I certainly agree that it’s difficult to accept how someone can show such a dramatic lack of critical reasoning skills on political and social matters, and also be a talented neurosurgeon. But If my doctor recommended him as the best choice, I’d take his advice.
My car mechanic does a superb job, and he listens to Rush Limbaugh religiously.
I realise that you didn’t say that, but there’s a big difference in saying “At that time, God didn’t let people eat shellfish, but now we can - it was a different law for that time and it carried an important metaphor of purity and separation” and saying “At that time, God didn’t let people have gay sex, but now we can - it was a different law for that time and it carried an important metaphor of purity and separation”. One you can accept as part of the shape of the culture and morally neutral, another is an expression of bigotry, even if the law no longer applies. If God is unchanging, this is a problem. My point was that although there are bigoted people who selectively use the Bible, the passages against homosexuality themselves doesn’t get off the hook that easily.
As for Leviticus not being relevant, the next chapter is the only place in the Old Testament with the words “love your neighbour (and immigrants) as yourself”.
That seems like a fair point. I get the feeling that Ms. GaGa’s song was addressed more towards gay men than the rest of the LBGT community (with nods to the rest).
Studies seem to bear that out somewhat, that men in general tend to be less flexible in their sexuality.
But then, gay men overall seem like they are the face of the LGBT community in the media. Just my impression.
This is the same group of people who think a snowball proves there’s no global warming, so I’m not putting a lot of stock in what he’s selling.
I saw Ben Carson speak at a medical conference last year. I was amazed as he shared his experiences of separating conjoined twins. He’s an incredibly smart and talented individual who came from a poor upbringing. That having been said, I disagree with many of his views outside of medical discussion. It’s amazing how a person with genius-level neurology experience can be so lacking in common sense.
But WHY are men less flexible in their sexuality? Is it because that’s how men are, or is it because society is less forgiving of fluid sexuality in men? And why are women seen as more flexible? Note I say “seen as” more flexible. Is it because society finds female sexuality less important, while also being less threatening? Or is it because women “are” more flexible, and men aren’t?
It’s a complex issue. It’s not nearly as easy for a bisexual man to come out as a bisexual woman, for example. A recent male friend of mine came out as bisexual and it was really interesting the way he had to make sure to say “yes, bisexual men exist” in a way women just don’t have to. (And this is one way that sexism effects men, btw, although that’s a totally different subject so I won’t derail.) For a long time, people have believed men were either gay or straight (speaking of modern times only, really) and nothing in between, but that’s false, and always has been. Especially in modern times.
Your impression is definitely not wrong, although things have been changing in some ways.
Yeah, they talk about how God made sure that their particular preferred translation was nurtured by God throughout the centuries to make sure that it is the one that came to them. Apparently God didn’t nurture all the translations they disagree with though. You can tell the difference between the ones that God supported and the ones that he didn’t support because the ones he supported are the ones you agree with…
They say “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all!” So I’m not gonna say anything at all about this moron.
My perspective as a male in America is that society very likely plays a part in it. Most people, regardless of their intention, subconsciously seem to still believe that you’re only completely gay, or completely straight. It’s crazy where people seem to draw that line, too.
As a straight guy, people have questioned my sexuality for something so gay and brazen as (drumroll) not hooking up with/dating a woman when I had a chance to. This includes several female friends of mine, and my guy friends are generally liberal democrats and not frat boys. Thanks guys!
On the other side of the equation, you have gay men tossing around the phrase, “Bi now, gay later”, which I guess is a thing.
Thanks for calling BS. Did a far better job of it than I would have. Othering indeed…
Sure. You can certainly choose to have sex with someone you don’t find attractive. Prostitutes do it all the time. I am pretty sure that is not what homosexuality is. Maybe that is what he thinks heterosexuality is.
“God, women are gross, but you said I have to sleep with them. You never said I had to like it.”
And yet, we think of people who just opportunistically use people as warm pieces of flesh as deviants.
To your last point/sentence: Women do it, too. 
And sexuality CAN just plain change as one gets older and more experienced and more aware of what they like, need, and/or want. Even straight people have changing tastes as time goes on.
You can also feel attraction to someone in some situations or times in your life that maybe in other situations or times you wouldn’t.
Prison itself is an interesting place. You don’t have any other options. And people are, for the most part, horny creatures. And we also, for the most part, crave companionship. Even people locked up. It’s not always just about sex itself.
I’d say it’s a little more complicated than that, @caryroys…
Of course it is. I was trying to make a logical point against the line of thinking, “Sure, you’re attracted to men, but you should sleep with women”.
I’m in total agreement with you here.
Regarding the “Born This Way” warcry, I wonder if a big part of the rallying behind it is because it’s probably the best way to punch through the ideological fog of war on the opposing side.
In political terms, it’s “Staying on message”. When candidates don’t do this, they get nitpicked to death and lose momentum.
Just a thought, anyways. I don’t really know what I’m talking about here.
I suppose in a way I should be pleased that so few people nowadays seem to know any history of religion; perhaps it is a sign of progress.
But you ought to be aware that something of the order of a billion people in the world claim to follow a religion based on the inspired sayings of someone who said that “not a yod or a point shall be removed from the Law (i.e. including Leviticus) until everything is ended.” The yod and the point (the dot that e.g. turns sh into s) are the smallest characters of the Hebrew Bible (which lacks vowels).
The various Christian sects have been very selective about the laws they want to enforce - but in theory people like this GOP candidate believe in a chain of authority which, applied logically and consistently, leads straight back to Leviticus. On their own professed beliefs, their inconsistency is going to result in their going to Hell, though evidence on handbaskets is inconclusive.
Either God didn’t write the Bible - a view shared by most of the people in the world - or almost all Christians should be put to death for breaking the commandments.
To be honest, I would doubt that most Biblical scholars are that interested in Leviticus. Orthodox Jewish scholars of Torah perhaps, but they are generally a declining minority. Modern scholars and rabbis have far more important things to worry about, like keeping Jewish culture and tradition alive and relevant rather than revisiting the more illiberal views of their distant ancestors. If the original text seems ambiguous then either it actually was - in which case we can forget about it - or some of the knowledge of ancient Hebrew has been lost - in which case we are unlikely to recover it.
For a moment there I thought you were describing Inhofe as a snowball, and thought it might be a combination of a screwball and a snowflake.
He’s definitely a very special screwball.
