care what people do sexually: that there is (by inference) no prophecy, no commandment, no religion revealed by God.<BR><BR><em>That is what will happen if homosexuality and bisexuality enter into our societies as equally valid expressions of "love" in a monogomous relationship (called "marriage" lately, if homosexuals have their way). The determinant, of whether such practices are right or wrong, is not monogomy: it is whether or not God said it is wrong.</em><BR><BR>You make many claims. I hope you will try to establish them.<BR><BR><em>Those who believe these things are sins will never be convinced by scientific evidence to change their convictions. Likewise, those who do not believe that morality is anything more than relevant to the times and places in which it is *remodelled*, will not accept that God would even care (if they claim to believe in him at all).</em><BR><BR>Those who believe in morality might believe in a different morality in which actions moral in one morality are immoral in a different morality. You commit a fallacy when you say that the Judeo-Christio-Mormon morality is equivalent to morality itself.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Magpie » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:18 am

Seems like everybody's pretty much said it, tp!<img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>If you're basing your judgment on the idea that God said something was wrong and therefore it is, and you believe God has said having sex with someone of your own sex is wrong, then bisexuality is just as wrong as homosexuality.<BR><BR>Other people (myself included) see no difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex in terms of morality. It depends on the situation. The person who thinks she should be able to sleep with men as well as her girlfriend because she's got both inclinations is no more correct than a guy who says he should be able to sleep with other women besides his wife because he's got inclinations that way. That's something every couple would have to work out.<BR><BR>But I see your point in the way people often focus on the idea of "they can't help it" when claiming homosexuality is not immoral. I have a problem with that argument to begin with because it just has this implication of gay sexuality being different from heterosexuality in terms of control. I mean, gay people have probably lived as straight people for hundreds of years because of societal pressures etc. They can't help being attracted to the genders they are, but they're just as in control over their actions as anyone else. The point is there's no reason they should choose to be with a woman when they'd be happier with a man any more than a man should choose to be celibate rather than be with a woman that I can see.<BR><BR>-m
User avatar
Magpie
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 1:22 pm
Top

Postby Smallbottle » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:44 am

It's always interesting to hear the argument that if "God" said something is wrong in the Bible, he never changes his mind. Leave aside the fact that most people on earth do not believe in the Bible, and even most Christians would not say God "wrote" the Bible (fundamentalists are a distinct minority worldwide). Instead consider the inconsistency of the argument.<BR><BR>People who think "the Bible tells us so" are very selective in choosing which parts of the book are literally true. Are they going to hell for eating cheeseburgers or shrimp scampi? Do they approve of getting their fathers drunk and sleeping with them? Is it morally right to get an enemy to surrender and convert to your religion, and then kill them while they are recovering from their forced circumcisions? The Bible tells us all of these things.
User avatar
Smallbottle
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:15 pm
Top

Postby MerlintheMad » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:54 pm

<em>"What's more, I believe in the Book of Mormon, modern revelation, and women and homosexuals in the priesthood. How's that for holding mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time?"</em><BR><BR>I am liberal in my charitable feelings, but that just takes my breath away.<BR><BR><em>"The Bible tells us all of these things."</em><BR><BR>And shows them to be wrong. That's the kind of book the bible is: a continuous (monotonous) story of sinning and comeupance, repenting and blessing and protection. Lot's daughters, as typical products of their peer group (in Sodom and Gomorrah) were little harlots.<BR><BR><em>"You make many claims. I hope you will try to establish them."</em><BR><BR>Not "many", only a prediction of where this is going (which will either be proven accurate or false, ergo, I can only wait and see like everyone else); and that people who believe in traditional (old) Judeo-Christian(-Mormon) morality will never accept the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, where sexual morality is concerned.<BR><BR>It is (sadly) wide-spread, that religious persons, in order to live more comfortably with the world's increasing hedonism and immorality, will require that their religion "mainstream" itself to fit in.
User avatar
MerlintheMad
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:20 pm
Top

Postby Magpie » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:12 pm

<em>It is (sadly) wide-spread, that religious persons, in order to live more comfortably with the world's increasing hedonism and immorality, will require that their religion "mainstream" itself to fit in. </em><BR><BR>And sadder, I think, if people can't understand that many religious persons are not trying to live more comfortably by believing what they do, but to live more honorably and morally. (Homosexuality is as connected to hedonism as heterosexuality is.) I think in plenty of ways the world is becoming less immoral, in other ways more. <BR><BR>-m
User avatar
Magpie
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 1:22 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:22 pm

<em>And shows them to be wrong. That's the kind of book the bible is: a continuous (monotonous) story of sinning and comeupance, repenting and blessing and protection. Lot's daughters, as typical products of their peer group (in Sodom and Gomorrah) were little harlots.</em><BR><BR>What an interesting claim. Are you talking about the Jewish and Christian Lot, or the Mormon Lot?<BR><BR><em>Not "many", only a prediction of where this is going (which will either be proven accurate or false, ergo, I can only wait and see like everyone else); and that people who believe in traditional (old) Judeo-Christian(-Mormon) morality will never accept the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, where sexual morality is concerned.</em><BR><BR>That statement I can accept. It is when you referred to the Judeo-Christian-Mormon morality as "the morality", denying the existance of others, that I have a problem.<BR><BR><em>It is (sadly) wide-spread, that religious persons, in order to live more comfortably with the world's increasing hedonism and immorality, will require that their religion "mainstream" itself to fit in.</em><BR><BR>Religion need not mainstream, actually. However, religion that doesn't mainstream will notice that it is different.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Tinwe_Linto » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:51 pm

TP,<BR><BR><em>So, my question is this - does the morality of bisexuality vary from that of heterosexuality or homosexuality, given that bisexuals can "choose" where neither of the other two groups can?</em><BR><BR>Fascinating question. People often talk about how sexual orientation is not a matter of choice (those who give credence to the scientific evidence suggesting it may be genetic). But is bisexual a genuine "orientation"? I would assume that those people active in the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) community would argue strongly that it is. How then does one reconcile the inherent contradiction in an orientation that allows choice, but isn't itself a "choice"?<BR><BR>For myself, I guess I fall into the camp the believes the bisexuals are simply those people that don't have the hang-ups that strictly hetero or homosexual people have (or maybe they have twice the hang-ups - who knows? ). If someone can love a person intimately regardless of gender, I say good for them. Reminds me of a song by Living Colour:<BR><BR><em>Everybody loves you when you're bi</em><BR><BR>As for morality, I think the same rules apply for all - commitment, fidelity, devotion - ultimately right and wrong are not one thing for one group and something else for another (despite what some people say).
User avatar
Tinwe_Linto
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:58 pm
Top

Postby ddraigwen » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:40 pm

Okay forgive me if this is a little muddled but I often get things messed up when I try to explain things:<BR><BR>I am a Bisexual woman who has always (as far as I can remember) been atracted to people of both sexes. Even during the onset of puberty, before I relised there was the word Bisexual I was like that.<BR>I have had relationships with people of both genders and for me gender is ust simply not an issue when I am attracted to them. I have however received animosity from both Hetero and Homo people based on my gender. The straight people seem to feel that I am being greedy or that I am using my own gender to get close to straight women and to "turn" them. Believe me I have had that accusation from more than one man.<BR>Then there are the people who are Gay who say that I have just not committed to being Gay and that I am hiding behind bisexuality because it is more "fashionable" and therefore accepted. Something which I truely do not believe.<BR>I have known people who declare themselves to be bisexual for both reasons. That it is a more acceptable way of being gay and that it is the current fashion. If that is what they want then who am I to stop them but I think it does reflect negetivly on those people who truely are Bisexual.<BR><BR>I hold very firm morals with regards to sex and would never be considerd a person who sleeps around. I know people of all genders who sleep around or do not therefore I think sexuality is not a factor here merely a personality trait.<BR>for e.g My gay friend in his 30's has been with the same man since he was 19. <BR>Then there is the straight woman in her 40's i work with who sleeps with at least two or three different guys a week, all one nighters.<BR><BR>Just thought I would put a Bi perspective on it
User avatar
ddraigwen
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:27 pm
Top

Postby Smallbottle » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:49 pm

ddraigwen<BR><BR>Who needs to talk to actual Bi people? We get everything we need to know from the Bible!<BR><BR>;-)
User avatar
Smallbottle
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:15 pm
Top

Postby Gli » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:29 am

Interesting question indeed. My own experience is that, though I'm bisexual, my sexual orientation is not at issue morally when I enter a relationship -- what is "morally significant" is whatever commitment I make. For me, being in a monogamous relationship means that while I'm committed to this one person, I am not going to engage in intimacy with someone else, regardless of sex. Things are...different outside a monogamous relationship.<BR><BR>However, I also think "morality" is a distinctly individual issue, and determining the morality of an action is entirely dependent on the morality of the individuals' involved. A difficult task when discussing theoreticals. It's easy, though, to say, "Here's how I'd apply my morals!" <img src="http://www.tolkienonline.com/mb/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Gli
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 7:40 pm
Top

Postby MerlintheMad » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:58 pm

<em>"What an interesting claim. Are you talking about the Jewish and Christian Lot, or the Mormon Lot?"</em><BR><BR>*Mormons* don't have a different view of Lot. I am referring to the daughters of the biblical Lot. You will notice if you read the OT looking for it (and even if you don't look for it), that the story is Judaic only: it does not pursue a historical view from any other perspective than that of the kingdom of Judah, looking backwards to their origins. The daughters of Lot, the double standard of Judah (as pertaining to Tamar his daughter-in-law), the murderous attitude of the sons of Israel toward Joseph, the behavior of king David's children (incest, murder, rebellion, treachery): and ALL of this particular line arrive finally at the coming of the Messiah (to the Jews, still a future event, to Christians, already recognized). I don't think therefore, that calling Lot's daughters harlots is a stiff judgment. Now, were they deliberately wicked ? I don't think so: they were merely corrupt because of where they had been living and probably didn't know any better.<BR><BR><em>"That statement I can accept. It is when you referred to the Judeo-Christian-Mormon morality as "the morality", denying the existance of others, that I have a problem."</em><BR><BR>Oh, there are certainly MANY moral codes. But God only has ONE. To know what his morality is, now, that is the million-dollar question.<BR><BR>
User avatar
MerlintheMad
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:20 pm
Top

Postby tolkienpurist » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:43 pm

<em> there are certainly MANY moral codes. But God only has ONE. To know what his morality is, now, that is the million-dollar question.</em><BR><BR>I have much to say in response to a lot of people, but just wanted to comment on this right away. There are many moral codes, each of which are handed down by religions seeking G-d. It's a little presumptuous, isn't it, to state that G-d only has ONE (I am presuming that you are not divine, and are therefore not in the best position to comment), and the implication that YOUR conception of morality is G-d's, the clear inference we are to derive from your statement - I find strongly questionable.<BR><BR>- TP<BR>
User avatar
tolkienpurist
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:30 am
Top

Postby MerlintheMad » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:39 pm

<em>"It's a little presumptuous, isn't it, to state that G-d only has ONE [morality]"</em><BR><BR>I am not being presumptuous in reminding us what scripture says about the ONE God of this world, its creator and redeemer: "thou shalt have no other gods before ME". He says that he is never-changing. Therefore the morality that is biblical is also never changing. Judeo-Christian doctrine has always believed in a never-changing God. To have modern philosophers (and "bunny huggers" ) claiming that morality is to be defined between two consenting people, that "monogomous" homosexuality is equal in God's eyes to heterosexual marriage, to claim that God meant for rare individuals to BE homosexual because of some modern research perceiving that biology offers them no other choice, ergo, God's will be done and *marriage* is an open-ended definition from now on -- these kinds of assumptions are what is presumptuous. After all, other than the biological spin placed on it, none of these ideas are at all new, and all are condemned in biblical terms as sins and abominations.<BR><BR>I am not sorry to reiterate what the Bible says in this context. I know that many who start these kinds of conversations and comment on them will not agree, of course. We can only remain politely at loggerheads and go about our own business. But time will tell, whether or not the Bible is right or wrong: the proof will be in the fruit of our actions. Society will either become a wonderful utopia of everybody getting along, and letting everybody have their sex the way they have defined it (*morally*, of course); or else that society will reap the whirlwind that they have sown. Their posterity will have no moral sense and will destroy what freedoms they once enjoyed.<BR><BR>(Ben Franklin said the U. S. of A. had a government given to the people which would guarantee the freedom of a moral people; but an immoral people would be brought into bondage by the form of government Congress had set up. Ben was no prophet, but he was a wise man who knew history's lessons; and history says that immorality always leads to dissolution, corruption and loss of freedom. We can only watch and see.)
User avatar
MerlintheMad
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:20 pm
Top

Postby Smallbottle » Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:02 pm

While your comments are offensive in the extreme, they are also easily dismissed. Across the globe, a minority of people are Christians. A relatively small minority of Christians are fundamentalists. Now, of course, anybody has the right to hold an extreme minority opinion. But it is ironic, to say the least, to hear such small minority opinion expressed with a triumphalist tone. Nor are they particularly persuasive, when they consist of a tissue of assertions without substantiation.<BR><BR>Let's address the minority of Christians who believe all morality is determined by the Bible. Obviously "Biblical" morality is quite mutable. Divorce is permitted; then it isn't. Stoning is mandated, then not. Eating pork is an abomination, then it's fine. Saturday is the holy day; then it's Sunday. Copulating with a drunk old man who is not your husband is the will of God, then it isn't. To hear someone quote supposed Biblical condemnations of homosexuality and then proceed to munch a bacon cheeseburger is a very entertaining way to pass an hour.<BR><BR>Flip-flops of this supposedly eternal morality have continued to the present day. The Catholic Church has condemned in its time such evils as democracy, a free press, Copernican astronomy, and, let us not forget, the hybridization of cattle. In the U.S., God-fearing Protestants have of course found in the Bible justification for holding fellow human beings as property.<BR><BR>In short, everyone posits the moral rules that they themselves happen to agree with. The difference is, some point to the Bible (or other "revealed" text) as the source of their personal rules so that they don't have to answer for the consequences of their own decisions.
User avatar
Smallbottle
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:15 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests