This is topic Episode 5,324 in Hatrack's continuing discussion on homosexuality in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=018098

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/hypocrites-osc.html

One thing that struck me in OSC's essay is how he portrays ( ) gay people. He thinks that they're basically good people, just like anyone else, with the exception that they are 'struggling' with something that the LDS church has defined as sin. He never says that being gay is bad for the church or for society.

What is further interesting to me is that he echoes sentiments expressed by many 'religious'(for lack of a better word) people on this board, that they've had gay friends who've been really swell, and that all (or most of) the gay people they've known have been nice people, but, sorry, their faith believes that what they do is a sin, so they can't be equal members of either civil or religious society.

When I wrote my 'reason in Christianity' thread, comments like OSC's were actually uppermost in my mind. I guess my question is, if someone doesn't see that gay people are being a destructive influence on the people around them, that their gay relationships aren't hurting anyone (with the possible exeption of themselves on some unknowable psychic level), isn't it reasonable to conclude that perhaps your doctrine is wrong and in need of modification in this one instance?

One reply might be that, well, just because a person can't see the destructive influence doesn't mean it isn't there. O.K. The problem with this, to me, is that to say that denies what your senses are telling you and what you are experiencing. So, if your experience with gay people is that they are no worse or better than other people, why should they not have all the rights and privileges that every other person has? Why not modify your faith to fit what your experience and your senses tell you is true?

If the reply is that, if an individual just picks and chooses what is right and wrong, then there is no such thing as absolutism, and doctrine is meaningless, I guess my thought is that, if faith is not built on what we see to be true, what is known to be empirically true, and what we feel through prayer to be true, then can't there be arbitrary limits set on what can or can't be done without regard to 'truth', which is to say, reason or experience in matters of faith?

Another reply might be that 'we have faith in those that went before us, the prophets. Things have been revealed to them that haven't been revealed to us.' I guess my question is, why? Why does God not reveal these truths to you? If you believe in God, then why not believe that He will reveal to you what is true and valid and needed for yourself? If He hasn't 'told' you, personally, that being gay is wrong, then why not believe your senses and the justification of your reason?

[ September 09, 2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Why does God not reveal these truths to you?

---

quote:

---

I guess my question is, if someone doesn't see that gay people are being a destructive influence on the people around them, that their gay relationships aren't hurting anyone (with the possible exeption of themselves on some unknowable psychic level), isn't it reasonable to conclude that perhaps your doctrine is wrong and in need of modification in this one instance?

---

quote:

---

One reply might be that, well, just because a person can't see the destructive influence doesn't mean it isn't there. O.K. The problem with this, to me, is that to say that denies what your senses are telling you and what you are experiencing. So, if your experience with gay people is that they are no worse or better than other people, why should they not have all the rights and privileges that every other person has? Why not modify your faith to fit what your experience and your senses tell you is true?

---

quote:

---

Another reply might be that 'we have faith in those that went before us, the prophets. Things have been revealed to them that haven't been revealed to us.' I guess my question is, why? Why does God not reveal these truths to you? If you believe in God, then why not believe that He will reveal to you what is true and valid and needed for yourself? If He hasn't 'told' you, personally, that being gay is wrong, then why not believe your senses and the justification of your reason?

---

quote:

---

Homosexuality is thorny, as is adultery, fornication, greed etc. The reason that these things are thorny is because once they were fairly universally condemned as wrong both societally and religiously. Now some are considered wrong religiously but OK societally.

---

quote:

---

When society accepts something which was previously considered wrong then all those who yet consider it wrong are put in a bad spot. Obviously they cannot be forced to support the idea that what they believe to be wrong is really OK. However, when speaking of Christianity, it is also doctrine (for most) that the civil law be upheld.

Well, what is a Christian to do? In our current society the power of any church is pretty much limited to excluding a person from their congregation. I think that it is how it should be. However, every American citizen also has the right and duty to tread the line between freedom and law. Where does that line lie?

I think that many Christians would agree that certain sins such as those I listed above are not absolutely necessary to legislate against. Enforcement is difficult and their actions don't generally impinge directly on me, so while we may disapprove nonetheless we needn't legislate. However, the situation changes when a law is made specifically endorsing said activities. When a law is passed it is an admission of acceptability within the community of whatever behavior the law is made to regulate. So, for example, when legislation legalizing homosexual marriages is made the message to the community at large is: homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in the eyes of the community.

---

quote:

---

The same messages can be seen in other laws such as abortion, no-fault divorce etc. and we can see that these laws indeed havea deep effect on the society in which they are enacted.

That is where the worry lies and why such questions are so difficult for Christians.

---

quote:

---

Heh. Since when are adultery and greed socially "acceptable," Jacare?

---

quote:

---

By the way, you forgot to equate homosexuality with murder, rape, pedophilia...

---

quote:

---

You seem to think that legalizing homosexual marriage is somehow a move for homosexuals. It's not. It's just giving all citizens equal rights to marriage. You're not "accepting" homosexuals (whatever the hell that means). You're just not denying them basic civil liberties that they should have had for a long time, and were denied by prejudiced society.

---

quote:

---

Heh. And that message would be, as you stated above, not persecuting homosexuals?

Yes. Yes, we must keep that message from getting out. Schoolchildren might stop calling each other "fags"!

---

For we all know that Christians all treat sinners as lepers. Not only do we call homosexuals fags, in fact we call fornicators "sluts" and gluttonous individuals "fat-asses". We call all liars "lying bastards" and we decry all other sinners with the ugliest names we can find. We do this because Christians are superior to everyone else and we want to destroy them.

I only lament that you were clever enough to uncover our evil plot.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I saw it first.



[ September 09, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Heh. Since when are adultery and greed socially "acceptable," Jacare?

---

You don't believe that they are? Then you are not paying attention to the world. Adultery is practically expected in any relationship that's at least seven years old, and certainly by a man's mid-life crisis. MTV, reality shows, and others portray people as being animals who'll have sex with whatever holds still long enough, regardless of if their in a marriage or relationship. Granted, just because they're called "reality" doesn't mean life is just like that, but they're doing so well because that's what most people want to see. I mean, what was the deal with "Temptation Island?" Let's TRY to break up a marriage and show all of the adulterous adventures on TV.

And greed? In this "Me" generation? Of course it's acceptable. It's even desirable. Get as much as you can, as fast as you can. You can't afford it? Get a few more credit cards. They're available at an even lower intrest rate! No one is content with what they have; they all want more.

These are not exceptions, they are the rules...or becoming so. Wake up please!

quote:

---

To paraphrase Christ, "Render unto Caesar what is his."

As Christians, we are bound to uphold the law, but we also have to realize that the law is a temporal thing, something purely of the secular realm.

---

quote:

---

If the nation decides to legalize homosexual marriage, then fine. It is a decision made by a secular authority that offers secular protections to individuals. It doesn't require that Christians, or anyone, accept this as the norm. It's like someone painting their house neon orange, it's really none of my business if it does no direct harm to me.

---

quote:

---

Christ taught us to judge not, lest we be judged

---

quote:

---

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment

---

It is an obvious enjoinder to not be fooled by the outward appearance but to judge based on actions.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Jacare,
Can you give a translation, chapter and verse for that particular quote from John. Verses like that one really need to be taken in context since they are so incomprehensible and undefined on their own.

For example "judge righteous judgment" to me seems like an oxymoron. If it is "righteous judgment" then it probably doesn't need judgement. If it is supposedly righteous judgement than it might actually be self-righteous judgment, which is exactly what the gay community would attribute to the conservative Christian comunity.

AJ
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Story time.

When I was growing up in the church, homosexuality was not as public an issue as it is now. It was something, frankly, that I never heard mentioned. I didn’t know my church’s position on it and it never occurred to me to ask. It wasn’t even a blip on my radar. (I found out later that we didn’t even have a stated position until, I think, 1972. Might have been ’76, I don’t remember for sure.)

Anyway. When I got to college I met some Christians who were openly gay, and some who were just coming to terms with their sexuality or just coming out. So suddenly it was an issue for me. These friends were dealing with people at church who would cross to the other side of the hall (literally!) to avoid them. I still never heard it dealt with in any formal way, but suddenly the issue was everywhere. “Is homosexuality a sin?” “Should the church ordain homosexual clergy?” “What about same-sex marriage?” I’m still not sure if my awareness of the issue happened to coincide with an increase in its visibility across mainline Protestantism, or if the concern was there all along and I just didn’t see it. Probably a little of both.

As I mentioned on the “Reason in Christianity” thread, in my tradition decisions are made based on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral – Scripture, Experience, Tradition, and Reason. (Experience is both mundane and spiritual experience. It includes prayer, visions, and other forms of divine guidance as well as people you meet and things you do and learn.) I had the experience of praying with friends who were coming to grips with their sexual orientation. It was agonizing. But as the issue became more openly debated in the church, I also met older Christians who had long ago accepted their sexual orientation as a part of who they were, created by God and loved by God. These were active, faithful people, and I could plainly see the Holy Spirit at work in their lives and in their ministries. About this time I had a blinding flash of the obvious and realized that my high school Sunday School teacher, who had lived with a roommate and her adopted children for years, might be a lesbian. I still haven’t asked, maybe they just live together and are raising children together. I don’t figure what they do or don’t do in bed is any of my business. Besides, our main question when the roommate adopted the first child was “what is the baby going to call you?”

So, by this point my experience was telling me that homosexual Christians are just like any other Christian, that they are called to ministry just like every other Christian, that when they find someone to love and share their lives with it is a gift from God, just like it is for heterosexual Christians. Reason also seemed to lead that way. While science hasn’t been able to explain why some people are homosexual, there are enough studies to convince me that sexual orientation is not a choice. Some of us are created homosexual, some of us are created heterosexual.

Now we have the interesting state of reason and experience pulling one way, tradition and scripture seeming to pull another. This sets up a sort of cognitive dissonance. They’re supposed to agree! If my experience and reason are contrary to scripture, then either my experience is invalid, or my interpretation of scripture is faulty. (Yes there are other possibilities, but those are the two I hold most probable.) So. I realize that I actually don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality, I only know that people have told me “the Bible says it’s a sin.” By the time we get to this point in the story I was in seminary working on a Master of Divinity degree, so I had plenty of resources available for in-depth Biblical and historical study. Not to mention plenty of people to discuss/argue with about it (go Socratic method!). So. There are six verses/passages in the Bible that could be/have been used to argue that same-gender love/sex is wrong. I’ve posted an in-depth exegesis of one of them on another thread, so I won’t repeat it here. That’s not the point of the story anyway. Basically, I came to the conclusion that the Bible does not directly say anything about adult, mutually consenting, monogamous, same sex relationships. The issue isn’t one that the Biblical writers were concerned with. The types of same-sex behavior that they were condemning bear no resemblance to such loving, faithful, mutually committed relationships.

I realize that other people have studied those same scriptures and come to different conclusions. This isn’t really the thread to argue that – it was sufficient for me that there was a possibility of interpreting the relevant passages in a way that didn’t violate my experience or reason. And lest anyone think I’m saying you can manipulate the scriptures to say anything you like – I’m not saying that. This was a serious study, looking at the Hebrew and Greek originals and translation issues, looking at the culture they were written in and what else was being said about same-gender sex at the time, etc. Lots of time, lots of study, lots of prayer. I don’t think the Bible directly supports same-sex relationships, but neither do I think it condemns them.

So. Scripture, Experience, and Reason are no longer in conflict. That leaves Tradition. Tradition is pretty firmly against the idea of homosexual marriage or ordination. On the other hand, “we’ve never done it that way!” is a pretty weak argument when there are compelling arguments for change. And tradition is a constantly evolving thing. And there are elements of the protestant tradition that argue that this would be a change that is faithful to the tradition. Example – if we accept the idea that sexual orientation is part of who a person is, not a behavior, then to require a certain class of people to make, in effect, a vow of celibacy when they are not called to such a vow is directly contrary to a central principle of the protestant reformation. One of my professors relinquished his ordination in the Presbyterian church over this issue when the Presbyterian Church USA passed a measure requiring ordained homosexuals to be celibate. Although he was not personally in violation of the order, he believed that to require this was theologically against the Reformed tradition.

This was a rather long explanation of why, as a Christian, I have come to support allowing same-gender couples to marry. I actually agree with those who believe that sexual activity outside of a societally recognized relationship is destructive to community. Which is why I support recognizing same-gender relationships. Not doing so doesn’t harm promiscuous people in the least. It only harms those who want their relationships to promote faithfulness, build up community, and witness to the love of God in the world.

(edit for punctuation.)

[ September 09, 2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
Storm,

You said "change this one little thing", or something like it. But this is not really the case. Once you get a complete view of our theology, you would see many, many barriers to a change of view on homosexuality. Such a change would uproot half of our doctrines, in a chain reaction, many of which we love and find true.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Interesting perspective, dkw. It always seems odd to me when people appeal to tradition, so it's ironic that tradition was on the side of the issue I agree with in this case; it's usually the other way.

(In conservative churches of Christ, "tradition" is still very often a bad word, and I for one think it should stay that way. The classical perspective has been that tradition is an obstacle to seeing truth as it is. Naturally, we end up having some traditions anyway, of course.)
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
I just wan't to add that mormons have lots of theology that makes us dread serious about all sex. "Second only to murder" and such.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I'm not mormon but I can agree with that.

added: wait, you're not talking about sex in marriage are you?

[ September 09, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
I want to say that Sopwith's post, with the exception of awaiting a heavenly hope, is pretty much spot-on with how I believe.

That was extremely well articulated. Whether or not anyone else agrees, I'm down jiggity with you on this, Sparky.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
dkw, you are too cool.
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
Psi,
I'm not sure your question, but we view sex in marriage as incredibly good. Something that can be so good--something that God approves of so much--can also be incredibly bad if we don't do it the way that's right. I.e., adultery, fornication, etc.

[ September 09, 2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
To Lalo,
Homosexuals can get married. Most of them, however, would prefer not to.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Most of them would prefer not to? Are you sure?

I mean, sure most people of every stripe under the age of 25 would prefer not to get married, but all of my gay friends over 30 would prefer to be married to their partner.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No, homosexuals cannot get married (in the US, that is), and many of them do want to.

In Canada, where they can get married, many of them have.

And in Vermont, where they can get something close to marriage, many of them have.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I believe popatr is suggesting that people of homosexual orientation can legally marry someone of the opposite gender.
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
dkw's got it. We treat them exactly the same--not symetrically, perhaps--but exactly the same. We deny them no rights or priviliges that we have.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Ah, I thought he meant a local plural rather than a population plural.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
What popatr -- as someone who did, after all, train himself to find women attractive -- is saying is that homosexuals CAN get married, provided they get married to people of the opposite sex.

I would think of this as only mildly less agonizing than a lifelong jail sentence, but some people seem to think of it as therapeutic.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
DKW, thanks once again for your wisdom and ability. As a Methodist, I go through much of my faith as it has been passed down to me. While it is always filtered through my own senses and limited capabilities to understand, it is wonderful to know that our pastors are men and women like yourself. Thank you for guidance.

Thanks Ralphie, but yes I believe we were made with clay and hope. From the basest of things, I believe, God made us and then gifted us with free will. The very gift of free will, in and of itself, is such an expression of hope that I often feel very guilty about my inability to fulfill it on my own personal level. But it is a long life we are given (no matter the number of years) and perhaps one day, I might, just might, live up to an inkling of what was hoped for me.

[ September 09, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Sopwith, I agreed pretty much with you, but I have a question about one thing.

quote:

---

It is a pledge that you will work from there on out to remove sin from your life and help those around you.

---

How can you help those around you by completely ignoring the sin? If your brother is committing adultery, should you look the other way so that you don't judge him? What if he's a deacon in the church? What if he's the pastor?

It's a difficult issue. I'm far from perfect, so who am I to point out the sin in someone else's life. But I don't think you can just turn away and ignore what's happening in society.

On the topic at hand, my view is that homosexuality is a sin (although dkw has given me some food for thought), but I don't necessarily think the government should deny gays their rights. It concerns me far more that churchs are now condoning the practice seemingly being swayed by public opinion.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
I would think of this as only mildly less agonizing than a lifelong jail sentence, but some people seem to think of it as therapeutic.

Tom, isn't marriage much more than just sex?
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
Tom,
That's why I said most of them would prefer not to.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
popatr- Thanks, sorry the question was weird. When you said all sex , I assumed you meant extramarital as you seem to be talking about "bad sex". Then after reading it, I realized the implication that "all sex" could have. I was just making sure that you didn't think sex within marriage was bad, too. (Hey, you never know.)

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 

 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Indeed, marriage is about much more than sex. Sexual orientation is about much more than sex too, but when you try to call it “affectional orientation” or other terms people accuse you of being “PC.” Perhaps the best answer would be to refer to “people who are deeply in love and committed to each other and who want their covenant to be recognized by their family and community and who, if they are religious, believe that their love is blessed by God and would like their religious community to recognize it as such and who also are of the same gender.” But that takes too long to type.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

How can you help those around you by completely ignoring the sin? If your brother is committing adultery, should you look the other way so that you don't judge him?

---

The difference is that you are talking about "brothers" but the majority of the people out there are not "brothers". You have a responsibility to point out a sinful behavior IN LOVE to your brother or sister, in hopes that he/she will see the truth and turn from their ways. If you aren't talking to a brother, your first responsibility is to teach them and offer the chance for them to become one. Then you let them grow. If, after they have become a Christian, they are continuing to commit a specific sin, it's far better to try and show them their sin than to just excommunicate them without giving them a chance. The Bible shows that that is the last course of action in the case of a sinning brother.

And yes, you should be concerned with your own plank first.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Nicely said, PSI. Maybe I misunderstood Sopwith. I thought he was referring to both Christians and non-Christians.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
popatr, they are being denied rights other people have. You are playing definitional games to make it seem otherwise.

Marriage is not a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage is a right to marry (that is, form a joint and societal contract with) a person of your choice, a person you want to spend the rest of your life with, a person you want to have society recognize as your lifemate.

If we want to play semantic games, we can do that. I think I'm going to "adjust" the definition of the right to raise your kids so that it's a right to live in the same house as your kids. After all, even though it totally misses what's essential about child raising, it almost always occurs when child raising occurs.

Then I'm going to use this redefined right to make it so you can't do anything with your kids without my permissions, and so long as you're living in same house it should be okay.

A right is the part of something that makes it special and important, not some attribute commonly associated with that right.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
By the way:

quote:

---

3And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

---

quote:

---

Jacare,
Can you give a translation, chapter and verse for that particular quote from John. Verses like that one really need to be taken in context since they are so incomprehensible and undefined on their own.

---

I actually think it stands pretty well on its own, but here you go: King James version John 7:24. In context:

http://scriptures.lds.org/john/7/24#24

Basically Jesus is remonstarting with those who knew him growing up. He seems to be asking them to look beyond the law of Moses to the principle of the matter.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Zgator, it's not a sin if the cases were reversed and you were the sinner and would want someone to ask you to reconsider your actions.

The Golden Rule is about as good as it gets: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
To anyone--is it possible to have a spiritual revelation that contradicts what has been said before, or can (edit: 'real') revelation only build upon what has been said?

[ September 09, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
This is really the only topic that we discuss here on the Rack that I feel strongly about, for reasons which become a little clearer if you've read my landmark.

My best friend is a lesbian, and there's no one that can tell me that homosexuality is a choice. Perhaps in some cases, I don't know, but I don't think homosexuality is any more of a choice than me choosing to be attracted to tall, skinny white boys and Viggo Mortensen is.

Let's say that I'm right, that homosexuality isn't a choice. If it's not, how could anyone say that God would condemn gays as sinners? He made them what they are, and he decided to make them homosexuals. It could be as plain and simple as that.

Of course, I may be wrong, but there's no way of knowing. I guess I just don't understand how you could hate someone for being who they are.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
SS- I think that real revelation always confirms what has been said, but not necessarily our interpretation of what has been said, if you take my meaning. As is indicated by the vast number of christian churches, any given passage of scripture can have a variety of meanings based on context, cultural assumptions, prejudices etc.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I agree with Jacare.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Sopwith and PSI, I'm sorry if I sound picky about this, because I actually do generally agree with you. This is a topic that's been going round and round in my head lately, so I was playing a bit of devil's advocate.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Let's say that I'm right, that homosexuality isn't a choice. If it's not, how could anyone say that God would condemn gays as sinners? He made them what they are, and he decided to make them homosexuals. It could be as plain and simple as that.

Of course, I may be wrong, but there's no way of knowing. I guess I just don't understand how you could hate someone for being who they are.

---

Ryuko- first off, while it often is so that people hate those who are different or who disagree with them, such a thing is not necessarily a by product of thinking they are wrong. For example, I disagree with a great many of Tom D's opinions but I certainly don't hate him. I think that KarlEd's homosexuality is a sin but I continue to think that Karl is one of the very best Hatrackers and has all the indications of being a great person.

As far as whether homosexuality being a choice or not, it can be viewed as being similar to heterosexuality in that heterosexuals are all equipped with bodies which tell them to go have sex with someone, and yet they may not do so until they are married if they are Christian. The homosexual situation is even more difficult since in (most) christian churches they don't have to hold off just until they are married, they must do it indefinitely.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
See after reading the passage in context I believe my interpretation was correct. Jesus was condemming the "righteous judgement" of the Pharisees who were in turn condemming him because he healed a man on the Sabbath, therefore according to the Pharisees unrighteous "righteous judgement" breaking the sabbath.

Those in favor of gay marriage could characterize those who want to ban gay marriage as sitting in unrighteous "righteous judgement" just as the Pharisees did and totally missing the entire point, which was Jesus making all things whole.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"you find that you can help your brother with his speck, as long as you have taken care of your own sin first."

Let me know when you're done taking care of your sin, will you?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
First, I'd like to point out that, at least in LDS theology, homosexuality itself is not a sin. Homosexual actions are the sin.

We believe in a doctrine that makes marriage eternal, and the balance of male and female essential to a further growth and spiritual inheritance.

If one does not marry in the church because they are homosexual, but stays righteous in their actions, they will recieve the opportunities for eternal marriage with all that implies, including the heterosexual attraction after they die.

I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but I think I can honestly tell you that, to a point, there is choice involved. There are many reasons why someone may be homosexual, and some of them might not involve choice, but I think a great many do involve choice. The choice isn't to be or not to be homosexual, but to follow any desire you think of. We are sexual creatures by nature, and very few of us are truly, fully heterosexual or homosexual. Some people choose to embrace those homosexual tendancies, and some choose to eschew them.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Tom, :tsk tsk smilie: you didn't read that whole post.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, I did read it. I just disagree with you about the EXTENT to which people have dealt with their sin, and the argument that only people with RELATED sins need to worry about their own.

In other words, a hateful, loathsome person has not "dealt" with the temptation of homosexuality by not being attracted to men; he does not get a free pass on removing his "plank," even if that particular "plank" never existed in his eye. His OWN plank, his hatefulness, is one that he'll have to spend his own life dealing with -- and, frankly, I think a truly astonishing number of people prefer to start dealing with other people's sins WELL before they start dealing with their own.

In fact, in my anecdotal experience, I have NEVER heard someone lecture about sin who would not, himself or herself, benefit from listening to the same lecture; it's the "righteous" who are most commonly in need of their own salvation.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

First, I'd like to point out that, at least in LDS theology, homosexuality itself is not a sin. Homosexual actions are the sin.

---

Bingo. Same in my thinking, Amka.

If I look at a man and lust after him, I have sinned. If I have sex with my husband, I have not. If I have sex with a man other than my husband, I've sinned.

A homosexual is not committing a sin just by existing. If he lusts after someone he is not married to, he is sinning. If he acts on that lust, he is sinning. If he were to marry, into a marriage recognized by God, then he would not be sinning if he acts on it.

I disagree with dkw. I think God was pretty clear that he was against all forms of homosexual behavior. With the many passages regarding the sacrament of marriage, I would think at least one would list same-sex marriages if they were okay in God's eyes. Then again, absence of something doesn't prove its false, and I don't claim to know everything.

Yet, I find the evidence overwhelming. "A MAN shall leave his mother and cling to his WIFE" That's pretty clear - marriage is man to woman and only man to woman as far as I'm concerned.

Tom, you missed the point. Nowhere does it say you must be sin-free to inform another person of their sin. That's impossible. What the passage is saying is that if I'm deep in a sinful lifestyle, say a compulsive gambler, it's pretty hypocritical for me to criticize a friend who is having an affair. If however, I'm in gambler's anonymous and sincerely struggling to overcome my addiction and deal with my sin - then yes, I can point out to my friend that what she's doing is wrong. The difference is one of repentance - if I'm in repentance of my sin, if I'm asking for forgiveness and working on it - then I'm doing as God has asked. He knows we will never be sin-free, he asks us to confess our sins, and repent.

If I were an unrepentant sinner, then yeah - I should keep my mouth shut. However, I personally struggle very much every day with my own sin, which makes me feel that I'm barely ever capable of talking to someone else about theirs. Yet, I'm called to do so when I recognize it, but it can only be done out of love, not some selfish holier-than-thou condescending attitude. If I'm in the right state of mind, humbled by my own sin, then it will come across right.

And yet, some people don't listen and don't want anything to do with your attempts to help them. They won't turn from their sin, instead they embrace it and tell you to leave them alone.

At some point, you must. You must follow the steps God laid out for you, confront them with witnesses, pray for them, go to them in love, forgive them for what they did, etc. And when you do all that and they still refuse to acknowledge they've sinned and seek reconciliation, what then?

Then you get to hurt, for a long time, while someone you love refuses to acknowledge you or address you and says they are just writing you out of their life. They tell you if you're so intent on being "A Christian holy-roller" then you are no daughter of theirs. How do you choose between an earthly father and your heavenly father?

Easy choice, but it still hurts. I've watched my family crumble around me, and what can I do? Jesus never promised us our choices would be easy or would automatically make us happy.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I really, really hate this pointless discussion. *sigh*

Why do I think it's pointless? In college, I took a class called "The Age of Milton". We studdied Milton, Dunne, etc. Lots of essays and moral treatises. Many of them were still just as relevant as when they were written.

Then there was the essay about whether or not women have souls. God help me, this was a serious question at one time. It makes me feel sick and angry just to think about it.

I honestly believe that if the world stands for another hundred or so years (at least the lifetimes of a couple more popes) all our hand-wringing about homosexuality will be about this relevant.

Then a few generations after that, God will get around to making it official. He's got some major time lag. I think it may have something to do with the speed of light...

Edit: 'lots' not 'lot's'

[ September 09, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
 

---

Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
 
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and his mother, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:34

"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

[ September 09, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Getzin ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Wow, Belle. Thanks for putting all of those things so clearly.

I think people keep failing to understand that the point is not to shout at someone at random and yell "Sinner, sinner!" regardless of if you yourself are sinning or not. The point is that we believe that sinful natures are destructive to us, and that what God wants for us is best. So if you care about your brother, then you will be concerned that a sinful lifestyle is detrimental to him. So IN LOVE, you will tell him so and then leave the poor guy alone and let him do what he thinks is best. You don't beat it into his head. Why would that work? The difference between me and the Pharisees is that they thought they were righteous and I certainly do not believe that I am righteous. Secondly, they were hatefully telling people how evil they were, whereas, I care very much for people and love them and want what's best for them. Let's please not get into an argument about "How do you know what's best for someone?" That's a never-ending argument, too.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
This thread is not about whether or not a religion is scripturally justified in believing as they do about homosexuals/homosexuality. It's clear from the religions out there that have chosen one way or another that various interpretations *ARE* possible.

The initial point in my post is that if you base your feelings on homosexuality on what you experience and see and what God actually communicates to you, it seems to me that the case for acceptance of homosexuality if pretty strong. The only reason it seems to me to not accept homosexuals as full members of any society is because of tradition. All the other sins that people are listing along side homosexuality can easilly be shown to not work to be optimally healthy for the *individual*. Such is not the case for monogamous homosexual relationships, I think.

There are some social arguments that have been hinted at, that homosexual marriages will erode this, that or the other standard in society and so be bad for society. This cannot be answered, at present, because only one first world country has made homosexual marriages legal, and as is well known, that is Canada, and that only just recently.

So, let's say that we get in our time machine and go twenty years in the future and somehow, it is provably shown that homosexual marriage does nothing to a society. In fact, it's great. Since fewer gay people are out galavanting around, STDs in the general population are down. Productivity from all those happy, little gay worker bees is up.

That leaves tradition and doctrine. What then? Again, if doctrine does not change to accomodate new evidence, then how can that doctrine be seen as 'true' by our human, logical faculties? How can the society that follows such a doctrine be seen as anything other than unthinkingly doctrinaire? (I hope I didn't go too far with that last statement. )

Please note that I admit that the reverse could be true. Could be that gay marriage causes Canadian society to unravel and various bad things to happen, in which case those who have opposed homosexual marriage will be proved right.

[ September 09, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Let's just wait and see what happens to Canada then.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
By the way, I in no way say that a religion is wrong for being doctrinaire. I might argue that it is not optimal for the happiness and health of the most people within that religion. I might also argue that once you place your beliefs into law, we're talking a turkey of a whole nother color.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Nothing changes. I get sick reading these threads.

Keep making decisions about people's lives based on a couple lines in some book written a very long time ago.

I hope it makes you all sleep well at night.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Could be that gay marriage causes Canadian society to unravel and various bad things to happen

I will be interested to see what happens in Canada.

I wonder if we will be able to recognize the ill effects, if they do happen? Or, if we do recognize ill effects in Canadian society, will it be "politically correct" to tie them to homosexual marriage?

In U.S. society, we have had a serious increase in divorce over the past several decades, and an accompanying increase in single parenting. Many in our society would refute the following statement:

Single parenting is not the ideal practice for our society.

Many people feel like single parenting is just another form of parenting that is equally as valid and even equally desireable as mommy/daddy parenting.

If there are negative consequences to Canadian society, will we even own up to that fact?
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
some book written a very long time ago.

Yeah, but it's been correct so often.

Some of us are basing our decisions on that book, and the counsel of living prophets as well.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Damn, Xavier. Don't you think that your statement might carry its own intolerance?
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Cnada isn't the U.S. though. Canada has as many guns and stuff as the U.S. but there haven't been any Canadian 'Columbines'.

Dammit, I wanna move to Canada.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Xavier, not good.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Why not Stormy? I mean, they get to speak out about how sinful homosexuality is. Of course, I'm sure Xav still likes all of them, even though their beliefs are an affront to him. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin and all. He can hate these threads, have them make him sick, but still love the people with the wrong opinions, can't he? Isn't it the same thing?
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Cnada isn't the U.S. though.

See, the dodges already begin.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

quote:

---

Damn, Xavier. Don't you think that your statement might carry its own intolerance?

---

Actually, yes I am intolerant of people using their religious beliefs to oppress others. Especially when they try and pretend they have secular reasons for forcing their faith on others. The last Homosexuality thread had about three pages of Christains trying to convince everyone that they were opposed to same sex marriages because of the fear it would harm society in some way. After being pressed to provide rational reasons for this, or some kind of evidence, those people finally admitted that they oppose same sex marriage because it would "validate the lifestyle", and that this was a bad thing because their religion says homosexuality is a sin.

This is no more valid than trying to legislate morality as stated by the Quran. We all think that Islamic governments are backward and wrong for legislating religious morality, but Christain morality is A-Okay.

Furthermore, people like aka, dkw, Sopwith, and others show me that people can still be christain and not accept bigotry without question. It makes me so glad to hear their stories about how they came to their beliefs by rational, independent thought.

For every dkw though, there's a popatr that accepts the doctrine without even the slightest bit of independent thought. They make me want to scream, cry, and then give up entirely (in that order ).
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Matthew 10:34

---

quote:

---

The Episcopaleons don't burn the Baptists as heretics. The Methodists do not raid Lutheran services to save the souls of those misguided fools. There is a basic belief that all Christians are really the same.

Even the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants has been peaceful, well, accept for in Ireland, and that's more a revenge treadmill going on there.

---

quote:

---

To them, the Christians that demand they reject their homosexuality leaves them living a life of Abstinence.

---

quote:

---

In the Mosaic law the death penalty was inflicted

For murder
Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:16-21,30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6

For adultery
Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:24

For incest
Leviticus 20:11,12,14

For bestiality
Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15,16

For sodomy
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

For sexual immorality
Deuteronomy 22:21-24

For the rape of a betrothed (engaged) virgin
Deuteronomy 22:25

For perjury
Zechariah 5:4

For kidnapping
Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7

For the promiscuousness of a priest’s daughter
Leviticus 21:9

For witchcraft
Exodus 22:18

For offering human sacrifice
Leviticus 20:2-5

For striking or cursing one’s father or mother
Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9

For disobedience to parents
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For stealing
Zechariah 5:3,4

For blasphemy
Leviticus 24:11-14,16,23

For desecrating the Sabbath day
Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36

For prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines
Deuteronomy 13:1-10

For sacrificing to false gods
Exodus 22:20

For refusing to abide by the decision of the court
Deuteronomy 17:12

For treason
1 Kings 2:25; Esther 2:23

For sedition
Acts 5:36,37

---

quote:

---

Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Ga 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,

Ga 5:21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Ga 5:23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

---

The only other mentions were of Simon, the sorcerer in Acts who was baptized by Phillip, and a mention of the power of sorcery in Babylon in Revelation.

Don't think I'm missing your point - I know you're saying some people only believe selective portions of the Bible. Very True, in fact I'm ashamed to say many Christians have not even read the entire Bible, or even at the very least the New Testament.

However, there are those of us who do read and study and pray so that we can be firm in our beliefs and so we can try our darnedest to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, no matter how short we may fall. You belittle those of us with your challenges like this "What about witches? huh? huh? what about that?" because Tom at least knows very well that evangelical Christians do not believe they should enforce all of the Old Testament laws.

That does not mean, of course, that all of those laws are useless, I still think many of the things on that above list are wrong. I think what's very telling is what Jesus and/or the Apostles reiterated in the New Testament. I don't think there is little doubt that the Apostle Paul was reaffirming that homosexual behavior is still considered a sin.

In short, I don't believe I should be out burning witches anymore than I believe I should be sacrificing animals on altars. The Crucifixion changed all that.
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
Uh...I have a question. Probably a stupid one. Jesus said a whole lot about 'love your neighbor as yourself', and 'judge not lest ye be judged', and good stuff like that. Now, it's the Apostles who wrote the Epistles that say all the stuff about witches and homosexuality...stuff that leads people to judge and not love their neighbors. So...wouldn't Jesus's word take presidence over the Apostles'? Wouldn't you love and not judge before doing the whole witch- and gay-hating thing?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's a good question, Human. If it looks like two parts of the Bible are not in harmony, who gets precedence?

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that kind of love when it comes to loving your neighbor.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I like Belle.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Human- The Apostle's words were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit so in essence those are the words of God. As for judging, acknowledging sin is not judgement. It would be judgemental to scorn the person. I DEFINANTLY do not think we should persecute or deny basic civil liberties to anyone based on race, gender or orientation. However marriage is a sacred union created by God. I have friends who are athiests who are great people, and friends who are gay that are great too.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Kat,

You sure about that?

[ September 09, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
Ryan: Yeah...but...I've found that's a lot harder to do than it sounds. And besides...aren't we persecuting them? Couldn't it be considered a form of persecution to deny a couple the ability to have a legally and publically recognized 'marriage', no matter what the sexual preference? Isn't it basically like saying that their form of love isn't adaquate, but that the heterosexual kind is?

Oh...and why couldn't God change his mind?
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 

quote:

---

They want the sacrament. They want the sacred vow between themselves and God. They believe that a loving God will not condone them for falling in love, or for experiencing the joy that their bodies crave, and that other married couples can routinely experience.

---

quote:

---

Oh...and why couldn't God change his mind?

---

quote:

---

their faith believes that what they do is a sin, so they can't be equal members of either civil or religious society.

---

quote:

---

It's just giving all citizens equal rights to marriage.

---

We don't all have equal rights to marriage. Unless we decide that it is okay to compel some to get married so others can be married. What about the right to stay married, even if your spouse wants to leave you? Does this exist? I'm very uncomfortable with the word "right" as it pertains to marriage.

Besides, what about the argument that marriage is just a piece of paper? People can and do already come up with their own little pieces of paper. There are legal boundaries that come with marriage. Some are beneficial, like insurance benefits, and some are obligations like alimony, palimony, and the "marriage tax". One thing I do feel is sad is when a life partner's knowledge of the deceased's wishes are ignored after death. But don't people have the right to grant someone power of attorney and stuff like that?
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Human-It has to do with the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women. We are not persecuting them anymore than we are persecuting a 20 year old by not letting him have alcohol.

God can change his mind. However there are things that he has declared to be against himself. Sexuall immorality would be under that category. He has defined homosexuality under that category.

His choice not mine.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Ugh.

Javie voiced my thoughts exactly. I'm disgusted.

More later, if I can stomach reading it again.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Wow, this thing is really scrolling...

Storm Saxon> First, you asked about whether one revelation can change another, and the answer in my fellowship has typically been yes--in fact, some people have taken it to such extremes that they claimed any small revelation would supersede the entirety of the Scripture. I'm pretty sure that extreme is nonsense, but the principle is correct. We just don't expect any further revelations prior to the Second Coming.

Second (and much later), you asked about how unchanging doctrine could remain true in a changing world. My personal belief on the subject is that doctrine is not simply a matter of objective truth, although that is involved. God's, um...personal perspective is also a major component of doctrinal truth. Likewise, guilt is as much a matter of God's attitude toward the sinner as it is the objective occurrence of a sin. Thus changes in the ordinary objective world are not always enough to change the meaning of doctrine.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Assuming you speak of America, you are persecuting a 20 year old by not letting him have alcohol. It is downright wrong to say that someone can vote, to say that they can be involuntarily sent to die for their country if they are male, to say that they can drive at 16 in most states, and then turn around and say that they cannot toss back a few beers.

As for homosexuality, or specifically the marriage part of it, what is so hard about separating legal marriage from marriage within a church? You can join a liberal church if you think it is fine, stay in a conservative church if you feel it is wrong, and everyone can be equal under the eyes of the law.

Also, just because Christians may honestly believe it is wrong does not mean we have to like what we believe. I firmly believe that Bill Gates will not write me into his will and then suddenly die, but I do not particuarly like that either. There are a few Christians who basically hope that they are wrong on this issue, and that other Christians such as dkw are right. Well, one at least.
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
Ryan: But why is it only between a man and a woman? Is it because that's the way we've been defining it for centuries? If it's a 'that's we way we're going to define it, because that's how been defining it' argument, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It's like saying that everyone is expected to wear only red clothing because that's what everyone's been wearing, and anything else is sinful!

On your second point...I guess I'm just not faithful enough. It has never ever made sense to me that God wants us to...look down on someone as a sinner just because they love someone of the same sex, or are attracted to someone of the same sex. Jesus preached time and time again about love and forgiveness and tolerance of others! He sat with the money-lenders and the tax collectors, not the righteous! Why do we assume we have the right to throw all that out based on a thousand year old collection of rules and stories?
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Well Danzig... someone has to be sober...
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Now money lenders and tax collectors are the not righteous? There aren't any "righteous". The folks who said they were righteous were called hypocrites. I'd also like to point out that Magneto was the one who called America, foremostly, "the land of Tolerance."

Christ said judge not that yet be not judged. That means we will be judged as harshly as we judge others. Though I think we will get judged on our thoughts even if we think we are only judging others' behavior. I dunno. In real life I've only known one gay person as a friend- who was out, anyway. But I'm kind of introverted.

If homosexuality were organized into a religion, I would say it should be afforded tolerance. But it goes back and forth between being a physical condition and being a lifestyle choice. Either one is acceptable, but I don't think it's fair for the gay community to decide in the moment that they are feeling offended what to define themselves as. They aren't happy unless you join them. Kind of like LDS.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
When they changed the voting age, most states changed the drinking age too. Death tolls rose exponentially, they returned it to 21 soon after.

[Disclaimer: This is what we learned in social studies, complain to the educational system in America if it's wrong ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Many states only changed the drinking age when the feds threatened to withhold monies to repair federal highways.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
3rd or 4th time posting this article, but it scared the heck out of me about all the drinking I did in college.

Discover Article
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Link doesn't work, homey.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Very strange. Any computer gurus know why it takes you to the search page instead of the page I had already found?

Anyway, just type in "getting stupid" for the search. It's the first article listed.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
What I have to wonder is why this keeps coming up. Couldn't we just get one of these threads archived? Everybody could state their position, and when someone new starts to post a homosexuality thread we could just point to it.

I don't understand why someone's consensual sexual preference makes a difference.

The only real, concrete fact against gay marriage that has been presented here is that most Christian faiths consider homosexual acts a sin. This is based on the words of St. Paul, a man who did not like marriage or sex of any kind. I urge you to check out 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7. The whole thing, I don't want to quote out of context. He doesn't think people should be married or have sex, although he grudgingly allows people to get married if they absolutely have to.

The words of St. Paul are, in fact, one of the main reasons I am not Christian. I cannot accept him as an authority due to his opinions on relationships and the role of the woman in life, and arguments based on his opinions sway me not.

Us heathen types need a secular reason to condemn something. Watch:
Adultery is a violation of the commitment between two people. It requires lying to your loved one, and is an act of personal selfishness as it puts your pleasure over that of your spouse. It can often result in broken marriages, assaults, murders, and traumatized children after the deception is discovered.
See how easy that was? Didn't have to mention scripture at all.

Now why is adultery comparable to two committed people wanting to cleave one to another, just because they're the same sex? Shouldn't we be encouraging commitment?

[ September 10, 2003, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
There is very little that is posted here that isn't a variation of something someone has said before, Chris.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
You know, there is an awful lot of justification of actions restricting behavior like homosexuality in this thread... But can anyone point out a scripture or two that says one ought to legislate against the behavior?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

This is based on the words of St. Paul,

---

That's not true. Many people have stated they believe it to be a sin, and most did not state exactly why. My reason has NOTHING to do with Paul.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Fair enough, I spoke too generally. What is it based on?

[ September 10, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Book of Mormon (Alma 39), modern revelation, and deep, personal conviction of the truth and wisdom of the law of chastity.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I really do think this comes down to theological anthropology. Some of us believe that men and women are two essentially different things and that marriage is the union of these differences. Others of us believe that men and women are essentially the same, and that marriage is the joining of two of these same-things.

Bad analogy – It’s the difference between believing men are carbon atoms and women are oxygen atoms and the goal is carbon monoxide and believing that we’re all hydrogen atoms and the goal is <whatever you call it when two hydrogen atoms stick together>.

The carbon-monoxide folks don’t understand how anyone could think that two oxygen atoms or two carbon atoms could ever be carbon monoxide, and the H2 folks don’t understand why the CO folks insist that putting together a particular two hydrogen atoms would change the definition of H2.

[Note: I know CO has some negative connotations, I don’t mean it that way, it’s just the only two-element molecule I could think of right off hand. It’s been twelve years since my last chemistry class, so feel free to improve the analogy if yours is more current.]
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 
Just as it is not a sin to be black or white or male or female or have red hair or brown eyes, it is not a sin to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. One just is. Futhermore, it is not a sin for two consenting adults to practice their sexuality with one another.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
THANKS

I was going to come back to this thread with a well written strawman argument talking about the poor life relocated to any Christian who finds themselves attracted to members of their own sex, and not to members of the oppisitte.

You can guess, is it a greater sin against the sacrament of marriage to marry a woman you do not love or to marry a man you do..etc etc.

What I came up with is I hope will be a very powerful short story. Its in the rough first draft at the moment, but when its done it will be great.

Not sure where I can sell it, its to controversial for some of the Church puplications and too Christian for some non church magazines, but I like it.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Dan-Send it to me when you're done. I have to change my email tho...
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
So, how does this sin thing work? Is it a cumulative score that looks like a restaurant bill at the end of days? One that can be paid up on as time goes on? Just wondering. The point? As noted, people pointed out that it is the act of actually one person having sex with another person of the same sex as being the sin, right? So, if gay marriages are like some stereotypical marriages, there might be a lot of "sinning" for a while, but as time goes on, maybe there is less "sinning." Unless they are, er, "sinning" all day and every day, isn't most of their time together not sinful? The loving friendship, shared hardships, sickness and health and all that stuff doesn't fit under many Christian definitions of "sin" so shouldn't that be publicly supported? Marriage on paper or even in a church never mentions sex. I have been to many marriage cermonies of many denominations where "faithful" and "honor one another" and so on and so on are mentioned, but it never really goes into the intercourse part, does it?

So why not gay marriages? Sure we assume that a married couple can and should have sex, but it isn't even implied in any ceremonies that I have heard. So the "sin" of homosexual sex isn't supported at all by such a ceremony.

Legal marriages, meaning one on paper registered with a courthouse has nothing mentioning sex between partners, either. In fact, I don't recall my marriage license saying much of anything beyond who it was and when it happened. And that I had my blood test, for whatever reason.

Are we over-interpreting the "to have and to hold?"

So why not gay marriage?

Live and let live. How Bob and John getting married down the street makes another family worse off in any way that can be calculated defies all logic. If you are Christian and male, don't marry another guy if you don't want to. Leave the rest of it up to everyone else and, as they say, "let God sort them out." If we gambled wrong and God does have a strong opinion on it still, then...well, for some at least it was a pleasant ride. I just don't see howing using an outdated 2000 year old text (and that is the Second Edition!) define some (but not all) of OTHER people's lives makes any sense. I mean, let's hope He has gotten over all that stuff in Lev. and such.

fil
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
'Life is a job. You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents. It doesn't seem like much, but it adds up.
If there's money left when you subtract what you owe from what you've earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work. Sort of like reincarnation -- many nuns are Mafia guys working it off."

Father Guido Sarducci, Saturday Night Live
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

quote:

---

You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents.

---

That means I can masterbate 41 times a day.

Score!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Chris, I don't get the joke. *furrows brow*
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I think the point is that the Mafia guys wracked up so much debt (by doing all that extra big sinning, like whacking someone, which, on the scale of things, probably is more than the 100 bucks for stealing a hubcap) that they have to spend a lifetime or two as nuns, committing few, if any sins, just to get out of debt.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Any takers on whether or not Kat was a Mafioso in a previous life?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I get THAT joke.

I don't get why it's here, though.

Added: Oh, good grief, if anything, my life is slating me for several lifetimes as a kindergarten teacher for special needs kids who volunteers at an orphanage and moonlights as a crime-fighting street nurse.

[ September 10, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Because of fil's post.

quote:

---

Is it a cumulative score that looks like a restaurant bill at the end of days? One that can be paid up on as time goes on?

---

You just skim, don't you?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*hides* no.... *gets a few more years of "Barney Hour leader" added to sentence*
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Xavier--
 

---

Posted by Zan (Member # 4888) on :
 
Xavier, that's only if you don't do anything else wrong that day. I guess you wouldn't have much free time anyway, so...
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Thanks Kayla, you saved me a post.

Although I posted anyway to thank you.

Hmmm.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
If you don't believe in God or a creation, does it follow that you believe in evolution or natural law of some kind? Where is there volitional homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

There actually are tranvestite lizards. But their strategy of looking like females is to get access to the females. (in the same species there are bull lizards with herds of females).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
pooka - yes, there is. You can find just about anything in the animal kingdom. The most commonly cited example are the bonobos - primates that spend more time on sex than the NBA. There is a great deal of sex for pleasure purposes, and much of it is homosexual.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Human: We define it that way because that's how God defined it. He specifically condemns homosexuality so I assume that we have the right idea there.

Bok: We are not legislating against it, merely holding up the current definition. I would legislate against it because I think everything should be done to keep somone from sin.

Christians: The thing is I believe homosexuality is like any other sin i.e. pride. It can be restrained. The problem is that the culture now accepts it. That is why we have this issue.
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 
Ryan Hart, the problem is that people who are homosexual can't help that they are that way any more than they can help what their skin color is, hair color, sex, etc. And as homosexuality was illegal in most of the US and is still illegal in many places, why would anyone engage in homosexuality if they could decide not to be, hmmm? Furthermore, no amount of legislation is going to make those people not be homosexual.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I was always under the impression that the primary Christian position was that people must choose to follow the right path, not be legislated onto it.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
There are studies now showing that the size of your hippocampus is malleable into adulthood and may be dependent upon your occupation. I saw one about London cab drivers on National Geographic.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
I disagree. I have many friends who have admitted to me (privately) that they have homosexual urges. I believe it is possible to supress them as you could a lustful urge.

Fugu: If it was already a part of our culture I guess I wouldn't try to outlaw it. However it is not. I will not condone a course of action that would leed the the futher incorporation of homosexuality to society.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Ryan, you friggin scare me.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
He lusts after you, Stormy, but he's trying to supress it.
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
You know what? I'm just gonna quit speaking up. Screw my ideas, not gonna even open my mouth. Nobody's ever going to change anything based on these discussions. Not one proudly gay-hating christian is going to change that stance based on one damn thing said on this forum. You know why? 'Cause noone cares. There's no logic in the counter argument, but noone cares. You make points, the other guy makes counterpoints, we all get all mad and superior...for WHAT? Why do we bother?

I'm not going to bother anymore. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of hate and killing and crap in the name of God. I'm sick of not being able to do a damn thing about it. I'm sick of being passionate and half-way knowledgable about something, and getting countered by the fact that there's some half-baked line about hating homosexuals in the bible and that half of the country is too closeminded or apathetic to bother to question it! So...screw it, I can't change it. Shutting up.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
A tad on the bitter side are we?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
The royal wee!

Oh...wait...
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
So it's okay to legislate morality if it's been legislated before, and not okay if it hasn't? That seems like it's vesting a disturbing power of divine agency in governments.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
No it's the fact that now it's not to late to keep it out of the culture. It would be impossible to legislate against it later. If you wanted it out of the culture you would have to take a different route.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
How about that whole "blacks marrying whites" thing? That was certainly legislated against, and was most definitely frowned upon by the then-current society. Was that a mistake?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It is interesting to think of how this period will be looked back upon historically. I have a suspicion, given the very consistent way humanity has dealt with such issues in the past, that negative attitudes towards homosexual marriages will be looked upon similarly to how negative attitudes towards interracial marriages are today.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
There isn't anything wrong with that. There is not specific scripture against inter-racial marriage. The thing is you did have a lot of the church against it, but most still thougt it was fine. It was only legislated against in the South which was consumed with a markedly un-christian racial hatred. That's where the issue stems from not the church.

Fugu: Yeah I've thougt the same thing. If only it wasn't so scripturally inconsistent. That's where you run into the problem.

[ September 10, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'll give you the bible being okay with interracial marriage (though i know people exist who would debate that), but what about interfaith marriage? It enjoins against it approximately as many times as it enjoins against homosexuality. Should that be legislated against? If it were currently legally outlawed in society would you oppose removing legislation banning it?
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 

quote:

---

Mosiah 29: 26-27
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

---

This sounds like more than straight democracy than a republic--but the basic principle is that morality should be a basic consideration in your political process.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Actually the bible has very specific injunctions against interracial marriage. When examined, it's obvious that it was forbidden because interfaith marriages were wrong, but those passages were used by many to keep interracial marriage illegal.

However, this point is moot. I don't believe in the absolute accuracy of the bible or its authority, so arguing the finer points of it is, at most, an exercise for me. I remain just as set against considering homosexuality a sin as you are for it. I have reason and observation, you have dogma and personal conviction. Maybe our votes will cancel out...
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Disclaimer #1: A lot of people tend to get pretty agitated that others keep posting things that have been posted a million times before, and yet no one gets anywhere. I can understand that this is annoying. I'll apologize now if that's what I'm doing. But I'm new and I still have questions. And in this particular instance I wasn't able to find if someone had already answered the question I am about to ask.

Disclaimer #2: My question isn't intended to offend anyone, especially anyone in the gay/lesbian community. It's just something I've been thinking about.

****

Okay. Most gay people I know have said they were born that way. I'm assuming that the current position is that it's genetic plus environmental, I do not think that it has been definitely decided on yet, is this wrong? Here's the deal. Not to be condescending, but aren't people also born with a strong genetic predisposition towards alcoholism or other addictions, etc.? Wouldn't an alcoholic be able to say "I can't help it" or "I'm born this way" and expect people to think it was cool? Yet we do expect these people to transcend their desires. I know that it seems very wrong of me to compare homosexuality with something that someone might argue is a form of brain damage (meaning addictions), but since we don't know where it came from yet, is there a chance that they might be similar in this way? No one's proven that it's entirely enviromental, and it's certainly doesn't seem so, but who's to say it's a normal variation in the genes? We don't know for sure yet. Anyone?

Please don't flame me. I tried very hard to be fair while asking this question, without losing the thread of my thoughts just to keep someone from being offended.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
The problem is that you are making homosexuality equivalent to a chemical addiction of a substance that must be introduced into the person's environment for them to become addicted, and which subsequently damages them.

So, homosexuality is different from alchoholism in that it:

* Is going to express itself in the presence of men whether the person wills it or not. People are not naturally draw to alchohol but must imbibe it first. That is, cultures with very low tolerance for drinking have very low rates of alchoholism since drinking is never introduced into the environment.

* and is not known to be inherently damaging to a person.

So, I disagree with you.

But, I would like to ask you to ask yourself, what do you think your life would be like if you tried to deny that you liked men at all, or didn't act on your feelings towards me at all, nor would you ever, until the day you died? Don't you think that would be very hard, to say the least? To know that there would never be love in your life beyond that of your family?

[ September 11, 2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
Ryan-I feel rather obligated to point out that the bible isn't god. It may contain the word of god-but it also contains the ideas and traditions of the MEN who wrote it. God inspired it, God didn't write it. And people do have rather a tradition of messing around with God's ideas to make those ideas suit themselves. Why would a God who loved us and wanted us to be happy condemn something that did no harm, and did a lot of good? Doesn't that kinda not fit in at all with the generally accepted idea of God?

and Belle

quote:

---

"A MAN shall leave his mother and cling to his WIFE" That's pretty clear - marriage is man to woman and only man to woman as far as I'm concerned.

---

Belle, that isn't any sort of evidence. Just saying one thing is good-that doesn't deny another thing's goodness. By that argument, from that passage, catholics shouldn't become priests and all men should get married. You can't interpret that statement which says one thing is good to mean that an alternative to it is bad.
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 
Actually, one would think that those people who are against others who are homosexuals would instead be grateful to them for being candid about their sexuality. After all, the homosexuals who are openly homosexual remove themselves from the "available for heterosexual" marraige pool and thus reduces the competition for a mate of the opposite sex for the rest of us.

Furthermore, outlawing homosexual behavior will only drive those who are homosexual to practice their true nature in secret and some of them will marry members of the opposite sex to hide the fact that they are homosexual and thus compete with the rest of the heterosexual population.

Therefore, it is not only irrational to legislate against homosexuals and to brand them as sinners, but it also works against the heterosexual's best interest.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
PSI- Not to flame, but how is homosexuality compared in any way to alcoholism? It isn't some sydrome that causes people to crash into telephone poles, hit their spouse or miss days of work. It just is a preference for who someone falls in love with.

Let's take an example that is outside of probably most Hatracker's culture. There was a story a couple of years back that blew me away, hitting on my Western parental sensibilities. I think it was in India or Pakistan, but it went like this.

There was this boy and girl who were in love and they did things that young kids in love do and apparently made little secret their love for one another. The result? Their parents, along with an irate community, dragged them to the top of a building and hung them until they died. Their parents. Hung their children. Together.

The reason? A caste system is in place over there that has very strict boundaries. I think the son's caste was a more religious caste while the young lady was a part of something totally different. This is a serious and extreme example (and illegal in their country, but it points to the extremes religious and cultural zeal can get) but it points to the fact that sometimes you fall in love with someone, even though every part of your cultural heritage or religious heritage tells you to do otherwise. It was only harmful to them because OTHER people couldn't accept it. In alcoholism it is harmful to you AND potentially to others. Intolerance only harms others.

So if Robert falls in love with Steve, even though everything culturally and religiously tells them not to, who cares if it is genetic or environmental or (gasp) God's will. It just is. It has always been that way and always will be. Just because there wasn't a show like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" running at the same time as the original run of "I Love Lucy" doesn't mean homosexuality is some new fad. Some of the originators of western thinking (Plato, Socrates, Sappho, etc.) preferred their own gender to that of the other. Sure they would need to procreate to populate the earth, but for a good time...well, read about it. So it ain't new. It just is.

I can see why it is frustrating. No one will honestly change their tune on this. Either you are for freedom of choice to live how you want to live (as long as it harms no one) or you want to legislate how YOU want the world to live. The Bible just makes it easier to do it. You can find just about anything in there to justify being nasty to some portion of humanity. There are so many things that we shouldn't be doing but have been "overlooked" as history changes. Demoninations pick and choose what they feel is important and go with it. People pick the demonination that fits their lifestyle, not the one that will change their lifestyle. If you grew up Catholic and stayed Catholic, it is because you fit it and it fit you. If you don't fit it, you leave and find one that does. Millions of ex-Catholics will agree. For every Christian denomination they can all find quotes to support one thing or another, even if it contrary to the Christian church next door.

My grandmother was what am told an "Old Regular Baptist" in Eastern Kentucky. She never cut her hair, because there is a passage in the Bible that says you shouldn't and so they didn't. Yet they are one of the few churches that still do that. It is in the Bible but, well, er...pick and choose.

fil
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Quick and unrelated question: Is this filleted? And if so, why the name change?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
The no-hair-cut thing had to do with Samson and where he got his powers from, isn't it? (There were 2 other things he wasn't supposed to do, I forget what it is.) Anyway, it had a special name for it. Bet you dkw will know.
 

---

Posted by saberZedge (Member # 5274) on :
 
Stormy:

Skipping all the way from the first post, this lurker wonders why you (and others) feel the need keep on posting these thinly veiled "I need to justify why I think your religion sucks, especially if it is Christianity" threads. Can you explain what fuels your fury?

Krank

EDIT:
BTW, Stormy, the thread title should have been "Episode 5,324 in Hatrack's continuing discussion on RELIGION" since that is what it really about.

[ September 11, 2003, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: saberZedge ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
What fuels MY fury (and I AM a Christian) is how people hide behind God as their reason for hating a good percentage of the human race.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Mac, most of the Christian groups where women don't cut their hair base it on 1 Corinthians 11.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Which iiiiiiiiiiiiiis?

(why aren't you EVER on aim?)
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Because I have a stupid, slow dial-up connection and AIM takes forever to load. By the time it's up I've already checked e-mail and Hatrack and am logging off. Usually.

quote:

---

4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflectionof man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

---

One of Paul's more tortured bits of prose, it's been interpreted in lots of different ways. One of them is that women shouldn't cut their hair.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Crap. I'm going to hell!
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Yeah well. I don’t cut my hair, but I do braid it, so I’m in trouble with 1 Timothy and 1 Peter. We can sit together in the “women with disobedient coiffures” circle of hell.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Skipping all the way from the first post, this lurker wonders why you (and others) feel the need keep on posting these thinly veiled "I need to justify why I think your religion sucks, especially if it is Christianity" threads. Can you explain what fuels your fury?

---

Kranky, I know you're not going to respond to anything I say, but, frankly, I think you should learn to read. You show me where I have expressed anything like 'fury' at Christianity or any other religion in this thread? I have been nothing but respectful towards Christianity and the posters in this thread. Perhaps, to you, questioning a religion and why members of that religion thinks a certain way equates to thinking that 'your religion sucks', but I don't see it that way, and I think most of the people in this thread don't either. The thread has been very amiable, by and large, and I think most people have enjoyed participating in it.

However, I am more than open to the idea that I could be interpreting things incorrectly. So, any Christians or other religious people ( I mean, not including me. ) who feel like I've expressed either the attitude that a) Christianity sucks or b) fury in general outside of this post, please say so now with what I said in quotations so I can understand what you're referring to.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
dkw,
Forget the hair thing, you actually have the devil inside you enough to teach men, instead of listening in silence and subjection. That's right out according to 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

edit: I'm only talking about those passages historical interpretation, not what they actually could mean.

[ September 11, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Yeah, but I'm gonna try to get convicted on the hair thing first, so I can sit next to mac.

Besides, God called me to the ministry, so there I've got an excuse. The hair is personal preference.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
how people hide behind God as their reason for hating a good percentage of the human race.

Um, people could we please dial this back a bit?

I, and others like me, who oppose legalized homosexual marriage do not hate homosexuals.

Name calling, etc. is never going to help us in this or any other discussion.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I agree.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You would, fathead.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
What gets me highly irritated is that, because I feel that homosexual activity is a sin, I automatically hate gays.

This has been said before, hasn't it? Yeah, like a million times, but there is no way we can be sincere about it, is there? Let's forget about the whole "everyone commits sins" and "Love one another" concepts in Christianity. We believe it is a sin, therefore we hate homosexuals.

Also, let us disregard any idea that committing homosexual acts has some kind of choice involved. And of course, it is extremely SCARY when someone mentions that people with homosexual tendancies can disregard those tendancies and lead an active, happy, fulfilling heterosexual sex life. These people must be Nazis, because this means that since they believe this, they must hate anyone and everyone who is homosexual.

Listen: I also have beliefs that say that drinking alcohol, tea, and coffe are wrong. Do I hate anyone who doesn't follow this? No.

What I do understand, and what actually corrolates directly with the original article we were talking about: OSC's Hypocrits of Homosexuality, is that in MY religion any sex out of marriage is wrong, and there cannot be homosexual marriages. The reason why we can't, for deeply doctoral reasons that go beyond little snippets in the bible, recognize homosexual marriage has been mentioned on here. What is hypocritical is that people want to say they are Mormon and at the same time not believe important doctrinal issues. They blame the church for not changing, not themselves for refusing to accept what has always been true in the history of the church.

But if you aren't LDS, and you are homosexual, and you want to get married, then I respect that. Make your vows, and be happy. You actually can do this without government sanction, you know? You can even do it without most of society's sanction. You can be happy.

[ September 11, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
I didn't mean to name call. I wasn't talking about anyone in this thread, just general bitterness. I'm frankly surprised at how very civil everyone on this forum is about the whole thing. (usually)
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Most people stay pretty civil until we drag out words such as "hate" or "Nazi."
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Or cheetos. Or peanuts.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
(abashed) Sorry. Maybe it would have been less offensive if I'd said 'hate on', but that wouldn't have conveyed the point I meant to make. I apologize if I've offended anyone, but there aren't any other words I could think of for it.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Amka,
I like to consider myself a very open, tolerant person, but I have to admit that I still have a visceral reaction that homosexuality is...distasteful, I guess is a good way to put it. Now, I've actively worked against this reaction, but it's still with me. For myself, it is difficult to accept it when people say that they, for example, don't want gays to be allowed to be married, for the sole reason that their religion says that it's a sin.

This is leaving aside the fact that there is a very loud and visible contingent of Christians who clearly hate homosexuals, but place this completely at God's door. In fact, throughout Christianity's history, there is this thread of being able to do horrible things to the out-group because "God says it's ok". As I've said before, the passages in Paul referring to homosexuality being wrong were retranslated in the 13th century so that they unequivocally talked about homosexuality. At the same time, other passages were retranslated or emphasized (like the Timothy reference I mantioned above) that legitimized the persecution of various other outgroups, such as women, Jews, and pretty much anyone who didn't agree with the Church's hierarchy.

I feel that this gives me legitimate reason to to worry about the motives of people who claim to want to prevent homosexuality, only because their religion says that it's a sin. I feel pretty much the same way as I would if someone told me that they needed to stop women from teaching, because their religion said that it's a sin.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Squicky...

So you are saying you have a legitimate reason to worry about motives. Okay. Worrying is okay. Accusing, though, isn't. Asserting that someone is lying about their true reasons, because you believe people in the past lied about theirs, is also not okay.

I'm with Amka. Seriously, religion is the reason I don't agree with it. I'm fairly liberal about other things that do NOT run counter to what I morally believe. This does. Asserting that that isn't the real reason - that secretly, I hate a whole bunch of people - is not right.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

And of course, it is extremely SCARY when someone mentions that people with homosexual tendancies can disregard those tendancies and lead an active, happy, fulfilling heterosexual sex life.

---

Actually, this does scare me, but only because I’ve known people who tried it. What it did to their own emotional and mental health was bad, but what it did to their spouses’ was worse. I respect homosexuals who choose to be celibate because they believe that same-gender sex is wrong. And I suppose if the person’s prospective spouse knows about the situation and is still willing to marry him or her, that is a matter of personal choice. But if a homosexual person enters into a heterosexual marriage without giving the fiancé the opportunity to make an informed decision to risk it, that’s a recipe for disaster. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d even call it borderline abuse, and that’s a charge I don’t make lightly.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Stormy, I want some cheetos.
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 
Didn't the Nazi's put homosexuals in concentration camps along with jews, gypsies, and anyone who opposed the sanctioned POV? IMO, to try to legislate against homosexuality is just one step away from the same type of open persecution of homosexual people. Also, does it stop there?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Kat, wouldn't you rather have some nuts?

Unhoo, enough with the slippery slopes. Come on.

[ September 11, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Toretha, back to what you said on the earlier page, in my post I already pointed out that absence of a prohibition of something doesn't necessarily mean it's okay.

If you think I base my belief that marriage is supposed to be only between men and women solely on the portion of a scripture that I quoted, then you must not know me or Christians very well.

Thing is, I've read the Bible. A lot. And studied it for years.

I don't have a degree in theology, but I don't think I need one to interpret what God is saying about marriage in His word. It's an insitution established with the first two humans to inhabit this earth, and they were, coincidentally, male and female.

dkw rationalizes her stand by saying that she doesn't think God is talking about committed homosexual relationships when he condemns homosexual behavior. She's entitled to her opinion. Personally, I'd rather not assume very much when it comes to the word of God. I'd rather not say "Well, since it isn't all that clear, maybe this behavior is okay when it's between two committed people."

Adultery can happen between two people who love each other and are committed to each other, and just happen to be married to someone else. Does that make adultery okay in this case?

One of my favorite phrases my husband has is "God is not a teddy bear." He says that in response to people who view Jesus as their best buddy, he'll help you when you're down, he'll be there for you when you feel bad, and he's all about just forgiving you and loving you.

And every bit of that is true. Yet, there is another side to God - he is a God that expects obedience. Moses never entered the promised land because he was disobedient, and he's only one example. God knows we will fall short, that we are not sinless and cannot always walk in his will - but he expects us to try. And when we are willfully disobedient there are consequences.

Sorry, that's a bit of sermon, but the point I'm trying to make is that you can't pick and choose through the Bible, taking only those things from it you are comfortable with and make you feel warm and fuzzy. Doesn't work that way. Jesus told the man that wanted to be his disciple to follow him, and the man said just let me bury my father, and I'll come. But Jesus said Let the dead bury the dead - follow me.

I'm not trying to come down hard on dkw or anybody else with beliefs different from mine - if she sincerely believes that there is nothing spiritually wrong with homosexual marriage then great. And I don't expect every Christian will agree with me, a lot of them will not. Neither one of us can claim to have all the answers - we can only take what interpretation we feel is right and go with it. Could I be wrong? Yup. I'm not God. I can't claim any divine knowledge. All I can do is what I've done - read the book, pray, seek guidance, and go forward and live by my beliefs.

One more thing, and I know this is getting long. In regards to women in the church and women in the ministry and women as teachers.

I'm a traditionalist, I admit. I feel more comfortable with my pastor being a man, but that's just a matter of tradition and comfort zone, not because I think women shouldn't be allowed to occupy positions in the ministry. The spiritual gift of pastoring, and teaching can be bestowed to both male and female, and I firmly believe God calls women to the ministry, just as he does men. There are too many phenomenal women ministers for it to be any other way.

Feminists always come down heavy on Paul, and I don't really understand it. Paul mentions about 40 people personally in his letters that are involved in the church, and 16 of them are women. He doesn't bring them up because they're old girlfriends - they're collaborators. Phoebe is described as a deacon, using the same word Paul used to describe himself when he said he was a deacon of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians. He refers to Junia as a "well-respected apostle before me." And supposedly he hates women?

What about Galatians 3:28? He says we are all equal in Christ Jesus, Jew and Gentile, master and servant, male and female.

If we are equal in Christ, then why can't a woman serve in the ministry?

Brings up the question can a homosexual serve in the ministry. Absolutely. Why not? However, a homosexual serving in the ministry should be, like any other Christian, someone struggling againist their sin and trying to live their life as a redeemed saint. If you do not deny the sin you're practicing and seek forgiveness for it, then you are not fit for service. So, a person with homosexual tendencies can be a minister, but he/she must be struggling against that sin, and renouncing it. Yes, that means celibacy.

Again, my thoughts, my beliefs.

And my swansong. I love you all, but I've made a commitment that I will not allow myself to be caught up for hours on an internet forum, when there are children to raise, and many other things I need to be doing. Not that being here isn't worthwhile, on the contrary I firmly believe my time at hatrack made me a better person. It's just....time to move on. I've got things to do...and I can't be doing them if I'm here.

(((hatrack)))
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
*sniff* Bye bye, Belle...


 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
dkw - It really is false to go into marriage being homosexual and not telling your spouse about it. A few years ago I read an article in our church magazine teaching against that practice.

But there are degrees. It is very likely that you've met people who've felt homosexual urges but did not entertain them. They were also attracted to people of the opposite sex. So they grew up to get married, and are very happy in their marriage. In an earlier time, they may not even have recognized those feelings for what they were as preteens and teens, and so did not attach much significance.

Once you've labled yourself something, it IS very difficult to go back. Or maybe you are comfortable saying you are 'bisexual'. Anne Heche is probably a perfect example of that. The problem with this, is that to be bisexual suggests enough promiscuity to be trying it out with a few partners. And that is immoral, in my book.

Let me put forth a disclaimer: I fully recognize that there are many homosexuals who really couldn't feel a glimmer of attraction for the opposite sex, no matter how hard they tried. All I'm trying to say is that few people are fully one way or the other, and so I believe there is some choice involved.

[ September 11, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Belle, I admire you and I respect your beliefs. I also don’t want this to sound like I’m nit-picking. But I object to your use of the word rationalizing. I wrote out the fourteen-year long story of how I came to change my mind about homosexual marriage so that people would see that I was not picking and choosing in order to support what I already believed or what I wanted to believe. This change is deeply rooted in and flows from my commitment to God, to the church, and to the scriptures. I have made promises of obedience to all three, and I take them seriously. I take the position I do on homosexual marriage because of those commitments, not in spite of them.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Weird post alert. This is kind of a stream of consciousness in a way.

News flash!

This thread caused my husband and me to have a long discussion about homosexual marriages last night. We have come to this conclusion. We believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it isn't different from any other sin in that, it isn't the sin that sends you to hell, nor is it NOT sinning that gets you into Heaven. It doesn't matter. We've decided that we don't care. Not in a "who cares?" way, but in a "we don't mind" way. So this is my stance. Go ahead. I figure that Jesus didn't lead a crusade against sinners while he was here, did he? And the only people he condemned were the ones that were pointing out other people's sins to them, and the ones that displayed a lack of faith. I'm just going to worry about those two things and let God worry about everyone else. So if two gay people decide to get married, that's fine. I really do care about people. Nothing I say can change someone's mind. That's God's job, if He so chooses. I'm just going to try to keep loving everyone. That's all I can do.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Amka, being bi-sexual doesn’t necessarily mean “trying it out” with multiple partners any more than being homosexual or heterosexual does. I’m heterosexual. I’m also celibate. The fact that I’m not having sex with a man doesn’t make me any less heterosexual. If I were attracted to women, I’d be homosexual. And celibate. If I were attracted to both men and women I’d be bisexual. And still celibate.
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 

quote:

---

Unhoo, enough with the slippery slopes. Come on.

---

quote:

---

This thread caused my husband and me to have a long discussion about homosexual marriages last night. We have come to this conclusion. We believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it isn't different from any other sin in that, it isn't the sin that sends you to hell, nor is it NOT sinning that gets you into Heaven. It doesn't matter. We've decided that we don't care. Not in a "who cares?" way, but in a "we don't mind" way. So this is my stance. Go ahead. I figure that Jesus didn't lead a crusade against sinners while he was here, did he? And the only people he condemned were the ones that were pointing out other people's sins to them, and the ones that displayed a lack of faith. I'm just going to worry about those two things and let God worry about everyone else. So if two gay people decide to get married, that's fine. I really do care about people. Nothing I say can change someone's mind. That's God's job, if He so chooses. I'm just going to try to keep loving everyone. That's all I can do.

---

Well said, PSI
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
True, dkw.

But I guess I speak of how the word, bisexual, had to have gotten invented in the first place.

Edit: And the very fact that the word is there proves my contention that there are degrees of homosexual tendancies and having such a tendancy does not mean you can't find much love and joy in a heterosexual marriage.

[ September 11, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
PSI - thank you for your post, but I disagree with you almost completely.

quote:

---

And the only people he condemned were the ones that were pointing out other people's sins to them, and the ones that displayed a lack of faith.

---

That simply isn't true. He stopped the people from stoning the woman, but then he told her to go and sin no more. He said those who lusted after someone has already committed adultery in his heart.

What is the point of labeling something a sin, but then saying sinning doesn't matter? He died for our sins, but doesn't actually care if you do them or not? That pretty much obviates the entire atonement.

It is tempting to work this out in your head as to not offend anyone. *shrug*

---

I truly believe that we are given commandments so that we can be happy. These aren't to torture us, these are to make us happy. If we follow them, then we will be happy. He cares deeply, deeply for our happiness - and shows the way to live to achieve that. If we think he doesn't care if we are doing something that will hurt us, that is equal to saying he doesn't care about us.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I'm positive that Jesus cares about ending sin, I know that. I also know that he spent the majority of his time teaching. That's what I intend to do. I plan to teach about Christ and what he did for us. If someone is interested and becomes a Christian because of it, then they'll have the Holy Spirit to help them out. I've just decided it's not my job to worry about everyone else's sin, it's God's.

added: It's my job to introduce them to God in the first place.

[ September 11, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Amka, certainly. I think most of us are somewhere along a spectrum. If we’re far enough to one end or the other we refer to ourselves as hetero- or homo- sexual. But in at least one of the cases I referred to earlier, the woman spent years trying to convince herself she was bi-sexual so that she wouldn’t hurt her husband. She wasn’t. She was way, way over on the homosexual end of the sexual orientation spectrum. And what those years did to his mental health, sexual self-image, etc., was not a good thing.

[ September 11, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Also, I've looked for passages involving someone else's sin besides your own, and the only ones that I can find that actually tell you to talk to them about it are the ones regarding a brother that sins against you. I may be wrong about this, does anyone know of any others?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Here is the thing. What if a girl was raised by athiests? These parents encouraged a moral lifestyle, with the understanding that those kinds of actions generally result in a happier life.

BTW, where is David Bowles? I haven't seen him in a while...

Anyway, so as this girl enters puberty, she realizes that she is gay. Not hmmm, that girl looks pretty, maybe I'm a lesbian? More like, when she imagines kissing boys it gags her, but she really wants to kiss that girl in class that sits a couple of rows ahead of her. And she can imagine other things too.

She begins to get quiet about it. She is embarrassed. But she keeps on getting crushes on other girls. One girl maybe senses it, and being heterosexual herself, gets kind of ickied out and makes a comment to our girl. She goes home and cries about it.

Her parents, being good parents, talk to her about it. She tells them her experiences and feelings. Since they don't have any religious reasons why homosexuality is wrong, they explain to her about being gay and lesbian. They are very loving to her about it, and tell her that she can still find true love and get married like they did. It will just be harder now. So they find the local gay and lesbian youth groups.

What a relief for her.

Her parents teach her that chastity before marriage is still important. It strengthens the marriage, and she should think about her future in that way.

In college, she finds another woman who believes in monogamy. They become really close, and finally decide to get married. No legal marriage, but her fiance occassionally attends the Unitarian church, so they have a ceremony and exhange vows using a goddess drum at dawn.

They stay married all their life, until they die.

How do you think God feels about that? These people were good people who didn't believe in our religion, but acted in the best way they knew how.

My point with this, for those of us who are religious, is that we can't just condemn people on the grounds that they are gay.

These are one of the reasons we are implored to judge righteously or not at all. Judging righteously, the way I've been taught, simply means that we sometimes find ourselves needing to make a decision on how to react to other people's actions, such as in the legal system or letting our children play with certain other kids (like if there is a drugged out parent at the child's home, you can let the child come to your house, but not let your child go to their house).

But since we cannot know what is in someone's heart, we cannot make any claims as to any worthiness they may have to enter or not enter heaven. Only God has that authority.

I can't condem these women for making right choices based on their understanding.

[ September 11, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Hmm. How about your story with the following changes. She was raised in an extremely devout United Church of Christ family. Went to church every Sunday. Made a personal commitment to Christian discipleship and was confirmed at age 13. The woman she fell in love with was also an active UCC member, and they were married, by the pastor, in her home church, and now are raising their family in the church. She teaches fifth grade Sunday School. Her spouse is chair of the trustees.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Exactly.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Hey, dkw, that's like me!

Well, except for the married lesbian part...

So, uh, nevermind.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

So you are saying you have a legitimate reason to worry about motives. Okay. Worrying is okay. Accusing, though, isn't. Asserting that someone is lying about their true reasons, because you believe people in the past lied about theirs, is also not okay.

---

quote:

---

Listen: I also have beliefs that say that drinking alcohol, tea, and coffe are wrong. Do I hate anyone who doesn't follow this? No.

---

However, you are trying to make Pepsi illegal.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Kayla, that doesn't follow. Pepsi isn't even on the list, and isn't considered wrong.

An accurate analogy would like trying to keep pot from being made legal.

-----

I wrote a response to Squicky, but I think Ralphie would vegemite me if I took after her bobo.

Maybe it's better to let Squicky's post speak for itself.

[ September 11, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
You're right Kat. But a more accurate analogy would have been making coffee illegal. Personally, I dislike coffee and I read a study once that said people who actually like the taste of coffee are mentally unbalanced (most people hate the taste of coffee when they first try it, but become accustomed to it.) Tea is more natural to drink. It isn't offensive to the taste buds, it isn't a drink one must become "accustomed" to or be crazy to like in the first place. However, I don't think Starbuck's should be illegal.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
And what does pot have to do with coffee or tea?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Oh I thought you were talking about me. I was surprised since I don't usually post creatively enough to infuriated people. If I'm lucky I pique them.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
pot is already not permitted by society, some think it is just fine and is outraged by it being unnacceptable, and there is currently a fight to legitimize it. It's a very close analogy.

Also, it wasn't on Amka's list, but it would have been if the list was exhaustive. Pepsi wouldn't.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Pot is illegal. What kind of crack are you smoking over there? They want to decriminalize pot. Homosexual marriage isn't illegal. It just isn't allowed. There is a difference.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
One month ago, your statement would not have been accurate.

I didn't say legalize, I said legitimize. Neither is considered universally sanctioned, and both movements are fighting for universal sanctioning.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Well, I disagree. But, whatever.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Where do you disagree?

[ September 11, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
One month ago it would have been illegal to have homosexual sex in some states. Homosexual marriage has never been illegal.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Then what's the problem?
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Good lord, Belle, you're doing that I-get-the-last-word-and-run-away thing again? In another homosexual thread, no less?

quote:

---

Adultery can happen between two people who love each other and are committed to each other, and just happen to be married to someone else. Does that make adultery okay in this case?

---

quote:

---

I'm a traditionalist, I admit. I feel more comfortable with my pastor being a man, but that's just a matter of tradition and comfort zone, not because I think women shouldn't be allowed to occupy positions in the ministry. The spiritual gift of pastoring, and teaching can be bestowed to both male and female, and I firmly believe God calls women to the ministry, just as he does men. There are too many phenomenal women ministers for it to be any other way.

Feminists always come down heavy on Paul, and I don't really understand it. Paul mentions about 40 people personally in his letters that are involved in the church, and 16 of them are women. He doesn't bring them up because they're old girlfriends - they're collaborators. Phoebe is described as a deacon, using the same word Paul used to describe himself when he said he was a deacon of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians. He refers to Junia as a "well-respected apostle before me." And supposedly he hates women?

What about Galatians 3:28? He says we are all equal in Christ Jesus, Jew and Gentile, master and servant, male and female.

If we are equal in Christ, then why can't a woman serve in the ministry?

---

HA!

Oh, MAN. MAN.

I'm laughing. Out loud. Really. Do you not realize what you're saying?

There are three places in the Bible used by anti-homosexuals to justify the whole God-Hates-Fags deal. One is the city of Sodom, where God smote the people trying to rape the travellers -- you would really have to stretch to get the Bible to say God smote them because they were trying to rape men, rather than because they were trying to rape..

The second is in Leviticus. Yes, that silly book banned by the Council of Jerusalem for being so extreme. It also bans cutting your hair, wearing shirts woven of different fibers, expelling menstruating women, sowing fields with different seeds, etcetera.

The third is a tiny blurb by Paul that says men shalt not lie with men. This is what's largely used to condemn homosexuals, since it's hard to find anything else to use.

Belle, you just discounted Paul's misogyny because, hell, aren't we all equal in Christ according to Galatians 3:28? Despite what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9: "For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head"? Or in 1 Corinthians 14:34b-35: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"?

Aren't homosexuals equal? Or if they aren't, aren't women sinners just by not being subservient to us men? How many of you wretched sinners haven't expelled yourself to the desert at your time each month?

Remember when you misunderstood Bob Scopatz's post, Belle, and believed he asked you not to express your opinions any longer? You were so outraged! How dare he ask you to deny yourself? Who is he to control you? But that's nothing like you demanding that homosexuals not only deny who they are, but live celibate and alone for all their days. No. It's nothing like Paul or Timothy declaring, to use Squick's reference, that women who don't listen in silence and subjection, but dare to teach men, have the Devil inside them.

Hypocrisy. Selfish, bigoted twisting of a book you claim to hold sacred. I'm truly disgusted with beliefs like yours, Belle, and disappointed that someone I could respect could also hold such twisted beliefs -- and what's worse, be blind to her own hypocrisy.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Actually, pot has recently been relegalized in Alaska as long as it is in your own home and you have less than 4 ounces. Under state law, of course, federally it is still completely illegal. Also, since it was one of their appellate courts that ruled the applicable law unconstitutional, their Supreme Court might also decide to do something. (As far as I know, they have not yet.)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Right - both are movements fighting for (and gaining some official) legitimacy. That makes the analogy closer.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*pies Eddie, rather hard*
Play nice, cowboy.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Kat, pot, except for Alaska, which I'm sure would be trumped by Ashcroft in Federal Court, isn't legal. It is illegal. However, homosexual marriage, which isn't illegal, would be made illegal by Bush's "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Do you seriously not see the difference?

And by the way, it would have been illegal for for hetero couples to have anal or oral sex in 9 states as well. Should we create a law that says in those states, hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to marry?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Kayla, I'm not concerned with legality. I'm talking about legitimacy - the larger issue. The official stamp of approval from the state. Both issues have different routes through the law to legitimacy, but it is the same destination.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Amka, honey, your last post is why I made this thread. See, I *do* actually talk with people on the other side of the aisle (so to speak), and I see that you guys, at least here on Hatrack--but then, who am I posting to, anyway?-- really are very nice and loving people who really are able to hate the sin but love the sinner. I recognize that in you dwells a spirit of compassion. And I say that in both the literal and figurative sense. I wrote my post because I believe if a truth is spoken, and people do listen, that eventually they will act on the realization of that truth.

I know that you guys see the truth of the fact that all people are brothers, and we are all bound as a family. I know that because you have made this realization that you will do what is best for gay people, while honoring your commitment to your doctrine, as best you can.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
*sneaks into thread hoping no one will notice--or judge--him*

I would just like to draw everyone's attention to the sincerity of both Belle and dkw's respective theologies.

Both women are committed to the same God. Both women feel that they've studied the scriptures and tested them against their hearts and against their communication with God himself. Through prayer and conviction, both of these women have come to completely opposite versions of God, though both of them depend deeply on the same salvation--the very same Christ who died on the cross to pay the penalty for all sin.

It is impossible for both views to be true.

So. Given the fact that both of these women will say that their beliefs are a direct result of their relationship with God and His personal revelation to them, we are left with the following possibilities:

1) One of them is lying (or both).

2) One of them is being deceived (or both).

3) One or both of them have been brainwashed.

4) God is insane, or just can't make up his almighty mind.

The underlying implication of this debate is that each woman must necessarily think of the other as... well, as a heretic. One who claims to serve God but in actuality serves something else.

But here's the catch:

BOTH OF THEM ARE RIGHT.

How can they not be? How can Belle really really believe something that isn't true to her? How can dkw really really believe something that isn't true to her?

This is why I gave up on the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It's pointless. I have no desire to go around telling folks that what they truly truly believe is false, even though in the end that is the way it MUST be.

Take me, for instance. I believe that if there really is a God with a vested interest in human behavior, he would have to be a good God. I believe he would be a God that builds bridges rather than tearing them down. I believe that he would want the human race to grow; and in watching us spend the last six thousand years being almost completely intolerant of one another's differences, I believe he might just continue to throw more and more differences into the mix until we can learn to accept one another as unique and glorious creations of his handiwork. Like the child that refuses to eat his vegetables; you gotta put the green on the plate if you want 'em to be healthy.

And I believe that a God who would create me to be a homosexual and then damn me to hell if I ever acted on it would be a stupid and hateful being. A good God doesn't get off on torture, if you ask me. It's like putting Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and creating them so that the only thing they ever hunger for is fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

Sorry, but if God was really like that, it would be he who deserved to die on the cross anyway, not us.

The only difference is that I'm not going to sit here and claim that I've come to these beliefs as a result of studying scripture for months on end, while pleading with God from a prostrated position on the floor of my apartment on a daily basis--though I've done both over the course of my life. I won't even tell you that I really believe those things I said, since I definitely do not have a working relationship with God at the moment. They're just thoughts in my head, not some divine truth passed down to me by a vision of Saint Peter, or affirmed by 15 different Old Testament prophecies.

And I'd venture a guess that that is true for more of us than we realize.

But, from kat, Belle, Jacare, Sweet William and a host of others' perspectives, my 'beliefs' are necessarily of the world, and therefore under the influence of the Devil.

Is there any amount of reasoning that can crack that perception? No. Because to them it is true. To them it is right. God has "spoken" to them and they would rather die than challenge what he "said".

And then we all run around saying how much we 'respect' each other's beliefs. How much we 'love' each other even while we put an X in the box marked 'deceived' next to each others' names.

I think that if there is a God, this would make him very sad. And I think that if Christ really died for our sins, it was probably for mistakes that WE made, not mistakes that He made.

But what's the point. This just gets more and more depressing because all the things I want to say are predicated on the idea that you fundamentalist Christians are just wrong wrong wrong. I could even use the Bible to try and make my points, but it wouldn't matter at all because, again, my mind is being driven by the devil.

Well, for what it's worth, folks, I don't believe that your beliefs are evil. I don't believe that your beliefs are based on hatred. I do think that your beliefs are wrong and harmful, but I will not go into why I think that is, because it is not my place to get the world to eat its vegetables.

But I implore you: while I may be a sinner as much as any other man, if there's a God to see on judgment day he will be looking into my heart. Please ask of your God to give you the wisdom to see the same.

[ September 11, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
I wish that this thread would die with that as the penultimate post.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Caleb, I do think it's possible to see homosexuality as a sin and yet treat gay people with compassion and allow them full civil liberties. I think the replies of many of the other posters show that they are very close to being able to do that. Just give it time. Just because the doctrine says one thing doesn't mean their hearts don't know what is really true.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
*loves Caleb all to pieces*

I wasn't paying any attention to this thread until about an hour ago. It's a topic so beat to death, one that leaves me with a headache, and maybe a little heartache, that I couldn't bring myself to read its entirety, let alone say anything.

But I will pray God gives me the wisdom to see the hearts of others. Sounds like an excellent prayer.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Stepping on my hopes and dreams.

I can't say anything that would express how much that post makes me respect you, Caleb. It's awe-inspiring to see such forgiveness. I hope someday everyone respects such an attitude.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Caleb, I wish you were here more often. Hatrack is missing something incredibly valuable with you gone.

Aside from that, I believe I'll continue to refrain from commenting on this topic.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Caleb, you're an idiot for leaving. No one here hates you, you big galoot. Get your ass back here.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Kat, I'd still like to know why coffee and tea haven't been outlawed. It seems to me that every Starbucks would be an affront. They even get the same tax breaks as other companies. And the tea industry even gets government subsidies. Now that is legitimacy.

See, the whole problem began when the SC overturned that Texas law. Then Canada decided to allow gay marriage. Then Bush decided to test the waters on a bill that said marriage was between a woman and a man.

quote:

---

Washington - President George W. Bush said Wednesday he supports the traditional vision of marriage and government lawyers are working on a law spelling it out.

---

That isn't gays pushing to legitimize gay marriage. That is Bush trying to outlaw it preemptive.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Lalo- Totally out of line. Back off Belle. She is entitled to her opinion and name calling does NOTHING.

I take incredible amounts of offense to your attacks on the Bible. You are obligated to show respect to everyone and their beliefs. You can disagree with them until you die, but you must respect them. I would value from remembering this sometimes too.

Caleb- The thing is man has a sin nature. Without God we tend towards sin. That's why we need him to come into our lives.<--Obviously a Christian statement. Take it for what you will.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Ed, come on, bro.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Come to think of it, if it weren't for God in the first place, man's natural tendency wouldn't be to sin.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Explain. Because it is that man is fallen, that it has a sin nature.
 

---

Posted by saberZedge (Member # 5274) on :
 
Stormy:
I am going to reply. I know that you know what I was really asking, and you never really answered the question, so I will rephrase it. "What fuels your passion" to post threads that upon close reading display your disdain for Christianity and its doctrine? I am sure you will ask for examples of where you show disdain. Here it is in your statements and lines of questioning:

1)"isn't it reasonable to conclude that perhaps your doctrine is wrong and in need of modification"

2)"Why not modify your faith to fit what your experience and your senses tell you is true?"

3)"Why does God not reveal these truths to you [instead of through the prophets]? If you believe in God, then why not believe that He will reveal to you what is true and valid and needed for yourself?

4)"If He hasn't 'told' you, personally, that being gay is wrong, then why not believe your senses and the justification of your reason?"

What you imply, in your line of questioning, is that if a person has "faith" (in things unseen), or if they believe in the "Biblical truth" set in writing by the prophets, then they are acting out of ingnorance when they believe something is sinful.

Krank
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 

quote:

---

God is insane, or just can't make up his almighty mind.

---

Man, that is the best line in this thread, IMO. Love it

Oh yes, and:

Love, Peace, and Tolerance.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
None of what you posted reveals 'disdain' on my part for 'Christianity and its doctrines'. Only a willful misinterpretation of what I wrote would even suggest such a thing. What you posted reveals that I do not understand why doctrine is sufficient, or more important, than faith, or reason, or experience. This is what I asked. This is what I wrote.

I have defended Christians on this thread who believe homosexuals are sinful, because I know them and understand that they are good people and that they really do hate the sin and love the sinner. Perhaps it is too much to ask that you believe the same thing of me, that I believe that Christians are, in my philosophy, wrong in their beliefs, yet I do not hate them for believing so, nor I do I feel disdain for them.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

Lalo- Totally out of line. Back off Belle. She is entitled to her opinion and name calling does NOTHING.

---

quote:

---

I take incredible amounts of offense to your attacks on the Bible. You are obligated to show respect to everyone and their beliefs. You can disagree with them until you die, but you must respect them. I would value from remembering this sometimes too.

---

Read closer, junior. I've made no "attacks on the Bible," whatever the hell that means. But Belle's willingness to discard the Bible's bigoted stances against women and her anxiousness to preserve the Bible's (far rarer) bigoted stances against homosexuals does not reflect well on her.

Respect her beliefs? I have no problem respecting religious beliefs, though it's likely that I'll question them. But her support of actions taken to reduce homosexuals to a stigmatized sub-class of citizens is as vile as the actions themselves. I expect better from her. And if she's determined to support prejudice against homosexuals, I beg both you and her, give me more reasoning than your selective beliefs derived from whichever passages in the Bible support existing prejudices -- let alone discarding other bigoted Biblical stances that you don't agree with.

Read Caleb's post. Please, try to tell me anti-homosexual fundamentalists are more Christian than he is.
 

---

Posted by Bricks-N-Sandwiches (Member # 5603) on :
 
I think a good way to look at homosexuality is. If it is not directly affecting you or being directed at you. Then...WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
In those rare times I have been hit on by gay man I have simply told them I don't swing that way.
That was it.
Why hate a person or discriminate against them for how they are?
I have gay friends...once they know you are not...you are completely taken out of their sexual equation.

There is no truth that can be told so as to be understood and not believed.-OSC
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Lalo, you've been incredibly disrespectful and insulting to people on this thread, and to their beliefs. You have actively denounced the sources of their beliefs. You have ignored their clear desire to do what is right.

And more directly relevant, you have flagrantly ignored the board rules. We are guests here, which means we follow the rules.
 

---

Posted by saberZedge (Member # 5274) on :
 
"Only a willful misinterpretation" of what I wrote would even suggest that I implied that you "hate them [Christian idividuals] for believing so [in their doctrine]."

I never said you hated individuals for what they believe. You know better, Stormy. I posted long enough on this forum for you to know that I would never acuse you of hating individuals for what they believe. With the exception of you telling me that I should learn to read, I think you are generally respectful of others.

David Bowles and I taught together for 4 years and we had respect for each other. (Our rooms were next to each other and were on the same academic team.) We were on opposite sides on matters of faith and religion. We shared on many occasions why we came to our individual conclusions about faith, God, and religion. We both had a mutual respect for each others belief system and knew what "fueled our passion."

But you still have not answered my question. "What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your disdain for Christianity and its doctrine?"
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
No, I've answered your question, you just don't want to believe it. I have no disdain. We can agree to disagree, if you like. I don't know how to prove to you that I have no disdain other than to point to this thread. If that's not enough, then I don't know what to tell you. Don't make me do the some-of-my-closest-friends-are-Christians bit.
 

---

Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
 
To steal a commonly-abused theistic phrase, I love the Christian but hate the Christianity.

Jeff
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

Lalo, you've been incredibly disrespectful and insulting to people on this thread, and to their beliefs. You have actively denounced the sources of their beliefs. You have ignored their clear desire to do what is right.

And more directly relevant, you have flagrantly ignored the board rules. We are guests here, which means we follow the rules.

---

I've reread what I've wrote, and while I may not be respectful, I'm afraid I don't see myself as "incredibly disrespectful and insulting." But as you have this annoying habit of being right, I'll make this my last post for the night, and see how I respond tomorrow.

But read more carefully. I've not "actively denounced the sources of their beliefs" -- merely questioned why Belle would disrespect the book she claims to hold sacred by discarding certain portions of it that lessen her as a woman, yet values the tiny blurb that lessens homosexuals.

Tell me true, Fugu. Is that not hypocrisy?

I believe I've avoided direct ad hominem attacks, though I'm very aware of my lack of respect -- such as where I reminded Belle she'd already done this performance in Caleb's goodbye thread, for example, or her outrageous attempt to analogize adultery and marriage. Still. I'll sleep tonight, and see how annoyed I am by this kind of behavior tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I can answer why I keep coming into these threads, though I rarely start them.

I see people I care for, people I admire, people that improve the world around them get marginalized and told that their love lives are lesser than anybody else's and sinful besides, and for the life of me I can't understand why. I come into these threads hoping to hear a reason that isn't based on either
a) it's icky or
b) someone's God hates it.
Haven't heard one yet, but I never give up hope, and if such a reason exists this is the place to find it.
Until I hear it, I'll continue working towards getting recognition for consensual committed relationships, regardless of the genders involved.

I do want to thank Caleb for saying what I should have said to begin with, and much better than I would have.
 

---

Posted by saberZedge (Member # 5274) on :
 
Stormy,
No, you have not answered the question as to "What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your disdain for Christianity and its doctrine?"

So, I will put the question to you in a more gentle way: "What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your general disreguard for Christianity and its doctrines?"

Krank

[ September 11, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: saberZedge ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I'm not really seeing where he's been all that insulting. A bit rude maybe, but. . . Belle said dkw, who is a minister for God's sake, rationalized her beliefs. You know, I've never seen anyone use the word rationalization for anything good. I usually see it when someone is doing something they know they shouldn't, but they've made up reasons why it's okay to do. That's a hell of a lot more insulting that anything Eddie said. He said he was disgusted by her beliefs. I am, too. I'm also frightened by them. Right now, she's decided that homosexuals are sinners. I can't help but wonder who's next. You know, John Ashcroft bases his actions on what his interpretaion of the Bible, too. And he's more than willing to subvert the constitution to do it. I don't want to live in a theocracy. It hasn't worked out well for anyone else that's tried it in the long run.

No one seems to be able to rationalize a reason to legislate against gay marriage and not coffee and tea.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Firstly, "Good lord, Belle, you're doing that I-get-the-last-word-and-run-away thing again?"

Then I'd just like to say, "sometimes they're ridiculous enough to make me laugh..."

I'll follow up with "There are three places in the Bible used by anti-homosexuals to justify the whole God-Hates-Fags deal."

I think I'll finish with "Hypocrisy. Selfish, bigoted twisting of a book you claim to hold sacred. I'm truly disgusted with beliefs like yours, Belle, and disappointed that someone I could respect could also hold such twisted beliefs -- and what's worse, be blind to her own hypocrisy."

You have some good points, but you haven't learned to form a respectful argument. You don't win arguments by yelling at people. Not only that, but the tone you took and statements you have made do directly contravene the board's rules -- specifically the requirement that we show respect for other's beliefs.
 

---

Posted by GSA Prez (Member # 5644) on :
 
I always knew I liked you, Toretha. Your sentiments are good.

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said before, but...

Never, ever, ever will I understand how anyone can condemn someone as a sinner for their homosexuality. I don't care if God himself appeared in front of you and told you it was wrong. It's common sense, people, to understand that most gay people are not gay by choice - they just are - and they are no different from us (straight people) in terms of the respect they deserve, and the rights they should be given. So what if it's written in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin? I guess that's the definition of blind faith, to believe in something just because God or the Bible or whatever says it's true...and it's something that I've never believed in, and I doubt I ever will. I just don't like the idea of something being "written in stone", so to speak, and that is has to be true forever, no arguments. That's a really scary thought for me.

I'm not gay. I'm also not Christian, nor am I affiliated with any religion. I don't hate Christians, or any religion - that's stereotypical and it's not fair to judge a group of people because of their actions or beliefs. I might believe they are wrong, but it is NOT my right to judge them. To each his own, I say...I do, however, hate prejudice - and in my experience, most religions are prejudiced, especially against homosexuality.

But I'm not posting this to bash religions. *shrugs* I guess all I'm trying to say is that I think it is far more of a sin, by any definition, to condemn someone just because of their sexual orientation, than it is to be of that orientation in the first place.

That's my take on it. I hope I haven't offended anyone.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Kranky, you can ask me that a thousand more times and the answer will be the same as the one I just gave. If that answer is not satisfactory to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
 

---

Posted by saberZedge (Member # 5274) on :
 
Stormy,
No, you have not answered the question as to "What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your disdain for Christianity and its doctrine?"

So, I will put the question to you in a more gentle way: "What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your general disreguard for Christianity and its doctrines?"

Krank
 

---

Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
 
Ye goddesses! It must be a full moon, or what?

What we have here is a failure to communicate! (from Cool Hand Luke)

Or in the words of that great humanitarian, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
*offers Jane a feather*
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Ahh, he forgot the hate the belief, love the believer cover his ass statement. I get it.

By the way, the arguments are laughable, not the arguer.

I live near the "God Hates Fags" guy and I'm tired of him at funerals. And if my niece dies of AIDS before God strikes him dead, the bastard better not show up. And just because Belle "loves the sinner" isn't she basically saying the same thing? I mean, God hates the unrepentant sinner. They are cast out and all. Or not let in. So, what exactly is the problem? Is the wording of it too harsh? Should that be one of those things that if it can't be said, it should be done?

quote:

---

"What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your general disreguard for Christianity and its doctrines?"

---

quote:

---

Firstly, "Good lord, Belle, you're doing that I-get-the-last-word-and-run-away thing again?"

---

quote:

---

Then I'd just like to say, "sometimes they're ridiculous enough to make me laugh..."

---

quote:

---

I'll follow up with "There are three places in the Bible used by anti-homosexuals to justify the whole God-Hates-Fags deal."

---

quote:

---

I think I'll finish with "Hypocrisy. Selfish, bigoted twisting of a book you claim to hold sacred. I'm truly disgusted with beliefs like yours, Belle, and disappointed that someone I could respect could also hold such twisted beliefs -- and what's worse, be blind to her own hypocrisy."

---

quote:

---

You have some good points, but you haven't learned to form a respectful argument. You don't win arguments by yelling at people. Not only that, but the tone you took and statements you have made do directly contravene the board's rules -- specifically the requirement that we show respect for other's beliefs.

---

I'm very aware how to form a respectful argument, but I have no respect for opinions thinly cloaked in religion's mantle. Note that, contrary to the quotes (and misquotes -- shame on you) above, you have yet to point out an instance of an ad hominem attack I've made.

I respect religious beliefs, though I'll probably disagree with many of them. Moose, for example, is very religious and one of Hatrack's treasured. What's the difference behind him and Adrian? He's not trying to relegate homosexuals to a sub-class of citizen based on shady, contrary religious beliefs.

I would hope you wouldn't have respect for any position that supports such an end, be it relegating homosexuals, minorities, or women to any sub-class of citizenry.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Lalo mocked Belle. You may think what she said was mockable (I don't), but that does not give one a right to do it, particularly in contravention of board rules.

Belle expressly takes the God Does Not Hate Fags position. I am absolutely certain that she believes with all her heart that God loves everyone, including homosexual people.

Her arguments are not ridiculous. Her arguments are ridiculous if you are operating off a different set of assumptions than she is, but this is not the same. As those assumptions are religious in nature, one would be hard pressed to not view this as insulting someone's religion.

The last bit I posted above is, though perhaps the most strongly worded, the most okay of the whole, at least as far the forum rules thing. However, I am not so sure it would be viewed this way by others, for instance the Cards. And they get to set the rules here, like it or not.

I have spent extensive time on this forum defending the rights of homosexual people to participate openly and freely in our society, and I will continue to do so (Ryan, any response on my question about marrying outside one's religion?). As much as I vehemently disagree with Belle's stated position, she has done her best to both phrase it appropriately, and I also believe has nothing but the best intentions (I do hope that "rationalize" was just poor wording). As such, and particularly given the board remit, she should be treated with respect, just as every other member of the board, and of society, should, while they participate honestly.

I have been known to be scornful of arguments myself, but I try to restrict myself to being scornful of arguments, not beliefs, and not people. Lalo crossed the line considerably.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I agree. I think Belle said what she had to say perfectly well.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Sarcasm, Stormy?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I've never seen Caleb's goodbye thread actually so could someone post a link to it cause I can't find it.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
No, it's not sarcasm. I think Belle has always expressed herself very politely.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 

quote:

---

I wrote a response to Squicky, but I think Ralphie would vegemite me if I took after her bobo.

---

Wha?

Squicky's fair game, Kat. I mean, yeah I'm all over that boy like white on rice, but I'm perfectly fine with you getting in a flame war with him.

And Eddie - fugu is totally right. Being passionate and being catty while hiding it behind righteous indignation are too different things. If you can't write a post without red in your eye, stop posting until you can.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Caleb mentioned the "God let me see with your heart" prayer. Jeniwren thought she'd try it. All I have to say is "be careful what you wish for."

When I was religious, I prayed such a prayer and earnestly sought such a path. It led me away from the "faith of my Fathers." And to a deeper love and understanding for every human I come across.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

I have been known to be scornful of arguments myself, but I try to restrict myself to being scornful of arguments, not beliefs, and not people. Lalo crossed the line considerably.

---

quote:

---

Caleb mentioned the "God let me see with your heart" prayer. Jeniwren thought she'd try it. All I have to say is "be careful what you wish for."

When I was religious, I prayed such a prayer and earnestly sought such a path. It led me away from the "faith of my Fathers." And to a deeper love and understanding for every human I come across.

---

quote:

---

Yet I do not think that it is this that many proponents of homosexual marriage want. I think that many want society, as represented by our government, to state unequivocally that homosexuality is no different in any way shape or form from marriage between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb mentioned the "God let me see with your heart" prayer. Jeniwren thought she'd try it. All I have to say is "be careful what you wish for."

When I was religious, I prayed such a prayer and earnestly sought such a path. It led me away from the "faith of my Fathers." And to a deeper love and understanding for every human I come across.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! This, in the end, was my final prayer, and I've come to the conclusion that if there is a God at all, he doesn't endorse any of the religions that claim him as their source.

Philosophy, thy name is Irony.

---

quote:

---

What, in your opinion, are the differences between civil heterosexual marriage and civil homosexual marriage? What is the fundamental difference that the "Defense of Marriage" people are trying to defend?

---

quote:

---

I thought I made that fairly clear- as far as civil standing goes I don't see any reason why homosexuals should not have the opportunity to gain all of the benefits (and, in the case of taxes, liabilities) as married folks. Perhaps by way of appeasement it could be labeled a "civil union", but I don't think that it makes much difference either way.

---

quote:

---

I think marriage may very well need defending, but it isn't from any threat from gays. I would like to see the energy being used to scapegoat homosexuals for societies ills put towards teaching heterosexuals how to be responsible parents. That is the only way the real threats are going to be assuaged.

---

quote:

---

I would also like to add that I agree that broken families, divorce, single-parent families, and general alienation from extended families are big problems that need to be address. However, I don't think that homosexuals being allowed to marry or even that letting homosexual marriage share the same respect and acceptance as hetersexual marriage is going to make any of those problems worse.

---

quote:

---

I see no problem with anyone who wants being able to designate legal heirs, share health benefits etc in one legal swoop, just like marriage. If there are churches which believe it is right to do so then they should be perfectly free to perform wedding ceremonies for whomever they want.

Yet I do not think that it is this that many proponents of homosexual marriage want.

---

quote:

---

Caleb, I wish you were here more often. Hatrack is missing something incredibly valuable with you gone.

---

quote:

---

Caleb, you're an idiot for leaving. No one here hates you, you big galoot. Get your ass back here.

---

I've been a recovering Hatraholic for a while now. Don't you know that every word I type takes me that much deeper into the danger zone?

Ryan Heart:

quote:

---

Caleb- The thing is man has a sin nature. Without God we tend towards sin. That's why we need him to come into our lives.<--Obviously a Christian statement. Take it for what you will.

---

It may seem like a wild idea to you, Ryan, but I think that as long as man continues to believe that sin is an inescapable part of his nature, it will be. It's not a biblical perspective, I know, but few of my perspectives are. Let me ask you this: if Christ died on the cross so that you could be free of sin, and you have accepted the gift of his penance, why is it that you still consider yourself a sinner? Do you think Jesus died to save you now, or only when you go to face judgment?

SaberZedge:

quote:

---

[Stormy,] what fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your disdain for Christianity and its doctrine?

---

quote:

---

It just feels rude to me that she would give her positions--views that she knows will step on other people's toes--and then walk out of the discussion.

---

To be fair, didn't you do the same thing?
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
To be fair, no.

I never said the conversations weren't worth my effort, and I never said that I was just going to say my peace and never come back. I said I was tired and hurt and I needed to regain some energy and that I would be back later. I never said I'd leave hatrack for good.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I also disagree that the reason she stopped posting was because she wasn't interested in hearing the other side, or that she didn't care, but because she believes no one will listen to her. I would guess that she stopped posting because, in her mind, she really has no choice about how to believe about homosexuals. It's God's word. End of story.

I think if you read what she wrote, she is trying to be as compassionate as possible towards gay people, given her sworn obedience/stance/belief in her church.

I know her attitude supports the current political climate towards gay people, but I think it's important to seperate out what you can do versus what you can't do. Work to change the political process and other people's opinions, yes, but I think it's also vital to be able to see when you can't change a person and just accept them for who they are. I don't think Belle's opinion is going to be changed with words. I do think she is a very nice person with a good heart. I think that eventually, her views will change of their own accord simply by knowing gay people here on the rack and in life and seeing that they, too, are good.

I do think that there is going to be an ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of Americans, between liberal and conservative Christian ideologies, both within and without churches. You see that already happening. When the church doctrine changes, then Belle can in good conscience change her mind. Or maybe it will be more accurate to say that her daughter will be able to believe differently, since Belle already has accepted certain truths as doctrine.

[ September 12, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm pretty sure she's at the same place, Caleb. I doubt she's leaving Hatrack permanently. Many have tried and few succeed, as you know.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Ahh the homosexual debate. It's about as bad as the anna nicole show. I want to look away, I really do, but for some reason, I keep watching.

(oddly enough, id venture that i watched a grand total of three minutes of anna nicole, but ive read a good deal of this thread. So i suppose it has even more of a 'keep watching im a train wreck' quality.)
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that I've already covered what you're saying:

quote:

---

But even then, we all know that's not the way SHE thinks of what she said, and therefore that cannot be the whole truth of what she did.

---

quote:

---

I don't think I'm guilty of whatever it is your accusing me.

---

quote:

---

I think that teaching folks how to be good parents would be money well spent. However, you just knaowe that every political group would get their own little agenda shoehorned in so that "parental training" would have less to do with raising children and more to do with raising children who agre with political view X.

---

quote:

---

Here is an example of what I think complete legitimization of homosexuality will lead to which I consider a bad result: Homosexual high school such as those in New York.

---

I would think it clear that the gay high school in NYC is a reaction to the current climate and that far from making them the norm, complete legitimization of homosexuality would make them unnecessary. If that's the best you can come up with, it only underscores the paucity of the "threat to the family" arguement.

That said, I think the gay high school idea is a poorly conceived one in any climate. However, you do raise a good question about sexual identity. I doubt very seriously that many straight youths will become gay simply because it is no longer stigmatized. However, I don't doubt that many gays will be able to understand and accept their own sexuality at a younger age, and therefore be better able to become well adjusted gay adults because they are spared the marginalization most gays encounter today. I see that as good for society rather than bad.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The natural impulses I have are towards evil."

If it makes you feel any better, Ryan, some of us have natural impulses towards GOOD.

I'm sorry you're a bad person, but I'm glad you've got something that keeps you from killing your neighbors.
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
Ryan...how can it possibly be a good thing to be telling yourself that you're doomed to be a sinner and have evil impulses, and only by following x, y, and z rules, you're not going to burn in hell forever? That's got to be one dreary outlook on life!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, the thing is, if Ryan's a strict Calvinist, he DOESN'T believe that following X, Y, and Z rules will keep him from going to Hell. If he's a strict Calvinist, he believes that nothing he does will keep him from going to Hell if that's the fate already determined for him; obeying X, Y, and Z rules would be merely demonstrative SYMPTOMS of his non-Hellbound nature.
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
Ryan-so, then, should we illegalize atheist marraiges? since those would be sinful too?
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 

quote:

---

...I can feel the conflict within my heart. I consider myself a sinner because I see the depravity in my own mind. The natural impulses I have are towards evil... Jesus died so that the Holy Spirit could come and I can have a personal relationship with the Living God. And because of that relationship, on the day of judgment I will be able to stand before God because I knew His Son.

---

For curiosity's sake, Ryan, do you have any scriptural references to support this position? I've wondered for a while now why Christ would have to leave us in order for us to receive the 'Holy Spirit'. Can they not occupy the same space at the same time, or what?

A quick search through the New Testament finds me one--and only one--verse that sounds even remotely similar to your depiction of the Holy Spirit vs. Sin Nature relationship which you claim to be characteristic of Christians, and that is Titus 3:5.

Of course I've never been comfortable with the idea that men are born with their DEFAULT destination being hell. Again 'wow, do I know my theology', eh? Well I do, actually. It's just not YOUR theology, and I suppose that makes me... a Satanist. Or a blasphemor. A heretic at least, right? It's alright. I established long ago that I would have no part of your version of heaven.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Tom, your 9:06 post was so funny I nearly coughed up a lung!


 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Well, if it helps, Caleb, I also share a theology in which our default state is going to 'heaven'. In fact, we believe that any child that dies before the age of accountability (That is when they can understand the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Usually occurs around eight.) returns to Heavenly Father.

But what we also believe is that we will inevitably succumb to temptation. We simply aren't spiritually mature enough not to. Our goal is perfection, but we aren't there yet. Since we do need to be perfectly clean to enter the presence of Heavenly Father, we need our sins cleansed by the Savior. It is only when we dwell with our Heavenly Father that we can grow to our fullest potential. Therefore, what we believe is that the Atonement is necessary for our growth. Even our growth on earth. True repentance isn't simply being forgiven, it is growing to the point where we never commit that particular sin again. True repentance means we can move beyond our guilt to put things firmly in the past and be able to honestly say "I am a better person than I was."

Since are still so young (spiritually speaking) we can never attain perfection here, but we can strive for it.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Caleb- In your quick scan you apparently missed 2 Corinthians 12. Paul talks about his "thorn". He goes on to tell of how the Grace of God and Power of the Holy Spirit keep from sin.

I'm no pastor, but a detailed study of the New Testament will show a battle between the sin nature.

Amka- I hate to say this, but I think that's feel good theology. The Bible says we are born into sin, and without God we will go to Hell. Now would I tell that to a mother who just lost her baby, gracious no. That was one of the hardest conclusions I have ever come too.

By the way anyone who saw my other thread, that was just theory. I don't necessarily believe all or any of it.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 

quote:

---

Caleb- In your quick scan you apparently missed 2 Corinthians 12. Paul talks about his "thorn". He goes on to tell of how the Grace of God and Power of the Holy Spirit keep from sin.

---

quote:

---

I'm no pastor, but a detailed study of the New Testament will show a battle between the sin nature.

---