This is topic OSC opinion on homosexuality in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004464

---

Posted by Gay Brendan (Member # 9764) on :
 
Can anyone shed light on the above subject - a former fan raised my curiosity on another website this afternoon..?
 

---

Posted by Pécuchet (Member # 9330) on :
 
I was just wondering if your curiosity is genuine or you're just willing to start something ...
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
He believes, consistently with his faith, that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that it is harmful to society, and should therefore be discouraged. He has expressed that it is not unique among sinful or harmful actions, and that homosexual individuals should be treated with respect for their humanity and compassion for their difficult temptation to overcome. He has expressed disagreement with those who feel that the movement for gay rights is analogous to the Civil Rights movement.

Welcome to Hatrack, Brendan.

If you click on the search button (below the "new topic" button above, and search for homosexuality on the OSC side of the forum, you will find our previous discussions on the topic. They are typically contentious, and they typically result in hurt feelings on both sides, which may explain the war weary reaction you may get for raising the topic. If you google "orson scott card" and homosexuality, you will find, among other things, articles Card has written detailing his views on the topic.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
You can also search for the word "homosexual" and filter for username "Orson Scott Card", if you don't have time to read 500 posts in any given thread. This is a real suggestion. Some people don't realize he actually posts here.
 

---

Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
 
I just want to add, that as a member of Orson Scott Cards religion we share similar beliefs. OSC has on many instances been labeled a homophobe and this always makes me mad.

OSC is not afraid of homosexuals. He does not hate homosexuals. Nor do I. No more than I hate anyone else who makes choices that I disagree with. I disagree with the choice, but I might very well love the person. OSC has had homosexual characters in his books and portrays them quite fairly.

Icarus and pooka are right though. Doing what they suggest is the best way to answer your question.
 

---

Posted by Razputin (Member # 9522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaisyMae:
I just want to add, that as a member of Orson Scott Cards religion...

---

I didn't know that Uncle Orson started the Mormons or the Latter Day Saint movement!?
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
Raz, the possessive is a perfectly normal, legitimate way to refer to the religion that an individual adheres to.
 

---

Posted by KLoWn (Member # 9739) on :
 
I am a Christian (Nondenominational) All I can say is if someone else holds to the christian beliefs the Book of Romans says thier opinions on Homosexuallity.

However let us not forget The Books of John, Luke and Mathew on how to talk and be with all people.

A sin is a sin is a sin We are all guilty of sin so if homosexuality is a sin then is it any different from stealing or disrespect to our parents?

I wish you well on your path Brendan. I hope you find the clear way with low hills.
 

---

Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
 
As a practicing mormon myself, I should add to this disucssion that I feel the same way about extramarital sex as about homosexuality. In some ways, it is a greater danger to society than homosexual sex. I don't hate those who practice it, but I am deeply convinced it is wrong, sinful, and destructive. There are ever so many condemnations of extramarital heterosexual sex in the bible. My own opinion is that the Christian churches of the day are winking at this, not facing it.
 

---

Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
 
Razputin - thank you for pointing out my phrasing mistake. Of course I do not consider OSC the leader of my church.

I also highly agree with Lynn. Any type of sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I also want to clarify that in my previous post I said that I "disagree with the choice but love the person." This is not to say that I believe attraction to someone of the same gender is a choice. I don't mean to minimize those feelings because they are real. Acting on them, however, is a choice.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
What lynn and DaisyMae said.
 

---

Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
"Any type of sex outside of marriage is wrong"

Agreed, but if homosexual marriages are legalized (as they are in some states) then is it no longer wrong for them to do their thing?

Here's an argument that is often made for homosexuality: "It isn't a choice; because who would choose something that hard?"

So let's call it a compulsion. Guess what else is a compulsion? Rape, pedophilia, kleptomania, and for some people, murder. Now for these people, they either give in to their compulsion, or they resist it. But how about regular people, like myself? I have a compulsion to lie when it is beneficial to me; to cheat at cards when the opportunity presents itself; and sometimes, to just give up on life. Simply dealing with life is hard enough, but to resist those everyday sorts of temptations is virtue.

Obviously, my argument hinges on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. If it is not, well, do we allow judges to decide what is right or wrong, or do we allow democratic processes? I ask that because, guaranteed, if a law passes, supported by a majority, explicitly restricting homosexuality in any capacity, it will be declared unconstitutional. It hasn't happened in regards to marriage yet, but barring an actual amendment to the constitution detailing such a restriction, it will.
 

---

Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
 
sorry. ranted. read the discussion that happened, its large.

[ September 28, 2006, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: RunningBear ]
 

---

Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
But not already discussed with Brendan. He has a right to a civil discussion on a topic that he feels strongly about. You don't have to participate, RunningBear.

Brendan, welcome. If you ever get a chance to chat with OSC here, you'll find that contrary to popular rumors in the gay community, he's a very accepting, kind man. He may not feel that homosexuality is "okay," but he certainly does not hate gay people - or even dislike them, as far as I can tell from his previous writings on the topic. And as has been pointed out already, he has written gay characters into his books and stories that are very well dealt with.

Most Mormons don't feel that homosexuality is anything but a sin, but most Mormons are also very loving folks, even to those they perceive to be sinners.
 

---

Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
 
I am not saying that, but reading through the multi-page discussion may give him information faster. sorry, I got frustrated.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

"Any type of sex outside of marriage is wrong"

Agreed, but if homosexual marriages are legalized (as they are in some states) then is it no longer wrong for them to do their thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
Abortion is legal, but still considered wrong by the church. No fault divorce is legal, but still considered wrong. Alcohol, Tobacco, Chocolate desserts with dangerous names, the list goes on. But I believe in a policy of hating the sin but loving the person. It's what I try for, anyway.

---

quote:

---

I am a Christian (Nondenominational) All I can say is if someone else holds to the christian beliefs the Book of Romans says thier opinions on Homosexuallity.

---

quote:

---

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

---

quote:

---

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

---

quote:

---

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

quote:

---

"I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:


There's also an interview with a highly biased and irresponsible journalist from Salon, which you can find here

---

Wow. Now, I'm in the minority here on Hatrack in that I think gay rights ARE as important as civil rights, and I'm all in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to. That being said, I am ASTOUNDED at the irresponsibility and clear personal agenda displayed in that interview (by the interviewer, not by Mr. Card). I can't believe anybody would let a piece like that be published. Doesn't this woman have an EDITOR? I know Salon's big thing is being edgy, but that was downright ridiculous. Twisting words all over the place. What a jerk. I'd call her other things, but I'll try to keep this thread family-friendly.

Did she think that while she was attempting to paint Card in a certain light, she wouldn't also be painting herself in another? Bad, bad, horrible, bad journalism. Even for an editorial piece.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Now, I'm in the minority here on Hatrack in that I think gay rights ARE as important as civil rights, and I'm all in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noemon:
I don't find that to be a minority opinion here at all; my impression is that both sides of that issue are fairly well represented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noemon:

quote:

---

Now, I'm in the minority here on Hatrack in that I think gay rights ARE as important as civil rights, and I'm all in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to.

---

I don't find that to be a minority opinion here at all; my impression is that both sides of that issue are fairly well represented.

---

quote:

---

Pooka, I'm curious. Sorry this goes way off topic, but it's convenient to slip it in here. When I was LDS, I was also a vegetarian. I was trying to live by the very sensible rules set out in the Scriptures.

I wonder why so few LDS families choose to go vegetarian. It's as clear as crystal what the Lord has to say about eating meat:

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." -D&C 89:12-13

...these verses appear just a couple of verses after those admonishing the use of alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks" (commonly taken to be coffee).

---

quote:

---

I think it's presumptuous to assume that those who aren't members of your faith any longer can't possibly have anything intelligent to say about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lynn johnson:
ONE MORE thing . . . Lyrhawn said "When he talks about homosexuals going against the biological mainstream, don't single women who choose not to marry do the same thing? I've read several articles from Time and Newsweek in recent weeks that more and more, professional women are choosing not to marry, and not to have kids. Aren't they making a conscious choice to defy the biological mainstream?"

Yes, excellent point.

Within the LDS community, a woman or man who refuses to marry when presented with an attractive opportunity is sinful. I would never judge anyone because I cannot know their circumstances. But had I refused to marry because I thought being single was so neat and lacking in restraints, I would have been accountable to God for misusing my time on earth. I would have wasted my life.

To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.

That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.

---

quote:

---

To conservatives, people are resources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lynn johnson:
ONE MORE thing . . . Lyrhawn said "When he talks about homosexuals going against the biological mainstream, don't single women who choose not to marry do the same thing? I've read several articles from Time and Newsweek in recent weeks that more and more, professional women are choosing not to marry, and not to have kids. Aren't they making a conscious choice to defy the biological mainstream?"

Yes, excellent point.

Within the LDS community, a woman or man who refuses to marry when presented with an attractive opportunity is sinful. I would never judge anyone because I cannot know their circumstances. But had I refused to marry because I thought being single was so neat and lacking in restraints, I would have been accountable to God for misusing my time on earth. I would have wasted my life.

To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.

That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.

---

quote:

---

Do Mormons support any sort of legislation that involves deterrent punishments to women who refuse to take a husband? or a man to take a wife? of couples who don't have children?

---

No.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well, there are societal consequences that Mormons are as responsible for as anybody else of course. Then there are tax breaks for married couples, which I am assuming many Mormons do support. A deterent AGAINST non-marriage would be too strong a descriptor, but there are defintely society-sponsored benefits to being married.

In other ways, I think many people probably punish those who choose not to marry, if indirectly, by allowing them to be excluded from society, and margianalized, or stereotyped as anti-social.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Except that "single" doesn't inherently mean ANY of those things. Single, for whatever reason, is more and more becoming perfectly normal and acceptable in society. If you want to be a soccer mom that's fine, if you want to be a stay at home dad, that's cool too. While there are still gender stereotypes, people can pretty much do whatever they want and not be ostracized for it by the national community. Individual communities are totally different, but I'm talking about mainstream society.

mph -

If as lynn says, forsaking marriage for the sake of pursuing a professional single life is defiance of biological demands or what not is a sin, then why is the same sin committed by homosexual cause for action, but for single women and men, it's just frowned upon but let go?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Possibly because you can't tell who is "forsaking marriage" and who just hasn't found the right spouse yet, whereas if you catch homosexuals in the act, it's pretty clear cut.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Hmmmph. I'll say it again (I've said it before, but it generally goes uncommented on or responded to):

When I was young girl in Mia Maids, I was told pretty emphatically and repeatedly that my duty as a young woman was to learn how to support the menfolk in the priesthood. To wit: I needed to learn housekeeping skills, be prepared to raise a big family, etc.

College was an option for as long as as it took to get a 2-year degree in home economics.

Not marrying and having children meant I would never get to the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom.

My questioning and disputing of those principles got me a long talk with the Bishop.

So yes, I'd say there is certain amount of pressure on folks in the fold to comply with the biological imperative.

And, I'll say it again -- it's always a delight to get to meet other Mormons (current OR ex) and learn that there are as many variations on the basic tenets on Mormonism as there are variations of Christianity. *twinkle* It's that American insistence on "free thinking."
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
Possibly because you can't tell who is "forsaking marriage" and who just hasn't found the right spouse yet, whereas if you catch homosexuals in the act, it's pretty clear cut.

---

Guess I should've been more clear, what I really want to know is what harm being a homosexual does to the world? to society? to families? And why they are treated as some sort of ultimate enemy, whereas the damage that heterosexuals have done to society and marriage/family is ultimately more destructive.

I really don't understand it, and my arguments might be missing the mark to the audience I'm trying to address because the idea is so foreign to me, I can't even imagine or conceive of what the perceived harm is.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
More than once I've tried to explain my views on that subject when I've been asked, only to be treated rudely for my troubles.

I doubt I'll ever bother to do so here again. At least, no time soon.
 

---

Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
I want gays to be able to marry because it means more potential income for me.


(Okay, I'm kidding, that's not really why.)


(But it *would* mean more potential income for me. So gays marrying doesn't hurt everybody in society.)
 

---

Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


If as lynn says, forsaking marriage for the sake of pursuing a professional single life is defiance of biological demands or what not is a sin, then why is the same sin committed by homosexual cause for action, but for single women and men, it's just frowned upon but let go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shan:


When I was young girl in Mia Maids, I was told pretty emphatically and repeatedly that my duty as a young woman was to learn how to support the menfolk in the priesthood. To wit: I needed to learn housekeeping skills, be prepared to raise a big family, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lynn johnson:
To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.

That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lynn johnson:
To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.

That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off. [/QB]

---

I'm in the minority here (speaking of my religion) but I consider myself a conservative democrat. Have been since I took an interest in politics and how they affected my life and family as a teen-ager. Republicans - aka Conservatives, and Mr. Card included - have become very condensending in my eyes over the last 5-6 years. They throw the word "liberal" around likes its a bad thing, a sin even. And while I don't agree with all things "democrat" (abortion, etc.) I consider myself much more in line with what Democrats uphold. Most conservative aspects come across to me as limiting, non-inclusive, etc... (we may be few, but Mormons aren't exclusively Republican!)

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread and make it political. But the above quote really didn't sit well with me. As for the original topic, homosexuality, I like other Mormons here believe it a sin. Is it a simple subject? Or course not. But with most things related to my adherence to my religion: God speaks through prophets, I consider said speakings, I apply them to my life where possible. Thats not blind following, its thoughtful and purposeful.

Thanks, thats my .02
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Welcome to Hatrack, striplngrz!
De-lurk more often.

You didn't hijack the thread, you were the third person to quote Lynn. Anyway, threads go off-topic frequently.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

but Mormons aren't exclusively Republican!)

---

Um, considering that only something like 1/3 of the LDS population lives in the US, the rest lives in countries where Republican has no meaning... Yup. (I still don't know the difference between US Republican and US Conservative, or is that Liberal? No, wait, Democrats. Nor, as should be obvious, do I care. )
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
More than once I've tried to explain my views on that subject when I've been asked, only to be treated rudely for my troubles.

I doubt I'll ever bother to do so here again. At least, no time soon.

---

quote:

---

why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?

---

quote:

---

Um, considering that only something like 1/3 of the LDS population lives in the US, the rest lives in countries where Republican has no meaning...

---

quote:

---

Not marrying and having children meant I would never get to the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Why is it wrong, except that it's a sin? If we come down to the fact that the only thing wrong with it is it's fundamental status as a sin, then it shouldn't be legislated, plain and simple.

---

quote:

---

And if it comes down to the fact that it being a sin is the only thing wrong with it, then again I must ask, why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?

---

quote:

---

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Holy cow Libbie...I grew up just outside Rexburg (Lyman). Lived there from '88 to '98. That's crazy, it's a small world.

---

No way! I feel for you. I also did some summer livin' in the Ririe/Archer area.

My maiden name was Ricks - yes, like Ricks College. Rexburg used to be called Ricksburg. So glad I escaped. It is so boring there.
 

---

Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
DaisyMae, I'm somebody who believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry, and I do not see your feelings as condescending or naive AT ALL. Rather, I see them being as loving and accepting as they can be, given your religious beliefs. I commend you for feeling that way - too many Christians forget that the story goes that God loves EVERYBODY equally, and that we're supposed to do the same, even the sinners. I'm glad you feel that way.

I believe that gay people should be able to marry because it is unfair to deny them the privileges that go with marriage in our society - tax breaks, decision-making powers for their loved ones, etc. If they choose to live in a committed relationship with their partner, caring for one another and cooperating, how is it any different from my marraige to my husband? I'm afraid I just can't see how it is any different.

That could be because I have a very long history in the dog-showing world, where homosexuals probably outnumber heterosexuals by about 3:1. Consequently, I have more gay friends than straight friends, and many of them live in committed relationships or "official" domestic partnerships. Many even are raising children as families. I understand that to many people here, particularly those with strong religious beliefs, that may seem repulsive or incredible - but they are some of the most loving, caring families I've ever met.

A good number of my friends who are my age grew up with same-sex parents, and none of them turned out screwed up. Nearly all of these kids from gay families are heterosexual (a common argument against gay marriage is that all the kids raised by these parents would end up gay, and that somehow we'd end up with no babies born...eventually), some are married, and all have had very successful relationships. Personally, I can't think of a single one who ended up hooking up with an abusive person, or a loser, or who has struggled more than usual with any aspect of his or her life. On the contrary, most of my friends from "traditional" families had serious relationship problems, ran into trouble with drugs and/or alcohol, are smokers or otherwise abuse their bodies, etc. Many of these friends of mine are from very religious families with parents who are still married.

Of course, that's not to say that there are no gay-family kids out there who have serious problems - of course not. Nor is it to say that kids raised in "traditional" families are more prone to problems. I guess I'm just trying to explain why I personally don't buy any arguments against gay marriage. I'm not saying that others' feelings aren't valid on the topic, either, unless they have actually *hateful* feelings. Hate doesn't seem terribly valid to me.

For somebody like me, who is not governed by any religious laws, the article linked above (from President Hinckley) simply doesn't hold water on this topic, as well-written as it is. Adulterers and abusers will stand accountable before God - but if you don't beleive in God...? Those who do believe may assert that God still exists whether I believe or not, but that still won't give me a reason to vote against gay marriage. All of the arguments I've seen against it have boiled down to "It's morally wrong," which *almost* always boils down further to "Because God says it's morally wrong." There's the rub. God is different for all who believe. I know many a Christian who does NOT believe that God has ever said anything against homosexuality.

In short, the idea that it's a sin because it's a sin just doesn't work for me. For obvious reasons, right?

It's such a tangle!

Anyway. I think it'll never be sorted out to the majority of society's satisfaction in my lifetime, unfortunately. I'd love to see my gay friends have the same tax cuts as I have, and as easy a time with raising a family as I could have. (I realize a lot of you don't agree with that particular sentiment, of course. That's just what *I* would like to see). But it won't happen in our time, I believe. All I can hope for is that there won't be amendments AGAINST the basic rights of gay people, which seems to be what has scarily been hinted at here and there (never on Hatrack, that I've ever seen).

Anyway, I got longer than I intended, too, DaisyMae! ha ha. Well, it's a topic worth discussing, I think. Thanks to all who've participated so far for sharing your views on it.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
edit:Good summation, Libbie. I agree with most of your above post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quidscribis:

quote:

---

why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?

---

You're assuming that all other sins are quietly ignored.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Libbie:

For somebody like me, who is not governed by any religious laws, the article linked above (from President Hinckley) simply doesn't hold water on this topic, as well-written as it is. Adulterers and abusers will stand accountable before God - but if you don't beleive in God...? Those who do believe may assert that God still exists whether I believe or not, but that still won't give me a reason to vote against gay marriage. All of the arguments I've seen against it have boiled down to "It's morally wrong," which *almost* always boils down further to "Because God says it's morally wrong." There's the rub. God is different for all who believe. I know many a Christian who does NOT believe that God has ever said anything against homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Just to clarify, the link I posted was not intended to be a legal or objectively logical argument for banning homosexual marriage. It was in response to some inquiries and statements made about a religion. Obviously, to anyone outside that religion it has no meaning other than insight into the beliefs of others. I believe I addressed this when I stated that it does not answer the 'how is it harmful', only the 'why is considered a sin' question.

---

Oh, I know. Sorry if I confused you. I was just sort of free-flow discussing my thoughts on the whole subject there.

However, the fact that it IS considered a sin is very often used as a reason to legislate against it. *That* I've never understood!
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
It's pretty straighforward I think: sin=bad, and people generally want to make bad things illegal. That the people don't have a clear grasp of all the effects of bad thing is hardly unique to religion.

For example, here in Nevada there is a ballot issue involving eminent domain reform. The number of people that truly grasp the harms under the current system as opposed to the potential problems of the proposed changes is very very small. Yet many support or oppose it for a simplistic reason or two. They are unable to support their position logically.

It just kind of bothers me that religious people are often portrayed to have some sort of logical short circuit when it comes to their beliefs and voting. It seems to escape notice that people have similar issues when it comes to other topics of a non-religious nature.

Edit: Please note I'm not promoting voting and decision making in an uninformed manner.

[ September 29, 2006, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
 

---

Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 
Interesting, Bao!

I don't think that religious people have a logical short circuit - and I know that an awful lot of religious people don't support voting issues that are *purely* religious in context because they recognize that not everybody shares their religion. It only bothers me when *some* religious people disregard the fact that they share a country with people whose spiritual beliefs differ from theirs. That's an important facet of everybody's lives, and it shouldn't be disregarded, you know?

Not that I accuse you of doing that. I'm just hoping to explain my position on things, because it seems that I confused you a bit.

I understand the sin=bad thing, but justifying something's badness solely on the fact that it's a sin in your religion (any topic, not just gay marriage) is troublesome because of the whole "different religions" thing. But yes, it is a natural reaction to legislate against the "bad," no matter where one's idea of "bad" originates.

I just think that for ALL issues up for vote, we need to be sure that "bad" is clearly defined as having a negative impact on society, not solely as "it's sinful." Otherwise, it could be hard for a diverse group of voters to get behind the "badness" and see it as truly bad. I sure hope I'm making sense here.

I can see, logically, the arguments that many people have against gay marriage - those arguments that present ways in which it may be bad for society. I don't agree with them, but I can see the thought processes behind them, and while they may be religious in origin, they have enough non-religious context that I feel they are valid enough to be considered fairly in a vote. But I only feel that a valid point is made by "the other side" in this particular argument when they can present their ideas on it in a nonreligious (or mostly so) context - i.e., without saying, "It's wrong because God says so." Again, I hope that makes sense.

For the record, I think most Hatrackers do a really great job of presenting logical arguments for their side of this issue. If you guys weren't logical, though, I wouldn't stick around.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Daisy, I don't think your standing is naive at all. However, my tack is to say that civil marriage isn't the religious marriage; I think Mormons, in particular, can sympathize with that statement, at some level. So allowing same-sex couplings of a sort to be registered as a civil marriage doesn't seem to be in any conflict of any religion. Civil marriage is rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's (and getting several hundred federal and state privileges and responsibilities as a result). The moment the government tried to force any religious group to marry people they don't believe can be properly married (with gay, interracial, whatever), in their sacred places, is the moment I petition the government to stop overstepping its bounds.

It only seems somewhat spiteful to hold the word hostage, when we aren't talking about every definition of the term, but one particular meaning. If we all just want civil unions, whether opposite or same-sex, that'd be fine too. I just don't want some sort of parallel legislation for the two types, when our existing set of laws can be tweaked relatively simply, as has happened without much further ado (except from anti-same-sex-marriage folks) up here in MA.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 

quote:

---

I understand the sin=bad thing, but justifying something's badness solely on the fact that it's a sin in your religion (any topic, not just gay marriage) is troublesome because of the whole "different religions" thing. But yes, it is a natural reaction to legislate against the "bad," no matter where one's idea of "bad" originates.

---

quote:

---

people generally want to make bad things illegal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl the Burninator:
Here:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html

Is an updated response from the LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks and a general authority Lance Wickham about LDS views and responses to homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

See, that's the part that I really don't agree with. To me, thinking something is bad is enough for me to not do it myself and to try to convince other people that it is bad. I need more than a belief that something is bad before I expect to be taken seriously in saying "We should use force to prevent people from doing this."

---

quote:

---

To me, a large part of living in a modern democracy is the realization that you don't have the right to force your ideas of right and wrong on others without any justification other than that they are your ideas of right and wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morbo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quidscribis:

quote:

---

why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?

---

You're assuming that all other sins are quietly ignored.

---

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), the lead sponsor of the constitutional ban on gay marriage in the House: Gay Marriage ‘is the most important issue that we face today’ with video and transcript.

I'm curious, for those pro- and anti gay marriage, how many think it is "the most important issue that we face today."

I'm straight and pro-gay marriage or at least civil union, and I think it's far from the most important issue of the day. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

And if it comes down to the fact that it being a sin is the only thing wrong with it, then again I must ask, why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?

---

I took an American modern/postmodern literature course on Scapegoating and the theme of the metaphorical "live burial" last year. There are some frankly fascinating observations in our literature of these two phenomena.

One similarity I see now, since I've taken classes on realist-modern American lit, that is, literature that came before 1945, I see a common theme emerging.

Isolation and the societal double-bind and the "live burial" of individuals who don't fit into traditional roles exists in American lit from the beginning, but in the 1880s-1930, the preserved literature deals with the isolation and double bind of the woman's role in society. Ingram, Howells, et all.

During the early 20th century, up to the 60s, the stultifying energy of the same postion in life is found in African American writing- Du Bois, Hughs, and James Baldwin are good examples. The literature describing racial experiences is written from the perspective of the buried alive- the speaker who has no name, and is a part of the "outside" of society. Though its a common theme in modern literature in general, its more specific in African American works specifically dealing with places in society. Today, I think that part, once played by the disenfranchised, the religiously persecuted, the woman, the African American who is accepted as an incomplete entity in society, is played by the homosexual.

Its a similar experience in all cases: a person's status in society is at once acceptable, and unacceptable. In this case, the law and societal standards are in transition, just as they were for African Americans ina huge way in the 1960s, and for women in a huge way in the early 1900s. The law and societal standards today, (at least those deemed acceptable for a politician to express) are against racial bigotry in society and in law. The standards are also now generally disposed towards equality of the sexes. Still, it remains acceptable to argue against the rights of homosexuals, but this is an argument that would not have been entertained a century ago. The fact that these other struggles have come to pass (and we feel their effects still) makes me believe that the mere idea that issues of sexuality are being enterainted is a sign that things are changing.

A small anecdote: When I was growing up, I remember asking my mom about "what gay people are." we lived in San Francisco, and we knew gay people, so it was an obvious question for a kid. My mother told me, at the time (maybe 15 years ago) that homosexuality was a choice. Today, she doesn't feel that way- and doesn't remember telling me that.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I've always thought the whole choice or not issue was irrelevant and overblown. I really don't see either being true as evidence for either camp. But then, I suppose that's an artifact of the angle I come at this from.

-o-

What do you mean by "stultifying energy"? That almost seems oxymoronic. (Intentionally?)
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
it is oxymoronic, and it is an intentional juxtaposition.

Alot of stories dealing with scapegoating and live burial concepts have the narrator steeped in the energy surrounding their plight. If you've read James Baldwin's "Sonny's Blues" for instance, there is alot of reference to oblique movement inside of a hurricane of forces, as well as a consumption of the speaker in those forces. Sonny's brother, the narrator, imagines the icy dread filling his veins is like the heroin that his brother is addicted to; this observation while the brother is standing alone in a moving subway car. There are alot of references to contained energy- the brother says the ice in himself is going to explode if it expands too much, and his brother comments that there is enough electricity in the air in Harlem to blow apart the sidewalk.

That's stultifying energy- a person containing so much of the feeling or the identity that it strangles him and paralyses him. I remember reading a story by a gay latino author about his childhood, in which he uses an extended metaphor of race to describe the "darkness" of homosexuality in himself. He tries to shave his arms, covered in dark hair, to cut out the darkness, but it doesn't go away.

-this looks like I just went to a lecture and repeated everything some proff said, but this hasn't ever been the topic of a lecture I've heard. Its just something I got from reading a certain selection of works, plus considering this issue.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
I've always thought the whole choice or not issue was irrelevant and overblown. I really don't see either being true as evidence for either camp. But then, I suppose that's an artifact of the angle I come at this from.

---

quote:

---

I think it's pretty presumptuous for any outsider to say the proper way to be X.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't have said "boo" if TL had said "That's the way I interpret that scripture", "That is what I think is true", or "That's what I believed back when I did belive".

But no, TL said "That is what those people should be doing".

---

quote:

---

And by the way, that ISN'T what I said. I very clearly said: "this is what I think those people should be doing, according to scripture," and then I said, "or they could be doing this, or at least this," giving room for a couple of different interpretations.

---

quote:

---

Mormons should not be eating meat, according to Doctrine, or should be eating it sparsely, or should only be eating it during "lean" times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
I remember reading a story by a gay latino author about his childhood, in which he uses an extended metaphor of race to describe the "darkness" of homosexuality in himself.

---

quote:

---

I was responding to this quote:

---

quote:

---

Mormons should not be eating meat, according to Doctrine, or should be eating it sparsely, or should only be eating it during "lean" times.

---

I know. But you were ignoring the context in which it appeared. And I'm still not sure why.
 

---

Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
 
I actually have heard very little on the science behind lesbianism. I am not sure why that is. The feminist in me says that science always studies male stuff more than female stuff. Or it could be that male homsexual behavior is less complicated and therefore easier to study. Or it could be that the lesbian stuff gets less publicity or is published in lower journals or something (I didn't actually do any research on the topic, just the normal keeping up with my field-genetics). Oh, the model is still debated obviously since people still aren't convinced about the whole genetic thing (and with human genetics, it is almost impossible to prove anything to the point where you can't still debate).
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
MrSquicky, Sola Scriptura theology is the only religious argument against homosexuality. Well, there is another one based on Church tradition, but I do not think that is at all common outside of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Pel,
I'm more than passably familiar with both Christian theology and the arguements against homosexuality and to me your statement doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could explain what you mean there?

OSC belongs to a religion that believes in continuing revelation, which is in direct opposition to Sola Scriptura.

[ September 30, 2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Icarus:
[QB]
Good post on the choice versus genetics issue. That Catholic stance that you referenced, while I disagree with it in the particulars, is exactly why the question of homosexuality being a choice seems irrelevant to me. Because all you have to say is that all people face different sorts of temptations to different degrees, and you are still expected to fight it. If someone could prove that pedophilia was genetic and that pedophiles could not help being attracted to children, would that make Christians decide that pedophilia was not a sin? Of course not. Therefore, proving that it is genetic doesn't really prove anything. On the other hand, if it's a choice . . . so what? Lots of things are choices that are not sinful. I suppose I have some control in whether I prefer blondes or brunettes. I may be predisposed to one or the other, but I could certainly choose to stick to one type of woman in particular if my religion told me I had to. Does that make preferring one or the other sinful? No. So how does homosexuality being a choice prove that it is a sin? See . . . irrelevant.
[QUOTE]

I think I know the book it's in, but it isn't here now. Its probably at my parents house, so I'll have to see about it when go home next.

Your point about the idea of choice- I suppose that leads me to the obvious question: why is a homosexual relationship analogous in so many arguments to pedophilia? I realize it's a functional comparison, but its also loaded with unintended implications. I would ask this: if you accept that homosexuality is not a choice, and that homosexuals will never form meaningful relationships with women, that they will not be ideal parents or members of a nuclear family, then why this last reservation. The question then, is about the person's happiness and ability to form meaningful relationships. The really extreme protestors I have seen in San Francisco deride gays and call upon them to feel shame for their lifestyles, but I've always wondered how they could be sure it didn't feel exactly right to be gay. If it did feel exactly right for that person, and a another gay person was needed to have a relationship where both partners were fully comfortable, then I didn't get the beef. It seemed that the protestors were not proposing any workable solution ot the problem they raised; they were saying: stop having relationships, stop finding what is natural for you, because you are naturally wrong. I could accept that if you were talking about a pedophile, because a pedophile hurts people and destroys families, but a gay person isn't going to wreck a family just for being gay. If there was a religious argument against it, I the wanted to know the function of that argument, and how it could be justified and meaningful or good, for a society. I've haven't seen that reasoning yet from any religion, and it leads me to question motives.

I know that there is a visceral, natural human response to acts of homosexuality. Scans of the heterosexual brain reveal threat reactions to homosexual imagery, something like an instinctual response to the invasion of one's privacy, or territory. This makes sense to me, and I can accept the fact that, for me, the "threat" of homosexuality is as meaningless in my everyday life as the lingering reptilian instinct to jump off of tall buildings. As long as you don't let your fear rule you, you're fine.
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
I no next to nothing about Mormonism in particular, but am more than passably familiar with religion in general. Sola Scriptura theology is probably the most common school of theology in the world, being very common in Christianity and Islam. It is what Hans Küng calls the Protestant school. The Second school, what Dr. Küng calls the Orthodox school, appeals to tradition and is common in Eastern Orthodoxy within Christianity and within several schools outside Christianity, notably Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. There is then a school which argues for authority by command, only present in the Roman Catholic Church and some very small fringe religions, for which reason Dr. Küng calls it the Catholic school.

Any of these schools would allow for the exclusion of homosexuality. Dr. Küng and I both regard all of these schools as being woefully inadequate.

There are two other schools, not mentioned by Dr. Küng, the Liberal Protestant school favored by some Methodists and Anglicans and the Quaker school. The Liberal Protestants believe in the role of reason in shaping theology, rejecting the idea implied by Augustine that human reason was too limited for such a task (ah, Augustine, a man who did more damage to western thought than any thinker except perhaps for Nietzsche.)

The Quakers, of course, believe in the inner light that enlightens men.

These two schools do not exist in any degree of isolation but complement each other perfectly. Both allow for Homosexual relationships.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
The comparison to pedophilia only works, as when it was used here, when arguing why folks against an act would still consider it wrong even if a predeliction towards such behavior was found to be genetic in origin. I'd prolly use premarital sex as a comparison instead, since it doesn't carry the same implications. What if it turned out that some people naturally had a more powerful sex drive in their teen years? (Something that wouldn't surprise me in the least; we don't expect people to be the same in any other respect, why do we expect everyone to have the same sex drive?) People who considered premarital sex to be wrong would still believe it, even if avoiding it was more difficult for some.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Pel,
I think you may have neglected a few religious traditions from your analysis. To wit, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Taosim, Jainism, and Sikhism, among others.

Within the three Levantine religions you did touch on, there are plenty who have serious problems with homosexual relationships that don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Included in these (although, it's a debatable point that it's actual Levantine), as I mentioned, is LDS, which is directly opposed to it through its belief in continuing revelation. Even among the Methodists and Anglicans that you mentioned, there are plenty who consider homosexual relationships as sinful for valid religious reasons.

I don't think you completely understand what Sola Scriptura means and doesn't mean. Basically, it means that they consider that the Bible or equivilent set of scriptures is the only inerrant source of religious truth. That's basically it. There's nothing preventing people who don't believe this from still regarding the scriptures as their primary guide (Prima Scriptura) or as a valid source of faith and morals.

There are extra-scriptural theological arguments as well. Check out what Thomas Aquinas had to say for an example of these.

Or, one aspect of many traditions that is opposed to SS is belief in revelation. Some religions, LDS included, have prophets whose instructions they consider come from a divine source. In LDS, as I understand it, their prophets and scripture have laid out a theology that does not embrace homosexual relationships.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Wow. Listen to Squicky, Pel. The statement "Sola Scriptura theology is the only religious argument against homosexuality," even with the Orthodox/Catholic caveat you added, is just plain wrong.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Orincoro, I don't quite follow what you're asking me there. I'll try to reread it a little later and see if my brain is functioning better then. Keep in mind, though, that I actually support legalization and recognition of SSM, and I don't believe that homosexuality is sinful. I made the comparison as an exercise in trying to see things from the other point of view, and there is only so far I can carry an argument I do not believe in.

I hope it's clear that I do not equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I made the comparison because both behaviors are believed by some to be compulsive. I do not believe that the compulsion to premarital sex is as strong. I've been give to understand that if you're attracted to children, you can't really be cured of that attraction, though you can choose not to act on it. I've heard some people argue that if you're born homosexual, you cannot choose not to be, you cannot be "cured" of your homosexuality. Naturally, not all people agree that this is the case for homosexuality. My point was that even if it was, there was already an example of a compulsive attraction we all expect people to repress. I believe pedophilia, loaded as it is, is the best example of a compulsion we insist that people resist, since I don't believe the compulsion to premarital sex is as strong, and other compulsions, such as drugs, masturbation, etc., are not compulsions we all agree people should refrain from indulging. In other words, I could compare it for masturbation for teenage boys, but the same people who believe homosexuality is not immoral tend to believe that masturbation is not either, and so that argument would carry little water. Pedophilia works precisely because we all agree its a compulsion that should be restrained.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I agree that the analogy is functional to your argument. I only worry that you didn't, (or I should say, that most people don't), then do the mental acrobatics and remove the victimization connection. You obviously are capable of that, but I don't trust most people with loaded comparisons- because they usually shoot themselves or others with them.

I don't think the homosexual urge is comparable in any really accurate way to any undesireable behavior- mainly because I don't think its wrong. The danger in that is that it shuts down any possible comparison or rationalization you can make or use to explain how certain people feel. In a way I think this is fine, because I think homophobia is irrational, like racial bigotry and sexism. In an effort to understand why people feel the way they do often feel about homosexuality, (and I am not gay, simply someone who isn't bothered by it), I try these analogies myself, and notice their fatal flaws. The flaws in these analogies should be enough, imo, to give anyone pause when considering their beliefs. If you can't adequately express the reasons for your beliefs in a practical way, then I am of the mind that they are not very sound beliefs. That's just me, but when I hear an argument like that of the catholic church against homosexuality, needing to be based completely on faith and ancient tradition, I laugh at the naiveté. That people believe this is one thing, but that they think they can convince others by claiming the reasoning to be mystical and removed from ordinary human experiences is too much for me to bare.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.
But, things are different. Many gay people have wrote about their experiences. Science has shed a lot of light on things as well, which helped a lot of people who were just suffering more than people can believe. You're talking rejection from the family, being used as a scapegoat for all that is wrong in society because of deviating from a norm. In New York, ages ago these women who were butch so they would dress like men were often harassed and even raped by cops, Why? It makes no sense. A lot of the people who have religious objections to homosexuality are not like this, would not do things like this, but it is still hurtful, especially the statements from OSC on the first page because it shows a total lack of understanding of what homosexuality is and what it's like to be gay.
There are quite a few gays that are completely deviant and anti-society, but you cannot really blame them under the circumstances. I fail to see how society can be hurt by people failing to follow the so-called norm. The concept of normal to me needs to be expanded to include more people and so we can really learn to see these issues clearly a nd see how much more damaging certain attitudes against gay people are than gay people themselves.
Take some of these ex-gay websites. They will talk about how gays and lesbians are depressed, and how many of them are suicidal or dabble in substance abuse. What would cause that? Life-long rejection? It's an external problem that becomes internal. Society's attitude towards gayness contributes to this behavior and not gayness itself. I question the ex-gay movement because I wonder how content are they? Back in the past they'd attach electrodes to people (Read Stranger at the Gate by Mel White) and shock them when they looked at same-sex images. It didn't work, it did more damage.
But, I don't expect things to change in terms of conservatism, especially when folks believe that such a change would cause their world to fall completely apart, but this isn't really the case. Television didn't replace radio. Radio didn't replace books. Allowing women to have the vote didn't cause the country to implode. And civil rights, again, these sort of changes, guarded by intelligence and clear insight can only help society. Homosexuality to me seems to be the final frontier. One of the last socially accepted prejudices. We don't need them. Even if the church states it because of years of tradition, it still has to be questioned, even if one has to be very gentle and delicate about it so as not to hurt people too much. (But I still find those statements on the first page to be so hurtful, because it's really a case of not seeing this issue clearly. If you cannot put yourself in the position of gay people enough to understand the pain they go through in order to build a relationship so much is against, it's just not right to make those sort of statements because it doesn't show complete and total empathy...)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.

---

quote:

---

I agree that the analogy is functional to your argument. I only worry that you didn't, (or I should say, that most people don't), then do the mental acrobatics and remove the victimization connection. You obviously are capable of that, but I don't trust most people with loaded comparisons- because they usually shoot themselves or others with them.

---

Thank you for adding the parenthetical and the second sentence.

quote:

---

I don't think the homosexual urge is comparable in any really accurate way to any undesireable behavior- mainly because I don't think its wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.

---

This opening bloc doesn't suggest to me that you want to understand the other side.

---

quote:

---

I think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.

---

quote:

---

I think a lot of gay people simply do not understand about people who believe it's a sin or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat and cry "Homophobia!", or even hide behind the gay lifestyle which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Ic, a somewhat less loaded analogy is kleptomania.

---

quote:

---

All religions are valid only in as much as the uplift the human spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
... OCD people aren't inclined particularly towards hurting people, and their compulsions seem natural and completely rational to them (so I hear).

---

It is true that OCD does not seem generally to be accompanied by violent impulses. However, OCD is generally quite distressing to those who have it. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the disorder.

"Natural and completely rational" is more an opposite than an accurate portrayal. Still, there is bound to be a spectrum of experience. [/aside]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

One thing not mentioned thus far is whether psychotherapy helps. Apparently it does help, both in the sense of reducing self-hate (self acceptance) and in changing one's orientation. I am not suggesting it is wildly successful. There is a low rate - I believe it was much less than 50%, maybe more like 30%, of successful, long term change from homosexual to heterosexual. It has been a while since I read up on it.

---

quote:

---

Conversion rate estimates:

Unfortunately, as of 2001-MAY, no study of conversion therapy has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those studies that have been conducted have many deficiencies. Often complete data has been withheld. This makes the "conversion rate" impossible to estimate accurately. However, a few studies have uncovered sufficient information by which we may be able to make a very crude estimate of the conversion rate:

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was "ineffective...not one person was healed." The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%

Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown. Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Schroeder & Shidlo: This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 202 people who have undergone conversion therapy. Eight of their subjects reported a change in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, seven of the eight were ex-gay counselors or leaders who statements may have been false. They are fairly certain that one of the 202 was able to change his/her sexual orientation They reported a conversion rate of 0.5%.

OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.

Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that:

Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes "gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors."
bullet Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now "in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions."

Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. On 2001-MAY-14, we Emailed EI asking for additional information. Davies does mention that some "are now happily married and raising children." However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.

A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved -- a VERY conservative figure, then 37 "success stories" represents a conversion rate of 0.04%

Nicolosi (2005): Dr. Nicolosi, the founder of NARTH who coined the term "reparative therapy" said in an interview with the Washington Post that of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,

One third experience "significant improvement -- they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control." However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.
bullet Another third are "cured;" they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.

The other third fail to change.

It would seem that he is admitting that reparative therapy has a nearly 100% failure rate in terms of converting persons with a homosexual orientation to heterosexual. He does imply that some of his second group may become either asexual -- suffer a complete loss of sexual desire -- or successfully decide to remain celibate. All or almost all of his clinic's patients retain same-sex desires; they remain either with a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

Conclusion:

From the available data, four studies reported a "success" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study. Considering the anecdotal data which indicates a large percentage of extremely depressed and suicidal clients emerging from conversion therapy, it would appear that this form of therapy is worthless. It my well result in the death by suicide of more gays and lesbians than it "converts" to a heterosexual orientation. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain of this. The quality of the studies is extremely poor.

Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues told a Washington Post reporter in 2005: "There are probably a small number of people with some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change. Out of the hundreds of gay men I've treated, I've had one." If we assume that his term "sexual identity" is a synonym for "sexual orientation," and that Dr. Drescher has treated 200 gay men, then he would seem to estimate that about 99.5% of gay men have a fixed sexual orientation, and that only about 0.5% can change their orientation.

---

quote:

---

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

---

quote:

---

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

---

quote:

---

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

quote:

---

"I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."

---

quote:

---

Some quotes from OSC, not dealing with his religion nor from the 80s

---

quote:

---

Most of the "harsher" OSC quotes towards homosexuality were written in the early- to mid-80s. His later writings reflect a more reasoned tone, which I would ascribe to his ever-evolving thought patterns.

---

quote:

---

Maybe I have not read enough of OSC's articles, but from what I recall, he mostly talks about how he feels about homosexuals relating to the church. From his writing, he seems to feel homosexuality is wrong, but that redemption is still possible at any stage of the game, as long as they "repent" from it. Does he ever specifically say what his societal viewpoints are?

---

quote:

---

While Nicolosi and others frequently cite the study as proof reparative therapy works, Spitzer said his results have been misrepresented. "It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right," he said.

"What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare," he added, noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious.

---

quote:

---

One thing not mentioned thus far is whether psychotherapy helps. Apparently it does help, both in the sense of reducing self-hate (self acceptance) and in changing one's orientation. I am not suggesting it is wildly successful. There is a low rate - I believe it was much less than 50%, maybe more like 30%, of successful, long term change from homosexual to heterosexual. It has been a while since I read up on it.

---

quote:

---

The belief that homosexuality is a sin is as inconsistent with meaningful and valid religion as the belief that being Asian is a sin, and based in the same belief, the belief that The Other is seperated from the God with whom we are united.

---

quote:

---

"Leaving that aside, religion is about the relationship of humans to the divine and vice versa. To claim to know the only way it can be valid is to claim to know the nature and intentions of the divine. "

That rather depends upon your definition of the divine, doesn't it? The divine is, to me, inseparable from the human.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, religion is at least as much about the interaction between human beings as between humanity and a distant divinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
"The sin of homosexuality is not generally being homosexual, but engaging in homosexual acts."

The sin of Judaism is generally not considered being born Jewish but attending Temple.

---

• Being Jewish actually is defined by your birth, more than any action (with the exception of conversion). A Jew who never once steps foot in any house of worship is no more or less a Jew than I am.
• There was a Temple (two, actually), and we await the building of the next one. The majority of Jewish houses of worship are called synagogues (or shuls, if you prefer), not temples.
• The heart of Jewish belief, faith, and practice is the home, NOT a house of worship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
I don't know anything about it other than that.

---

quote:

---

A gay man who never has sex is no less gay, a major point in the analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Maybe if society was more accepting, they wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in what could be considered a damaging homosexual community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
I do not see your point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:

A gay man who never has sex is no less gay, a major point in the analogy.

---

For some reason, this sentence made me laugh.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Pel, I'm a big fan of Tillich's writings myself, but to suggest that his work is "the most generally agreed upon definition of religion there is" is laughable. Also, have you read anything of his other than The Courage to Be?
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Tillich was by far the most influential religious thinker of the twentieth century. Sure, his works are not popular with ultraconservative groups like the Southern Baptist Conference or Opus Dei, but his work is probably more respected than any other theologian.

The problem, of course, is that most people do not think about religion, just as they don't think about anything.

Religion without theology is brain dead, and yet that is how most people live their spiritual lives.

Even amongst the most educated, clappy-happy books by people like Max Lucado (whom I know and am no more impressed in by knowing) or blatant apologetics by people like Peter Kreeft. And, God forbid, the past two Popes have insisted on writing books which have been far more popular than they deserved to be.

I am not a theologian, I did not finish either Tillich's "The Courage to Be" or Fr. Küng's "On Being a Christian," but even I can tell scholarly theology from the masses of "inspirational" books sold daily.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Tillich is certainly one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, but he doesn't stand alone in that company.

I'm not suggesting you compare him with "inspirational" writers, I'm talking about strictly academic theology. Even if you limit yourself to influences on "liberal" theology you would need to add Barth, Bultmann, the Niebuhrs, Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Wink, Gutiérrez, Brueggemann, Hauerwas, Yoder, Schweitzer . . . just to name a few off the top of my head.
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
That's a lot of famous and influential names, but I would argue that Tillich has been more influential than any of them. Bonhoeffer and Schweitzer are certainly amoung the most influential, but their main influence is not philosophical per se. If Schweitzer had not been a humanitarian and Bohoeffer an anti-Nazi, their names would not be as well known as Tillich's.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
And you argue this from having started, but not finished, reading one of his books? And, incidentally, the one written for a popular audience, not his systematic theology?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Whenever I overhear a debate over whether one individual or another was more influential, my first question is always "influential to which people?"
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
And the answer in this case is: people who study at Harvard and the University of Chicago.

Those who went to Yale would say that Barth was much more influential.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
As you did not contradict my point that many Synagogues call themselves Temples, I do not see your point.

---

The custom of calling synagogues "temples" was started by a Jewish sect called "Reform", which adopted the practice explicitly in order to deny any connection with the Jewish tradition of praying that the Temple will be rebuilt. Over the decades, this intentional slur/heresy has become an unconscious usage by Jews who don't know any better.

So when a Jew who does know better (that'd be Rivka) points out that you're using the term improperly, the correct response is, "Thank you, Rivka, for educating me. I hadn't known that, and now that you've explained it to me, I won't use the offensive term any more."

D'ya think you can manage that?
 

---

Posted by Pen Ohmsford (Member # 9783) on :
 
I hope tojump in on this conversation, probably much later than I probably should. Let's look at the logic of disliking Card for his homosexuality views:

a) Christian/Muslim based religions condemn homosexuality, with the exception of some modern liberal Christian branches.
b) Card believes homosexuality is wrong because he follows a version of a Christian/Muslim based religion.
c) Card is wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality.

To connect the dots: one should not believe in the tenants of one's religion if they are against some said moral principle (in this case, homosexuality). But, by definition, these religions require full obedience: one can't follow only the doctrines he/should chooses. Which means, basically: you think Card has no right to believe in his religion, wholeheartedly and fully, without being criticized.

Believe that if you wish. I actually don't have a problem if someone says, "the fact you completely devote yourself to this religion is wrong." In fact, at one point, I used to believe that. But please don't say, "Card can follow his religion, but shouldn't criticize homosexuality": it's an oxymoron. It's like saying "I think it's totally feasible to believe in all the tenants of the Republican Party. And, on a separate note, I think anyone who cricizes modern abortion laws is a dolt."

As a Christian myself, I believe homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or not. Just like we choose with whom we fall in love, whether we realize it or not (a lot of people don't: they think it's something that just happens). And I think it's wrong. But I don't have a problem with any homosexual that thinks that Christians are wrong. Where I have a problem is with people who call anyone who disagrees with homosexuality "bigots": we don't hate homosexuals, but we do think what they're doing is wrong. Just like, ideally, homosexuals shouldn't hate religious followers, just disagree with them and their lifestyle. Calling people names, in fact, is just as bad in either direction: whether it's "bigot" for anyone of a religious persuasion (unless it's true, and they really do hate, in which case it's OK), or "fag".
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
*looks around for the nearest fallout shelter*
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Pen -

A couple thoughts...

You don't speak for all Christians, just as I don't speak for all secular humanists, and Lisa and rivka don't speak for all Jews, and OSC doesn't speak for all LDS.

Therefore when you say "we don't hate homosexuals" you aren't speaking for everyone. This is evidenced by the fact that around the country, hate crimes have left homosexuals dead, multiple times, for no reason other than their sexual orientation. I won't even go into abortion clinic protestors, bombers, and that vein of thought with Christianity, we all know it's there. I think it is very fair to say that SOME Christians really DO hate homosexuals.

My real problem with organized religions, is that they change over time. That might sound silly, but really, why is homosexuality such a big deal to a religion that used to believe wholeheartedly in summary executions, stonings, slavery, and a litany of the most ridiculous rules I've ever seen. But now all these things are not supported. Christians abhor capital punishment, even as the Bible condones it (the Bible, to be fair, is full of contradiction).

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country? of the number of orphans in this country? of the problems with child abuse, and drugs, and a hundred other things that REALLY destroy families? It is almost laughably ridiculous that they spend their time and millions of their dollars railing against people making private decisions in homes that effect no one but themselves, whilst a hundred other things are going on, unfought by them (at least nowhere near the same level as the Big Two), that really are destroying the families of the nation, and are tearing at the fabric of the nation.

How can they expect me to take them and their issues seriously with all that out in front of them? Maybe they don't, maybe they don't care about what anyone thinks of them, hooray for the nobility of that, but they lose a lot of respect, and all support from me when their behavior is so ridiculously illogical for their stated goals, and considering their history.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog:

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

There is plenty of outrage over the divorce rate in this country, but I don't know how or where you would hear about it, since at the moment, it isn't part of a huge, nationally-publicized debate. When you don't belong to a community, you tend to hear what they think about the big conflicts, and not so much what they say to each other about everything else. That doesn't mean they are unconcerned ... only that you are uninformed.

And incidentally, didn't we hear a couple of years ago that worries about the divorce rate had prompted some places to adopt a second tier of marriage that is much harder to sever than a standard marriage? It seems to me that the action you're looking for IS happening. But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...

---

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing ...women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

quote:

---

The custom of calling synagogues "temples" was started by a Jewish sect called "Reform", which adopted the practice explicitly in order to deny any connection with the Jewish tradition of praying that the Temple will be rebuilt. Over the decades, this intentional slur/heresy has become an unconscious usage by Jews who don't know any better.

So when a Jew who does know better (that'd be Rivka) points out that you're using the term improperly, the correct response is, "Thank you, Rivka, for educating me. I hadn't known that, and now that you've explained it to me, I won't use the offensive term any more."

D'ya think you can manage that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pen Ohmsford:
...one should not believe in the tenants of one's religion... all the tenants of the Republican Party

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Lisa, a large number of people use the word "temple" to refer to their own places of worship. It's not your place to tell Pel - especially if you're going to be so snarky and mean about it - that he shouldn't accomodate their wishes instead of yours.

Information about the different usages of "temple" is certainly welcome. Snark, condescension, and an insistence that someone not involved in the dispute over usage of the term choose one side over the other is not.

---

quote:

---

There was a Temple (two, actually), and we await the building of the next one. The majority of Jewish houses of worship are called synagogues (or shuls, if you prefer), not temples

---

quote:

---

Here in the United States, at least, many synagogues use the title temple, including the largest one here in San Antonio (Temple Beth-El.) I don't know anything about it other than that.

---

quote:

---

Precisely.

---

quote:

---

As the the nomenclature of Jewish houses of worship, rivka, I am imminently aware of the Temple that was destroyed by the Romans under Vespasian and Titus in 70 A.D. This is well within the history of the Roman Republic and Empire from the time of the Grachi to the Five Good Emperors, the subject about which I am probably most knowledgeable.

As you did not contradict my point that many Synagogues call themselves Temples, I do not see your point.

---

quote:

---

I was under the impression that I did imply it.

---

quote:

---

Had I any expectation that stating outright that it was offensive would have been in any way helpful, I would have done so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog:

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

There is plenty of outrage over the divorce rate in this country, but I don't know how or where you would hear about it, since at the moment, it isn't part of a huge, nationally-publicized debate. When you don't belong to a community, you tend to hear what they think about the big conflicts, and not so much what they say to each other about everything else. That doesn't mean they are unconcerned ... only that you are uninformed.

And incidentally, didn't we hear a couple of years ago that worries about the divorce rate had prompted some places to adopt a second tier of marriage that is much harder to sever than a standard marriage? It seems to me that the action you're looking for IS happening. But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing ...women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

That's half your "real" problem with Christianity? That some people who call themselves Christian have more outrage about what they consider to be murder than about divorce?

---

quote:

---

Those same people think that making marriage for some illegal is perfectly okay

---

quote:

---

Taking the lightest of my issues, and pairing it with the heaviest of theirs I think was a little dishonest Dag,

---

quote:

---

But if that is the crux of your argument then I'll retract abortion from that part of my argument

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
It depends on what you wanted to help. If you wanted him and others to realize you found it offensive, then it would have been helpful.

---

quote:

---

Therefore when you say "we don't hate homosexuals" you aren't speaking for everyone... I think it is very fair to say that SOME Christians really DO hate homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

My real problem with organized religions...

---

quote:

---

My real problem with organized religions, is that they change over time.

---

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Those same people think that making marriage for some illegal is perfectly okay

---

Technically, those same people think that not changing civil marriage laws so that they recognize a different relationship as marriage is perfectly OK.

It might seem like a very small difference, but it goes a long way to explaining the different treatment.

The effort to change the marriage laws is one that will change an institution many see as fundamental to society. None of your other examples do that.

Accusing someone of hypocrisy based on their attempt to use the law to protect one particular religious value quite ignores the hundreds of ways in which these issues all differ from each other.

It's the equivalent of accusing a pro-choice person of hypocrisy for not favoring choice in infanticide or a pro-life person of hypocrisy for eating eggs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Taking the lightest of my issues, and pairing it with the heaviest of theirs I think was a little dishonest Dag,

---

Bull. It's not like I hid your post - it's right there on the page.

quote:

---

But if that is the crux of your argument then I'll retract abortion from that part of my argument

---

The crux of my argument is that someone who can't understand why some people experience more outrage at what they consider to be a little less than 1 million intentionally caused human deaths a year than each of the things you mentioned is trying not to understand the other side.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post means (" is pair it back with a minority of Christians who choose to protest abortion by blowing up abortion clinics, and abusing women who have or want to have abortions. Very Christian of them, to say nothing of those that don't care about the life of the mother"). You can make all the claims about people who blow up abortion clinics not acting very Christian all you like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pen Ohmsford:

quote:

---

My real problem with organized religions, is that they change over time.

---

OK I have like 18000 arguments against this, but I honestly don't want to go on for too long or be rude, so I'll keep it to two brief ones - 1) secular humanism has changed quite a bit too. and 2)non-organized religions change much more readily to society than organized one.

quote:

---

My real problem with Christianity is that they spend more time denouncing homosexuals and women who have abortions, calling them murderers and home wreckers, yet where is that same outrage over the divorce rate of this country?

---

I'm quite willing to denounce these things too. But one has to be wise; it's important to show two parts of sin: 1) that it's sin, and we must forsake it 2) that God will forgive us afterwards. If, as a Christian, I found a way to denounce all these sins all the time, then I would not be a pleasant person. So I do denounce these things, but it's important to do so in a proper manner.

---

quote:

---

Let's look at the logic of disliking Card for his homosexuality views:

a) Christian/Muslim based religions condemn homosexuality, with the exception of some modern liberal Christian branches.
b) Card believes homosexuality is wrong because he follows a version of a Christian/Muslim based religion.
c) Card is wrong for disagreeing with homosexuality.

To connect the dots: one should not believe in the tenants of one's religion if they are against some said moral principle (in this case, homosexuality). But, by definition, these religions require full obedience: one can't follow only the doctrines he/should chooses. Which means, basically: you think Card has no right to believe in his religion, wholeheartedly and fully, without being criticized.

---

quote:

---

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

---

quote:

---

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

---

quote:

---

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

quote:

---

"I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."

---

quote:

---

But what else, really, do you expect people to do to lower the divorce rate? Make divorce illegal? I don't think anyone imagines that THAT would be a good idea ...

---

quote:

---

than I do. I disagree with him that homosexual relationships will damage society more than the persecution and banning of them will. However, as far as politics go, people have to try to implement what they believe. Democracy works by rule of majority, thus everyone has to vote as they see fit. (Before anyone brings it up, I do understand all the many different facets to voting, and how our system doesn't always do a great job of expressing majority opinion, but since it's the best one we have, we use it.) Only in voting by our values can we create a society that works best for the majority of Americans. It is a compromise we all agree to every day by simply living in this country, or Canada, or whatever. I hope that our laws will continue to be tolerant in this respect, but by living here, I must accept the laws of the country, and do my best to change them if I disagree with them.

---

quote:

---

It is about whether they should to be allowed to force other people to live according to these values.

---

quote:

---

As things stand, I've yet to see a thread on Hatrack where an opponent of gay marriage has put forth reasons for their positions that doesn't boil down to personal or religious prejudice or false information.

---

quote:

---

I think, if you're going to call someone's honesty into question, that's the least we should expect of you.[quote]

I think, if you're going to make unsupported assertions that call into question the motives of those you disagree with, you should not expect someone else to have to support their denial.

[quote]But you have, in the past, show a very different approach to honesty than I work from, so you probably disagree.

---

quote:

---

I think, if you're going to make unsupported assertions that call into question the motives of those you disagree with, you should not expect someone else to have to support their denial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
First, the most obvious thing Christian groups could do to lower the divorce rate is stop getting divorced at significantly higher rates than most other groups.

---

quote:

---

This simple statistic obscures an interesting factor: Mormons who marry fellow believers have an extremely low divorce rate: "A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage, compared with 20 percent for religiously homogamist unions among Catholics and Protestants and 27 percent among Jews."

---