Hello, My Name is Experiment with Truth

[Experiment with Truth]

I can understand the use of Mahatma Gandhi's method of non-violence, but I don't understand his picture of him on the website even though his Grandson is a leader. The reason is that I recently read the following from an article Gandhi wrote about sexuality and birth control. This is the what was written as taken from the book of Gandhi quotes titled "All Men Are Brothers":

I want to revert to the subject of birth control by contraceptives. It is dinned into one's ears that the gratification of the sex urge is a solemn obligation like the obligation of discharging debts lawfully incurred, and that not to do so would involve the penalty of intellectual decay. This sex urge has been isolated from the desire for progeny . . . . If satisfaction of the sex urge is a duty, the unnatural vice and several other ways of gratification would be commendable. The reader should know that even persons of note have been known to approve of what is commonly known as sexual perversion. He may be shocked at the statement. But if it somehow or other gains the stamp of respectability, it will be the rage amongst boys and girls to satisfy their urge among the members of their own sex. Quote from Mahatma, life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, by D. G. Tendulkar Volume 4, Page 73

We know that Gandhi was against birth control, felt the sexual urge was for pro-creation only, and was a brahmacharya. How then can we use Gandhi to support LGBT lifestyles when we know from his writings that he would teach total self control of the sexual urge?

Thank you for any of your responses.

[Zerbie]

Can anyone verify: I've heard or read somewhere that it's common knowledge that Gandhi actually had great difficulty with his own sexuality. is this true? Anyone know?

Anyway, I believe the relevance to SF is that SF takes inspiration from Gandhi. Human leaders can be great people and accomplish great things, but they are not perfect themselves.

[Emproph]

I can understand the use of Mahatma Gandhi's method of non-violence, but I don't understand his picture of him on the website even though his Grandson is a leader. The reason is that I recently read the following from an article Gandhi wrote about sexuality and birth control. This is the what was written as taken from the book of Gandhi quotes titled "All Men Are Brothers":
I want to revert to the subject of birth control by contraceptives. It is dinned into one's ears that the gratification of the sex urge is a solemn obligation like the obligation of discharging debts lawfully incurred, and that not to do so would involve the penalty of intellectual decay. This sex urge has been isolated from the desire for progeny . .

. . If satisfaction of the sex urge is a duty, the unnatural vice and several other ways of gratification would be commendable. The reader should know that even persons of note have been known to approve of what is commonly known as sexual perversion. He may be shocked at the statement.

But if it somehow or other gains the stamp of respectability, it will be the rage amongst boys and girls to satisfy their urge among the members of their own sex. Quote from Mahatma, life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, by D. G. Tendulkar Volume 4, Page 73


We know that Gandhi was against birth control, felt the sexual urge was for pro-creation only, and was a brahmacharya. How then can we use Gandhi to support LGBT lifestyles when we know from his writings that he would teach total self control of the sexual urge?

Thank you for any of your responses.
Do you consider LGBT persons to be "lifestyles" of "sexual perversion?"

Are you L,G,B, or T?

You may want to clarify where you're coming from before I pass judgement, because I find the implications of what you've offered to be highly offensive -- at least the way you've put them.

In other words, is this about using Gandhi's method of non-violence because he may not have been gay supportive, or about LGBT persons being sexually perverted lifestyles?

I'm asking sincerely.

-Patrick

[Experiment with Truth]

I am a person who has admired Mahatma Gandhi ever since the movie Gandhi came out. My question is not meant to cause offense and a true follower of 'ahimsa' will not take offense at mere questions, but simply stand for the truth. I will say that if Gandhi was here I do not think, based on what he has written about sexuality, that he would support Soulforce nor the LGBT lifestyle. However, he would also not support violence or hatred of LGBT people anymore than he would support violence against anybody.

From what I have read by Gandhi, I believe he would say that we, as Children of God, are much more than our genetic makeup and that we have great power to change. And in the sexual area of our lives we can demonstrate great control over the sexual urge so that it can be sublimated to a higher good. Gandhi would say that this is extremely difficult, but that it is the higher ideal and that it can be done.

In William Shirer's Book "Gandhi", there is a description of Gandhi testing his control over the sexual urge by sleeping naked with young girls. This caused an uproar among some of his followers, Jawaharlal Nehru among them. Nevertheless, Gandhi hid nothing about this and as difficult as it is for us to understand, he claims that he succeeded.

I am telling you the truth when I have written these things. You may check the sources yourself. I think the questions I have asked are interesting considering Soulforce appears to hold Mahatma Gandhi up as an icon. Perhaps the non-violent method of Gandhi can be dissassociated from the man, but I think we need to take in the whole Gandhi if we are to be truthful.

[Jennifer5]

I do understand what you are saying. But one of the first things you should be warned about on this site... it to watch your wording VERY carefully, because although you may not mean to be in the least bit offensive, if words aren't used carefully... people will feel hurt by them and get very defensive. > So, just be careful. :love:



Now...
I think that the main point of Gandhi being held up as one of the examples that we wish to follow is the non-violent side of things. Both Gandhi and MLK were non-violent leaders.. and while we are not fighting for the same things, we're looking for the same general ending... many tried to fight for African American rights, but they were all unsuccessful... but MLK never resorted to violence and when it came down to it, he gave his life for what he really believed in, and HE was the one to make history. Many would FIGHT for 'black' rights, but the one with the non-violent approach was the one to change the world. It was MLK's unthreatening approach and then death, that got the worlds attention...

the non-violent approach when fight for GLBT rights is all that we're after...


(someone please correct me on all of this if I'm incorrect {or just flat out don't make sense})

[scott snedeker]

I believe he would say that we, as Children of God, are much more than our genetic makeup and that we have great power to change. And in the sexual area of our lives we can demonstrate great control over the sexual urge so that it can be sublimated to a higher good.

Pagans like my self agree in a way. We consider sex to be the strongest connection to our inner being and the spirit of the Earth. We believe this is why if someone like me who is attracted to men feels best spiritually when we make love to men. We are honoring our God-given gift by living true to our nature. You could call this subimation for a higher good. For an example see my thread "Pagan meets Buddhist":cool:

To deny my nature and not make love to men disconnects me from God. The result is I condemn myself and invite others into my experience who condemn me also. This is not sublimation to a higher good for me or other gay people. It harms me, the people who condemn me and the person who did not share his love with me as a result.:'(

I Do what feels best and in doing so share my joy with God and my fellow man. It isn't rocket science to find out that acting in harmony with nature (specifically my sexual nature) benefits all:love::love:

[u-dog]

Many great men and women have had the insight to suggest brilliant, radical, courageous new understandings about the human condition but lacked the courage, perspective, freedom from cultural blindness and contraint to follow those insights to their natural conclusion. Thomas Jefferson boldly declared that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" but kept slaves until the end of his life and when he died was so broke that his slaves had to be sold to cover his debts. Does that reality make his conviction less real? less applicable to the human condition? of course not! It makes old Tom a fallible human being. Big surprise.

Ghandi introduced some incredible insights into the human condition and suggested and demonstrated powerful new tools and attitudes for social change, but was still a child of his age and his culture. I think he can be forgiven and his methods employed on behalf of GLBT people and our struggle for equality and justice. I think he is worthy to have his picture on the Soulforce website in spite of his human failings.

[Emproph]

I will say that if Gandhi was here I do not think, based on what he has written about sexuality, that he would support Soulforce nor the LGBT lifestyle.

I don't think you're talking about Gandhi, I think you're talking about his beliefs as a wedge.

So be it. If Gandhi is taken off the website because of his beliefs on sexuality, is everything fine then?

[keltic63]

I am a person who has admired Mahatma Gandhi ever since the movie Gandhi came out. My question is not meant to cause offense and a true follower of 'ahimsa' will not take offense at mere questions, but simply stand for the truth.

No True Scotsman Fallacy. I do take offense at questions designed to lead to my own persecution. For instance, if I ask "Have you stopped beating your dog?" it is impossible to respond with a positive reply. "Yes" indicates that you have beat the dog in the past; "No" show that you continue to do so. Someone once asked my daughter how she was adjusting to her "dad's new lifestyle" and she felt trapped by the question. so I'll disagree that questions do not cause offense.
I will say that if Gandhi was here I do not think, based on what he has written about sexuality, that he would support Soulforce nor the LGBT lifestyle.
Please be careful with your wording. That particular term "lifestyle" is one that is used by those who persecute the lgbt community. It's not a lifestyle, it's an orientation. You should also know that straight couples involved in wife-swapping/group sex/swinging refer to their activities as the "lifestyle."
However, he would also not support violence or hatred of LGBT people anymore than he would support violence against anybody.


here, we can agree.
From what I have read by Gandhi, I believe he would say that we, as Children of God, are much more than our genetic makeup and that we have great power to change. And in the sexual area of our lives we can demonstrate great control over the sexual urge so that it can be sublimated to a higher good. Gandhi would say that this is extremely difficult, but that it is the higher ideal and that it can be done.


are you suggesting that all people, including straight people, should stop having sex? or are you merely suggesting that gay people should change and stop having sex with members of their own gender? as you've worded this particular paragraph, I get the impression that your opinion is that gay people should change to straight, or stop having sex. Is that what you mean to imply?

In William Shirer's Book "Gandhi", there is a description of Gandhi testing his control over the sexual urge by sleeping naked with young girls. This caused an uproar among some of his followers, Jawaharlal Nehru among them. Nevertheless, Gandhi hid nothing about this and as difficult as it is for us to understand, he claims that he succeeded.

I am telling you the truth when I have written these things. You may check the sources yourself. I think the questions I have asked are interesting considering Soulforce appears to hold Mahatma Gandhi up as an icon. Perhaps the non-violent method of Gandhi can be dissassociated from the man, but I think we need to take in the whole Gandhi if we are to be truthful.

are you suggesting that soulforce is being less than honest by adapting the methods of Gandhi and using them in our struggle for freedom? In the interest of truth, I think you need to explain your statements, and perhaps your motives.

[Zerbie]

I see Experiment making reference to brahmacharya and to ahimsa, which suggests s/he is interested in the yogic application of Gandhi's experiment. We tend to think of brahmacharis as those who restrain the sexual urge and, unlike what you've said Scotty, rather than enjoy sexuality in the usual sense, direct the energy elsewhere other than physical sexual release (as when guiding kundalini progressively upwards from the first chakra to the sahasrara).

However, this line of questioning appears to presume that we have a right to suggest that others should restrain their sexual urge because we have decided sublimating it for spiritual purposes is superior. It leads to a trap, not for those we question, but for ourselves. No true yogi wastes his energy criticizing others. A true yogi concerns himself with his own practice, with his own continence, and with righting his own faults. Recall the story of Mira who approached the temple. The brahmachari at the door refused to allow her inside because women were not permitted within the temple. He did not see her soul. He saw "woman." If he was a true brahmachari, why did he see with physical eyes?

[BrentRichards]

The other assumption clearly embedded in Experiment's rather pointed question is that our primary cause here is advocating sex. While sexuality is clearly tied up inextricably with this discussion, it's not the whole issue, as our opponents often like to assert. My concern for LGBT rights is about my right to BE who I am, not my right to a particular kind of sex. Even if I NEVER have sex with ANYONE (which is pretty close to my experience, thank you very much), I am still gay.

I must observe, Experiment, that despite your use of Ghandian terms, your general tone doesn't sound particularly Hindu ... it sounds like you're interested in setting rules for other people, or at least regulating who may have access to Ghandi's ideas, which outward focus is more characteristic (wrongly, but so it is) of Western, rather than Eastern faiths ... is this just me?

Lastly, emphatically must agree with others here that holding up Ghandi and King as examples does not mean holding them up as our infallible rule. As a Christian, I have one divine-human I place at that level (Jesus) ... only one. With all others, I "take and leave" ... we all have portions of the truth, but no one of us (even a great man like Ghandi) has all of it. Model, yes. Icon? Well, not for me, anyway.

[Dash]

Can anyone verify: I've heard or read somewhere that it's common knowledge that Gandhi actually had great difficulty with his own sexuality. is this true? Anyone know?

Anyway, I believe the relevance to SF is that SF takes inspiration from Gandhi. Human leaders can be great people and accomplish great things, but they are not perfect themselves.

I got a couple things from reading Gandhi's autobiography "The Story of my Experiments With Truth":

1) He and his wife were married at around 13...his experience with child marriage was extremely negative.

2) He confesses that as a young man, he left his father's deathbed because he wanted sex with his wife, and while he was gone, his father died. This shame haunted him for years.

So...one can reasonably gather that he had issues with his sexuality. And, you know what...lots of people do.

He took his vow of celibacy and records no complaint from Kasturbai, his wife; but one does wonder at a vow that committed not only himself, but also his wife to lifelong celibacy.

In the end, Gandhi was not a perfect man, and seemed to be the first to admit he might be wrong about any number of things. He might just have likely have listened to the plight of queer people in our day and revised his opinion. His was a constant and ongoing EXPERIMENT TO FIND THE TRUTH. He didn't have it. He knew this and searched for it his entire life.

For him, his practice of sexual restraint seems to have been only one of the ways in which he sought to build the strength of his soul force--a very real power that one could activate...a force of love that could overcome any adversary. Essentially, as I understand him, all or any restraint by Satyagrahi can be useful and productive for strengthening the spirit.

[As a side note...at the risk of being unkind...and in the category of absolute self-disclosure..."Experiment's" post activated my "spider sense" in the same way Simon's first post did. Something about it seemed disingenuous and inauthentic, portending much unpleasant and unproductive dialogue.]

[u-dog]

I[As a side note...at the risk of being unkind...and in the category of absolute self-disclosure..."Experiment's" post activated my "spider sense" in the same way Simon's first post did. Something about it seemed disingenuous and inauthentic, portending much unpleasant and unproductive dialogue.]


I believe the correct term is "Spidey-sense" and ... yeah... mine too!

[tdogg]

The purpose of Soulforce is to end the religious oppression of GLBT people, in a non-violent way. So, I don't see any conflict with Gandhi's beliefs and Soulforce's principals. He may well have supported the purpose of this organization with no misgivings or doubts. Does anyone else see a possible conflict that I'm missing? We also have to consider Gandhi's political status and the social era in which he existed, to understand his issues better. It's 2007, Gandhi may well have had different opinions, words and approaches to issues than he did back then.

Experiment with truth, you are aptly named for your visit here. Hopefully you will bring see and feel the truth we are spreading here on these forums. An explanation of your real motives will go a long way in continuing to dialogue here. How about starting with an intro thread? Tell us a bit about yourself, that's a way to break the ice and be genuine in your first posts! :love:

So, what is a slurp spider? I've always been curious about that...This place is crawling with 'em.

[Experiment with Truth]

Zerbie, I sincerely want to thank you for what you wrote. What I really liked was "No true yogi wastes his energy criticizing others. A true yogi concerns himself with his own practice, with his own continence, and with righting his own faults." There is much wisdom in that and something that I have not yet mastered myself. I have much to learn.

Many of you have asked for me to state where I am coming from. Some of you have said that my comment raised your "spidey-sense". I like that. You can rely on your "spidey-sense" because I am heterosexual. But you must believe me when I say that I do not want to argue for the sake of arguing. Nor do I want to cause anyone pain. Awhile ago I saw an article in the newspaper about Arun Gandhi and I didn't know what Soulforce was. When I looked at the website and saw on the news some of the protests at Methodist Churches, I was rather surprised at Arun's use of non-violence for the LGBT movement when the writings of his Grandfather seemed so opposed. My curiosity was that nobody seemed to talk about Mahatma Gandhi's views on sexuality.

I think I am safe in saying, based on the comments, that as long as a person is pursuing the truth in a non-violent way, in a non-offensive way, many of you would not have a problem even with a person promoting their traditional views of Christianity within the Church. Am I correct?

Please do not take my views as offensive or "baiting". I do not intend them as such.

[tdogg]

Hey EWT

Sorry, I mentioned to start an intro thead. DUH, this IS an intro thread!

So anyways, welcome to you! Glad you did find your way here, and yes, you will hear a lot of truth on these forums.

I hope you truly are genuine in your motives. Many have come before you, claiming they are not here to offend, only to learn. But in the end, many are found to truly be here to offend, accuse and condem (all in the name to 'save'). So, if some of us are apprehensive, we have learned it is wise to be apprehensive.

I have had a lifetime of people shoving religious beliefs and opinions down my throat and into my head. Fortunately for me, my head is a thinking one that enjoys thinking for itself, and my heart never believed what those people said. I'm not a religious person, as religion is based upon principals of fear, self-rightousness, sin, hell, "I'm better than you" mentality, hierarchy, and human opinion. I'm a spiritual person, as my spiritual beliefs are based on what I learn from God in prayer and meditation, pertaining to my life, and based on Jesus teaching and living the lesson of LOVE. :love:

Just my preference. For those who want to spread their religion, I guess the answer to your question from me would be "keep it in your church, but God save the children and those struggling with what is being taught", because as someone who was subject to that, it hurt very deeply (still does), and I consider it emotional and mental abuse (well, physical too). If the teachings were based on love, perhaps it would be different, but they are not. Remember, I was there. It wasn't love.

Hope you stay around and share more, and learn more. Glad you're here!

Tdogg :love::rainbow:

[keltic63]

Please do not take my views as offensive or "baiting". I do not intend them as such.


do you see how your questions and statements would lead us to think this of you?

[u-dog]

I think I am safe in saying, based on the comments, that as long as a person is pursuing the truth in a non-violent way, in a non-offensive way, many of you would not have a problem even with a person promoting their traditional views of Christianity within the Church. Am I correct?

Please do not take my views as offensive or "baiting". I do not intend them as such.

EWT,

NO, you are probably NOT safe in saying that. If you wish to promote a traditional view of Christianity with regard to human sexuality, you had best do that somewhere else. We here do not believe that it is possible to promote that view without doing violence to GLBT people (who are children of God and made in the image of God -- AS IS) no matter how polite and gentle your words may be. If you have questions about HOW we understand scripture, doctrine, traditional views etc and WHY we come to the conclusions we come to -- fire away! If you truly wish to understand a viewpoint different than your own --- we can oblige you.

If, on the other hand, you wish to convince us that we have gone astray, are broken and crippled people, are living a sinful lifestyle... save your breath. We've heard it. We don't want to buy it. We don't want to listen through another commercial for it.

[dsdrane]

Thank u-.

Once again you have expertly crystalized my thoughts exactly.

You bring honor to your breed and species, my furry friend.

:love::cookie:

[u-dog]

Thank u-.

Once again you have expertly crystalized my thoughts exactly.

You bring honor to your breed and species, my furry friend.

:love::cookie:


<back foot thumping floor rythmically> I love it when you scratch me behind the ears!!! :love: SLURP!! <licks your face before you can pull away>

[scott snedeker]

EWT,

NO, you are probably NOT safe in saying that. If you wish to promote a traditional view of Christianity with regard to human sexuality, you had best do that somewhere else. We here do not believe that it is possible to promote that view without doing violence to GLBT people (who are children of God and made in the image of God -- AS IS) no matter how polite and gentle your words may be. If you have questions about HOW we understand scripture, doctrine, traditional views etc and WHY we come to the conclusions we come to -- fire away! If you truly wish to understand a viewpoint different than your own --- we can oblige you.

If, on the other hand, you wish to convince us that we have gone astray, are broken and crippled people, are living a sinful lifestyle... save your breath. We've heard it. We don't want to buy it. We don't want to listen through another commercial for it.


ECHO! ECHO!:cool:

[tdogg]

From one dogg to another...well said U!

Why is it often in deceit, that some come here professing to want to learn and understand, when in reality they are here to try and 'save' us from ourselves??? Why is it always brought in with lies and deceit?

[simpleman]

Experiment with Truth,

I am not G, L, B, or T. I have been at odds with many(all) on this board for awhile. Since I don't fear that you might have ulterior motives (not saying that you do, but if you did, they wouldn't affect me like they might some other people here) I will try to take a stab at why SoulForce uses Ghandi, and King.

In a lot of ways, I agree with you that using Ghandi and King is a stretch for SoulForce, too. I doubt that either man would approve of homosexual behavior, but at the same time, I don't believe they would approve of oppression of homosexuals, either (as you alluded to in the OP). The spirit of non-violent resistance is what those at SoulForce have caught onto with these leaders. SoulForce members practice the same types of things that King and Ghandi did.

I don't know, for certain, what Dr. King or the Mahatma would think of homosexuals, or their role in modern society, but I know that they wouldn't approve of hatred, violence, and government discrimination against homosexuals.

[Jennifer5]

I don't know, for certain, what Dr. King or the Mahatma would think of homosexuals, or their role in modern society, but I know that they wouldn't approve of hatred, violence, and government discrimination against homosexuals.

Nicely said. :)

[antonyh]

Experiment with Truth,

I am not G, L, B, or T. I have been at odds with many(all) on this board for awhile. Since I don't fear that you might have ulterior motives (not saying that you do, but if you did, they wouldn't affect me like they might some other people here) I will try to take a stab at why SoulForce uses Ghandi, and King.

In a lot of ways, I agree with you that using Ghandi and King is a stretch for SoulForce, too. I doubt that either man would approve of homosexual behavior, but at the same time, I don't believe they would approve of oppression of homosexuals, either (as you alluded to in the OP). The spirit of non-violent resistance is what those at SoulForce have caught onto with these leaders. SoulForce members practice the same types of things that King and Ghandi did.

I don't know, for certain, what Dr. King or the Mahatma would think of homosexuals, or their role in modern society, but I know that they wouldn't approve of hatred, violence, and government discrimination against homosexuals.

King's wife supported civil rights for LGBT people. Would King himself support our civil rights? I believe he would. If Ghandi lived in our time with our understanding of sexual orientation, I believe he would support LGBT rights too.

Justice is justice.

Your entry is a little confusing because you say that these men would stand up to government discrimination but before that you say it is a stretch for Soulforce to model themselves after these men because they "would not approve of homosexuality."

[antonyh]

I will say that if Gandhi was here I do not think, based on what he has written about sexuality, that he would support Soulforce nor the LGBT lifestyle.

Ghandi did not have our modern understanding of sexual orientation to work with...so how could he have come to a reasonable conclusion about LGBT relationships and civil rights?

He did understand oppression and injustice and if anyone would 'get it', he would.

[Experiment with Truth]

SIMPLEMAN - Thank you so much for your kind reply. I think we are on the same page and that I can learn a lot from you.


U-DOG -I can guarantee to you that I am not here "to convince [you] that [you]have gone astray, are broken and crippled people, are living a sinful lifestyle." I will not argue about that even though from the Christian perspective we are all like sheep who have gone astray and we are all broken, crippled, and sinful. This does not make me better or different than you, it makes us the same. My brokeness is different than yours and yet in many ways similar. Which, by the way, I think Gandhi would agree that we are broken. Although from his Hindu perspective he might not call it brokeness or sin, but ignorance.


Anyway, thanks so much to everyone for your comments as I continue my journey. I have a couple of other insights I wish to share in the "faith" section that I am eager to receive replies to and spur discussion.

[simpleman]

I believe he would support LGBT rights too.
Your entry is a little confusing because you say that these men would stand up to government discrimination but before that you say it is a stretch for Soulforce to model themselves after these men because they "would not approve of homosexuality."

I know they would support the rights of homosexuals. I don't doubt this at all. It doesn't mean he would support or approve homosexual behavior. I say it is a stretch because even though there are several similarities, there are also marked differences between Ghandi, King, and SoulForce. I understand why SoulForce models it's actions after those of King and Ghandi, and I believe that King and Ghandi would support the civil rights of anybody. I believe it is possible to disagree with someone, but defend their rights. I mean I disagree with many people's opinions, but I defend their rights to say and do what they please, within the framework of the law.

[Emproph]

U-DOG... -I can guarantee to you that I am not here "to convince [you] that [you]have gone astray, are broken and crippled people, are living a sinful lifestyle." I will not argue about that even though from the Christian perspective we are all like sheep who have gone astray and we are all broken, crippled, and sinful. This does not make me better or different than you, it makes us the same. My brokeness is different than yours and yet in many ways similar.I think I missed something, what was u-dog's "brokenness" again?

I know they would support the rights of homosexuals. I don't doubt this at all. It doesn't mean he would support or approve homosexual behavior.Wasn't King an adulterer?

[Jennifer5]

I know they would support the rights of homosexuals. I don't doubt this at all. It doesn't mean he would support or approve homosexual behavior. I say it is a stretch because even though there are several similarities, there are also marked differences between Ghandi, King, and SoulForce. I understand why SoulForce models it's actions after those of King and Ghandi, and I believe that King and Ghandi would support the civil rights of anybody. I believe it is possible to disagree with someone, but defend their rights. I mean I disagree with many people's opinions, but I defend their rights to say and do what they please, within the framework of the law.

"No great idea in its beginning can ever be within the law. How can it be within the law? The law is stationary. The law is fixed. The law is a chariot wheel which blinds us all regardless of conditions of place or time."

[Zerbie]

I know they would support the rights of homosexuals. I don't doubt this at all. It doesn't mean he would support or approve homosexual behavior. \


I believe it is possible to disagree with someone, but defend their rights. I mean I disagree with many people's opinions, but I defend their rights to say and do what they please, within the framework of the law.

To the first quote above, let us CEASE making this about sexual behavior. Does it matter if Gandhi or King support or approve of heterosexual behavior? Why is it that we do not have long circuitous arguments about whether or not we approve of your heterosexual behavior? Why would anyone even think it is their prerogative to get to decide if they can "approve" of homosexuality, or heterosexuality? And why is it only the former that comes up for debate?

To the second part of the quote, amen, well put. :cool:

[simpleman]

To the first quote above, let us CEASE making this about sexual behavior. Does it matter if Gandhi or King support or approve of heterosexual behavior? Why is it that we do not have long circuitous arguments about whether or not we approve of your heterosexual behavior? Why would anyone even think it is their prerogative to get to decide if they can "approve" of homosexuality, or heterosexuality? And why is it only the former that comes up for debate?
:

I never said it was necessarily about sexual behavior. Experiment with Truth was questioning whether or not Ghandi (and/or King) were appropriate faces for SoulForce because of whether or not they would or wouldn't approve of homosexual behavior. I was trying to point out, to EWT, that it is really a moot point, because for the purposes of SoulForce, the non-violent spirit of the men was the point, not their personal beliefs, and to state that regardless of those beliefs, they would still adamantly disapprove of oppression and hatred. I wasn't trying to start or continue a debate on Ghandi and/or King's personal beliefs on homosexuals.

As a side note, Ghandi also had a strange preoccupation with making sure that everyone pooped every day, even dispensing enemas to people. That seems like a strange belief, but it doesn't take away from his non-violent spirit, which is why SoulForce models after him.

[tdogg]

What is homosexual behavior? If not sexual? Just want to get a grip on what you are trying to say simple.

If your connotation is sexual (in regards to homosexual behavior), try thinking beyond the "sex". In regards to sexual behavior, I happen to not think too highly of heterosexual sexual behavior. Actually, I happen to try and not think about it at all (nothing personal to all those who enjoy it). Just because it's not for me, doesn't make it a bad thing. Same with same gender sex. You might not enjoy it, but it doesn't make it a bad thing because it's not something you turn on over.

So, perhaps we can take a new approach and like Z said, stop concentrating on "sex" and look at the broader picture. Try leaving sex out of it and see what you come up with. Would be interesting, no?

[scott snedeker]

As a side note, Ghandi also had a strange preoccupation with making sure that everyone pooped every day, even dispensing enemas to people. .


Maybe he was a actually a bottom?:lol:

[simpleman]

What is homosexual behavior? If not sexual? Just want to get a grip on what you are trying to say simple.

I was referring to the sexual part of the behavior, not the stereotypical mannerisms, style, etc. that are often attributed to homosexuals.


If your connotation is sexual (in regards to homosexual behavior), try thinking beyond the "sex". In regards to sexual behavior, I happen to not think too highly of heterosexual sexual behavior. Actually, I happen to try and not think about it at all (nothing personal to all those who enjoy it). Just because it's not for me, doesn't make it a bad thing. Same with same gender sex. You might not enjoy it, but it doesn't make it a bad thing because it's not something you turn on over.
Sure, I suppose we are breaking away from the question of Gandhi now? I understand where you are coming from on that. I mean I was only using the specifics of homosexual sexual behavior in reference to my speculation on Gandhi and King's personal beliefs on the subject. In addition, I don't necessarily agree with things that don't turn you on aren't bad. Just like I don't believe that everything that might turn people on is necessarily a good thing. I don't think it really matters in terms of SoulForce using the methods of Gandhi, though.


So, perhaps we can take a new approach and like Z said, stop concentrating on "sex" and look at the broader picture. Try leaving sex out of it and see what you come up with. Would be interesting, no?

As in the broader picture of homosexuals in society? Homosexuals in the workplace? Stuff like that? I mean for the purposes of the Gandhi discussion, I don't believe that Gandhi (or King) would oppose homosexuals' roles in society, or their fair access to jobs, etc., even if they didn't approve specifically of homosexual behavior. That's what I keep coming back to with the Gandhi question. For my personal beliefs, I like to judge people in society based on their contributions to society, and employees in the workplace for their job performance. I once knew a lesbian woman who was a professor of law. She was an excellent professor, and is now a dean of another law school. The fact that she is a lesbian doesn't matter, or make a difference, because she is a hard worker and very good at what she does as an educator and a legal professional.

[antonyh]

I know they would support the rights of homosexuals. I don't doubt this at all. It doesn't mean he would support or approve homosexual behavior. I say it is a stretch because even though there are several similarities, there are also marked differences between Ghandi, King, and SoulForce. I understand why SoulForce models it's actions after those of King and Ghandi, and I believe that King and Ghandi would support the civil rights of anybody. I believe it is possible to disagree with someone, but defend their rights. I mean I disagree with many people's opinions, but I defend their rights to say and do what they please, within the framework of the law.

I still think that your assumption that Ghandi and King would not approve of homosexual behavior is wrong. How do you know? Neither men had the understanding of sexual orientation that we have today. I'm not sure either of them had the sacred experience of being with a loving gay couple.

[simpleman]

I still think that your assumption that Ghandi and King would not approve of homosexual behavior is wrong. How do you know? Neither men had the understanding of sexual orientation that we have today. I'm not sure either of them had the sacred experience of being with a loving gay couple.

I believe that my original quote was "I doubt." I wasn't assuming, nor attempting to state as conclusive, Gandhi's or Dr. King's feelings or personal beliefs on homosexuality. It is, as you say, not possible to know because neither man is alive, nor privy to any modern thought on the subject. I was simply saying "If you asked me, I would say that they probably wouldn't approve of homosexual behavior." I could be wrong, as that would just be my gut instinct. Yours is different, and that's fine. There's no conclusive answer.

[antonyh]

I believe that my original quote was "I doubt." I wasn't assuming, nor attempting to state as conclusive, Gandhi's or Dr. King's feelings or personal beliefs on homosexuality. It is, as you say, not possible to know because neither man is alive, nor privy to any modern thought on the subject. I was simply saying "If you asked me, I would say that they probably wouldn't approve of homosexual behavior." I could be wrong, as that would just be my gut instinct. Yours is different, and that's fine. There's no conclusive answer.

You're just reading your heterosexual bias into history...lucky you're the majority :lol: