This sounds like an excerpt right out of a novel. Beautifully written. I want to know what happens next.

citystreamss last blog post..Teacher for Hire

By citystreams on Jul 16, 2008

In terms of that summer, and even the following year, nothing much. It wasn’t until I went away to college that I really came out to friends, settled down with a serious girlfriend, came out to my parents, almost got kicked out of my house, broke up with my girlfriend, and settled into a more comfortable, if not closeted, lifestyle. But that’s a whole other Blog Share post (winks).

By Anonymous on Jul 16, 2008

I know! I want to read more too!

Allies last blog post..Yes To Carrots - Can You C Me? Eye and Face Makeup Remover

By Allie on Jul 16, 2008

That sounds like a very brave confession. Good for you.

By nancypearlwannabe on Jul 16, 2008

Ooh, ooh, I want to know what happens next! (If Ben is a real person, he sounds like he could be a great ally.)

thecoconutdiariess last blog post..Anonymous Blogger Takes Over (Bwaw-ah-ah!)

By thecoconutdiaries on Jul 16, 2008

What Citystreams said. Beautiful writing.

-R-s last blog post..Blog Share III

By -R- on Jul 16, 2008

I join the rank of those wanting to know what happened next. And also…does anyone else know? Was this a secret confession?

Beautifully written.

Laras last blog post..Blogshare version 3.0

By Lara on Jul 16, 2008

Gorgeously written.

Thank you for sharing!

I wish I could read more.

Pantss last blog post..Blog Share

By Pants on Jul 16, 2008

Thanks for all your thoughts, especially on the writing!

Ben is a real person and was really cool about the whole thing considering we were dating at the time. He certainly was a good person to lean on as I adjusted, somewhat unwillingly, to reality.

As I said in the other anony post, other people do know. I went through a big “Hi! I’m bi! It’s not a phase!” period in college, but after my sophomore year I found less of a need to be screamingly “out.” Now, it’s generally something I choose not to broadcast. There are even people who have become good friends that I’ve never told because I didn’t see the point. Also, how do you bring that up casually after 5-8 years of being friends? Awkward!

By Anonymous on Jul 16, 2008

I’m curious, Anonymous, because you sound like a sensible person and this isn’t a political or polemical band of bloggers, so you’re probably more “run of the mill” if you know what I mean (writing skills excepted, of course). I think it’s pretty clear that sex is ‘designed’ to be between a man and a woman (look at the shapes, look at the results, seems obvious). But beyond that, what makes something right or wrong? What happens if someone’s heart was start fluttering around chimps? Would they be tri? This is a serious question: if it is a “beautiful” thing to read about people realizing an inner, sexual attraction to both men and women, why not children, dead people, animals, or pillows?
I hope my comment is not offensive; I obviously hold a position with its incumbent associated views, and the only discussions I’ve had are with people prone to anger.
So if anyone wants to join in, I’d be very interested to hear why your position is whatever it may be!

By The Married One on Jul 16, 2008

To the Married One - Probably we should just agree to disagree right off (grins).

I don’t believe that “it’s clear that sex is designed to be between a man and a woman.” I believe that our sexual preferences are determined by our genetic make-up.

I fully subscribe to Kinsey’s theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports) that sexuality is fluid. Even those in the Mental Health industry agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.HTML).

I don’t listen to any argument that uses religion as a basis for why homosexuality is wrong because I subscribe to no religion and am an agnostic.

I would say, without being able to offer any proof, that scientists would probably agree that attraction to animals, dead people, pillows, and children represents a psychosis or some sort of mental imbalance. However, I will reiterate that scientists agree that homosexuality, including bisexuality, is not a mental illness.

By Anonymous on Jul 16, 2008

Anonymous,
I see the reasoning behind your views, especially in citing Kinsey. “Fluid sexuality” is a great term, and it highlights the point I brought up in my first comment: if sexuality is indeed fluid, what is to keep that fluidity from flowing over beyond relations (or desires) with or for other humans, to animals and rocks and such? I am curious as to why scientists (or whoever) would treat some desires as a mental imbalance (as used to be the case with homo/bisexuality) and not others? If the tides have changed with homo/bisexuality, what is to prevent a change with other things once considered ‘deviant’?
Again, my objective is by no means to offend but to think critically.

By The Married One on Jul 16, 2008

(ponders) Hmm. You know, I just was having a discussion about this with someone else. I asked them to post a comment so I didn’t have to copy/paste their comments into my own comment box.

By Anonymous on Jul 16, 2008

I think The Married One has a valid point in that men and women are designed (intelligently or otherwise) with compatible parts to keep civilization and the human race going.

But I think of that entirely seperately from sexuality. My vagina has absolutely nothing to do with who I’m attracted to (though, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not gay or bisexual).

So, basically, I’m just saying that you both have good points.

By the ex on Jul 16, 2008

I hope you find a way to make this a non-anonymous post in the near future…

Noelles last blog post..Blogshare

By Noelle on Jul 16, 2008

I’m not going to weigh in on this political debate, but I would like to say that Anonymous has a beautiful writing style. Well done.

courtneys last blog post..Florida? But That’s America’s Wang!

By courtney on Jul 16, 2008

I would think that what would prevent someone’s “fluid sexuality” to flowing to rocks or animals or pillows would be that humans have the ability to interact and give consent and have feelings. I myself am not gay, but know many who are, and it seems to me that it’s just part of who they are.

By adlib on Jul 16, 2008

That was a great story. Thank you for sharing it.

By Scott Overpeck on Jul 16, 2008

Wow. This is good discussion. I want to preface by saying that I am not the original Anonymous, I am her husband, Anonymous2. This is a topic that Anonymous and I talk about all the time. This thread and discussion has caused us to talk about it again. I also have to say that we agree on most issues regarding this topic. So much so, in fact, that anonymous asked me to post some of our thoughts in her stead. I bet Seven never thought this would happen on her blog. LOL

I think that The X and Adlib do a good job of making our points for us without getting technical.

On an individual level, there is nothing but one’s own ideals and morals to stop them from being a pedophile, necrophiliac or one who derives pleasure from pillows and rocks.

On the societal level, however, there is peer pressure, laws and court of public opinion to stop people from partaking in certain activities.

It is way out there to fear that because society would acknowledge the rights of gay men and women that it would lead to acknowledging pedophiles, necrophiliacs and other such deviance.

Our Constitutions and laws are designed for *human* rights. Adlib makes a great point when it comes to consent and reasoning. Children are protected under Constitutions as humans and also under Federal, State and local laws from being victims of pedophilia. That will never change. Under those same levels of law, bestiality, necrophilia and other deviances are illegal and I highly doubt those “acts” would ever be given to humans as inalienable rights.

Like I told Anonymous yesterday, one of Kinsey’s biggest findings was that even science cannot ignore personal and societal values. That’s made entirely clear when he and his team try to explore sexual deviance.

However, this discussion is nothing new. During Colonial times, under Puritanical law, they had no concept of homosexuality. Sodomy and bestiality, however, were punishable by death. What’s funny is, there were only 19 documented charges out of what historians say were possibly five times as many actual cases (people who actually got caught). Out of those 19 charges, only 2 people were actually executed. Who knows how many people were actually doing the deed but not getting caught? Theorists say, the laws were in place for show, but everyone was doing it, so no one was persecuted.

By Anonymous2 on Jul 17, 2008

Interesting thoughts. So the basis for judging between right and wrong in these matters are as follows:

Genetic make-up: “I believe that our sexual preferences are determined by our genetic make-up.”

Scientific consensus: “scientists would probably agree that attraction to animals, dead people, pillows, and children represents a psychosis or some sort of mental imbalance”

Personal opinion: “I think of [the procreative equipment and function] entirely seperately from sexuality. My vagina has absolutely nothing to do with who I’m attracted to” (this is interesting, by the way. I see it as a claim that thoughts/emotions/feelings/and-maybe-even-actions are seperate from our physical make-up; whether this is true or not scientists and social theorists like to debate)

Consent (or abilities?): “humans have the ability to interact and give consent and have feelings.”

Individual convictions: “On an individual level, there is nothing but one’s own ideals and morals to stop them from being a pedophile, necrophiliac or one who derives pleasure from pillows and rocks.”

Societal mores: “On the societal level, however, there is peer pressure, laws and court of public opinion to stop people from partaking in certain activities.”

Actual human practice: “However, this discussion is nothing new. During Colonial times…[etc., see above post]”

Did I miss any? Are there more?
And are these reasons great enough to convince us that something, for example sodomy, is “wrong”? Go through the list- the one I forsee as the biggest claim is consent, but come on, if a fourteen year old is consentual, why not do it? The only thing preventing that is societal mores, but here again we’ve seen societal mores change (homosexuality in the past century, some societies marry off their kids at 12 or 13, etc). And if a 14 year old, why not a 13?

As always, I hope I’m not sounding antagonistic! I’m just trying to wrestle with different views.

By The Married One on Jul 17, 2008

The Married One,

I will try to keep my points short here. I recently had a little online debate on my site regarding a Gay Marriage ban with a “conservative” scholar from here in southern California and he utilized a lot of the same reasoning that you bring up.

Based on a few of your points I will make one assumption, that you are a Christian. Do correct me if I am wrong. I am too. For those of you who are not I mean you no condemnation or disrespect but my points here will be largely directed towards Christians.

“If it is a “beautiful” thing to read about people realizing an inner, sexual attraction to both men and women, why not children, dead people, animals, or pillows?”

As Christians, we believe that God is love, the author of love and that love is a beautiful thing. While it may be that this love in humans is often misplaced or misused (not referring specifically to the present convo), it is still a beautiful thing when we see genuine and authentic expressions of love. The beauty and love in this situation seems to have been related more so to the acceptance and love on the part of Ben. Regardless though love is beautiful because it is a reflection of Christ. Humans can gummy it up, no doubt, my son loves a certain toy of his to the point of becoming violent when my wife or I try to take it away. But seeing the joy in his eyes when he is playing with it, I can’t help but picture God looking down on His creation with that same love. With regards to the slippery slope argument it is tough to see any real benefit coming from making it aside from alienating those whom you are making it about. It is an improbable theory that has no basis in how society has worked thus far. For one thing we still don’t have people trying to marry chips and it has been 40 years since racially integrated marriages has been allowed. The argument didn’t prove it true then when the church used it and I am loathe to see the Church find itself in that position again.

“I am curious as to why scientists (or whoever) would treat some desires as a mental imbalance (as used to be the case with homo/bisexuality) and not others? If the tides have changed with homo/bisexuality, what is to prevent a change with other things once considered ‘deviant’?”

One major reason for this would be that you can spend time with someone with a different sexual orientation and find that they are no different from you or me. Spend time with someone who likes to get busy with a “rock” I am guessing you will pretty readily notice they need psychological help. Views on homosexuality have changed back and forth for thousands of years. Alternatively, bestiality, et al. has always been viewed with disgust in all societies and cultures so far as we can tell. This would classify it as a normal human behavior (not speaking of morality, simply that it is foolish to view it as a defect).

“Consent…”

This is shaky ground to be on at best as consent in the Bible would be around the time of puberty. In Australia right now it is 14. In a free society, people should be able to make consensual decisions. There are protections built into the system to prevent abuse and the like, but to use them to prevent a relationship we disapprove of is probably not a very loving thing to do, beyond being pretty shaky on legal grounds.

To try to bring it all together, I think that as the Church, we should be doing everything we can to show all people that we love them and do all that we can to help them out where they are at today. This will be different in every situation and with every person, but we are all sinners according to the Bible. The Church though over the years has made a special category of sins that we like to try to wipe out differently than we would ever handle anyone else. It’s not very Christ like or loving. If someone has visible obvious sin, they need to stop it all then get saved. But Christ called Zaccheus down from the tree and said he wanted to party with him. After that Zaccheus chose to change his life. As Christians we are called to be “little christs” (literal meaning of Christian) or to follow His example. He didn’t call people to change their behaviors; he called them to change their hearts. You don’t have to agree with everything someone does and you don’t have to suffer in silence about it, but the political and otherwise attacks don’t really fit in with a Biblical view of sin. Remember who Jesus saved the harshest words for. It wasn’t the gays (Roman Empire had a lot) or the adulterers or even the drunkards or prostitutes. It was the religious leaders of the day who preached morality, rules and laws.

In Christ,
scott
my post about laws regarding gay marriage
http://www.scottoverpeck.com/2008/06/marriage-in-california.html

Scott Overpecks last blog post..Interesting Thoughts on the Self

By Scott Overpeck on Jul 17, 2008

If I’m understanding the overall question, Married One, it is “what makes something right or wrong?”.

The simple answer is A) Whichever society you are in at the time. Society being as large as the global society or as small as you and a friend. B) You’re personal ideals and morals.

Right and wrong are human concepts.

By Anonymous2 on Jul 18, 2008

Anonymous2,

If those are the only two things that determine right or wrong, wouldn’t that make the holocaust ok? The German society approved of it, and the Germans themselves approved. Correct me if I’m wrong. Just trying to keep things thoughtful.

By Michael on Jul 18, 2008

Michael,

That’s my whole point. To Hitler and the Germans who subscribed to his vision, it was right. Remember, I said whatever society you are in at the time. Obviously, there were other societies and individuals who believe it was an atrocity committed by an unforgivable regime under the leadership of a crazed tyrant. I count myself part of the latter. It is eventually those who felt Hitler’s Army was wrong that defeated it.

Imagine, per se, that Hitler completed his quest to take over the world and create a supreme race of humans on Earth. Our sense of right and wrong would be significantly different than it currently is. In fact, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Of course, it is not to say that societies and personal ideals don’t clash with one another on various levels. But that wasn’t what Married One was asking.

It’s the very nature of right vs. wrong within societies and on personal levels that causes all of the conflict we have in the World today.

By Anonymous2 on Jul 18, 2008

anon2

posting from my phone so forgive the extreme brevity…

i totally respect your position but wold challenge you to then consider the following.

under a system of no absolutes gay bashers are no better or worse than gays

hitlers actions were only wrong after public opinion changed

abolitionists were at best equal to proslavery folk possibly worse since they were infringin on others rights

i think intuitively we know things like torturing babies for fun is wrong no matter who agrees. We will always disagree on those absolutes and that will sometimes cause pain but better some momentary pain than to live in a world where love is better than hate, peace is better than war and the golden rule are left to chance.

By scott overpeck on Jul 18, 2008

Scott,

It’s not my position per se, it is sociological theory. The question was “what makes something right and wrong?” A question debated long before we started discussing it here. Social sciences use it as a basis for ethics study and conformity.

This is not a system of no absolutes. Again, all of the conflict in our world is attributed to what societies and individuals deem as what is right and wrong.

To use your example of gay bashers and gays. Gay bashers, as a society, believe that gay bashing is right and that being gay is wrong. Of course, gays, as a society, feel the opposite.

Gay bashers and gays, however, have larger societies to conform to. Take the United States for example. It is not a crime to be gay. However, gay bashing is a crime…and in some states it is labeled as a hate crime. It’s clear then what the American society deems as what is right and wrong.

Go back to Germany under Hitler. Crime to be gay. Acceptable to kill gays. That was what was right and wrong under that society.

Throughout this discussion, we’re not picking sides, as with your examples. Even a statement like “we know things like torturing babies for fun is wrong, no matter who agrees”. By “we” are you talking about just the people reading and commenting on this blog? Then yes, you’re in good company. However, there are several societies throughout the course of history that did partake in that activity. Whether they found it fun or not might be arguable.

By Anonymous2 on Jul 18, 2008

anon 2
I have never heard of any society torturing babies for fun. You are referring to child sacrifice maybe? Moral absolutes are over arching principles that can be seen from society to society. Often time’s people see a difference in one society as an indicator of different morals but often times we are just missing the underlying moral principle. An easy example is that it is immoral in Hinduism to eat beef. In most American households beef is a fairly common meal. This is often cited as proof of cultural relativism, but in actuality we share the same moral principal. We know that you do not kill and eat family members and to a Hindu, that cow could be grandma.
Unjustified killing of human beings (often called murder) is wrong in every society at every time in history. Hitler killed Jews because he considered them less than human. The abortion debate is horribly muddled because neither side understands the other side doesn’t agree with very basic assumptions the other side is making. We share the same underlying morals, we disagree on application.
Also, the problem with defining all morality as completely defined by culture is that then there is no immoral culture. Torture of prisoners by the US or any other nation, the injustice of totalitarian regimes, the apartheid and genocide of racist gov’ts are all benign acts. And what of the person who criticizes this injustice would they be immoral in a society where this is moral?
Against the wishes of many whom I share a lot of moral beliefs with I stand and say it is immoral to disallow hospital visitation, property rights, inheritance and all the other legal benefits of marriage to people who choose to marry someone of the same sex. Does this make me immoral? And further if being gay was to become illegal tomorrow and no one was protesting, punishable by death would you not join me even if only you and I agreed the law was wrong in setting up something akin to the Underground Railroad or along the lines of Schindler? Would these not be immoral in our society driven moral world?
By viewing differences in application of base absolutes as the non existence of said absolutes it makes moral reasoning and disagreements (which we all seem to have) not just irrelevant but also irrational. This seems counter intuitive.

By Scott Overpeck on Jul 18, 2008

I would have liked to jump in to the conversation some more, but I’ve been kinda busy with our brand new bundle of delight (see Seven’s above posts).

Scott, I respect your views about love, but (this is a comment for those, like myself, who try to their utmost to let the Bible shape their presuppositions) remember God’s holiness. God put to death three thousand people for their passionate but misguided offering of love to Him (see Exodus 32). God destroyed Aaron’s sons for lovingly offering “unauthorized fire” (Leviticus 10:1-3). Saul wanted to show his love for God by offering Him a sacrifice, but because he did it in a manner that God did not prescribe he was rejected as king of Israel (I Samuel 13:8-14). There are more, but the point is this: God hates sin, so much that He sent His Son to die for our sin.

Now, this hatred of sin covers all fields. God hates my sin when I choose my own leisure over loving my wife, and He hates my pride when I think I’m all that just as much as He hates bestiality or homosexuality (readers, read graciously, and remember my admission of presuppositions is that I am trying to be subject to the Bible); for instance take I Corinthians 6:9-11 -
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality; nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you [the Christians Paul was writing to]. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

For those of you who are familiar with Christianity only through the media or through contact with those people who rub you the wrong way and blast you for your beliefs, notice two things about these verses - first, greedy people (which category, as well as many others, I fall into quite often) get the same condemnation as homosexuals (for another fun list, see I Timothy 1:9-11, which lists perjurers right next to murder and homosexuality). Second, notice that “such WERE some of you,” meaning that these categories of what the Bible calls “sinners” are full of people ripe for salvation.
The key factor is that we who are called by God are changed by Jesus, so that we begin to act more like Him, loving what He loves and hating what He hates. That is why we need Jesus as our example, who loved those cast out by society (buzz word: tolerance) but also said “Go and sin no more” (buzz word: intolerance). The cheesy phrase is “love the sinner, hate the sin.” So when “Christians” go and boycott Heath Ledger’s funeral because he once played a gay person, that’s just dumb, and is intolerant when Jesus would be tolerant. But when “Christians” let God’s Word go to the wayside in an attempt to be more accepting (or, Scott, as you have said, to show authentic love [please bear with me!]) is to be tolerant when Jesus would be intolerant.
For those of you who don’t subscribe to Scripture, my original thoughts were an attempt to identify what underlying suppositions you use to label things as right (why is accepting homosexuality right?) or wrong (why is gay-bashing, to use Scott’s words again, wrong?). I tried to identify the arguments I saw earlier; how about it? Thoughts?

By The Married One on Jul 22, 2008