posted
Somewhat sensitive... but cringingly tragic... *Thinks of that fellow in that one book and what happened to him.* *Shudder*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was one of the saddest things I've read in any book. It didn't feel like manulipative tear-jerking either -- as a reader you really come to love Josif, and mourn for what happened to him.
SPOILERS!!
Although it *might* be a little manipulative in that it sets the reader up to really want some revenge, so when Ansset attacks with song, it feels sooooooo good.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to pipe in my own opinion here, as I am amazed at the duplicity I see on so many message boards regarding this topic.
OSC's opinions are his own. His has every right to have them, to share them, and publish them. They are not necessarily the opinions of his faith, nor are they necessarily doctrine of that said faith. Again, it is his own opinion.
What amazes me is that the same people who call him a "bigot" make such comments as "He's a Mormon, so what do you expect?" How can the very same people who decry negative opinions against a lifestyle they condone have the rocks to turn around and make false, sterotypical comments about a religion? Especially one they neither believe in nor understand?
We live in a society that is beginning to embrace every lifestyle under heaven, yet cannot accept the idea that others may oppose them. This double-standard always amazes me; true debate means understanding the other's point-of-view. These same advocates who decry Card's opinions have no clue as to his religion or its true doctrines, and commit the same foul they accuse him of making.
(And yes, I do believe OSC has a handle on the gay community's point of view. His comments are often directed toward the politically active members of that community, and their efforts to change our society at large.)
My two cents, and maybe some steam. The posts on this thread haven't been too bad, but MAN have there been doozies on other websites. The hypocrisy astounds me...
P.S. I can't help myself. I must insert a graemlin...
posted
This is something that has been frustrating me. I don't like certain aspects of certain religions, but by not liking them it means I am prejudiced and I do not want to be prejudiced... I am just rather tired of having people assume that because I have a certain... proclivity...that it means I want to destroy society when really, I just want people to not get beat up or attacked or disowned by their parents or hurt in any way for being different... But, in order to point this out... I end up having to sound like a bigot and that is horrible! I don't know what to do...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a good question...so here's my own personal opinion on the matter: ultimately, one can say "I don't agree with that stance, and this is why" versus people making broad, emotionally-charged statements that are often false.
To disagree is not bigotry. To disagree with a value system, to actively oppose it, is not bigotry per se. But to oppose a group based solely on misinformation or the simple fact they exist is bigotry. It is ignorance made manifest.
I do not believe OSC to be a bigot, because he explains his contentions with what he believes to be truth. I agree with a lot of it; I disagree with some of it. They are his opinions, and he's free to express them. But when people assume his opinions are simply the "party line" of his religion, and dismiss him thereafter, that's ignorance. Especially when that may not be the case.
There is a general bigotry toward Christianity in general sometimes. Imagine what the reaction would be if someone wrote, "How can we blame Card for being a bigot? He's a Jew, after all."
Makes it feel a lot different, doesn't it?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most hate-filled speach I generally encounter is by people villifyiing others for being hateful.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just get tired and frustrated with people attacking gays and lesbians all the time... It's not that simple. Many gays have gone through a ton of pain trying to change. It hasn't worked for them and it's forced them to just lie... I hate that sort of prejudice, so I want to fight against it somehow..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nowadays, most efforts to boycott or ban books of mine stem from the fact that the Mormon Church openly opposes gay marriage and continues to regard voluntary homosexual behavior as sinful, and I have openly defended my Church's position.
A religious organization, SUCH AS, but not limited to, the Mormon Church says, "If you want to be a member of our religion, you will beleive these 5000 things. Disbeleive 1, and you're not a good Mormon, Catholic, Lutheran, Muslim, whatnot." According to an article that OSC writes on this very site, the reason that he beleives homosexuality is a sin is that his church tells him to. Thus, we now know that the Mormon Church feels that homosexuality is a sin. Thus, all Mormons feel that way. Why? Because if you disagree with the church, you have created a new religion. Read up on Martin Luther v. Catholic Church for more info here. If a "Mormon", or any religious practicioner beleives something other than what their church tells them to, then they aren't really a practicioner of that religion.
Thus, the statement, "He's a mormon, what did you expect?" is quite apt. Much of the church literature is available for anyone to peruse, and then, yes, you can determine what any "Mormon" beleives, because in order to be a member of a religion, you MUST go along with it wholesale.
Hence the reason I do not go to church anymore. I beleive in God, and Jesus, just not sure about all the rest of the crap they want to force down my throat.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a reason why I keep attacking anti-gays. I feel it's totally wrong... Especially in a historical sense. It's still totally ok to attack gays and lesbians. To joke about them, dehumanize them. You can't do that with any other group, or else folks will be at your throat in seconds. But, with homosexuality, folks can hide behind religion and say that that is the reason why they dislike homosexuality or the acts, whatever. This disturbs me. I get frustrated hearing about some kid getting beat up for being gay. I've read books like Stone Butch Blues where these women went through hell because they wanted to dress like men. It doesn't make any sense. Call be a bleeding heart, but it's damn unfair. The question is, how do I fight against this without seeming anti-Christian when I am just againt that particular doctrine? I'd fight for the rights of Christians to worship as they want if that was being taken away.. But, this has to stop. It's causing and has caused way too much pain and has stood in the way of really understanding what homosexuality is all about... So I have to fight against that, like I got to fight against all types of prejudice... because it really IS a form of prejudice...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's still totally ok to attack gays and lesbians.
Not in my experience, while it is totally OK to attack Christians that believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it still is... How many times to you hear people joke about homosexuality in a cruel way? You can't do that for any other group of people. Joke on blacks that way, people get angry. Jews, Polish people, women... On shows all the time they joke on gay people. I don't know how many times I hear the word "fag" thrown around by little kids. Especially at my school when I was a kid. It still goes on all the time... I'm attacking the notion of homosexuality being a sin because it is not that simple. Most of these programs do not work, and what's worse, they drive many people away from the church and away from God. http://members.aol.com/exgaynomad/Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, this issue brings out the novel writer in me. :-)
Some good points; those times when disagreement becomes hurtful is never appropriate--but some people label ANY disagreement as hate, and I think that's a ridiculous notion.
I REALLY disagree with Flipper's focus on religion, however. At least for me, I don't believe what I believe because the church tells me to. I believe because I feel it is the truth, the reality of life (such like physics), that by following such precepts are the best way to achieve peace and happiness in this life and continuous progression beyond death. That is the difference between the gospel and the church, in that doctrine is followed because it comes from a source that can be trusted.
The Church of Jesus Christ opposes the practice of homosexuality because they believe that God himself has said as much, and we trust that regardless of our inclinations his ways are best. But the Gospel has NEVER said to harm, belittle, hate or do anything hurtful to those who practice such. There are plenty of people with same-sex attractions who choose not to practice, and are faithful members of the church.
The problem is that people label someone a "bigot" and imply harm and hate, then automatically associates that it's because of the religion. Calling a behavior a "sin" is not hateful. A "sin" is anything that draws us further away from God, that which can deny us growth and happiness and ruin lives. So when political groups actively attempt to change our laws and reshape our society based on what is considered "sinful," we have a right to oppose that which we feel will be determinental to society at large and have long-term negative effects on everyone concerned.
To oppose such political agendas is not hate. Plenty of people feel the right to oppose religion's influence all the time. People are more than happy to cry out "church and state" but have no problem when other belief systems, such as homosexuality, get ramrodded down our throats.
That's the difference. On the personal level, Synesthesia is right in that is is NEVER okay to dehumanize, hurt, belittle or harm anyone, regardless of their beliefs. The trick is respecting others' right to disagree without making things worse.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How many times to you hear people joke about homosexuality in a cruel way?
A lot less frequently than I hear people mock the bigoted Christians who are so stupid as to still believe in the outdated concept of sin.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that I believe that sin is outdated. I don't see the validity in thinking homosexuality specifically is a sin... Especially from research and personal experience. Plus, no one can really give me a good reason WHY it's a sin... a reason that makes sense...
Or maybe I have trouble with the concept of sin... hmm *Thinks*
posted
No, quite the opposite. I'm sure that depression would go up. When depression goes up, so do other things. Suicide, drug use, etc.
What the church (and by THE church, I mean most Christian Churches at least) doesn't quite grasp is that you'll never stop human desires. You have to teach your followers to channel energy the right way. If you keep telling people, for example, that masturbation is a sin (which it's not) and that pre-marital sex is a sin (which it's technically not), then they will look at the two options and figure that if they're going to sin (as humans generally can't supress instinctual desires) they might as well do it the more fun way.
The same goes with same-sex marriage. You can't stop these people from doing what THEY have been instinctually made to do, no matter what causes that inborn desire. So why force them into more sin? Let them marry. Let them be in more safer relationships. Let them enjoy the pains of marriage.
And what's with all this talk about gay marriage ruining family values, and the sanctity of marriage? Doesn't having weddings and creating families HELP family values and the sanctity of marriage? What's there left to ruin about the sanctity of marriage anyway? Haven't straight people destroyed it anyway? Isn't half of hollywood married for a matter of weeks already? Aren't straight people the ones who are getting divorced every other marriage? Aren't they the ones disobeying Christ when they divorce for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what I've always figured... All you'd have to do is look at history. Look at Tchaichovsky for heaven's sake... Or Oscar Wilde.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem is that people label someone a "bigot" and imply harm and hate, then automatically associates that it's because of the religion. Calling a behavior a "sin" is not hateful. A "sin" is anything that draws us further away from God, that which can deny us growth and happiness and ruin lives. So when political groups actively attempt to change our laws and reshape our society based on what is considered "sinful," we have a right to oppose that which we feel will be determinental to society at large and have long-term negative effects on everyone concerned.
Let me be clear that I wasn't trying to call him a bigot. A bigot is a serious word for the most select group.
However, we are in agreement that the Mormon Church feels homosexuality is a sin. Christian religions also say, to the effect, "You're always going to sin sometime, so God will forgive you, but you have to go half way. At least TRY to lead the life that we have taught you is God's will."
So, if a Mormon were a openly practicing homosexual, living with another man or woman, then the Church would have to say, "Hey, you're not even trying here. Shape up or ship out." So, we can assume there are no openly practicing homosexuals within the Mormon Church.
If a Mormon were a 'closeted' homosexual, leading a good life by day, but sneaking off to have a romantic 'tryst' with another man or woman, and having no desire to change their behavior...well, why? Why not just find a different church that meets your needs better? So, there are no 'closeted' homosexuals within the Mormon Church.
This does leave people who have homosexual tendancies, but feel it is a sin, and therefore control it.
So, this leaves us with no group of Mormons anywhere that feel homosexuality is not a sin.
Therefore, by knowing OSC is a Mormon, we can also very, very safely assume he feels homosexuality is a sin. This should not have been a surprise to anyone if they knew that he was a Mormon.
Not that he is a bigot. If he were a bigot, he'd be out with the "God Hates Fags" crowd, waving signs and hurling insults. Somehow, I get the feeling that he's a few levels above that.
posted
He still is assuming that heterosexuality is superior and wrongfully assuming that homosexuality is a threat. That approach just leads to a backlash of rage, I know it makes me angry, and that's really not constructive. Sure, he's not out there picketing funerals, but... still. That language hurts like so many stones.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, lots of great comments to respond to. I feel like I'm at a buffet. :-)
First, to Flipper: true enough, but other forums called OSC a bigot, vile, a scumbag...and some blamed such behavior on his religion. It was HIS opinion, regardless if they're similiar. They treat him with the same hate they profess to abhor, and it's THAT hypocrisy I dislike.
Second, to ArCHeR. IMHO, the belief that we cannot control our desires, and therefore shouldn't have to, is one of the most pernicious lies currently in our society. It is also totally inconsistent with the concept of God and faith in general.
To say humans cannot supress their desires? We are better than that. The Church of Jesus Christ declares that we are the offstring of God and can transend all things to reach our fullest potential. We ultimately CHOOSE to accept or reject desires by our behavior. Lifestyle is ultimately a choice. I choose to pay or shoplift, yell or whisper, overeat or exercise. Some desires are much stronger than others. Christ himself declared "I have overcome the world" and invites us to do the same.
The question then remains: by what path do we walk? This disparity is where conflict comes in, becasue we all define that path differently. You say certain things aren't sins. But millions believe God has established a pattern, and such behaviors are inconsistent with mental & spiritual success, long-term happiness and our eternal life beyond death. We therefore choose to follow someone with proper authority, such as a prophet, and trust that such guidance is in our best interest.
I write too much as it is, so I'll spare you on my opinion why people do not agree with gay marriage. But you're right: cheap & easy divorces, deadbeat dads & a lack of accountability, and many other issues are all eating away at the most important foundation for a healthy society--the traditional family unit.
History has shown that those societies that fundimentally altered that foundation never endured. Never. We can argue homosexuality until we're blue in the face, and I doubt no one's opinions would change, but when some see a lifestyle eroding a fundimental unit of a healthy society, they have the right to oppose it.
Bottom-line, we can all disagree. And we will. But we all have to play by that same rules. We have the right to oppose each other, and it's not "bigotry" to oppose it. And I think it's downright silly to boycott OSC's work simply because we disagree with his politics.
If that was the case, I'd never watch another Hollywood movie again (and I just put in a surround-sound system at home today, so that would be bad). Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he was not using this sort of language... if he sounded, perhaps a bit more polite about it, I would not be foaming at the mouth. As it stands, it cannot be helped. I look at this sort of thing and think it is not much different then the sort of stuff my ancestors and relatives went through in the south. It has to stop. You have to understand that with homosexuality it's different. Read what these ex-ex gays have to say, or books by E. Lynn Harris. Or Stranger at the Gates by Mel White. You'd see that many gays and lesbians have tried to change, they have tried to stop being gay, they have tried being celibate and it's only led to pain and misery on their part. There is a difference between something harmful like alcoholism and drug abuse and homosexuality. They are entirely different. Gayness is not a threat to culture. A real threat is all these men marrying women knowing full well they swing more towards men. That causes a whole lot more pain than allowing someone to be gay because that is what they are... Mainstream societies attitude towards gays is more harmful to society than homosexuality itself.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since I'm not gay, and haven't experienced such a struggle, then I'm not qualified to contend on the subject. I imagine it's a painful process for some, and frustrating for others. I still feel it's ultimately a choice, but that's based on my view of the cosmos and how things work.
People are free to feel and act as they wish. But realize that when political groups push their agendas forward, often against the will of the majority, then we have a right to push back. I imagine OSC used strong language and was harsh (he's blunt, to be sure), but he's also a rare voice in a culture that is paralyzed in saying anything for fear of being called a bigot.
This may feel like the same issue as racism, and I contend it is vastly different. It is an issue, ultimately, of ideology and values. It's the whole catholics vs. protestants sort of thing, albeit based on lifestyle.
You're right in saying it's a tough issue to debate, because it's so emotional and it is easy to be considered anti-something in the process. All sides are easily offended. Heck, I got steam under my collar from other sites, enough to sign up to this forum and vent, but gladly it's been a great discussion with various POVs.
That's one great thing about such forums and people like OSC; they generate opinions, and encourage discussion and interaction. It's always refreshing to hear other points of view!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the same. The only difference is that gays for the most part can conceal their gayness better than blacks, hispanics, ect can hide their race. But, in some ways it's worse. Kids getting beat up in school over homosexuality, folks killing themselves, doing drugs, ect. Parents abandoning their children as soon as they find out they are gay. It shouldn't be like that. If it makes these better for these people, I'll rage against the majority. The majority is not always right. At one time, some of the majority was against intergration. Things have to get to the point where normality is expanded a bit to include others. I'm not saying start accepting molestation, divorce and things like that. All I want is for gay people to be accepted as human beings. Not as evil, not as some destructive element, but as humans. Read Stone Butch Blues. It's eye opening what she went through and painful. IT SHOULD NOT BE LIKE THAT!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, to ArCHeR. IMHO, the belief that we cannot control our desires, and therefore shouldn't have to, is one of the most pernicious lies currently in our society. It is also totally inconsistent with the concept of God and faith in general.
I said that people generally can't supress their desires. That's not saying all people are incapable of controlling their desires, and the fact that we can was exactly my point.
The church needs to teach people control, and stop trying to supress. And sexuality is one of, if not the most powerful human instinct. It's, in pure scientific means, what we live for. Eating and drinking are just things we do until we can reproduce.
That said, God, or evolution, or both have shaped human beings so that we need to have orgasms after puberty, or we will go insane. It makes sense, doesn't it? So when the church tells people that both sex and masturbation are sins their biology practically forces them to do one or the other.
But the main contributor to the church's ineffectiveness is that they aren't willing to admit they're wrong, so they won't change any of their doctrines. The fact that they won't accept a lot of science does nothing but push people who can actually use logic away. If you keep telling them far fetched things like the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, when modern science dates it in the billions people aren't going to take anything else you say seriously (by the way, the Bible does NOT say how old the Earth is, a monk said that the Bible said it is, and people ignored all of the wording in the Bible that lets you add those missing billions of years).
quote:I still feel it's ultimately a choice
Then you must not pay attention to anything that has been said. It is most definately not a choice. If it were a choice, there would be no debate. You don't choose something like that. It's like choosing your race. Some people try it (Eminem, Michael Jackson, etc.), but it's still not gonna happen. You are who you are and you can't change that. The best you can do is pretend, and pretending causes much more harm than actually being what you are.
That is if society would get the stick out of it metaphorical butt.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia: I must not have read the article OSC wrote that you refer to, because I never got the impression that he advocates abuse, hurt or open offense to homosexuals.
You may or may not have read what I wrote earlier, which is that we have a right to oppose social and legal change that is contrary to what we believe to be right...but I think everyone agrees that abuse of any kind, regardless of the reason, is uncalled for. But people are often defending lifestyle yet heap abuse on religion all the time, and that lack of playing by the same rules makes no sense to me.
And ArCHeR, yikes! I've read every post very carefully, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
To say we are slaves to our desires and we're just "who we are" is, to me, a social lie that excuses behavior and denies accountability. There may be many people who have strong inclinations to many things, but (I believe) God established a pattern by which we should use our feelings for the ultimate happiness and spiritual, mental and physical health.
But looking at it logically can never fully solve it, because we never have all the answers. Logic and science have their places, but spiritual truth must be gained and believed via spiritual means, and no amount of logic can provide a better witness. If you don't believe in God or trust a source by which His will can be delivered to you, then I can see why you'd think the way you do.
Unfortunately there are many religious faiths that have done and said some terrible things. I don't think OSC's faith is one of them. Just because they think differently than you doesn't make them wrong--the logic goes both ways.
posted
The language, the tone, the use of phrases like "adolescent phase." To me it's rather, well, demeaning, to put it mildly. I am criticising that doctrine, but am I saying that people who believe it are stupid or childish? No. It can never be unraveled without facing it head on. We have made progress when it comes to racism and things like that. But, there are still a lot of misconceptions around, like when it comes to homosexuality. People have all sorts of misconceptions about it. All sorts of wrong assumptions. For OSC to assume that because gays want marriage, or at least civil union benefits that they automatically want to break down the social fabric of society is wrong and destracts from what REALLY hurts society. Focus on tiny little knotholes and you miss the big gaping holes and real problems!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough because advocate feel that changing the laws to include same-sex unions as a marriage does add to the growing weakening of marriage in general. Easy divorces, the famous "irreconcilable differences" clause, no accountability for deadbeat dads and a lack of sanctity concerning marriage in general have all contributed.
Why is is harder to get out of my cell phone contract than my marriage?
I can see why one's approach to the issue can be offensive. Unfortunately there are strong emotions on the subject. And no amount of understanding will change a church's doctrine on the subject (nor should they have to), but most certainly everyone can be nicer about it.
That's the tough thing about the internet--people turn into monsters and insult each other left and right, when they wouldn't say a thing if facing the person.
Do you have a link to the OSC editorial you're referring to?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see why that would be offensive to you, in his approach on describing homosexuality. I had thought you referred to something else more inflammatory, but I realized I had read this before.
And yes, I agree with about 98% of it. The issue is about fairness and the inequality of the playing field when it comes to a basic social unit. I would love to hear a well thought-out contention against it, rather than people dismissing it with claims its hateful and hurtful.
Any links you know that offer a good rebuttal?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but perhaps I'll work on one. He has another one that bugged me even more than that one did. Why do you agree with it? In what ways does homosexuality weaken the family structure? Do you think that the existence of it encourages hedonism?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why rebutt? He's right. And Rock and Roll will corrupt our children, and those damn commies with spread all over southeast asia. Have you heard about those women trying to get the same jobs as men? Disgraceful! It will ruin the traditional family!
quote:To say we are slaves to our desires and we're just "who we are" is, to me, a social lie that excuses behavior and denies accountability.
I agree. It's a good thing I'm not saying that.
What I AM saying is that the church needs to realize that MOST people won't try very hard to resist these desires, and they really shouldn't. It's not healthy to have all that frustration pent up. The Church needs to let people release that frustration in healthy ways instead of saying that that frustration is evil and you shouldn't have it unless you want to burn in eternal helfire.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...And the fact that these desires CAN be focused in productive ways, especially in a strong marriage. To say a church is wrong in encouraging such focus is something I do not agree; discipline does not always equal frustration.
But those faiths that say "feel frustrated or burn"...I agree, that's not a great way of dealing with it. I think there are superior ways if someone's spiritual path is more important than their physical desires.
BTW, If you choose to believe there's no need to hold back for your physical and mental sanity, then that's your right...but don't go preaching garbage (sorry) that no orgasms make you go crazy. That is false science and ridiculous to boot. That constitutes slavery to our desires indeed.
I haven't burped in a long time. Maybe I have cancer? :-)
As for homosexuality and family structure––My marriage won't crumble because two men get married. I've known many such couples, and they love each other as much as others.
But that's NOT what OSC and other critics are saying. A line must be drawn, and marriage must have a certain value system or it is meaningless, and allowing homosexual marriage (many believe) cheapens the concept of marriage. It weakens its place as much as all the other valid issues (such as easy divorces) previously noted.
Many disagree, but Card's contention is clear and his definition of why marriage exists is clear. It is a fundimental belief of what is right or wrong. It is not bigotry. It is not any kind of "-ism". It is taking a stand on a lifestyle that tries to refine a basic tenet of a society.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms. Why is that?
Humans, and in fact all living things, have the inborn desire to procreate. That's the biological meaning of life.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who get through life without having orgasms, but there are also people who get through life malnourished, homeless, and alone, with any combination of those things. They can be perfectly sane, and I didn't literally mean insane.
What I am talking about is psychological health. There are many things that can contribute to the deteriation of that health, and we usually call that deteriation stress. Having any sort of pent up emotion causes stress.
quote:To me, this is as much of a lie as saying that we can't.
Then you're not paying attention to anything that happens in the real world. You can watch one episode of practically any tv show to know what you called a lie is a truth of today's society (and one of the major reasons other countries hate us, btw).
quote:To say a church is wrong in encouraging such focus is something I do not agree; discipline does not always equal frustration.
I NEVER SAID THAT! What are you reading!? I said they should teach people to focus the energies in safe ways. No one gets hurt when someone has a date with themselves. The church says differently and that's wrong, and has no biblical backing to it whatsoever.
quote:But that's NOT what OSC and other critics are saying. A line must be drawn, and marriage must have a certain value system or it is meaningless, and allowing homosexual marriage (many believe) cheapens the concept of marriage. It weakens its place as much as all the other valid issues (such as easy divorces) previously noted.
(Note: I know you are not saying this)
The line is drawn here: Only two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. I don't know why some fundamentalist make the jump from gay marriage to... MARRYING A SHEEP! No one is saying anything like that. They see gay marriage as the first step to anything marrying anything. It's just not so. And how does two loving people getting married devalue marriage?
This comming from a man who practices a religion founded by a poligamist. Yes, I know it was controversial at the time and is generally a stereotype that represents a very small group within the mormon church. But can you really rail against others for devaluing marriage when the man you follow had several wives?
And now follows the pages of posts criticizing me for being unfair to attack a man's personal religion. But keep in mind he brought religion into debate about what the government should do.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no attacks on you for bringing up polygamy. There's a big difference between bringing up a valid issue versus attacking it.
Note that A) the prophet who helped restore the Church of Jesus Christ wasn't a polygamous to start with and B) the faith accepts that the practice was ordained of God and was for a select few during a select time and was removed when the time came. Unlike today, the U.S. Government threatened to arrest all leaders, confiscate all church property and send in troops...so the Church of Jesus Christ (OSC's faith) knows full well what it's like for the government to intervene in one's personal life.
It sounds like there's confusion on the definition of what's considered a "safe" expression of sexual desire. You DID say that:
quote: The Church needs to let people release that frustration in healthy ways instead of saying that that frustration is evil and you shouldn't have it unless you want to burn in eternal helfire.
What church says frustration is evil? And why is the only "healthy way" to avoid such frustration have to be contrary to doctrine? As I've already writtren time and time again, if the doctrine comes of God then God promises there ARE healthy ways to deal with such desires without having to resort to sin.
Abstinence IS healthy. So people have mental stress. Big deal! The "lie" does exist by saying the only way to avoid frustration is to indulge. I believe it's possible to be obedient and be happy. People do it all the time.
And just because you think something isn't wrong doesn't make it so––again, people like OSC believe the doctrine comes from a trusted source (God Himself) and trust it is right.
BTW, if you say:
quote: Humans, and in fact all living things, have the inborn desire to procreate. That's the biological meaning of life.
..then you've supported what OSC says about marriage all along. It is FAR MORE than just loving someone. Marriage is never just about love. It's about establishing a family unit where children can be born and taught by both genders––a process proven time and time again to be the best way to raise the next generation.
I'm of the mind that a certain kind of civil union can be established for everyone––a personal contract between two people. A gay couple, two brothers, a parent/child, grandparent/child, two friends, whatever...anyone could do it. This contract would have some basic (and I mean basic) protections, but not on the level of a marriage.
quote:What church says frustration is evil? And why is the only "healthy way" to avoid such frustration have to be contrary to doctrine?
Well, I know of the Catholic Church for one. The tell people that so-called "lustful desires" are evil.
Then there is the passage in the Bible about Judah's son (Gen. 38:6-9). Some people seem to think it's teaching against masturbation, but that's riddiculous, and any reasonable person can decifer the true sin in that passage.
quote:Abstinence IS healthy. So people have mental stress. Big deal! The "lie" does exist by saying the only way to avoid frustration is to indulge. I believe it's possible to be obedient and be happy. People do it all the time.
I'm talking about abstinence also. And people are much more willing to abstain if they know that masturbation isn't a sin.
quote:..then you've supported what OSC says about marriage all along.
No I don't. There are many different ways to create a family. Just ask Melissa Etherige. Not to mention the best way to do it: adopt. We have an overcrowded adoption system, and a large group of couples unable to have children together who want to have kids. Don't those two problems solve each other?
The biological desire is to raise children. Sex is only a small part of this overall desire, but it is also the most powerful (except for perhaps the mother's desire to protect her children).
quote:I'm of the mind that a certain kind of civil union can be established for everyone
But you see, if you do this, the gay couple will still want one called marriage. Just calling it a civil union and making it for any two people devalues it (yes, this one actually devalues the union). How does a union like this show how much they love each other when it is applied to so many other kinds of loves. Calling it marriage makes it the ultimate expression of just that one kind of love.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True enough about the Catholic Church, as far as I understand them, but the masterbation issue (among others) again goes back to the idea that one accepts it as sin if they believe the mandate came from an authorized source––such as a prophet, speaking the will of the Lord. We don't have to agree with it, but we are expected to obey if we believe it:
"My ways are not your ways, my thoughts not your thoughts."
We don't know WHY for many things, but we trust there's a good reason. But the trust must be there, IMHO, in something above and beyond the Bible alone. People quote the Bible for everything under the sun. It clearily regards homosexuality as a sin, but so-called Christians seem to ignore that part.
Go figure.
As for civil unions, you need to address that marriage is more than just loving somebody. Marriage intially had NOTHING to do with love, but served a variety of other purposes. OSC makes a valid point: why must everybody have the exact same rights as everyone else? I'm sixteen years old and can drive, but why can't I vote? I'm thirty three years old and run an international business, so why can't I be president?
Homosexuals are having ring ceremonies, regardless, so a civil union that protects some very basic rights when any two people enter a legal relationship could protect gay couples, a grandmother raising her grandchildren, a son caring for a sick parent, or a wide variety of other scenarios. I'd consider it a compromise, leaving traditional marriage between a man and a woman with special rights, and providing some basic protections to those seeking more than a handshake.
As for the children, adoption issue...it goes back to the idea that being raised by a committed man and woman is the healthiest way to raise a child, but THAT's a whole other subject on a whole other thread.
And WHY is homosexuality considered a sin in the bible? Is it taken out of context? Is there a cleaer historical reason for it being prohibitted like the eating of pork and shell fish? This is something that is rarely taken into account. Yes, I am trying to see it from the other perspective. Perhaps the main problem with homosexuality comes the fact that gays don't produce babies when having sex, but neither do old people and people who are infertal. And, perhaps people accepting homosexuality more has shifted society a bit by loosening sex roles, and by proving that sex isn't just for reproduction but for pleasure and companionship. In the past people had to hide it, lead double lives and sneak around. Would society be better if we went back to that? Homosexuality isn't going to go away any time soon... A bibical way of looking at it just isn't enough.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I jus wanna go look up marriage right now-The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.. Right there, there it is. Marriage is man and wife. Im not sayin that im anti-gay, its jus this, my neihbor town(its like a street that seperates or something) is a gay town, New Hope, PA. I see gays, lesbians, whenever my friends and i go into town to get pizza, stop off at Starbux, its like any normal town. They do not botther me at all, but marriage of two of the same sex is wrong. God created man and women, if he wanted man to be able to reproduce jus with tha sex, then he would jus have made man. But god also made women. So they could help eachother and ect. This whole thing is a matter of opinion and such, but as Orson wrote in that article, well he is right. Wether you wish to believe him or not. What he said will happen and no matter how much you say no it will come. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And WHY is homosexuality considered a sin in the bible? Is it taken out of context? Is there a cleaer historical reason for it being prohibitted like the eating of pork and shell fish?
I explained this to you in AIM yesterday.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's not clear enough. Because someone said so is never a clear reason. There has to be more to it. Cultural laws. Some specific factor. Take murder for instance, that's a clear sin. It's clearly wrong. Homosexuality, masturbation, not so clear-cut. Not so black and white. Because the bible said so is not so clear. There are other reasons and factors behind it that aren't taken into account enough. Saying it's an unhealthy lifestyle isn't so clear either. Straight people get various diseases as well, lesbians are less at risk for HIV and other venereal diseases, so that's not a clear enough reason to me either... It's more complex than that. You're talking about individual people who struggle with this thing or learn to accept it and become a lot happier because of it... There has to be more than just, "It's a sin, it's abnormal, it's an abomination, deal with it."
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "It's a sin, it's abnormal, it's an abomination, deal with it."
Synestesia, you are the only person I hear saying this type of thing. It's a straw man, and you've already burned it 50 times.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering why nobody's linked to this yet. Just so we're all clear on the Church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage:
Larry King Live, December 26, 2004
quote: KING: ... we were all people.
But as the mores have changed - for example, I know that the Church is opposed to gay marriage.
HINCKLEY: Yes.
KING: Do you have an alternative? Do you like the idea of civil unions?
HINCKLEY: Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way.
And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem.
KING: A problem they caused, or they were born with?
HINCKLEY: I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.
KING: Do you favor some sort of state union?
HINCKLEY: Well, we want to be very careful about that, because that - whatever may lead to gay marriage, we're not in favor of.
We - many people don't get married. Goodness sakes alive. You know that.
Many people who have to discipline themselves. If they transgress, they become subject to the discipline of the Church. But we try in every way that we know how to help them, to assist them, to bless their lives.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
