posted
Steven, it bears mentioning again that your only bullets on your brag sheet for your "Unsheltered" merit badge include "College" and your "own willfullness"
Um...college is a womb, an incubator at best. I remain completely unimpressed by college being touted as life experience. I mean I'm sure your first beer and coming across the first standoff between the Gay/Lesbian Society and the FCA were truly mind expanding experiences for you, but they're not blowing my skirt up.
If that's all you're bringing to the table, just push your chair back and wait for the realization to hit you that You...Are...Sheltered...Too.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: a person can at least try to make some sort of attempt to understand gay people as PEOPLE and not as immoral sinners who should just turn straight.
I don't think for a second that gay people should be written off, nor treated as ANYthing less than equal as people. Furthermore, I do not think that the fact that a person is gay should play a significant role in a first impression or judgement of their character.
A good gay person is a good person, period. A gay @*&^%$! is an @*&^%$!, period.
HOWEVER, that does not at all invalidate a person's right to decide whether or not they feel that indulging in homosexual acts is immoral. If a person's beliefs dictate that homosexuality is immoral, then I for one resent the idea that they should have to temper their beliefs and try to "See it the gay way" before deciding. They've already contemplated, meditated, prayed, soul searched, whatever you want to call it. That is WHY they believe what they do, they've already found their way, and their way tells them in their heart that homosexual acts are wrong.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt they've done the sort of contemplation, meditation, praying and soul searching most gay people have done to come to the conclusion that they are gay and no amount of praying or psychotherapy is going to reverse that. It's not just acts. No one has the right to deny gay people their rights, being with the one they love on all levels based on their religious beliefs. Especially when it gets in the way of real facts about gay people and so called homosexual acts.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we've reached the same impass as every other "gay" conversation. You have trivialized the dedication a person has to their religious beliefs while uplifting the dedication another person has to their homosexuality. You immediately "doubt" that a religious person has done the same due diligence as a gay person in arriving at their chosen lifestyle. That lumps ALL religious people together in a single capricious group. While I have made the admission that there are good gay people and lousy gay people, you have made no such admission.
Simply Gay=Good Religious=Bad.
Which is usually how these conversations come to a close. You expect me to "See it the gay way" and try to see homosexuals as individuals, yet You yourself exhibit corralling behavior, shooing all religious people into a single clump of people who do not seek nor delve into something before blindly believing it.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Especially when it gets in the way of real facts about gay people and so called homosexual acts.
Don't play semantics kung-fu. "So called" is a rather empty phrase here. There are homosexual acts, and we all have a decent grasp of what those are. They aren't "so called homosexual" They are homosexual.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can be gay and Christian. Even gay and Mormon. Gay and Catholic Gay and Seventh Day Adventist. Books by E Lynn Harris comes to mind. I did a lot of thought and came to the OPPOSITE conclusion when I was younger. And I grew up surrounded by folks I doubt had ever thought about WHY being gay was considered wrong, they just came to that conclusion without taking history or context into consideration. Not every religious person thinks that homosexuality=a sin.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Especially when it gets in the way of real facts about gay people and so called homosexual acts.
Don't play semantics kung-fu. "So called" is a rather empty phrase here. There are homosexual acts, and we all have a decent grasp of what those are. They aren't "so called homosexual" They are homosexual.
Dood Straight people do stuff like that too! It's not just gay people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give up. I hate arguing about homosexuality. It is not immoral and I never understand why folks think it is and spend more time and energy on it than say, the foster care system.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I hate arguing about homosexuality. It is not immoral and I never understand why folks think it is and spend more time and energy on it than say, the foster care system.
I hate arguing about it too.
But just to say something is without giving any consideration to what other people's opinion on it is stupid. I do not think it is befitting of a lifestyle of holiness (but neither is lying, cheating, stealing, lusting in general, and any number of things). However I do have gay friends.
Is that contradictory? I don't think so- I don't pretend that I approve- but I don't bring it up either. One of my friends told me that was "quite taken" with me. Did I condemn him- no. I just continued to talk to him like normal. Not to mention- I don't expect him to live to the same standards that I do- do I think that makes me better? No. If I didn't believe what I believe then I would much less incentive for having my standards.
If he were a Christian then I would expect him to live a certain way- but until then why should I say anything?
I hate arguing about homosexuality too- I'm not going to change my mind and I doubt you will either. But let's move past it- I can still think what I think. But what if we stopped condemning each other for what we think about it and agree to disagree.
And then we can worry about issues like the foster care system? I'd like to see that fixed up too.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that in history, working on a Sunday was considered a sin (or a Friday, or a Saturday depending on your religious preference). Now, how many of us routinely go in to work on Sudays, even more when we're teenagers and have jobs in the service industry? A whole lot I'd reckon.
While I'm not sure exactly what the religious equivilant is, jewish people believe eating pork makes one unpure. Hindu's don't eat beef for religious reasons. I eat both things (if sparingly), so does that mean that they should treat me as less of a person? Of course not! Does that mean I am not a "moral" a person? I don't think it does. However, I'm pretty sure they'd view me as less religiously pure than they are - at least in terms of their own religious viewpoints.
At any rate, I think that your views on homosexuality have very little do do with how sheltered you are, and much more to do with how creeped out you are by it. I find that people who are extremely creeped out by it are much more likely to find it both religiously, morally, and socially unacceptable. People who are less creeped out by it tend to see it as "not that big a deal"... if they see it as a sin, it's much closer to, say, lying than to murder.
Personally, I think any form of pre-(or extra)marital sex is a sin. However, the irresponsibility of it bothers me much MUCH more than the immorality of it. Thus, the idea of two guys having sex (or two girls) actually seems LESS wrong to me than the idea of an unmarried male and female having sex. After all, same sex relations were never intended by God to create offspring, and have absolutely no chance of doing so. However, when people have sex (even on birth control) without being at all prepared for or respectful of the possibility of that act to create life, it sickens me. Does this mean then that I should look down at everyone I meet?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: While I'm not sure exactly what the religious equivilant is, jewish people believe eating pork makes one unpure.
False.
For the record, I am not especially "creeped out" by homosexual behavior, and I certainly believe it to be sinful. Any other overgeneralizations and blatant inaccuracies about religious people I can burst for you?
And some of us still DON'T work on the Sabbath. Mine starts in just a few minutes, so I'll be going. Have a good one! Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For the record, I am not especially "creeped out" by homosexual behavior, and I certainly believe it to be sinful. Any other overgeneralizations and blatant inaccuracies about religious people I can burst for you?
How about this one: unlike murder, robbery, and other acts commonly accepted to be immoral, the immorality of homosexuality cannot be established in a purely logical manner. In other words, without the Bible there would be no reason to consider homosexuality immoral.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes sense to me. It doesn't even count as a psychological problem because a lot of gays who are depressed or alcoholic or suicidal are usually that way due to pressues from the outside world, family, alienation, that sort of thing. And where does some of that come from?
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For the record, I am not especially "creeped out" by homosexual behavior, and I certainly believe it to be sinful. Any other overgeneralizations and blatant inaccuracies about religious people I can burst for you?
How about this one: unlike murder, robbery, and other acts commonly accepted to be immoral, the immorality of homosexuality cannot be established in a purely logical manner. In other words, without the Bible there would be no reason to consider homosexuality immoral.
posted
This is what I'm curious about... If you believe that all of existence occurred as a product of evolution, and there is no God, how could you not accept that homosexuality is dysfunctional? And if you do believe there is a God, must you resort to some particular interpretation of whatever religion you believe that does not consider homosexuality to be sinful?
I mean, it seems like if you are a thoughtful homosexual, you're stuck between a philisophical rock and a hard place, because most honest interpretations of the various religions do not allow homosexuality to be considered Moral (I don't know about Buddhism or Hinduism, although based upon the cultures in which those religions are dominant, I doubt they are very tolerant of homosexuality either.) Is this why so many homosexuals I have known are pagans?
[edit] I don't mean to present a false dichotomy. I'm just wondering how one reconciles his or her homosexuality with his or her particular worldview.
posted
My point wasn't that you can't consider homosexuality immoral if you're not creeped out by it. My point was that the more creeped out someone is by homosexuality, the higher a degree of immorality someone generally puts it at.
For instance, though some people claim to believe differently, no one truly believes that lying is on the same level of immorality as, say, rape or murder. Nor do people generally think that buying their 13-year-old a childs pass to a movie or museum lays on the same level as stealing a car.
My point is that people who are highly creeped out by homosexuality usually find it much MORE sinful that people who aren't.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to respond to this, but homosexuality is not a disfunction. You might as well consider infertility a disfunction. It's a variation, like autism and so many other variations. When you start to think about it, it's not a big deal. Two men being together, two women, who cares? There are larger problems that no one even seems to scratch the surface of. Why focus on two consenting adults drawn to each other? There are pockets of cultures that at one time were more tolerant about homosexuality than at other times. But it exists universally. Realy the western biblical perspective gets in the way of the whole entire picture.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: My point is that people who are highly creeped out by homosexuality usually find it much MORE sinful that people who aren't.
I understood your point. You are providing no evidence other than your assertion than it is so.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, well, this is true. It's really hard to get concrete evidence on this because it would be very difficult to do an unbiassed scientific study on.
My "evidence" all comes from people I know, what I've seen of their beliefs about homosexuality, and what I've seen of their discomfort in the idea of it. Unfortunately, since we know none of the same people, it's very difficult to put this evidence in any type of verifiable form.
I suppose it is also somewhat circular. If you truly believed homosexuality was a particularly horrible sin, then you would probably also be fairly creeped out by it. My evidence for this is that I believe child mutilation and murder to be very VERY wrong, and I think that I am creeped out by it because I see it as being so wrong.
I also find it amusing that you seem to believe that I am NOT a religious person:
"For the record, I am not especially "creeped out" by homosexual behavior, and I certainly believe it to be sinful. Any other overgeneralizations and blatant inaccuracies about religious people I can burst for you?"
For one thing, I knew I was overgeneralizing about the Jewish/Pork thing... I was TRYING to come up with an overgeneralized example. I appologize sincerely, however, if I offended you. I was trying to make it clear that I was talking of generalities that I didn't truly understand the specifics of, but I guess I didn't do a good job.
However, I am religious. I'm not sure exactly what my opinonios of homosexuality being a sin actually ARE. However, I know I DEFINITELY don't believe it's close to murder or child molestation. I'm sorta just waiting on God to clarify the point for me at the moment. So far, he seems preoccupied with more important tasks. :-)
Actually, I'm willing to let him rest on the homosexuality issue, if he'd just give me a strait answer on how he feels about me getting my son baptised. :-( That's a decision I have to make soon, and I feel like I'm doing something wrong no matter which way I choose. It's really too bad that God doesn't have a more extensive FAQ website. ;-)
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Suppose I grant your claim (I'm not, but let's suppose I did). So what?
If my claim is granted then the point that homosexuality is immoral could not be used as an argument against gay marriage or equal rights civil unions (not saying you're making that argument).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: This is what I'm curious about... If you believe that all of existence occurred as a product of evolution, and there is no God, how could you not accept that homosexuality is dysfunctional? And if you do believe there is a God, must you resort to some particular interpretation of whatever religion you believe that does not consider homosexuality to be sinful?
Probably the same way we all would (if we were all atheists) for not being gifted with all the most currently advantageous genetic traits (I'm not the most athletic, attractive or intelligent guy in the world, after all)... We all live to the best of our ability, and seek out what makes us happy.
And there are interpretations of religions that believe that homosexuality isn't condemned by God.
1) Anecdotes =! data And my anecdotes disagree with yours. *shrug*
2) I do realize that you are religious. It's not like we've never spoken before. That hardly makes you an expert on other people's religious beliefs.
3) You claims about Judaism and pork aren't "overgeneralized." They are flat out WRONG. I wasn't offended, but I am starting to find your assertions fairly grating.
4) One can sincerely believe that something is very high up on the "sin scale" and still not have a visceral reaction to it. The fact that you (or your friends) cannot does not keep it from being true for lots of other people.
Threads, I don't think anyone in this thread was making that argument. Must this turn into every other thread on this topic?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, when I said dysfunctional, I meant it in strictly evolutionary terms. A homosexual has a much smaller chance of passing on his or her genes, and so this is a trait that evolutionary theory says would eventually be weeded out of the population.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A homosexual has a much smaller chance of passing on his or her genes, and so this is a trait that evolutionary theory says would eventually be weeded out of the population.
Not necessarily. If the trait somehow makes other people in the same population more likely to survive, it could easily be preserved.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:unlike murder, robbery, and other acts commonly accepted to be immoral, the immorality of homosexuality cannot be established in a purely logical manner.
Could you establish the immorality of murder in a purely logical manner for me? Heck, can you establish the immorality of anything in a purely logical manner?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: In addition, we don't even really need to go to that length. Evolution isn't always perfect and cannot (or perhaps has not) eliminated all things that might reduce fitness.
Our eye's blind spot, our tailbone, wisdom teeth, our appendix are all examples and relatively harmless. For all we know homosexuality might simply be another relatively harmless vestigial trait.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:unlike murder, robbery, and other acts commonly accepted to be immoral, the immorality of homosexuality cannot be established in a purely logical manner.
Could you establish the immorality of murder in a purely logical manner for me? Heck, can you establish the immorality of anything in a purely logical manner?
Not as an absolute but from the perspective of a society it's relatively trivial. I don't see that as too big of a restriction because it's not clear that it makes sense to talk about morals in an absolute sense in the first place. For a society to protect its individuals (a society's primary purpose) the golden rule must apply in general cases. If I don't want my neighbors to be able to steal from me or kill me then I cannot steal from or kill them in return. I don't know of any similar reasoning for homosexuality.
I would consider that type of reasoning to fall under "purely logical", though perhaps a better term would have been "practical"? "Practical" doesn't seem to fit what I was trying to say either. I don't want to get into a semantics debate so I'll concede any point you have regarding my use of "purely logical".
Anyways, homosexuality seems to be considered immoral by some because the Bible says so. This amounts to "it is because it is" which I find to be a highly unsatisfactory explanation. The immorality of murder can be established by assuming the perspective of society as a whole (in other words, answering what is necessary for society to continue to function?). One of the primary reasons that societies were formed and still exist is because they provide security for their citizens.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a society to protect its individuals (a society's primary purpose) the golden rule must apply in general cases. If I don't want my neighbors to be able to steal from me or kill me then I cannot steal from or kill them in return.
That's a possible rationale for making a law - that is, a moral rule enforced by the coercive power of society as a whole.
But that's a very different thing than declaring an action to be moral or immoral.
quote:Anyways, homosexuality seems to be considered immoral by some because the Bible says so. This amounts to "it is because it is" which I find to be a highly unsatisfactory explanation. The immorality of murder can be established by assuming the perspective of society as a whole (in other words, answering what is necessary for society to continue to function?). One of the primary reasons that societies were formed and still exist is because they provide security for their citizens.
Again, you've conflated "immoral" with "should be punished by society." What's your basis for such conflation?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyways, homosexuality seems to be considered immoral by some because the Bible says so. This amounts to "it is because it is" which I find to be a highly unsatisfactory explanation. The immorality of murder can be established by assuming the perspective of society as a whole (in other words, answering what is necessary for society to continue to function?). One of the primary reasons that societies were formed and still exist is because they provide security for their citizens.
Again, you've conflated "immoral" with "should be punished by society." What's your basis for such conflation?
Because "do not murder" is really a fundamental principle of any society. The degrees to which killing is permitted (application of death penalty or self-defense) can be debated but general killing cannot. In that sense it is not like other laws and regulations such as zoning regulations or drunk driving. What is a moral besides a fundamental principle?
Of course, this is from the perspective of the society. Murder may be immoral from the perspective of society but not from the perspective of any particular individual.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
