posted
Interesting that you (twinky) bring up visible minority. I'm a visible bigot, but many of the people here are not. That is, they reserve the right to think homosexuality is a sin, but still vote to extend marriage rights to them. You are saying they are wrong to do this, because their inward feelings will somehow taint a "yes" vote. Is this correct? Edit: to insert addressee
posted
Tres: I think you'll find your wrong. I take as one of my premises that all volitional killing is more harmful than any involitional death. How does utilitarianism with that premise justify killing, again?
Kat, here you go (this one's for homosexual adoption):
Children benefit from familial exposure to both gender models, in that not having familial exposure to both gender models results in children who are less well adjusted and able to deal with issues of gender themselves. Being able to deal with personal gender issues is important to for children to function in society. It is a worthwhile goal for society to work towards for children to function in well in it. Homosexual couples in almost all cases only present one gender model. Therefore, homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt.
It wouldn't be a bad argument -- if it weren't based on a rather faulty premise.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What gender roles? How dare you suggest that men or women have a role??
Seriously, I'm being sarcastic, but that argument won't actually hold up when you're talking to people who'e lifestyle is based on the fact that they don't fit into a particular "role."
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying this is no difference in the ways a child relates to an older female from the way he/she relates to an older male?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could potentially do a study of a legal question. You could compare various factors between contries that allow homosexual marriage and contries that don't, if you could control for other influences well enough.
That might tell you the influence of homosexual marriages on those factors, but it wouldn't tell you whether it was right or wrong, or whether it should or should not be legal.
quote:Tres: I think you'll find your wrong. I take as one of my premises that all volitional killing is more harmful than any involitional death. How does utilitarianism with that premise justify killing, again?
If me and a bunch of my friends take a whole lot of pleasure from killing you, to the point where the sum total of the pleasure we gain outweighs the suffering you and others would undergo from your death, it would be right for us to kill you under utilitarianism - just for our own pleasure!
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there's a definite difference between the role a woman and the role a man play in a child's life.
I'm also saying that not EVERYONE believes that. I can actually see it coming up in our threads. That is, someone trying to argue that men and women don't play any particular parts and that a child doesn't need both "male" and "female" role-models.
I don't agree with that, though.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm.... I think that's a question that CAN actually be answered by social science. If social science has any value at all, it describes the way human beings interact.
I know it was a central tenet of several movements that one or the other parent was dispensable, but that was wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please.... if children suffer from having only one gender model, all single moms should have their kids taken away. It's an incredibly lame premise.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina -- actually, I'm saying there are numerous studies showing two things: that while children's gender roles are changed by being raised by homosexual people, they're not drastically so, and that children who have their gender roles slightly altered (on average) by being raised by homosexual couples are just as well adjusted to society as other children.
posted
Single mothers (and I speak from experience) DO have to worry about ensuring that their kids have suitable male role models. In cases where they do not do so, there are clear negative consequences.
And VERY few single mothers planned to BECOME single moms. There is a difference between dealing with a situation that arises and creating one deliberately.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To briefly summarize the studies, the main finding is that it isn't the gender roles that impacted childhood development all that much, but having a supportive parent (who, for instance, might expose that child to the proper role models if none were immediately available). And having a supportive parent was found to be much more likely with two parents, regardless of which gender they were.
This can be fairly well understood when you consider that if neither parent is supportive it doesn't much matter what their gender roles are, while that if even one parent is supportive he/she'll encourage exposure to good influences.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gender roles; gender and sex are often correlated, but not always.
Sex refer's to a person's physical situation (this isn't nearly as clear as a lot of people think already).
Gender refers to their behavioral situation -- "masculine" and "feminine" tendencies.
Someone fulfilling a masculine gender role is providing a "masculine" example; similarly for fulfilling a feminine gender role.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Varies by whom you talk to, however in short what is meant by those terms is exactly the same as what is meant by those terms in literary analysis. Any good general English class should have covered the subject.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and just in case this thread goes the way of other ones like it, if anyone leaves Hatrack over this, please e-mail me and tell me. I'd hate to remain ignorant as long as I have at other times I stopped reading contentious threads. Thanks.
Considering I don't really post, I guess I don't count. I already had my affair that made me feel it's not worth posting here. Some posts in this thread make me not want to read any more, though.
Really, people. This seriously makes me sick. There are people being denied real rights for being a minority. And don't give me this "lifestyle" line of bull, either: we let people who choose to live secular lifestyles get married (including "alternative" people: tattooed, pierced, odd dress, whatever), so the argument about it not being "real" bigotry is stupid. STUPID. There is no way around it, this is flat-out bigotry, and denying people civil rights because you don't like what they believe.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
what are the secular arguments against homosexual marraige?
Run through every test of ethics i could remember from out unit in ethics, homosexual marraige seems an ethical action. What are the harms, what are the secular arguments against it?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> That is, they reserve the right to think homosexuality is a sin, but still vote to extend marriage rights to them. You are saying they are wrong to do this, because their inward feelings will somehow taint a "yes" vote. Is this correct? << (pooka)
No, even this is stronger than what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that their view of homosexuality influences their view of homosexual marriage. i.e., I'm saying that the two issues are interrelated and should be considered together, because of the question of the legal status of homosexuals. (Edit: This doesn't imply that a person can't support homosexual marriage while considering homosexuality to be a sin.)
>> That might tell you the influence of homosexual marriages on those factors, but it wouldn't tell you whether it was right or wrong, or whether it should or should not be legal. <<
If it is shown to have no negative impact while making homosexuals happier, that would imply that it should be legal.
posted
It makes no sense. There is no logical reason to deny gay marriage! It's not something that's about doctrine, it's about human beings. Putting yourself in someone else's position enough to toss doctrine aside a bit and focus on what counts!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000" Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2002. 43, 335-351
quote:Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
I'm posting the pdf here 'cause it's hard to get to otherwise.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It makes no sense. There is no logical reason to deny gay marriage!
I'm not picking on Synesthesia, here - there have been lots of comments similar to this. THis one is just closest to the bottom.
The problem here is that most of the supporters of homosexual marriage see this issue in only one way. That's fine as far as it goes, but you cannot convince people on the other side if you refuse to see it from their point of view.
In one of my previous posts I tried to explain some of the fundamental reasons many have for opposing homosexual marriage. Namely, that the reasons for supporting homosexual marriage all stem from an admission that the institution of marriage from a civil perspective is merely a legal convenience that generates legal rights and privileges. The fundamental attack on marriage in their eyes is not that gay people will be married, but rather that marriage is no longer a sacred covenant.
The issue involves asking people to examine fundamental beliefs, not about homosexuality, but about the fundamental organizational unit from which most people take their identity. Civil marriage is now reduced to a list of benefits, not a committment.
My solution to that was to acknowledge the civil/sacred dichotomy of marriage described above. But it required a fundamental shift in my thinking about marriage and my expected vocation in life. It did not require a fundamental shift in my thinking about homosexuality.
There are civil rights aspects to this issue - it's why I believe any couple should have access to the civil benefits of marriage. People who genuinely want to change people's minds on the issue would do well to understand that there are logical reasons to deny gay marriage. Understanding those reasons is the first step to refuting them.
Those who choose to revel in their self-righteousness should not be surprised when they convince no one.
posted
*sighs and wonders why I do this to myself* I'm trying to see it... I honestly am... Trying o see things from the other side, but it still makes no sense to me... I'm trying to understand it but I just can't... This is called... asking for something impossible...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn: you're not able to see the issue from someone else's point of view, and yet you're asking those who disagree with you to see it from your point of view? Am I interpreting that correctly?
Edit: the above came out snarkier than I intended; I'm really just wondering if I understood your post correctly.
posted
I find "marriage" to be a convenient term to use. Especially since it seems that the dictionary.com definition jives with what I thought the definition of marriage was, "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The state of being married; wedlock." I'd certainly like for one day soon to be able to say that the dictionary definition of marriage is "The legal union of two people." Lets leave out polygamy and the like for the moment (I have no problems with them besides figuring out legal logistics).
What was pointed out to me in a recent article on cnn about unions is that state-mandated "civil unions" between homosexuals unfortunately do not encompass all the rights given to a man and a woman in a "civil marriage." There are federal laws that prevent two women in a civil union from benefitting from social security, for example.
So if the federal government is willing to call ALL unions/marriages "civil marriages" with the same rights across the board, I'd be happy with that. I'd be happy if they wanted to call it all "civil unions," whether they be between two men, two women, or one of each.
If there is this insistence on marriage being a Church-affiliated act, then it seems reasonable to suggest that neither legally-bound pairing be called marriage by the government. Certainly colloquial use will suggest people will keep calling themselves "married." In fact, many same-sex couples who have lived together for years do call themselves "married," in an effort to celebrate their own spiritual union.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I largely agree with that analysis, Sun. That is why I the only type of marital relationship that should be recognized by the law is a "civil union," represented by a government issued license.
"Marriages" would then be those marital relationships sanctioned by some religious (or non-religious) institution and will carry exactly the meaning that institution and the couple wish to give it. I would suspect that most of these would also wish to obtain a civil union license at the same time.
Government and "secular" institutions would recognize the existance of a civil union or not, without taking into account the marriage aspect of it in any way. Religious institutions would probably recognize only the marriage aspects. There would have to be means for private associations to be protected in their right to limit memberships to marriages they find acceptable, while public accomodations, housing, insurance, hospital visitation, etc. would have to extend privileges universally to all civil union spouses.
Colloquially, some people would just use the word marriage for both aspects and some would preserve the word for a subset of marital relationships. But legally, civil unions would be it.
Dagonee P.S., Making polygamy legally viable is a lot harder than some may think - there's a lot of subtle traps there based on the ubiquitous legal assumption that each person has 0 or 1 spouse.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. I really ought to just stop. It won't do any good. For example, I've been posting on message boards on this topic for years. The people there were rude to the point of barbaric. Using all sorts of slurs and name calling. This is more civil. But still... I really, really can't understand it... It doesn't make even the smallest bit of sense to me. This is my phillosophy- People are basically people. If they want to make a commit to each other spiritually and mentally and get benefits for it like being able to visit their partner in the hospital when they say, "family only" or being able to add their partner to their insurance, then why stop them? I really, really don't see how gayness is wrong... Maybe because I have no exact religion. Or because I'm caught in between... Or too close to the issue... I really am trying to understand...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, To answer that perspective, I'm a strong supportor of marriage as a commitment that is very important to our society. However, I don't see that restricting people who truely want to enter into this commitment could be construed as "defending" the commitment.
Let's be honest, the reduction of marriage into just civil benefits is hardly the only central issue about homosexual marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married are concerned about their civil rights that are being denied them, but they also want to enter into a sacred relationship with the person they love.
The dicussion around homosexual marriage comes down to its civil aspects because, for many people, it seems that this is a very clear case where anti-homosexual marriage people don't really have a leg to stand on, other than a might makes right type of injustice. That's doesn't mean that this is all that it's about.
I've asked before if people think that two homosexuals can experience love for each other comparable to that of two heterosexuals. If they can, I can't see any reason (other that God says, nu-huh, the exclusion of which our country was founded on) why their marriages are any less sacred than a heterosexual one.
Love is a main issue here. Gay people want the transcendental union with their spouse as much as heteros do. They are offended when someone who knows nothing about them spits on their love, calling the best thing that ever happened to them sick and evil.
Marriage, in general, is in a awful state because actual, non-self-centered love is in extremely short supply in our culture. I think it's safe to say, looking at it objectively, marriage has historically never been in a good state. We're 50 years out from where it was accepted practice for husbands to beat their wives and children. The majority of marriage has never been sacred. For the longest time, it was even about love at all, but rather property rights. I say people who are fighting so much against adversity to be gain the right to marriage can only make it better, make it more sacred.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've asked before if people think that two homosexuals can experience love for each other comparable to that of two heterosexuals. If they can, I can't see any reason (other that God says, nu-huh, the exclusion of which our country was founded on) why their marriages are any less sacred than a heterosexual one.
But I think the sacredness cannot come from the government, nor should it. You're mixing arguments for civil marriage and sacred marriage in the same sentence.
Right now, there's nothing stopping two homosexuals from "enter[ing] into a sacred relationship with the person they love" except the beliefs and practices of individual religious institutions. What is lacking now are the civil benefits.
There is no law that's ever going to force a church that beleives "God says, nu-huh" (to use your oversimplified phrasing) to provide the sacred type of marriage, no matter what the civil union rules are.
posted
Dagonee, I intentionally mixed the civil and sacred aspects. If you think about it, I'm not the one who started doing it. That is exactly what the whole big debate is about.
People who believe that homosexuals can't have a sacred marriage are trying to prevent them from having a civil one. You've brought up the idea that people are offended that we're now reducing marriage only to it's civil side. I responded by saying that this is not at all what we're doing. It's just that the civil side is the only one we really have a right to legislate on. That's what I was trying to reference in mixing the two above, as well as the idea that people really aren't justified in claiming what is or is not sacred for other people. As I said, I, and many other people regard a homosexual marriage founded on love just as sacred as a loving heterosexual one.
We're fighting most strongly for the legal rights. Those are extremely important. The other aspect is that, just like religious people don't like people mocking their belief or calling their sacred things evil or disgusting, gay people and those who love them likewise can get offended by people spitting on their sacred union. I quite honestly couldn't care less what some bigot from Texas thinks, but I understand why this bothers other people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree about the sacredness not coming from the government. A large part of my point is that sacredness is not the province of the government. I, personally, don't think that it comes from a church either. Sacredness is a matter of the people involved (and God, if you hold with that sort of thing). The best a church can do is recognize and celebrate the sacredness. Of course, I can understand why other people would feel differently.
Syn, You've got to remember that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. Life can be really ugly, but it can be really beautiful too. Care about the ugliness, but never let it dominate your thinking. Just some presumptious advice.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> There is no law that's ever going to force a church that beleives "God says, nu-huh" (to use your oversimplified phrasing) to provide the sacred type of marriage, no matter what the civil union rules are. <<
Why would anyone draft a law that forced churces to recognize and/or perform homosexual marriages?
"Marriage" is used by convention in the Western world to denote both civil and spiritual unions. Changing the legal definition of "marriage" doesn't imply that all of a sudden churches where homosexuality is considered a sin must begin to recognize homosexual marriages spiritually.
As you say, it's about the civil benefits. I just don't see the problem with calling it "marriage," since a shotgun wedding in Vegas is also a "marriage." I don't accept your arguments that allowing homosexual marriage affects the marriages of heterosexuals, religious or secular.
Here's the text of the draft bill that the Canadian government has submitted to our Supreme Court (to get their opinion):
>> “Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes:
WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;
WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended to couples of the same sex;
AND WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.” <<
I really don't see how anyone can justify opposing that piece of legislation.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I wanted to return to the original point of the thread, because it seems to me that there's a big point that people aren't getting. I'm really returning to a point I was trying to make on Bob's thread.
That is, I believe, and I think the Bible supports me on this, that the basis for immorality is a lack of love for other people. It seems to me that, for some people, homosexual sex or showing a breast on tv have become sort of a symbol for all the immorality in our society. I wholeheartedly disagree. It's the hatred that many people in the anti-gay marriage (and many in the anti-anti-gay marriage) crowd are showing.
For me, you want to improve morality in society, that's exactly where you want to start. But the people clamoring most loudly about morality aren't. In fact, they're doing the exact opposite. They are supporting it. Maybe they aren't themselves hating, but they are certainly sheltering hate-filled people. They are letting people hate others and call it righteousness, and all because they agree on an issue.
I picked up The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. the other day and I'm working my way through it. Forget about What Would Jesus Do? People aren't even living up to the example of the most moral public figure (ok, tie with Gandhi) of at least the last hundred years. In a much worse situation than any existing in America today, Dr. King constantly spoke out against hating your enemy, relying instead on the Biblical injunction to love them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't either, but that's only because I had a bad relationship with a Canadian chick once and I've come to believe that any Candians marrying is an affront to God and nature.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Anyhow. It's been fun. Don't let my Lesbians Raise Children Just Fine article get lost in the hullaballoo... Night!
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think the sacredness cannot come from the government, nor should it. You're mixing arguments for civil marriage and sacred marriage in the same sentence.
Right now, there's nothing stopping two homosexuals from "enter[ing] into a sacred relationship with the person they love" except the beliefs and practices of individual religious institutions. What is lacking now are the civil benefits.
There is no law that's ever going to force a church that beleives "God says, nu-huh" (to use your oversimplified phrasing) to provide the sacred type of marriage, no matter what the civil union rules are.
...except that nobody's proposing the law force any church to reverse their declarations of inherent homosexual sinfulness. Homosexuals can be married now, actually, by several churches that got past their homophobic tendencies. Only, those marriages aren't legally recognized as marriages by the law -- which is all equal rights movements are demanding.
Though I should elaborate, I'm against settling for seperate-but-equal "civil unions" if they're set apart from heterosexual marriage. Both must be one, or both must be the other. Both must be equal.
The most critical reason why homophobic churches cannot allow legal equality of homosexuals is eventual and inevitable tolerance of homosexuals -- legal recognition is an important step in fighting anti-homosexual sentiment in this country, and should the Religious Right lose its ability to persecute homosexuals through the law, it stands great risk of eventually having its homophobic policies recognized for what they are. Do you really think young believers will be able to flip both sides of the coin and pay more than lip service to both the idea that homosexuals are equal and the inaccurate stereotypes of deviant sinners?
Ever since black people won their rights from the righteous Christian majority in the sixties, Christian policy across all denominations has reformed to acknowledge blacks as equals -- even if, as Macc said, interracial marriage is still discouraged, both out of hate and out of fear of that hate.
The same is going to happen with homosexuality, be it tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow. Do you truly believe the children of these protestors, or their grandchildren, are going to look back with pride on their relatives shrilling "Repent or perish" at couples who want nothing more than the freedom to love each other with the same benefits we afford all heterosexuals in this country? I'm serious about this question -- do you believe in fifty years people will look back at these bigots with anything less than the contempt we now have for the white supremacists of days gone by?
I really don't see it happening. Kat earlier asked me if the stereotypes I grew up with about the South, and my occasional flickering belief in them, qualify as bigotry. Yes, they do. Even today, when I think of the South, I get images of white supremacy, of suburban housewives clucking their tongues over Mary Sue Jo Bob marrying that nigger, of corrupt cops participating in the Southern good-ol'-boy system.
That's bigotry. What keeps me from being a bigot is that I constantly check these stereotypes whenever they enter my head, remembering that the vocal minority doesn't necessarily represent the majority. Whenever I unconsciously revert to stereotypes, I do my damndest to remember that the history of the South aside, not all or most Southerners are the self-righteous, Bible-thumping, nigger-lynching hatemongers that so many of their political blocs try to represent. Hell, I'm considering a move to the South soon -- while I'm not decided on New Orleans, I'll not let the stereotypes I've heard about Southerners decide my appraisal of their value.
I only wish some of the self-righteous Bible-thumpers would do the same for homosexuals. Unlike the South, homosexuals have never earned the stereotypes thrust upon them of deviant sinner or flamboyant, limp-wristed prattler. The South, by contrast, has a long and unfortunately unvaried history of prejudice and hatred in some form or another -- while I won't judge Southerners today by the bigots of the past, there's at least history to back up the stereotypes of the South. What stereotypes can homophobes fall back on? Jack from Will and Grace?
I'd be very surprised if any significant number of self-righteous bigots know homosexuals. Even on this fairly well-represented forum, the only openly homosexual people we have that I know of are KarlEd and Caleb. Neither fit the popular stereotypes of homosexuals. Actually, virtually none of my homosexual friends do -- and those who do rely on their sexual orientation as an identity, since they were identified solely as "that fag" for most of their lives. It's sad, really, and infuriates me against the widespread anti-homosexual bigotry that we so casually write off as religious belief.
I hope I haven't rambled too much -- I've written this post over the course of an hour and several conversations, and tried to address most of the concerns expressed in the thread thus far.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:...except that nobody's proposing the law force any church to reverse their declarations of inherent homosexual sinfulness. Homosexuals can be married now, actually, by several churches that got past their homophobic tendencies. Only, those marriages aren't legally recognized as marriages by the law -- which is all equal rights movements are demanding.
Lalo, I've never said anyone is proposing that law. If you read through the chain of my posts you will see that I stand in favor of a single, unified civil union.
I was responding to a post from MrSquicky saying that the civil union was not enough, pointing out the civil unions are all that anyone is going to get from the government. I also pointed out that homosexuals are getting married in churches now. Are you just reiterating my post or agreeing with me?
quote: Though I should elaborate, I'm against settling for seperate-but-equal "civil unions" if they're set apart from heterosexual marriage. Both must be one, or both must be the other. Both must be equal.
Again, thanks for agreeing with me.
quote: The same is going to happen with homosexuality, be it tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow. Do you truly believe the children of these protestors, or their grandchildren, are going to look back with pride on their relatives shrilling "Repent or perish" at couples who want nothing more than the freedom to love each other with the same benefits we afford all heterosexuals in this country? I'm serious about this question -- do you believe in fifty years people will look back at these bigots with anything less than the contempt we now have for the white supremacists of days gone by?
I have nothing but contempt for the repent or perish crowd. But you’re only partially right about future attitudes. While I think the idea of government discrimination of homosexuals will be looked back on without pride, 50 years from now most Christian churches will still be teaching that homosexual actions are sinful. More specifically, they’ll be teaching that sexual actions outside a traditional marriage between a man and a woman are sinful. You’re right
quote: I'd be very surprised if any significant number of self-righteous bigots know homosexuals.
You need to define “self-righteous bigot.” I’ll ask the question I asked 3 pages ago – do you equate the belief that homosexual actions are sinful with bigotry? If you do, then almost any moral judgment qualifies as bigotry. If you don’t, then you need to make that clear.
posted
I do try to do the same, Lalo as i have relatives that have been lynched in the past... I see little difference between saying homosexuality is a sin and between whatever causes law abiding, religious citizens to look like that as they hang a man from a tree. They may not be hanging up gays and lesbians, but they are basically contributing to the attitude that gays are less than human and hiding behind the bible and 5,000 year old verses to justify it. I know this is not a lot of people's intentions, that they do have a concept of right and wrong, that is respectable, but they are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to gays and lesbians.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see little difference between saying homosexuality is a sin and between whatever causes law abiding, religious citizens to look like that as they hang a man from a tree.
Assuming by homosexuality you mean homosexual actions, then we have nothing meaningful to talk about, because apparently I'm a lynching KKK white supremecist. So you shouldn't want to hear anything I have to say.
quote:They may not be hanging up gays and lesbians, but they are basically contributing to the attitude that gays are less than human and hiding behind the bible and 5,000 year old verses to justify it.
Hiding? Who's hiding? And there's a lot of sinful behavior in the world. I think some people focus too much on one particular sin, but that doesn't change whether it is a sin or not.
quote:I know this is not a lot of people's intentions, that they do have a concept of right and wrong, that is respectable, but they are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to gays and lesbians.
What do you mean by barking up the wrong tree? Do you mean by obsessing about this one particular sin, no better or worse than many others? Then I might agree with you.
But somehow I don't think that's what you mean. I think you really do mean that thinking homosexual actions are sinful is just flat out wrong. You will not convince people of this, especially by telling them they're bigots and not providing any analysis about why their view is wrong.
posted
I am not saying that you are a lynching KKK member. I am saying that the concept of homosexuality being a sin erodes a person's humanity which makes it easier for some stupid thug teenager to beat a person up just for being gay. Just like back in the past people kept stating blacks are inferior made it easier to beat up, kill and lynch many blacks. It turns a person from being a human being to a thing that can be hated without reason. It's difficult to explain WHY gayness is not a sin... There are books like Stranger at the Gate to consider, the accounts of people who have had extreme things done to them just to change their sexuality. It didn't work. It just wore them out and made them threadbare, made them hate themselves. The shock treatments, the celibacy, the fasting. Did no good. There is simply a percentage of people who are attracted to the same sex, jusst as there are those that are attracted to both. That's the weather of things. Gayness is not caused by useless fathers and domineering mothers. Who knows if it's even genetic? It's there. It exists. I can try to explain why it is not a sin five ways till tuesday, but it does no good... Which is why I should really, really retire from these sort of discussions... It's just that there are human beings to consider. You may think I am being a bigot, but I am not... All I want is for not one group of people to be hated, beat up, tortured, to torture themselves internally because they are different.
Plus no one can really tell me WHY homosexuality is a sin... There are people who see masturbation as a sin and that never makes much sense to me... What makes a sin a sin in the first place?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I want is for not one group of people to be hated, beat up, tortured, to torture themselves internally because they are different.
And to equate the identifying of an action as sin with these things is really inaccurate. Lots of people who regularly commit what most Christians view as sin are not beaten up or tortured. The question needs to be "Why was this sin singled out so that the people who commit it suffer such treatment?" I don't know.
quote:Plus no one can really tell me WHY homosexuality is a sin.
As to why homosexual actions are a sin (at least in the Catholic Church): Sexual relations outside a marriage are sinful. Marriage, as part of its definition and purpose, is associated with procreation. While its true that heterosexual couples unable to reproduce may still marry, the idea is that the possibility, however remote, still remains. It represents a covenant not only with my wife-to-be but also with God, as a means to carry on his work. The sexual act within a marriage is considered a prayer.
Note that by this definition, homosexual actions are always considered sinful. As are any other forms of extra-marital sex. In this view, such acts are not sinful because sex is "bad" but because it is outside its proper place. It's similar to the reason gluttony is considered a sin - desire mastering the person, rather than serving the person. There are also corrollary beliefs that sex is far less satisfying to humans since the Fall because they have lost the true understanding of its place and purpose.
I'm not saying everyone needs to believe it. I don't think it's the type of morality that should be enforced by the legal system. And the purpose of marriage as an institution in civil society is quite different (hence my support for civil unions). But as one of the 7 sacrements, marriage is intensely crucial to my faith.
For my conception of the vocation of my life to be called bigotry, especially when no attempt has been made to comprehend it, is quite disturbing.
quote:There are people who see masturbation as a sin and that never makes much sense to me... What makes a sin a sin in the first place?
posted
Maybe it's hard for me to see because I don't have a particular religion. I don't, for example, believe in casual sex, but I do believe people should only do it if they love and care about a person. I don't believe it's just for reproduction, otherwise humans would go into heat like animals and be pregnant almost all the time... Really sexuality in humans is hyper-complex. Like people who cannot distiguish between the genders in terms of sexual desirability.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Twink, you know I like and respect you, but you don't know what I think, and I'm not going to share it here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shakes head* No dearie, I don't think so. I see nothing good coming of it. Whatever I thought would be dismissed anyway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
