This is topic A Proposal and a Rant in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021812

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
I propose that there is no benefit to considering people your enemies, or judging their personhood as being evil based on their mistaken thoughts and actions, or to hating them. I propose that there is no benefit to holding a grudge against those who don't agree with you, or with whom you don't agree, even if it's about the most important matters imaginable. I propose that there is no benefit to allowing the faults of a person to blind you to their gifts, or to rejecting the value of an otherwise good person because they have said, thought, or acted wrongly. I propose that there is no good reason to withhold friendship from anyone, even if there may be reason to be wary or untrusting of some of your friends. I propose that we should ultimately judge others as we would have those others judge us, with understanding towards the frame with which they see the world.

In fact, I often propose these things - and am almost always told I'm out of my mind, that it's a disney-cartoon philosophy that can't work in real life. I'm told it is impractical - that it can't work - that I just don't understand.

And then, inevitably, everyone goes and gets into a big fight. Time and time and time again, on a national level or on a personal level, for good reasons sometimes and absurd reasons other times. It ends up side against side, both angry with eachother and suffering, and yet both also insisting that they absolutely MUST be angry with the other. The other side ALWAYS deserves it. And then it ends and people make up or they don't, but everyone ends up behind, and eventually the sides realign and there is another battle. And so on and so on.

I get tired of this sometimes. Why can't people disagree without disliking one another? Why can't people see that an attack on their belief is not intended to be an attack on their character? Why must people be so obsessed with being respected or thought well of that they will become enemies with those who do not give it to them? Why do they insist on the value of considering people bad and making them suffer?

My proposal is that we approach everything (even the most serious of issues) with both passion and lighthearted understanding, like two athletes dueling with eachother, not out of rage, but to improve, excercise, and challenge one another. We are not holy temples, and neither are our beliefs - the things we say, think, and do are not sacred. We are just children playing games - games with serious consequences, but also games with no certain answers, no certain blame, and no certain rules. We're all just learning, trying to figure it out, some better at it than others but nobody provably so. So why does everyone have to get so worked up about it?

So OSC thinks homosexuals are doing something wrong - so what? Does this mean he can't be a good author, good person, or good friend? At worst it means he's imperfect in a significant way.

So maybe OSC thinks you are wrong if you are a liberal - so what? Is that so bad? Is it really worth giving up a friend over the desire for respect? Is it really important to devalue someone because he fundamentally disagrees with you, and thinks your beliefs are a threat to the world?

So maybe Eddie feel some people are bigots, maybe even you, and maybe he's unafraid to say it - so what? So maybe I like to go around making unpopular or even silly arguments and telling people they are wrong because of them, and maybe I like to give advice unheeded, or maybe I like to start long rants on personal views about life with little to no justification other than because I think it's true, or maybe I'm just plain annoying - so what? So maybe Slash the Berzerker eats children and pacifists - so what? Why does any of this imply any benefit exists in getting angry, or judgemental, or giving up friendships?

People are weird and crazy, and they do weird and crazy things - that's just a fact. Sometimes those crazy things are also dangerous and terrible. Sometimes you can stop them and sometimes you can't, but your capacity to do so is not increased by making enemies, or by getting pissed off at the craziness of humanity in general or in specific cases.

So, why not just chill, dudes and dudettes? (Like that turtle in Finding Nemo. I liked him.)

But as I said, people only rarely buy this argument. It's impractical and wrong, they say. I'm just stubborn so I keep giving it anyway.
 

---

Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
 
Tresopax, I agree completely. I don't post in the the major issue threads for fear of being ripped to shreds for my views. I wish we could avoid the name calling and discuss things in a calm, rational manner.

I feel that everyone here is a vital part of the Hatrack community, even those whose opinions I disagree with. I hope nobody leaves because of all the fighting that's been going on. Can't we just agree to disagree and still be friends.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
I was thinking "maybe there are no rhetorical questions" the whole time I was reading that.

And I'm pretty sure "dudettes" didn't originate with Finding Nemo. My mom has been using that term whenever she wants to feel hip for as long as I can remember. And, just to clarify and despite any evidence to the contrary, I can remember back farther than a year.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
You guys suck.
 

---

Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
 
So true.

One time I said something like that in school, and the next comment was, "Arabs subdivide into groups more than Jews."

It soared over everyone's head, including the teacher's. Nobody had any clue what I was talking about.

Remember, everyone is human. People in the Nazi Party, in Al Queda, and in America all fall in love, have friendships, and are role models for others.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Slash, You think your better than us just 'cause you got one less digit than the rest of us? That digit ain't nothin' - NOTHIN'!

[ February 26, 2004, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Let me break up the and rain on your parade.

quote:

---

Why can't people see that an attack on their belief is not intended to be an attack on their character? Why must people be so obsessed with being respected or thought well of that they will become enemies with those who do not give it to them?

---

Opposition to gay marriages is a direct attack on the very validlity of a gay person's existence. When someone say you are less of a person because you are gay, Black, poor, or unmarried, that is not a "light hearted" spar among friends.

I can be friends with people who think homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. But I cannot be friends with someone who will actively seek to deny homosexuals of their rights based on that belief. I'm sorry, I just can't.

Fortunately, I do not see such intolerance on Hatrack. 99% of the debate has been respectful and even enlightening. OSC has drawn the line on the sand, but luckily no one has crossed it.
 

---

Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
Oh. I was having trouble with the "no certain answers" line. Believing in absolute truth denies that by definition.

Although, if it's any help, Tesopax, the same religion that tells me what the certain answers are also tell me not to argue minor points of doctrine with people and to avoid contention at all costs. Which I gather was the gist of your post. And it's a very nice thought.
 

---

Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
 
Tres, you're a dumb, evil jerk, and I hate you. Rawr!
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

But I cannot be friends with someone who will actively seek to deny homosexuals of their rights based on that belief. I'm sorry, I just can't.

---

quote:

---

Although, if it's any help, Tesopax, the same religion that tells me what the certain answers are also tell me not to argue minor points of doctrine with people and to avoid contention at all costs. Which I gather was the gist of your post.

---

No, the gist of my post is that you SHOULD argue minor points of doctrine and SHOULD NOT avoid contention at all costs, but that while doing so you don't have to dislike or get angry at or hate the person you are contending with.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Sure, you other people are cool and all, but I think Tresopax now officially defines what Hatrack should be about
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 

quote:

---

I propose that there is no benefit to considering people your enemies, or judging their personhood as being evil based on their mistaken thoughts and actions, or to hating them.

---

quote:

---

Why can't people see that an attack on their belief is not intended to be an attack on their character?

---

quote:

---

I figure "bigot" is just another smear word used to discredit (like "homophobic" used to be), and is used by people who don't have the experience/insight/empathy/imagination needed to understand that you can adore people, understand temptation, and still not be willing to officially sanction behavior that you believe will hurt them and everyone else in the long run.

---

quote:

---

Personal attacks on people because of their religious beliefs is a personal attack. And it's going to hurt, and no "it's just about your religion, not really you" comment can take away the sting.

---

I wonder if the same can be said by someone who's told "it's just about your sin, not really you?" Maybe the feeling is just as strong for someone told to ignore his or her sexual identity, even if that seems do-able from an outsider's perspective.

Sometimes what is crucial about self-identity seems inexplicable to another person. I can see how Belle would find the suggestion to separate her self from her religion to be an affront; I can't, however, know what it's like to be her in that situation. It does help to have it explained, though.

to Belle
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
I would define a bigot as someone who hates a group of people based upon illogical reasoning or beleifs.

The two distinct parts of this definition are;

"hate" (which implies more that just to disagree with or not approve of, or think is wrong)
and
"group" (as I think it is ok to dislike people on an individual basis)

Notice I didn't include "logic and beliefs" as they can be highly subjective and individualized.

Oh and yes, I would define a bigot based upon their motivation, not necessarily their actions.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Geoff,
Did you stop reading the other thread? I posted a reply (midway down page 7) but you haven't posted since page 6, I think.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
He does that.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh and yes, I would define a bigot based upon their motivation, not necessarily their actions.

---

I would bet a lot of money you wouldn't if you were the one being discriminated against.

Edit: I do understand where you are coming from, though.

[ February 26, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
You know I love you CT.

The difference here is where the person is coming from. Teh person that attacks someone for their religious beliefs does not share that belief.

I do however share the belief that "it's not about you, it's about your sin" applies to me. I am not speaking from the outside, but as an insider with the exact same issues.

Before you define whether a bigot is just someone who exhibits bigoted behavior, or someone who is hateful at the heart, you need to define bigoted behavior. That's the sticking point. Many people think opposition to gay marriage automatically makes you a bigot. But there are those of us who don't see that stance as being bigoted. That's where we fundamentally disagree. Karl Ed, Tom, John L, Dag, Pat, CT, everyone I can call to mind thinks bigotry is wrong. Yes, even me. None of us are arguing that people should be denied basic rights on any reason.

But, we disagree as to the meaning of the word marriage, and to whether or not marriage is a right or a privilege. That makes a huge difference. By the way this is a generalized "we" I'm not trying to speak for any person other than myself, I'm using we to refer to Christians with similar beliefs to my own.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Some slave owners defended their right to own slaves based on their religious convictions. ("Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Leviticus 25:44.)

Undoubtedly many of these slave owners did not hate their slaves. I mean, why would they? The slaves are valuable property and in many households they were treated as part of the extended family. So I guess what I'm saying is, those slave owners are all right in my book.
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
Interesting point Beren...but I contend that if that religious reference was their sole motivation (which I would seriously doubt) then they were in fact not bigots, just very deluded. The nasty word "bigotry" implies hatred. They may have been opressive, selfish, and just plain wrong to rely on slavery, but people make wrong decisions based upon other reasons than hate and bigotry.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
OSC fan,
putting the mocking smiley in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah is deeply offensive to me. Please remove it. I am not kidding. I doubt God laughed about having to do that.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
So would you feel better if we replaced bigotry with "religiously motivated intolerance." Seems kind of PC to me.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
No, you should make an effort to understand instead of smear.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Karl, I'm vaguely monitoring the other thread, but it took so much out of me to participate on the first day, that I've kind of burned out. Sorry if you felt like I left in the middle of something, I wasn't trying to drop anybody. I'd like to continue our conversations on the matter at some point, but right now, I've got catching up to do at work

Storm, you're being whiny, cut it out And bigotry IS a motivation, it's not an action. If someone attacked my family to rob us, they're greedy. If someone attacked my family because we're Mormons and deserve it, then they're a bigot. The actions are exactly the same, but the motives are different. Neither motive is GOOD, and admitting your opponent isn't a bigot doesn't mean you thing they are correct in their opinion. But it's a lot more honest than just using the word as a bludgeon to beat down anyone who opposes you.

Beren, your analogy is flawed. Bigotry involves more than the emotion of hate. Contempt is also a part of bigotry, and I submit that it is impossible to treat someone as your permanent inferior without at least some measure of contempt. If the sole reason for your contempt is that person's race or heritage, then you're a bigot.

Many opponents of gay marriage are accused of treating homosexuals with irrational hate or contempt based on their sexual orientation. For some, this is true, and for others, this is not. I daresay that most of us here on Hatrack are not bigots, as we demonstrate time and again by our explanations, our reasoning, our willingness to consider and incorporate all the arguments from the other side ... You do have opponents who are bigots, but it's insulting that you make no effort to make a distinction between the true bigots and those of us here who disagree with you for non-bigoted reasons and try to consider ourselves your friends.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't mind being called a bigot. Since I've tried to focus most of my arguments around the question on social issues and legal definitions, please don't lay my intolerance at the foot of my religion.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
How come Geoff made his point so much better than I did? I mean, we are both trying to get the same point across, but he was just so much more eloquent than I.

*sigh*

Must be genetic.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
No, Belle, it's just a matter of perspective. I thought YOUR comments were better We both just need to be less depressed ...

[ February 26, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

Contempt is also a part of bigotry, and I submit that it is impossible to treat someone as your permanent inferior without at least some measure of contempt.

---

You mean like denying people the right to marry?

Let's break this down:

Religious objectors: God says gay marriage is wrong.

Homophobic objectors: Evolution says gay marriage is wrong.

The religious objectors seem to be arguing that they are not bigots because, hey, they are just relaying the message of God: We didn't write the rules, we're just following them!

But the non-religious objector can just as easily appeal to a higher source, whether it be biology or some social study showing gay marriages are doomed to fail.

If we say that you cannot be a bigot if you believe you have a really good reason to discriminate against someone, then how can any objector of gay marriages be labeled as a bigot?

edited for spelling, although I'm sure I still missed a couple.

[ February 26, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
See, the fact that you feel that you can just lump your opponents into big piles of straw men and set them ablaze shows utter contempt for them, far more contempt than most opponents of gay marriage have shown towards homosexuals on this board.

I mean, look at your definitions. Disagreeing with gay marriage because of the way you interpret evolution isn't inherently homophobic. Disagreeing with gay marriage because you think it's "perverted" or "icky" is homophobic.

The simple act of trying to understand the causes, potential effects, and possible downsides of changing our marriage policy does not automatically render one a bigoted homophobe. You act as though you think that "The TRUTH!" is some big, obvious, flashing sign that any really good person (like yourself) will instantly recognize, and anyone who questions your interpretation of it must be immediately labeled a dangerous moral cretin before their wicked ideas do harm to society.

Wait a second, what does that sound like ..? You've got a lot more in common with the Christian Right than you'd like to admit ...
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 


Curse you! I was reading along, ready to jump on you for the third paragraph and then you bust out the funny. Unfair! Unfair!

quote:

---

Disagreeing with gay marriage because you think it's "perverted" or "icky" is homophobic.

---

OK, back to my regularly scheduled hate mongering. But some religions do say gay marriage is perverted.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
And I'll go on the record to say that religions who say homosexuality is "perverted" are, in turn, "retarded" It helps no one to call names, on either side of any argument. A religion that takes part in that should be ashamed of itself.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Tresopax, I have always found your posts eloquent and well written, but rarely if ever have I agreed with you, this time Tresopax, you are completely right.

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Geoff, I was more concerned that you saw that I was acknowledging your posts more than that I was expecting a reply to mine. I agree that this has been very tiring and has taken way too much of my work time.

But that said, I'm more than willing to continue this discussion with anyone who is interested. And I am perfectly willing to discuss via private email practically anything anyone would want to discuss on the subject of homosexuality, gay rights, post-religious attitudes, or whatever.

[ February 26, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
One of the many reasons why you're cool, KarlEd, is your willingness to discuss stuff with others.

That, and you always bail me out when I have gardening questions.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

“The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including all sexual relations before marriage, petting, sex perversion (such as homosexuality, rape, and incest), masturbation, or preoccupation with sex in thought, speech, or action. … Homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination to the Lord"

---

(emphasis added)

Edited Link: Sorry, the address is too long. Just go to the advanced search at lds.org. Search for all of these words "Homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination to the Lord."

[ February 26, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes. It's an action, a sin, like other tempting sins.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
((Belle))

Always gracious, as your name implies.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Beren, you're being a jerk I don't see how a single quote from a lower-down Mormon authority scores you anything but some cheap "zing!" points.

And a man of his generation referring to homosexuality under the broader dategory of "perversions" is a far cry from pointing to a guy and calling him a "pervert".

[ February 26, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Actually, Beren makes a good point.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
He does.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
What a surprise. John L thinks it's okay to call religious people bigots. Wake me up when something interesting happens.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
He doesn't call us bigots, he calls us opinionated, very opinionated.
And I like being opinionated.
Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
Not religious people, Geoff. People who use religion to deny people rights. There's a big difference.

And when the shoe fits...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And even when it doesn't, right John?
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
So his point is ... what? "Ha ha, I caught you, Dog! You said that calling gays perverts was a retarded thing to do, and now I've got a quote where one of your own authorities did it! Gotcha! Ha ha!"

It doesn't change the fact that I think name-calling is a retarded thing to do (and I'm fully aware of the irony of calling name-callers names). My church is NOT a name-calling institution of the "godhatesfags.com" variety, and the insinuation that a single vague quote implicates me and my own religion in that kind of retarded behavior is clearly a childish attempt to score points. It's counterproductive. I don't do that kind of thing to you. I treat you with courtesy and respect as opponents, and I would appreciate the same in return.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
First off, didn't mean to pick on Mormons. LDS just has a much friendlier search engine than the vatican.

To be fair, I did not find more than three references to homosexuality as a "perversion" during my search. However, there is one fairly important reference in the scriptures:

quote:

---

Homosexuality and other sex perversions are an abomination, Lev. 18: 22-23.

---

Link

Is abomination better than perversion?
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
John, I think you're one of the only people on this forum whose blinders are thick enough, and who is capable of holding his fingers in his ears tightly enough while singing loudly enough to misinterpret my motivations so completely.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Beren, condemning an act is different from condemning a person or calling a name. It leaves room for things like extenuating circumstances and tolerance for individuals.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
So if a person commits an act that has been condemned, we are not allowed to condem the person for performing the act that we have already condemned?

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Yeah, Rhaegar. That's how tolerance and non-judgmental thinking WORK. You can believe an action is wrong without believing that everyone performing that action is a bad person.

Which is what Beren's quotes are doing. They are informing practicing LDS of what is and is not a sin, according to their religion. Those quotes are not our arguments TO the gay community, and they do not condemn individuals. LDS theology is very clear on how people who violate such standards should be treated, and the word "love" gets used a lot.

I'll bet you if you used google to find quotes about homosexuality from mainstream Christian sites, you would very quickly see the big difference between the Mormon view and the homophobic view.

[ February 26, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Dog, we are so going to get fired from our jobs.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Same here.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
You see, Dagonee, I'm not going to apologize to you until Geoff apologizes for calling me the equivalent of "the enemy of religion."

Incidentally, this very same accusation is what drove me to not post at Ornery any more.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
So, if it an action, that we know is wrong, and has been condemned in many religious texts, and it is well known that it is wrong, and the person willingly commits this act, does this not say something about the person? Are we not allowed to do what we believe is right because it might offend the person whom we belive to be a violater of the mandates of whoever our supreme being is?

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Wait, hold on, John. You call me a name, and then think you have some morally-superior position until I apologize for taking you to task for it?
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
Ok, here we go yet again arguing over the definition of a word. The challenge this time? Define perversion:

Perversion - verb; to use or change something in a way not designed or intended.
Pervert - noun; One who creates a perversion. A spoiler.

Though the popular conotation (sp.?) of a pervert is a sick and disgusting person, if you look at the language in a Biblical sense it is less judgmental.

Though I am certain to enrage many by this statement...Can anyone actually say that homosexual sex is the way that God, or creation, or nature, or whatever intended it to be? If the purpose of sex is reproduction, and no possible reproduction can come from homosexuals relationships, then it is a perversion.

Wow, let the hate mail begin... But first let me state because I am rather new to this dicussion and forum and many of you have no basis to know where I am coming from as you do not know me that I am not a homophobe, nor do I hate homosexuals. So please try to keep the name calling and personal attacts to a minimum. to tell the truth, I am not sure what to think about gay marrige to tell the truth as i see valid ppoints in both arguements.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Rhaegar, we have a responsibility to be honest about our beliefs, but that honesty does not need to drive us to cruelty. I know I'm not perfect at living by the standards of my religious community, and so how can I hold myself up as a judge of others who similarly do not meet those standards ... especially when most of them do not even believe in the same standards I do?

I don't think that homosexuals are evil or perverse. My moderate opinion on gay marriage stems from my concerns about intellectual rigor and the larger good of society, not from a desire to condemn.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Paladin, there are those who would say that if it occurs at all, then it was intended by God ... otherwise, why would it exist?

Personally, I think that the major challenge of human life is the fact that chaos and misfortune are built into the system, and not everything that occurs represents the specific intention of God ... but just be warned, that is a vulnerable argument
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

I'll bet you if you used google to find quotes about homosexuality from mainstream Christian sites, you would very quickly see the big difference between the Mormon view and the homophobic view.

---

That's true. I think most Mormons see gay people are basically decent folks who made a wrong turn somewhere. Although that view still offends me, it is nothing compared to some of the other stuff you see out there.
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
Exactly Rat (is that how you wish to be called? ) THat counter agruement is quite weak aswell though. Murder exists but is it then intended etc..etc..
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021834
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Rat, I do not have a hunger to condemn or a wish to, but when I see something that in my eyes is a affrontal to the very faith I worship, I must do what I must.

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
My name is Dog I mean, come on, folks. Read the name.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

John L said:
You see, Dagonee, I'm not going to apologize to you until Geoff apologizes for calling me the equivalent of "the enemy of religion."

---

quote:

---

I cannot separate my "religious" self from myself. I am a Christian, and it means more to me than just a definition of where I go on Sunday Mornings. A person redeemed in Christ is a new creation, and they will be that new creation forever.

---

quote:

---

But don't tell me that anyone who opposes allowing the union of gay couples to be considered on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman is someone who hates gays and wants to deprive them of basic rights. Bigots and homophobes take their positions out of hatred and fear.

---

quote:

---

Now, if because I cannot play games with children means I'm not going to be welcome in issue threads, then just let me know.

---

quote:

---

When a person changes religion, does that person cease to exist? If you give up Christianity one day, will you no longer be the parent of your children or the owner of your property? I believe you WILL continue to exist, and thus your religious views CAN be separated from your actual self.

---

quote:

---

Geoff, I'm rather burnt out on the homosexuality issue as well -- though I hope to get a decent breakdown of your father's essay in by the weekend -- but I have to say, I'm growing increasingly unimpressed with your defense. Or do you consider it intelligent to respond to every point with an accusation of blinders, putting fingers in ears and screaming "la la la la la," or something equally pointlessly misconstruing?

---

If someone repeatedly uses the same exact cheap, childish argument ("Yeah, but you're still a bigot!") again and again without taking into account anything their opposition is saying, then yes, they remind me of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and singing. A couple of people have acted that way recently, and I think it's an annoying behavior.

That behavior is pointless. Me pointing it out and trying to persuade people to rejoin the intelligent, respectful discussion is very pointful indeed.

However, I ultimately fail to see what in the world qualifies you as the judge of an intelligent argument
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
"la la la la la la!"

-Bok
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
(this post was meant to be facetious but I now feel guilty for typing it)
And I'm rarely this wishy washy but I'm inserting it back after seeing the googly-moogly thread.

quote:

---

However, I ultimately fail to see what in the world qualifies you as the judge of an intelligent argument

---

But Geoff, didn't you know? God talks to Lalo!

AJ

[ February 27, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

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

quote:

---

Looked at this way, gay civil rights issues could be looked at as religious freedom issues. Just because we don't have the luxury of claiming an organized structure to lend (questionable) validity to our worldviews does not make them any less valid than the Catholic worldview or the Mormon worldview, etc. Do we have less of a right to live according to our worldview than you?

---

No, I don't believe you have any less of a right to live the way you want. That's why I'm adamantly opposed to things like sodomy laws that would infringe on your right to live by your own sense of what is proper for you, whatever that may be. I don't think the government has a right to tell people what religious pattern to follow, or what they can do in their bedrooms.

There are a lot of visions out there, as many as there are people, of what can be considered a "right" way to live. Some are obviously morally wrong, some are obviously just fine, and some have people divided on the issue. I very often find myself in the position of having to explain the behavior of my own ancestors (I'm descended from the later wives of several nineteenth-century Mormon authorities) because polygamy is largely recognized in our society as a "wrong" way to live, no matter how good or well-intentioned the participants, or how healthy the relationships may have been.

When you are talking about people's right to live however they see fit, and to follow the dictates of their own conscience, I absolutely agree with you, and fight just as adamantly on the same side of the argument. But when it comes to choosing which lifestyles will be codified into the law of the land, I'm more divided. Maybe it's partly due to the fact that my own people gave up any chance of their own treasured marriage practices being accepted a hundred years ago, and instead changed our expectations in order to live in an orderly society. It was a hard choice, but I think it was the right one.

So I don't see the refusal to codify a lifestyle as a form of negative discrimination. You are allowed to live however you like. You aren't hounded by U. S. Marshals or driven from the country the way my ancestors were. You are simply asked to accept that your lifestyle is rare and unique and has not been codified into the law.

I'll help you fight for any of the "smaller" advantages ... those related to taxes or bereavement or what-have-you. Cohabitation and simple devotion should have their own benefits, regardless of what lifestyle you might be pursuing. And maybe expanding the laws that way could help us keep polygamists from abusing the welfare system because their extra wives are seen as single mothers

But I don't think that defining marriage by the process that perpetuates our species is a bad thing, and I'll be slower to accept the idea that we need to revamp society's core structure to encompass every possible alternate lifestyle. I think it should be okay to be unique or different without having to demand that society make specific accomodations.

So that's why I'm moderate on the issue. I have a strong distaste for the people who oppose gay marriage for reasons of revulsion or bigotry, and I would hate to see them win a total victory, because the world would see it as a victory for their attitudes, rather than for mine. That could never be good. But I'm not yet persuaded that conceding to the other extreme is the answer, either. So what can you do?

[ February 27, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Well, for one we could recognize that producing offspring is not the whole of what marriage is. No one yet has been able to answer why it is worse for two men to marry than for a barren couple or even a couple that chooses to not have children.

Also, I believe that gays should be able to adopt. And even if they aren't able to in many cases today, it is a fact that there are many children who are in the care of homosexual couples. Why is marriage so fundamentally important to the stability of a straight couple with children, but not equally important to the stability of a committed gay couple with children?

quote:

---

I very often find myself in the position of having to explain the behavior of my own ancestors (I'm descended from the later wives of several nineteenth-century Mormon authorities) because polygamy is largely recognized in our society as a "wrong" way to live, no matter how good or well-intentioned the participants, or how healthy the relationships may have been.

When you are talking about people's right to live however they see fit, and to follow the dictates of their own conscience, I absolutely agree with you, and fight just as adamantly on the same side of the argument. But when it comes to choosing which lifestyles will be codified into the law of the land, I'm more divided. Maybe it's partly due to the fact that my own people gave up any chance of their own treasured marriage practices being accepted a hundred years ago, and instead changed our expectations in order to live in an orderly society. It was a hard choice, but I think it was the right one.

---

quote:

---

But I don't think that defining marriage by the process that perpetuates our species is a bad thing, and I'll be slower to accept the idea that we need to revamp society's core structure to encompass every possible alternate lifestyle.

---

quote:

---

Do you think that if the legal restrictions against plural marriage were removed that the practice would remain suspended indefinitely or do you think it might someday be restored?

---

Personally, I see the arguments against polygamy in the Book of Jacob as the higher law in this regard. He states that if God has some special exception to make, He will make it, but that otherwise, marriage to more than one woman is, by default, a bad choice.

Still, at the time we were hounded by U. S. Marshalls and driven from the country, the practice was a critical part of our culture, and giving it up was difficult for a lot of people (as we can see from the continuation of the practice by splinter groups). But we did it. If a Mormon wishes to remain a Mormon, he must not take multiple wives. (I know you know this, Karl, I'm just stating it because ... well, it's part of the argument )

Gays aren't being asked (at least by me) to marry members of the opposite sex. They are not being arrested or driven away. I think it's possible for homosexual and heterosexual unions to exist side-by-side in our culture without sniping at each other over semantics. I believe it is better to let the traditional camp hold onto the word marriage and continue to pursue the valuable goals of strengthening traditional values and restoring some of the cracking foundations of our society, while still catering to the desires of homosexual couples. This all-or-nothing attitude espoused by both sides can only lead either to eternal conflict or total victory over a beaten enemy, neither of which will be good for our nation in the end.

I can see situations (human slavery, for instance) where it is worth a bitter war to achieve a political end. I don't think this is one of them. Homosexuals are not in bondage. They simply desire official codification of their version of marriage during a time in America's history when the value and meaning of marriage is in flux and a lot of people are very worried about the future. Maybe that looks like an opportunity to make a difficult change. But it could also be an opportunity to do a lot of damage. Can we come to a compromise that doesn't require an entire side of this argument (EITHER side) to feel like their world is being ripped away?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
KarlEd, I know my views are hurtful to you. And there's nothing I can do to change that, I really wish they weren't hurtful.

I feel like Franklin Graham when he was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly kept grilling him about his belief that Christ is the only way to salvation. "You mean devout Muslims aren't going to heaven? Devout Hindus? etc." Graham finally threw his hands in the air and said "Mr. O'Reilly, I didn't write the book!"

I didn't write the book. But as a Christian I believe it. It means I have to believe some tough things, like the fact that my father is likely not going to be in heaven someday, unless there is a change. You think I want to believe that?

Geoff is right, you are not in bondage, you are not in internment camps, you are not imprisoned. No one is saying you can't love whom you wish.

Comparing this to religious freedom is not going to wash either. We have constitutionally declared rights to choose and practice what religion we wish, there is no guarantee concerning marriage. This is not a question of stripping rights from anyone. Homosexuals have never been able to get a marriage license (in most states). You're not seeking to have re-instated some right that has been denied you, as blacks were given the right to vote. Your asking for society to change irrevocably an institution that has shaped the way we live our lives.

This is no personal attack on you. I am not telling you that you're perverted, that you need to change or you're going to hell, that you don't deserve the right to live with and love whom you wish.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KarlEd said: Looked at this way, gay civil rights issues could be looked at as religious freedom issues. Just because we don't have the luxury of claiming an organized structure to lend (questionable) validity to our worldviews does not make them any less valid than the Catholic worldview or the Mormon worldview, etc. Do we have less of a right to live according to our worldview than you? If so, why is that?

KarlEd, excellent point! This is at the heart of why I can't for sure say what my opinion is about gay marriage. Many good points have been made on both sides.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I am new here, led here for the same reason as all of you, a passion and admiration for the writings of OSC. I have been following the discussion on homosexuality and gay marriage for the past few days. From what little I have seen, I really like the group here, and feel the pain of the rift that this issue has caused.

For the sake of background, here is my self-declared stance: I am LDS. I believe that I hold no hate or contempt whatsoever for homosexual individuals. I have no desire to deny those in homosexual relationships many of the benefits that those who are married enjoy (I don't know enough about those benefits to say "all"). I believe that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes and does have negative effects on the individual and society. I believe that no matter how I feel on this issue, that the our increasingly permissive society will continue to become more and more accepting of homosexuality over time. I believe that the increasing accpetance of homosexuality does threaten me primarily in that it threatens my children and their children, etc. I will try to explain each of the points I have made above.

First, on my statement that I have no hate or contempt for those who have homosexual tendancies or live homosexual lifestyles. No matter what I say, some here and elsewhere will claim that I in fact DO hate or hold contempt for them. I hope that most of you here will not jump to such conclusions thinking you know myself better than I do--I just don't understand that. I admittedly have not known many homosexual individuals, but I can say that I have genuinely liked every one that I have known. I dunno, it just seems that in my experience, the homosexuals I have known are very likable people. Does that make me a bigot?

On homosexuals being denied many of the priviledges married couples enjoy: Again, I do not know nearly enough about this to comment competently about it. But I definitely think that at least some of the things that are currently denied to men/men or women/women committed relationships by law ought to be granted them. That they are denied them seems silly and unjust to me. I don't know how I think this ought to be done, I just don't know enough.

About my belief that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes: I think that if I were not a religious person, I would have nothing against homosexuality at all, so for me it is very much a religious issue. If I had any lingering concerns about it, I can't imagine that I would be able to rationallly explain them. Unless I am mistaken, this "rift" between pro and anti gay marriage is pretty close to being drawn along religious boundaries.

Now on the subject of my feeling that homosexuality is destructive and does negatively effect society and those dearest to me. This is where things get really tricky, controversial, and have great potential for offense. I think because of that, few that may feel this way would choose to share it and open themselves up to be hated and criticized. Now, my reasoning here will be heavily based on my religious beliefs, because as I said, were I not a religious person, I would have no such issues with homosexuality.

There are a few points that I have seen brought up, but not as thouroughly explored as I think they deserve. I am particularly intrigued at the idea that sexual orientation is open to influence for many, if not the majority of people, since I have long believed that to be true myself. I believe that the human psyche is extremely complicated, as is sexuality, and I really don't think that genetics or nurture fully explain homosexuality. I think that just as people have speech impediments for a variety of different reasons, the same is true of homosexuality. Someone else made a good analogy with alchoholism. Just being genetically disposed to it does not make you an alchoholic. Some people would never become sexually attracted to one of their gender no matter what they experienced. But one of my children might.

My concern here is not true homosexuality, but bisexuality. If my son is attracted to females and could conceivably be happily married to one, I would far prefer that to him deciding that he also likes guys and wants to be married to one. If he had no attraction to females whatsoever, I would still be very sad, but there wouldn't be much anyone could do about it. I imagine under such circumstances he would be miserable married to a girl.

Sooooo, as homosexual attraction becomes more and more accepted, more and more the norm, I figure that my children are more likely to choose it, regardless of my efforts to guide and teach according to my understanding of "Things As They Truly Are". So, I guess to some extent, that makes me a homophobe?

I am not saying that I am going to hide my children away from those with such a lifestyle. On the contrary, I intend to be quite open about it and teach understanding and compassion. But the overall messages of society and the media have great power and influence. I do believe that it will cause a higher percentage of youth to experiment with homosexuality--youth who would have been very happy paired up with the opposite sex. I worry that it will become a powerful "fad", so to speak. And that the likelyhood of a girl "hitting on" my daughter or a boy "coming onto" my son will be much higher and thier aversion to experimentation lower.

I guess I feel that extending marriage to gay couples is a major move in that direction. It is a very big victory indeed for those who feel there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. More than one person here has said that if such movement leads to more people choosing to be gay, that is totally cool with them. Of course you would feel that way! I understand that! And of course I would feel the way that I do. I feel threatened. And at the same time, I don't think there is a blame thing I can do to stop society's chosen direction. All I can do is tell people how I feel, gently, and teach my children what I think is right.

It is only a matter of time. Gay marriage will become accepted by this country and many others. Whether or not I am right about an increase in individuals participating in homosexual practices, only time can tell that, so PLEASE don't jump down my throat and tell me I am wrong when I am not trying to prove that I am right. Perhaps with such major changes being made in the definition of marriage, polygamy will eventually be allowed by law, and I expect under such circumstances, the LDS church would resume practice of it. I am certainly not hoping for that process to speed up, for though I believe that it is a true principle, I am glad I am not living it at the moment! ;D

Now to OSC. I imagine the poor man feels somewhat the way I do by this, threatened. I think that he may have gotten a bit caught up in those emotions as he wrote the article "Humpty Dumpty Logic". I certainly don't think there is any hate against homosexuals involved there. Fear, yes, hate no. How could ANYONE who has read his works widely come to that conclusion? This man is one of the most compassionate men I can think of. He is extremely opinionated to the point of rudeness, yet he has such tender compassion for the human soul. I am really hurt by the slander I have seen posted against him here by his most devoted fans. You know him better than this! He is human. He spoke in anger about what is happening to society in general for reasons I already stated. I do not think he spoke in hate.

Also, I think OSC has very strong feelings about the extreme differences between men and women and the odds overcome when they unite together. That is why he so vehemently wants to keep "marriage" reserved for such couples. I think he feels that they deserve special recognition for the amazing task they are taking on. (Think: Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) He implies this in his article. I have personally felt for a long time that one of the major purposes for our experience in mortality is for men and women to successfully learn to become "one" with each other despite all that is stacked against them. Not an easy task, as my husband and I have learned, but a very rewarding one! A pursuit of increased homosexual experimentation does threaten that ideal. I do not suggest that love between two men (or women) cannot be very deep and real. I simply do not think that they have to overcome so great a barrier, and that they are missing out on the beatiful reward that comes of it. It also means that their relationships may often be more peaceful and stable, and many men/women pairings end in blood and tears. I also recognize the existence of exceptions.

Good day, ya'll.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Welcome Beverly!

Feel free to jump right in. Oh wait, you did.

I'm the resident conservative evangelical Christian Mom of four. I've recently found out my birth father, that I haven't known for 30 years is a liberal, but I'm talking to my therapist about it. Acceptance may come in time.

I hope you enjoy it here, it's a pretty cool place. Prepare to have some of your views challenged, that's part of the fun. Just remember, at the end of the day after all the arguing is done, most hatrackers would want to sit down and have coffee with you. Wait you're LDS - herbal tea? Water with lemon? it's not personal, most of the time.

Want some cookies? I just baked some, they're fresh. Chocolate chip and toffee chips.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thak you so much for the warm welcome! You are a sweetie! I would politely turn down the coffee offer, but I could really go for a cookie right now.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*frowns* I think the kids have eaten them all.

I don't drink coffee myself, but I keep it on hand for my husband and guests.

I might be able to find some cookies if I look....

Ahh! Here you are.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mmmmmm, those look good!
 

---