A Hypothetical Situation

[Texas Lynn]

My impression is those of highly conservative views often have difficulty perceiving hypothetical situations. By and large, culturally, this cohort tends to dislike use of imagination. Well, that's not my impression only, it's sociology's. Fiction writers, screenplayists, playwrights, songwriters, etc. tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. What few conservatives venture into this area--Christopher Buckley, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, Robert A. Heinlein--tend to be of the libertarian sort that though they are individualist and fiscally conservative they tend to not truck with traditionalistic morality (and this also explains why much of the "Christian" fiction found in "Christian bookstores" [the misnomer for fundamentalist bookstores] is so bad). Indeed, I had one guy tell me on a fundamentalist dominated message board that he thought there would be no fiction in heaven and he felt perfectly fine with this.

So, please bear with me. I will present a fictional scenario and ask what would be your response, if, this were real, and you were in such a reality. I know, I know. Give it a shot, please?

Suppose you are heterosexual and in love with a person of the opposite gender. Now I know some are stranger to being "so in love" with a spouse, lover, girlfriend/boyfriend etc. but again please bear me out. Imagine yourself so overcome -en espanol we say "mi corazon" (my heart). YOU WOULD DIE FOR THIS PERSON WITHOUT HESITATION.

But, your society severely proscribes this relationship. It describes people like you and your lover as "sick," "perverted," "dangerous," "evil," "sinners," etc.-and that's the subdued people. Others would kill you where you stand if they saw the two of you holding hands in a public park or an airport waiting room. Your family, your church, your employer, your neighborhood, etc. would all highly censor you, oppress you, and exclude you were your love known. You would never, should this relationship become known, ever hold a position of honor again. You would be outcast. You would be forbidden to teach the young. Moreover, others, secretly in relationships like your own, would willingly sacrifice you and your lover to protect their own precarious positions. Your faith-the dominant faith of your society-tells you they are right and your love is evil and sick just as they say.

Emigration to another culture where you two can be safe to love is not an option. For you, there is no San Francisco, or even a Little Rock where you will find support in a bigger city. Your culture is all the same and there's no alternative.

So what do you do?

 

[BreadAlone]

Take it to the Lord in prayer?

"Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honor me." (Psalm 50:15)

Like you said, completely hypothetical.

 

[Tissue]

You're not going to make any headway on the issue of homosexuality through an appeal to emotion, or by groundlessly blasting the ability of your opponents to comprehend hypothetical concepts.

 

[BreadAlone]

Completely agreed with Tissue..

 

[Mling]

(Not conservative, not Christian, not straight, but for what my answer's worth)

Live with my spouse, try to pass it off as friendship. Become a "confirmed bachelor" and establish a plausible situation in the household so it looks like we're just roommates (ie: not have pictures of us everywhere, have two bedrooms, etc).
Be willing to die for us, but not go out of my way to look for death.

 

[Miracle Storm]

My impression is those of highly conservative views often have difficulty perceiving hypothetical situations. By and large, culturally, this cohort tends to dislike use of imagination. Well, that's not my impression only, it's sociology's. Fiction writers, screenplayists, playwrights, songwriters, etc. tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. What few conservatives venture into this area--Christopher Buckley, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, Robert A. Heinlein--tend to be of the libertarian sort that though they are individualist and fiscally conservative they tend to not truck with traditionalistic morality (and this also explains why much of the "Christian" fiction found in "Christian bookstores" [the misnomer for fundamentalist bookstores] is so bad). Indeed, I had one guy tell me on a fundamentalist dominated message board that he thought there would be no fiction in heaven and he felt perfectly fine with this.

So, please bear with me. I will present a fictional scenario and ask what would be your response, if, this were real, and you were in such a reality. I know, I know. Give it a shot, please?

Suppose you are heterosexual and in love with a person of the opposite gender. Now I know some are stranger to being "so in love" with a spouse, lover, girlfriend/boyfriend etc. but again please bear me out. Imagine yourself so overcome -en espanol we say "mi corazon" (my heart). YOU WOULD DIE FOR THIS PERSON WITHOUT HESITATION.

But, your society severely proscribes this relationship. It describes people like you and your lover as "sick," "perverted," "dangerous," "evil," "sinners," etc.-and that's the subdued people. Others would kill you where you stand if they saw the two of you holding hands in a public park or an airport waiting room. Your family, your church, your employer, your neighborhood, etc. would all highly censor you, oppress you, and exclude you were your love known. You would never, should this relationship become known, ever hold a position of honor again. You would be outcast. You would be forbidden to teach the young. Moreover, others, secretly in relationships like your own, would willingly sacrifice you and your lover to protect their own precarious positions. Your faith-the dominant faith of your society-tells you they are right and your love is evil and sick just as they say.

Emigration to another culture where you two can be safe to love is not an option. For you, there is no San Francisco, or even a Little Rock where you will find support in a bigger city. Your culture is all the same and there's no alternative.

So what do you do?

Couldn't give up a love like that.
What could you do? All I could see myself doing is gathering with those who are being treated similar, or the few who would maybe support our right to love and set out to prove love, true love is not evil.
We of course would embrace each other more because we have been outcasted.

 

[Polycarp1]

Careful, Miracle Storm, I see a "heterosexul agenda" starting to form there!

To make Lynn's scenario a bit more realistic, suppose it to be somewhere in Latin America at a time of racial division (they went through some of this, too). You are the child of the alcalde, of purest Castellano stock; your beloved, an Indio, of Native American ancestry and appearance. And you live at a time when such a union is universally condemned, by Church and state and by "all good right-thinking citizens."

 

[Texas Lynn]

You're not going to make any headway on the issue of homosexuality through an appeal to emotion, or by groundlessly blasting the ability of your opponents to comprehend hypothetical concepts.

I was just being proactive regarding possible objections to the scenario.

As for emotion, I submit that's what's 99% or more behind this issue.

 

[Tissue]

Rationality > Emotion.

A logical response to emotion can provide truth. An emotional response to logic provides feeling, and little more.

Nearly any aspect of humanity contains emotion; the issue of homosexuality is, of course, no different.

 

[Bryan Morton]

I'd like to first point out that "society" is a fictitious entity. The word society is a label given to specific groups of individuals. As such, it does not have the capacity for action. Individuals act, and a majority of individuals within a society may act in a particular manner, but it is deceptive to attribute specific actions to the entire population of a given society. It is not until those individuals' actions are governed, that most societal problems are given the power to wreak havoc on others. Government is rarely in the business of defending negative rights. More often than not government is in the business of granting privilege to specific groups of individuals by violating the rights of others. To understand this, one must have a consistent perspective of rights. Here's my perspective:

I can't post link yet, so you'll have to copy and paste it in.

bryandmorton.blogspot.com/2008/03/rights-101.html

No one may tell you with whom you may or may not associate. However, each of those personal choices also bears consequences and each of us must be prepared to accept them. You may find my actions offensive and exercise your right to freely disassociate. I may choose to join the Klan, but in doing so I must accept personal responsibility for that act, and I can't be too upset when I am shunned. These are individuals choices. If I'm a businessman and I choose not to associate with a specific individual or even a group, I must accept personal responsibility for that act as well. I may hang a sign in the window of my business which reads, "No Caucasians." However, in doing so, I must understand that that limitation just cut a percentage of my customer base. You may also see that sign, consider my act of bigotry, and decide that you wish not to associate with me either. For someone running a business, bigotry is a no win situation, except that the bigot gets to associate with other bigots. There is a lot of self correction in a society whose individuals are free, but what happens when someone believes that's not enough and throws government in the mix? What if government makes this particular right, illegal? First, it doesn't solve the problem of bigotry, in fact, forcing individuals to associate exacerbates the problem, and ceases to allow the natural correction to take place. A bigot who is forced to associate with those he would have chosen not to is no longer just a bigot, he's now a bigot whose rights have been violated. His business will succeed because he is forced to trade whereas his bigotry, left to freedom of association, would have cost him income.

An interesting historical side note is that bigotry itself was the law in the south prior to the 1960s. It is usually represented as just a bunch of rednecks making a personal choice to exclude blacks, but the fact is segregation laws were hurting white businesses and many business owners were already trying to get the laws repealed. On the ironic flip side of that, there were many very successful black businessmen in the south who catered to the black population. It's sad that government could not just remain neutral. Instead of simply repealing the segregation laws, they went full tilt the other direction and also instituted integration laws. That act did great harm to those black shop owners. Whites were not shopping there and the black who used to patronize them were shopping at the stores from which they were once excluded. Forty years later, much of this has evened out, but there is still racial tension in the south which would have subsided much faster had people simply been left to freely associate.

The government has no right to intervene unless someone's negative rights have been violated.

Should a Christian bookstore owner be forced to hire an atheist?

Should a restaurateur be forced to discriminate against smokers?

Should a vegan restaurant be forced to serve cheeseburgers?

Christ never advocated government force as a means to His ends. Compassion and mercy are only meaningful when they are done voluntarily by individuals. This draws a picture of Christ and God's personal sacrifice.

Peace, freedom, justice and prosperity,
Bryan

 

[Texas Lynn]

Rationality > Emotion.

A logical response to emotion can provide truth. An emotional response to logic provides feeling, and little more.

Nearly any aspect of humanity contains emotion; the issue of homosexuality is, of course, no different.

In this case emotion dominates. Opposition to the advancement of LGBT folks is based on emotions, as it commitment to said advancement.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'd like to first point out that "society" is a fictitious entity. The word society is a label given to specific groups of individuals. As such, it does not have the capacity for action. Individuals act, and a majority of individuals within a society may act in a particular manner, but it is deceptive to attribute specific actions to the entire population of a given society. It is not until those individuals' actions are governed, that most societal problems are given the power to wreak havoc on others. Government is rarely in the business of defending negative rights. More often than not government is in the business of granting privilege to specific groups of individuals by violating the rights of others. To understand this, one must have a consistent perspective of rights. Here's my perspective:

I can't post link yet, so you'll have to copy and paste it in.

bryandmorton.blogspot.com/2008/03/rights-101.html

No one may tell you with whom you may or may not associate. However, each of those personal choices also bears consequences and each of us must be prepared to accept them. You may find my actions offensive and exercise your right to freely disassociate. I may choose to join the Klan, but in doing so I must accept personal responsibility for that act, and I can't be too upset when I am shunned. These are individuals choices. If I'm a businessman and I choose not to associate with a specific individual or even a group, I must accept personal responsibility for that act as well. I may hang a sign in the window of my business which reads, "No Caucasians." However, in doing so, I must understand that that limitation just cut a percentage of my customer base. You may also see that sign, consider my act of bigotry, and decide that you wish not to associate with me either. For someone running a business, bigotry is a no win situation, except that the bigot gets to associate with other bigots. There is a lot of self correction in a society whose individuals are free, but what happens when someone believes that's not enough and throws government in the mix? What if government makes this particular right, illegal? First, it doesn't solve the problem of bigotry, in fact, forcing individuals to associate exacerbates the problem, and ceases to allow the natural correction to take place. A bigot who is forced to associate with those he would have chosen not to is no longer just a bigot, he's now a bigot whose rights have been violated. His business will succeed because he is forced to trade whereas his bigotry, left to freedom of association, would have cost him income.

An interesting historical side note is that bigotry itself was the law in the south prior to the 1960s. It is usually represented as just a bunch of rednecks making a personal choice to exclude blacks, but the fact is segregation laws were hurting white businesses and many business owners were already trying to get the laws repealed. On the ironic flip side of that, there were many very successful black businessmen in the south who catered to the black population. It's sad that government could not just remain neutral. Instead of simply repealing the segregation laws, they went full tilt the other direction and also instituted integration laws. That act did great harm to those black shop owners. Whites were not shopping there and the black who used to patronize them were shopping at the stores from which they were once excluded. Forty years later, much of this has evened out, but there is still racial tension in the south which would have subsided much faster had people simply been left to freely associate.

The government has no right to intervene unless someone's negative rights have been violated.

Should a Christian bookstore owner be forced to hire an atheist?

Should a restaurateur be forced to discriminate against smokers?

Should a vegan restaurant be forced to serve cheeseburgers?

Christ never advocated government force as a means to His ends. Compassion and mercy are only meaningful when they are done voluntarily by individuals. This draws a picture of Christ and God's personal sacrifice.

Peace, freedom, justice and prosperity,
Bryan

Habla usted Libertarian?

 

[Tissue]

In this case emotion dominates. Opposition to the advancement of LGBT folks is based on emotions, as it commitment to said advancement.

1) That emotion dominates is a subjective statement. Emotion is not something that can be measured, nor is it self-evident that it dominates this particular issue, nor is it something intrinsically tied to the definitions of what we are discussing.

2) You have not observed all of the opposing side of this issue; there are a number of rational, reasonable arguments against particular elements of homosexuality, such as gay marriage (David Blankenhorn's fantastic book The Future of Marriage comes to mind). To generalize your opponents position effectively ignores the fine nuances of their position, an approach you would likely consider repulsive in respect to your own position. Such a tone polarizes discussions, thereby creating a sharp divide that continues pointless argument about rhetoric and belief, instead of stimulating proper discussion of the issue.

 

[Bryan Morton]

I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a libertarian. The fastest way to sour a religion, ideology or philosophy is to turn it into a political party. The thirst for political power will soon overtake the moral and ethical principles for the sake of expedience. Moral and ethical battles must be won in the hearts of men, they will never be won on the battlefield of politics.

 

[Texas Lynn]

there are a number of rational, reasonable arguments against particular elements of homosexuality, such as gay marriage (David Blankenhorn's fantastic book The Future of Marriage comes to mind).

How many in the Amen Corners have read that, I wonder? Five?

These rational, reasonable arguments--we see the like in places like National Review Online are all the same, maudlin appeals to "national order" and a belief societies are "organic" and authoritarianism is a positive thing---all back by pure emotionalism.

 

[Tissue]

Not sure what else I can say. We're out of the bounds of rationality. All you can do, and all I can do is say "I'm right!"

 

[Bryan Morton]

The Lord you serve is liberal. Just out of curiosity, would that be classical liberal or modern liberal? I'd also like to know exactly the kind and degree of peace and justice to which you refer.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Suppose you are heterosexual and in love with a person of the opposite gender. Now I know some are stranger to being "so in love" with a spouse, lover, girlfriend/boyfriend etc. but again please bear me out. Imagine yourself so overcome -en espanol we say "mi corazon" (my heart). YOU WOULD DIE FOR THIS PERSON WITHOUT HESITATION.

But, your society severely proscribes this relationship. It describes people like you and your lover as "sick," "perverted," "dangerous," "evil," "sinners," etc.-and that's the subdued people. Others would kill you where you stand if they saw the two of you holding hands in a public park or an airport waiting room. Your family, your church, your employer, your neighborhood, etc. would all highly censor you, oppress you, and exclude you were your love known. You would never, should this relationship become known, ever hold a position of honor again. You would be outcast. You would be forbidden to teach the young. Moreover, others, secretly in relationships like your own, would willingly sacrifice you and your lover to protect their own precarious positions. Your faith-the dominant faith of your society-tells you they are right and your love is evil and sick just as they say.

Emigration to another culture where you two can be safe to love is not an option. For you, there is no San Francisco, or even a Little Rock where you will find support in a bigger city. Your culture is all the same and there's no alternative.

So what do you do?

That sounds like India! Not kidding. Read a news article where two young people were killed because they were from a different caste and in love! And I'm visiting India with my boyfriend in December :o . Not only am I not from a different caste, I'm from a different religion, AND a different culture.

What is there you can do? If you write for legislation allowing this relationship, then you'll be outed. It all has to depend on how many hate crimes against heterosexuals are committed? If it's a minority since a certain time, then I wouldn't care about jeers and taunts, though it would bug me. However if we were to die horribly, I'd pull a Romeo and Juliet.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I have an ex-boyfriend who was black (ex only because he had to move far away. He's probably the only being who I would consider a having romantic relationship, as he respects my lifetime abstinence) so I know exactly how this feels. Unfortunately, anti-interracial relationships is alive and well in this country.

But I didn't care. My family refused to acknowledge my relationship with him, my friends and church as well. And I had quite a few people say that I should consider "dating a nice white boy". But that didn't interest me. My heart was set.

The thing about love, is it can be tested, just like faith. And when you really, REALLY love them, no one in the world can let that go. See, sin doesn't stand in the face of turmoil. If something isn't right or if it isn't part of God's will, you're going to let it go. But in interracial, heterosexual and homosexual relationships, when you love a person so much that nothing in the entire human world could make you love that person less, where you love them enough to say they are just below God, then it's love. People can say it's not. People can say it's unnatural, but all that matters is you, your love and God knows it's meant to be.

Tissue - Love is hardly about rationality. In the beginning stages you use rationality, to make sure you know you aren't going to trap yourself in a harmful relationship. But that's about it. Once you've really gotten to know each other and can see each other and talk to each other without any fear or regret or dishonesty, rationality is in the back of the mind. You might drag it out for the proposal, but that's it. Love is about emotion, love IS emotion. So of course anything concerning love is going to be EMOTIONAL.

Besides, considering the fact that most tactics used to condemn homosexuality are nothing but scare tactics that toy with a persons fears, guilt and bias, this should be fair game. Especially since this actually equates the situation and expresses it in a "WWJD" way instead of in a "If you don't you're going to hell" way.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Flee the country in a big romantic scene. Or die..
Not that I understand romantic love.