posted
To me that is an astronomically big "if". And it's not one for which I'm willing to gamble away the only confirmable chance at happiness any of us really have, which is the here and now.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he or she is suffering. They are in pain. Why should they be made to suffer like that? To watch everyone around them fall in love and form families while they are on the outside. It's not right. Things should not be like that. There is enough pain in the world, why create more?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should they be made to suffer like that? To watch everyone around them fall in love and form families while they are on the outside. It's not right. Things should not be like that. There is enough pain in the world, why create more?
Again-- why is there pain AT ALL?
What makes this man's pain worse than anyone else's?
Why is it unjust of God to demand that homosexuals remain unmarried and chaste, but just of Him to demand that heterosexuals who cannot/will not commit to marriage remain unmarried and chaste?
[ October 28, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why is it unjust of God to demand that homosexuals remain unmarried and chaste, but just of Him to demand that heterosexuals who cannot/will not commit to marriage remain unmarried and chaste?"
I suppose the answer to this depends on whether you believe actually being homosexual is a choice, or whether there's an involuntary component. Because if it's the latter, it IS less just of God to demand chastity from all homosexuals.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many heterosexuals remain unmarried involuntarily. Is it also unfair to ask them to remain chaste?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it just is... If he or she is drawn towards a person of the same sex for compassionship and completion then they should be allowed to be with that person instead of denying themselves that joy. Everyone deserves that! Besides, how can someone who is married, in a relationship expect this person, if the opportunity presented itself to turn away from what makes them happy in an unhedinistic sense? Who's to say that GOD didn't send them someone to love? See the book Truth Dare or Promise. A really good book...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Karl - Pavlov's Wager is a fun exercise in justification, but it is significantly less academic when it impacts your life directly.
I know Bev doesn't like my trotting out of the Great Pumpkin, but during these discussions we assume there is one God and a specific path and some of us assume we know what it is.
What bothers me is: just because the entire human population thinks the world is flat doesn't necessarily make it flat. Just because a lot of people tend to believe more or less the same thing doesn't make them correct, either.
quote:I have to agree with Karl - Pavlov's Wager is a fun exercise in justification, but it is significantly less academic when it impacts your life directly.
I know few if any Christians whose life is not impacted just as directly and profoundly by the ramifications of their beliefs.
quote:I know Bev doesn't like my trotting out of the Great Pumpkin, but during these discussions we assume there is one God and a specific path and some of us assume we know what it is.
Trevor, this thread is premised on the existence of God and the validity of Christian doctrine. It's asking a question that starts, "If Christianity..."
How much sense does it make to ask Linus, "If the Great Pumpkin values sincerity so much, how come he does X" and then object to the answer with, "but the Great Pumpkin doesn't exist"?
quote:What bothers me is: just because the entire human population thinks the world is flat doesn't necessarily make it flat. Just because a lot of people tend to believe more or less the same thing doesn't make them correct, either.
Of course, most people have a very mistaken impression about how long ago people realized the earth wasn't flat.
posted
Trevor, I believe you mean "Pascal's Wager". I'm not familiar with any wager Pavlov might have made.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. Very true. However, I would suggest that as a rule, the faith of Christians doesn't condemn them for something they feel is beyond their control. It would be similar, from a homosexual's point of view: "You're a bad person because you're orange. Although you can try to be a better person, you still have to look in the mirror every day and realize you're not a good person."
2. Yes Dag, but which Christian doctrine are we referring? And I mention the Great Pumpkin as a way of illustrating my concern that as a Christian or even a would-be Christian, I am asked to select from one of the following answers. But if we choose to challenge the nature of those answers or indeed the question itself, it skews everything else.
3. Also true. And you might find one or two people who still believe it. But when it was commonly accepted fact, it was still no more correct than it is today.
quote: If he or she is drawn towards a person of the same sex for compassionship and completion then they should be allowed to be with that person instead of denying themselves that joy. Everyone deserves that!
It's not about what you deserve at all, Syn.
It is about whom you choose to follow.
Circumstance does not enter into it at all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, they do because circumstances have a way of shifting even the most solid beliefs in the face of them for good or ill...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe one is morally justified in the eyes of the Christian/Mormon God, in being disobedient just because circumstances have changed.
I do not believe that God is required, or requires Himself, to give people Nice Things. The only thing that God (in my opinion) is required to give the obedient is the assurance that they are doing His will. All the rest is icing.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is it unjust of God to demand that homosexuals remain unmarried and chaste, but just of Him to demand that heterosexuals who cannot/will not commit to marriage remain unmarried and chaste?
How is it just of god to provide a divinely sanctioned outlet for those of his creations he has granted attraction to the opposite sex but to endow others of his creations with attraction to their same sex and then deny any divinely sanctioned outlet?
But then again, how is it just of him to provide the means to satisfy the most gluttonous appetite if you happen to be born in the US, but let you starve if you're born in India or Africa?
It's really pointless to ask any of these questions because God always gets to hide behind the curtain of inscrutability. It's amazing, though, that we can claim to know some facts about God, but at the same time claim that his ways and reasons are beyond our limited comprehension.
quote: What makes this man's pain worse than anyone else's?
Well, for one, this man's pain is borne of being given contrary imperatives. Additionally, most spiritual pain comes after the sin. I can tell you that in the case of homosexuality that the pain often comes years before the "sin" is ever committed.
And since we're discussing the justice of God, how is it just that an omniscient being refuses to tell his "chosen people" how to compassionately deal with the homosexuals among them? "God-sanctioned" treatment of homosexuals has run the gamut from stoning to death, through shock-therapy, and has only in the past 15 - 20 years or so reached the enlightened acknowledgement that, well, OK, maybe you won't go to hell simply for being sexually flawed, but you will if you act on it.
Questions of the justice (or lack thereof) of God are pointless because there is no external standard. The justice of God is that which God does no matter how unjust it might seem to any standard conceivable by human beings. The insidious reality is that you can get humans to do or suffer through anything as long as you can promise them sufficient rewards in the "next" life. It's infinitely more effective if the people being placated with promises that it'll all work out in the end don't actually have to experience the specific pain, suffering, torture, starvation, humiliation, etc.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it just of god to provide a divinely sanctioned outlet for those of his creations he has granted attraction to the opposite sex but to endow others of his creations with attraction to their same sex and then deny any divinely sanctioned outlet?
It isn't just, under your premises, Karl. But this life isn't a judgement. Our circumstances in this world are not meant to be fair.
quote:It's really pointless to ask any of these questions because God always gets to hide behind the curtain of inscrutability. It's amazing, though, that we can claim to know some facts about God, but at the same time claim that his ways and reasons are beyond our limited comprehension.
On the contrary-- I believe God will reveal very clearly to individuals the reasons for their own suffering. But He rarely tells anyone else anyone else's story.
quote:most spiritual pain comes after the sin. I can tell you that in the case of homosexuality that the pain often comes years before the "sin" is ever committed.
I can think of no better reason for Christians to reach out EARLY to young people who are feeling the tug of same-gender attraction in support and love.
quote: how is it just that an omniscient being refuses to tell his "chosen people" how to compassionately deal with the homosexuals among them? "God-sanctioned" treatment of homosexuals has run the gamut from stoning to death, through shock-therapy, and has only in the past 15 - 20 years or so reached the enlightened acknowledgement that, well, OK, maybe you won't go to hell simply for being sexually flawed, but you will if you act on it.
Why are God's people such screwheads, in other words. And why doesn't God let them know.
I beleive He does, but that we don't listen.
quote:The insidious reality is that you can get humans to do or suffer through anything as long as you can promise them sufficient rewards in the "next" life. It's infinitely more effective if the people being placated with promises that it'll all work out in the end don't actually have to experience the specific pain, suffering, torture, starvation, humiliation, etc.
Like I said, I don't believe God tells anyone anyone else's story. The Prophets know and reveal God's will to the world, but they do not know how God has told individuals to go about being obedient.
As far as placating goes-- meh. I don't think most Christians even believe that, Karl. The ones I know certainly don't use the 'better place' excuse the way you've described. For me, the important thing is to obtain forgiveness for my own sins, teach my family and those around me Christ's mercy and goodness, and continue in obedience.
That's quite enough forward thinking for me. Heaven can wait.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're all much more comfortable judging the sins of others than turning the judging eyes on ourselves.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a controversial thread, and it touches on subjects that are very important to many people posting in it. It's been mostly civilized so far - I like it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, if they reach young confused people early it makes matters worse! Love is more... being able to break down a certain wall if you know it will REALLY help the person instead of destroying them. Love is always, always gently and kindly trying to build a person up and truly understand what they are going through with compassion. Sitting there being able to date and marry and touch someone of the opposite sex while a person who is dealing with "same sex attraction" cannot and has to go home with this loneliness and destructive self hatred is NOT a compassionate thing to do. This is the very reason why I have so much trouble with Christianity. I WANT things to be fair. I want the man who falls for a man to be able to be with him because what's to say that if there is a God that God didn't bring this man into his life? How can anyone know? Like it or not, in my view that concept HAS to break to end the cycle of self-hatred, suicide, torture in the name of becoming what you simply cannot be and parents disowning their child for refusing to live like that for the rest of their lives. To me absolutely nothing matters more ethan those connections... Not even God, doctrine or religions is more important.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like it or not, in my view that concept HAS to break to end the cycle of self-hatred, suicide, torture in the name of becoming what you simply cannot be and parents disowning their child for refusing to live like that for the rest of their lives.
"If they were fair, they wouldn't be trials."
I don't know Syn, one common misconception of Christianity is that it's fundemental aspect is about helping others and being glorified (which is a good off-shoot of it), when in fact it's about becoming like, or gaining a strong relationship with Christ. Much of Chrisitanity is about self-denial, and personal suffering; changing the path to Christ to make it easier, to keep us from having to deny ourselves, will only change our destination.
quote: EDIT: Sin, in my opinion, is knowing that something is against the will of God, and yet still doing it.
Just wanted to pop in way late in the conversation to say that if sin were truly something that could only be done knowingly, then to spread the gospel and to teach people about sin would be the worst disservice you could do for them. Sin is something that's done against of the will of God, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Otherwise, a person would be safest in never hearing that they were sinners, and spreading the gospel would be pointless, even dangerous to their eternal souls.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We become more like God and grow closer to him as we make God-like choices. It isn't possible to make a choice unless you know what the options are and know which choice will bring you closer to the Lord.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI-- kind of a reverse Paschal's wager, hmm? Better to not know the truth at all . . .
I think we're judged on what we know. Throughout the world, it's a pretty standard moral that you don't go around killing people. Therefore, those societies that have this moral, which is in line with the Christian God's morals, will be judged accordingly.
NOW-- just because you haven't technically sinned as I've determined it does not mean that you get a free ride through the pearly gates. When you learn the gospel, you are required to repent for the things you've done that are against God's will. The Mormon understanding of this process teaches that it is much easier to repent while still alive-- and a repentent population makes for a better society.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, for clarification, your belief is that if a person is out of God's will unknowingly, they must repent/get a chance to repent for it after their life on Earth is over?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone has not heard the gospel, or had a proper chance (as defined by God) to accept it, they will have the chance to repent and be baptized after death.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, new question. I'll start by listing a few premises and such that lead me to the question.
Premise: Sin has negative consequences. If sin had no negative consequences, then for most people there would be no reason not to sin. I think every Christian denomination believes that sin bears some form of negative consequence.
Preliminary Question 1: Are the negative consequences of sin borne by anyone other than the sinner? Put another way, are we affected spiritually by someone else's sins? I'm not completely clear on this, but I think that these days most people think that person A doesn't have to bear the burden of person B's sin. There are cases where a sin may involve more than one person--consensual homosexual sex, for example--but, in all cases I can think of, both parties are sinning, so each only bears the consequences of his own sins. We may certainly be affected physically or emotionally by someone else's sins--for example, if you kill me, I am affected--but that is less apropos to the current discussion.
Preliminary Question 2: Is homosexuality a choice? I list this as a question instead of a premise because the answer is still not completely known by anyone. But I think that in most cases homosexuality is not a choice. Either way, this is not the real question I have, but is necessary to keep in mind for the real question.
Premise: The spiritual effects of sin are not physically measurable in this world. I would think most people can agree to this, but I think it's still important to state first.
Preliminary Question 3: Does free will exist? Again, we don't really know the answer to this question. I assume that in some way free will does exist.
The Real Question: So, assuming that we do have free will, homosexuality is not a choice, and that our sins only spiritually affect ourselves, why should we legislate against things like homosexual marriages? If we assume that homosexuality is not a choice, then this eliminates the argument that accepting it will create more homosexuals. I suppose there is the argument that more latent homosexuals could become practicing homosexuals, but it seems to me that, ultimately, every person makes the choice for and bears the responsibility for his own actions. And since the Christian position on homosexuality is quite well known in this country, it seems unlikely that knowledge of the gospel would inform people's decisions to engage or not to engage in homosexual sex. Is it any person's responsibility or right or even ability to stop someone else from sinning? By forcing people through legislation not to engage in homosexual acts, are we restricting their free will? In doing so, are we tainting the value of their abstention from sin (that is, if they can't sin, does it mean anything that they don't)?
I understand that people may disagree with some of my assumptions. We can talk about that, too, although I'm mainly interested in the answer to the question.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In your "Real Question" paragraph you quite blithely moved from legislating against homosexual marriages to legislating against any homosexual actions. I know there are some people who would like to ban both, but the issues are quite different in a lot of ways.
Since SCOTUS has specifically said we can't legislate against homosexual actions (in a decision whose policy outcome I support but whose legal basis I question), there isn't a question anymore of "legislation not to engage in homosexual acts." Granted, there could be a push for an Amendment to allow this, but as far as I know this hasn't been proposed anywhere outside the fringe.
posted
Disclaimer: all this is from my perspective as a Mormon, I don't claim to speak for the LDS Church, much less for Christians in general.
quote:Premise: Sin has negative consequences. If sin had no negative consequences, then for most people there would be no reason not to sin. I think every Christian denomination believes that sin bears some form of negative consequence.
Yes, I accept that premise.
quote:Preliminary Question 1: Are the negative consequences of sin borne by anyone other than the sinner? Put another way, are we affected spiritually by someone else's sins? I'm not completely clear on this, but I think that these days most people think that person A doesn't have to bear the burden of person B's sin. There are cases where a sin may involve more than one person--consensual homosexual sex, for example--but, in all cases I can think of, both parties are sinning, so each only bears the consequences of his own sins. We may certainly be affected physically or emotionally by someone else's sins--for example, if you kill me, I am affected--but that is less apropos to the current discussion.
Depends on what you mean, other's sin can have negative impacts on us, almost always does (like say your landlord trying to cheat you out of a few extra bucks on the rent is a sin for them: stealing, and you now have to go through a battle with them, or sacrifice the cash). However, the only person that has to suffer for someone else's sins, was Christ, someone else's sins will never be counted against you, you are responsible for only yourself.
quote:Preliminary Question 2: Is homosexuality a choice? I list this as a question instead of a premise because the answer is still not completely known by anyone. But I think that in most cases homosexuality is not a choice. Either way, this is not the real question I have, but is necessary to keep in mind for the real question.
Well of course we can and have had gigqantic threads discussing this question, but I have only my opinion to give. Yes, homosexuality is a choice, much harder one for some people than others, but I do think you can choose against it.
quote:Premise: The spiritual effects of sin are not physically measurable in this world. I would think most people can agree to this, but I think it's still important to state first.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're saying that all the negative effects of sin don't occur in this mortal existance, or have impacts we can't see on our own spirtual health, then I agree.
quote:Preliminary Question 3: Does free will exist? Again, we don't really know the answer to this question. I assume that in some way free will does exist.
Yes, to me, free will is one of the fundemental aspects of my faith.
quote:[ignoring the part that I already said I don't agree with the premises]but it seems to me that, ultimately, every person makes the choice for and bears the responsibility for his own actions
Ahh, here we are, this is good. Absoltuley true, everyone must pay for their own sins (even if that just means accepting the Attonment of Christ, as I would believe for most sins), and make their own choices. Something being harder or easier does not mean they aren't responsible for it, perhaps they'll be judged easier, perhaps not, I don't know, but I agree, it is up to them.
However, that doesn't mean we can't try and make it harder to sin. It would be a sin steal candy from the store, so if we put candy in someone's hand, then distracted the clerk, it would indeed be that person's sin if they walked out of the store, candy in hand. You would never do that though, right? At the very least we shouldn't facilitate what we believe to be sins, and we should try to stop what we can. Now I don't think that means anything like putting all sins on the lawbook, but some we should (i.e. murder), where you draw the line ... well obviously it depends on you.
quote:it seems unlikely that knowledge of the gospel would inform people's decisions to engage or not to engage in homosexual sex
Perhaps knolwedge wont, testimony of the Gospel would, but I'm not sure where you're going with this...
quote:Is it any person's responsibility or right or even ability to stop someone else from sinning? By forcing people through legislation not to engage in homosexual acts, are we restricting their free will?
In some circumstances, yes, it is our right. Murder is always a favrotie example, it is your right to stop someone from murdering you. Does that limit their free will? Yes, yes it does, but it's still your right. Then it becomes more complicated, is it your right to stop someone from comitting suicide? Now it comes down to personal belief (well murder did too, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with that one). The thing with homosexuality is that some of us beleive that it does have effects on people besides the homosexuals, just as suicide does. Enough to limit it? Your opinion.
quote:In doing so, are we tainting the value of their abstention from sin (that is, if they can't sin, does it mean anything that they don't)?
Yes, in a way, when you pull the gun out of your asssaliant's hand's your limiting his power to act out his will. Some limits are needed, if we are to live together, we just like to argue over how much freedom we can take away in the name of civility, murder's one extreme just about everyone agrees to limiting, premaritial sex is one that most people in this country agree should not be legistlated. Where's the line in between? Something we all have to decide for ourselves.
quote:Perhaps knolwedge wont, testimony of the Gospel would, but I'm not sure where you're going with this...
Excuse me, that was a typo. What I meant to say was that in this country most, if not all, people have a pretty good idea of the fact that homosexual acts are sinful. Therefore, that knowledge would affect an adult's decision on whether or not to engage in such acts.
quote:Depends on what you mean, other's sin can have negative impacts on us, almost always does (like say your landlord trying to cheat you out of a few extra bucks on the rent is a sin for them: stealing, and you now have to go through a battle with them, or sacrifice the cash).
I am specifically talking about the spiritual effects of sin. It should be obvious to anyone that sins can have temporal effects on other people; you gave one example yourself. But I'm not talking about temporal effects. I'm only asking about spiritual effects. Can my sins have any spiritual effect on anyone else? Will anyone else have to bear a spiritual burden because of my sins? In short, can my sins damn another person?
quote:In some circumstances, yes, it is our right. Murder is always a favrotie example, it is your right to stop someone from murdering you. Does that limit their free will? Yes, yes it does, but it's still your right. Then it becomes more complicated, is it your right to stop someone from comitting suicide? Now it comes down to personal belief (well murder did too, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with that one). The thing with homosexuality is that some of us beleive that it does have effects on people besides the homosexuals, just as suicide does. Enough to limit it? Your opinion.
The main reason I am trying to limit the discussion to the spiritual effects of sin is because I am trying to separate what is useful to legislate. Murder and theft have measurable temporal effects on other people. Therefore, we don't have to appeal to any spiritual reasoning in order to legislate against it. We can legislate against murder and theft because they physically and measurably hurt people, regardless of whether or not they are sins. Almost everyone agrees that there are negative effects to murder and theft.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees that there are measurable negative temporal effects of homosexuality. It may be a sin, but what consequence does it have on us here? This is why I included the assumption that homosexuality is not a choice. If we can assume that homosexuality is not a choice, then we don't have to worry too much about it "spreading."
My point is, should we be legislating against things for which the only negative effect is a spiritual one?
But then, you said some people believe homosexuality (or maybe just homosexual acts) do have measurable effects. Can you elaborate on this?
[Edit to add: Would any of your answers here if it could be proven definitively that homosexuality is not a choice? I recognize that this is not the case currently; this is a "what if?".]
--------------------------------
Dag, you are correct, I did slip a bit there. Homosexual acts and gay marriage are not equivalent. Now, my assumption is that most people who want to legislate against gay marriage are against it because it constitutes an acceptance of homosexuality, and that this is bad because of the spiritual harm associated with homosexual acts. So, in my mind, it all comes back to whether or not people think it's a good idea to create legal restrictions on spiritually damaging actions. There may be a fair amount of hand-waving going on on my part, for which I apologize.
posted
I never post on these threads, and I will probably regret posting on this one . . .
quote: Premise: Sin has negative consequences. If sin had no negative consequences, then for most people there would be no reason not to sin. I think every Christian denomination believes that sin bears some form of negative consequence.
Judaism does as well. Although the primary reason to avoid sin is to do His will, NOT because of whatever consequences.
quote: Preliminary Question 1: Are the negative consequences of sin borne by anyone other than the sinner? Put another way, are we affected spiritually by someone else's sins?
Yes. To whatever degree I could be REALISTICALLY expected to encourage someone to follow the right path, and/or discourage them from sinning, I am held responsible if I fail to do so. Now, that would generally not include gunpoint-coercion or the like ( ). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion. Hence, I believe that legislation against homosexual behavior (aside from the legal issues that Dags pointed out) is excessive; but for the populace to refuse to endorse such behavior is another thing entirely.
quote: Preliminary Question 2: Is homosexuality a choice?
I do not claim to know. However, even if it is not, homosexual behavior is. It's not the desire that is the problem. And I believe that God gives no one a test that they lack the ability to pass.
quote: Preliminary Question 3: Does free will exist?
Its existence is one of the most basic tenets of my faith. However, that does not mean that there are not degrees of free choice (think degrees of freedom, if you will). I don't believe that we have absolute free choice in all situations; nor that we necessarily should, or need to -- or CAN. (Some other factors (besides externally imposed laws) that limit choice: past experiences, genetics, family one is born into.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, my assumption is that most people who want to legislate against gay marriage are against it because it constitutes an acceptance of homosexuality, and that this is bad because of the spiritual harm associated with homosexual acts.
Anecdotally, I can say this isn't the case. Don't know how this extrapolates to the population as a whole, but I know LOTS of people who are dead-set against legal gay marriage but also dead-set against criminalizing homosexual acts. Many of these people support domestic partner benefits at jobs. Few think two people of the same sex living together as spouses in all but name should be interfered with.
Now we get to my speculation on this: I think the major sticking point is not that most people think homosexuals should be stopped from engaging in homosexual acts, or even living as sexually active couples in the same residence.
I think these people see legal recognition of marriage as an imprimatur or validation of marriage as somehow special, as a bedrock of society. Their underlying thought, articulated or not, is that if homosexuals gain access to the institution of marriage on the theory that marriage is "just a contract," then it means their marriage, current or prospective, will be "just a contract." This is the sense in which homosexual marriage "threatens" marriage, and is why hypothetcial questions about how "2 gay guys getting married will make you get divorced" are not useful arguments to make. The perceived "threat" is not to any individual marriage, but to the prestige of marriage as an institution. The underlying fear is that one more reason to make marriage be "just a piece of paper" will cause people to forego it.*
Anyway, that's why I don't think most opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the desire to "stop people from sinning." Certainly there's some of that, but those aren't the people whose minds you're going to change, especially with theological arguments.
Dagonee * For the record for people who don't know by now, I don't buy this argument for a variety of reasons. But I maintain steadfastly that failure to recognize the reasons for opposition, and to portray the opposition arguments incorrectly, to legal gay marriage only delays its onset.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also something to point out is that there are varying levels of "sin". Due to the "creative" nature/power of "sex", the Godly power of it, it is very, very sacred in my opinion (and I believe to God).
Sins abusing that power are very grave and serious.
Homosexuality falls into the category of "Abomination".
Hence you find that although the vast majority of the population may tolerate the "pracitice" of Homosexuality in thought deed and action as it pertains to the individual.
Actually passing legislation "Sanctioning" an act that to them is an "Abomination" is WAY crossing the line.
As to there being any sort of Biological, etc. reason for Homosexuality. I personally don't believe it is due to close family member's, and very close personal friend's experiences. But that is my opinion.
It also opens the questions for other things that are wrong "morally" in our society. Pedophilia may or may not be biological as well. We don't know and since it's not "widespread" no one is willing to do detailed research on it. However these sites are run by professed pedophiles and are confident that it is genetic:
I'm not saying that Homosexuality and Pedophilia are related or that they have the same "societal consequences" or negatives. However, the argument is the same for both groups of biological reasoning.
If it is found to be biological, does that make it right? or less wrong?
What if rapists are found to have a common "gene" that makes them suceptible to their feelings. "Weaker" to withstand their temptations?
As many already know. I'm a "hardliner".
I have heard this said before, and it bears repeating.
The slipperiest road to hell is that of rationalization.
If you want, you can rationalize any behavior a human can come up with. Unfortunately, if you "rationalize" it for one person, others will want you to make "special allowance" for them as well.
This is all just my opinion, so take it as such.
EDIT: Please don't take this as a Homosexuality = Pedophilia stance because I don't believe such, but simply pointed out that both use their "genetics" are a basis for a large part of their arguments.
posted
I wonder if it's possible to ever talk about homosexuality on Hatrack without someone bringing up pedophilia or polygamy.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although if the subject is a change to one of the current defining characterstics of legal marriage, a change to one of the other defining characteristics seems like fair game.
However, bringing up a relationship where most people consider one participant the victim to compare it to another without a victim seems much more difficult to justify.
posted
Also, on the "spiritual only negatives" of Homosexuality.....
I believe that sins that appear to "physically" affect only an individual, etc. do NOT only affect them spiritually.
The whole populace is a "people" a "community". By the actions of the unrighteous, the righteous can be spiritually affected in negative ways.
Sodom and Gommorrah was the home of Lot. Lot lost his home, was threatened, etc. Although he was righteous, the inhabitants of the city were wicked. The cities were destroyed.
If you are Mormon or Jewish, you have Lehi or Jeremiah who were righteous, but who lost their homes, etc. when Jerusalem was destroyed because of the wickedness of the inhabitants.
I believe this country is a "Promised Land" given by God to those who dwell here. I believe it's founding was guided by him with laws giving the freedoms necessary for people to choose to be the most righteous the can. It also gives the freedom to choose to sin.
I believe that when the society of this nation chooses to sin more than it chooses to do good, when it chooses to abuse the inspired laws of the country instead of abide by them, then we turn more and more into a "wicked" society.
And if God allows this country to fall because of the wickedness of it's inhabitants, the righteous will suffer as well.
So I don't think there is in many people's mind a "I'm only hurting myself" mentallity for some who are religionists/spiritualists.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But homosexual relationships when you start to think about it harm none! Whereas this attitude towards gays hurts millions of people!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of agree that the subject of pedophelia is almost never appropriate when discussing homosexuality, unless someone is talking about peer-reviewed research. It's too inflammatory, and there's too much misinformation out there about it.
posted
You know, I am frequently relieved by the fact that none of the things I enjoy doing or am genetically predisposed towards doing are considered abominable acts capable of bringing down all of American society. Particularly when it comes to deciding where I'd like to insert various parts of my body.
It's very easy to be me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never post on these threads, and I will probably regret posting on this one . . .
Oh, I promise not to bite. Seriously, though, people have been behaving themselves remarkably well in this thread. It's almost enough to give me a big head, that people respect me enough to have a real discussion with me. Of course, my head is pretty huge to start with.
quote:Judaism does as well. Although the primary reason to avoid sin is to do His will, NOT because of whatever consequences.
I understand that, I really do. I hope I'm not being disrespectful, though, when I wonder how obedient people would be if the religion taught that sin was against God's will, but there would be no consequence for them if they sinned.
quote:To whatever degree I could be REALISTICALLY expected to encourage someone to follow the right path, and/or discourage them from sinning, I am held responsible if I fail to do so. Now, that would generally not include gunpoint-coercion or the like ( ). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion.
Interesting. Where do you think that line is? Or, since it's probably not a well-defined border, what needs to be considered when deciding what would constitute excessive coercion?
quote:However, even if it is not, homosexual behavior is.
I agree, which is why I was very particular in my wording. My main concern is not whether or not it is a choice to sin, but whether it is appropriate for people to try to control other people's choices to sin or not sin. And if it is appropriate, how far can it be taken before it becomes inappropriate? People have often told me before in relation to other, more temporal sorts of intervention, that you can only open the door; you can't make anyone walk through it. At what point are we justified in pushing them through?
----------------------------
Dag, I don't think I've ever seen it from quite that angle. It's intriguing, and much more understandable. I still don't buy it, but I can understand it much better.
Still, seeing Chad's post makes me think that there is still an element of spiritual intervention. After all, if there were no question of sin, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
And--I think you know this, but I want to be clear--I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind with this thread. I want to more fully understand what people think and why. If I seem argumentative it's only because asking pointed questions helps me get the information I'm looking for.
---------------------------
quote:It also opens the questions for other things that are wrong "morally" in our society. Pedophilia may or may not be biological as well. We don't know and since it's not "widespread" no one is willing to do detailed research on it. However these sites are run by professed pedophiles and are confident that it is genetic:
Chad, the reason I discount the comparison to pedophilia in this case comes back to measurable temporal effects. It doesn't matter to me whether a pedophile has a biological predilection toward being attracted to children because in the vast majority of pedophilia cases there is actual psychological harm that can be measured. Therefore we don't need to appeal to spiritual or moral reasoning to outlaw pedophilia. Well, we do appeal to moral reasoning, but the morality is tied to the temporal harm, not the spiritual harm. Similarly, I wouldn't say it's OK for a person to commit murder simply because he has a chemical imbalance in his brain (though I might argue that he should be sentenced differently) because there is temporal harm in murder. Homosexuality--or, at least, homosexual acts between two consenting adults--seems different because it is more difficult to identify the temporal harm.
Now, when you say that the righteous will suffer in a wicked society, what do you mean? Supposing that their right to worship is not interfered with and they are not prevented from living righteous lives, what temporal harm comes to them?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your response, and this may sound "dumb" but when you speak of temporal "harm" you are speaking of morality.
Scientifically, there is no "harm" there is only cause and effect. It's our moral base that says that ending a life is "wrong" instead of "right" or "beneficial" or that the stress put upon the mind of a child is "wrong" or "harmful" there is only the effect and our morals deem it "harmful".
Right, wrong, good, bad, beneficial, harmful are all "morality" words. And then the question is raised, what if our "morality" changes? Then what is the constant? What is the "basis" for what is right and what is wrong?
For me, that is where God comes in.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, when you say that the righteous will suffer in a wicked society, what do you mean? Supposing that their right to worship is not interfered with and they are not prevented from living righteous lives, what temporal harm comes to them?
A few examples, some serious, some not: AIDS. There are many in Africa who have it who have participated in none of the actions which spread it. Same in the US. The ways in which it are spread are by actions defined as "sinful".
If someone who is wicked steals but from someone who is righteous, is not the righteous person affected?
If someone wants an Abortion or wants the Government to pay for AIDS research, and I being a citizen pay taxes, are not I taxed for beliefs I don't share? Am I not required to pay for actions I deem "sinful"?
Are your taxes used to spread religion or religious actions you don't agree with?
Would you have a problem if you were paying taxed to spread such?
I guess the question would be in a "round-about" way.
Would liberals suffer in a conservative theocracy? History has shown that yes they probably would.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, you are, of course, correct; when I talk about temporal harm I am making an appeal to moral reasoning. I even admitted as much in my last post. But I submit that it is a moral reasoning of a different order in that it is tied to observable phenomena rather than unobservable noumena. It's easier to get people to agree with morality based on phenomena because of the very fact of the observability of phenomena.
Now, your examples of how the righteous suffer in a wicked society are quite valid, but with one possible exception, they are not ones that could be directly related to homosexual actions.
quote:A few examples, some serious, some not: AIDS. There are many in Africa who have it who have participated in none of the actions which spread it. Same in the US. The ways in which it are spread are by actions defined as "sinful".
The major ways that AIDS is transmitted are unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. And while AIDS does (the last I heard, anyway) have a higher occurrance in the gay population, it is by no means a "gay disease." (Note, I am not saying that you think it is a gay disease.) Now, as I understand it, the spread of AIDS through sexual contact has much more to do with promiscuity and lack of barrier protection than with sexual orientation. People who engage in responsible, monogamous sex are far, far less likely to contract AIDS, or any other sexually-transmitted disease, for that matter. It seems to me that the fewer homosexuals were "in the closet," the less homosexuality would be correlated with irresponsible sexuality.
quote:If someone who is wicked steals but from someone who is righteous, is not the righteous person affected?
If someone wants an Abortion or wants the Government to pay for AIDS research, and I being a citizen pay taxes, are not I taxed for beliefs I don't share? Am I not required to pay for actions I deem "sinful"?
True, but this is an entirely different subject. Theft and abortion--or, if you prefer, murder--have no real relation to homosexual behavior, except insofar as all of them are sin. But there is no correlation between homosexual acts and theft, and it seems quite obvious that there would be even less correlation with abortion. Since the spread of homosexual behavior--should that happen--would almost certainly fail to lead to increased theft and abortion, I don't think this is particularly apropos to the current discussion.
quote:Are your taxes used to spread religion or religious actions you don't agree with?
I don't know. It's possible.
quote:Would you have a problem if you were paying taxed to spread such?
In principle, I probably would. Would gay marriages or civil unions present much, if any, intrinsic burden to the taxpayers?
quote:Would liberals suffer in a conservative theocracy? History has shown that yes they probably would.
My history is a little unclear here, but I'll go along with your assertion. Even so, I don't see this as being equivalent. Again, it all comes back to temporal harm. If liberals suffered in a conservative theocracy, my bet is that it involved temporal harm.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I don't think I've ever seen it from quite that angle. It's intriguing, and much more understandable. I still don't buy it, but I can understand it much better.
Yeah, well, I don't buy it either, but more so because of my views about the legal system than my views about marriage.
quote:Still, seeing Chad's post makes me think that there is still an element of spiritual intervention. After all, if there were no question of sin, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
There's no question that the religious beliefs about homosexuality are in play here - otherwise the "it's just a contract" rationale wouldn't even be coming into play. But I think it explains the vast difference in numbers between support for striking down sodomy laws, instituting legal gay marriage, and instituting civil unions.
quote:And--I think you know this, but I want to be clear--I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind with this thread. I want to more fully understand what people think and why. If I seem argumentative it's only because asking pointed questions helps me get the information I'm looking for.
Yeah. But I think I expressed it more clearly than I have before, largely because of the way you framed the questions, so I didn't want to pass up the opportunity.
quote: Judaism does as well. Although the primary reason to avoid sin is to do His will, NOT because of whatever consequences.
I understand that, I really do. I hope I'm not being disrespectful, though, when I wonder how obedient people would be if the religion taught that sin was against God's will, but there would be no consequence for them if they sinned.
But . . . that's not possible, at least not in the worldview of (traditional, Orthodox) Judaism. We believe that the purpose of life is to become closer to God. Anything which does so (such as trying to improve oneself, trying to improve the world in which we all live) is a mitzvah. Anything which forces us away from Him is a chet -- no good translation, but "sin" comes the closest. All other consequences follow naturally from the fact that one has pushed God away.
quote:
quote: To whatever degree I could be REALISTICALLY expected to encourage someone to follow the right path, and/or discourage them from sinning, I am held responsible if I fail to do so. Now, that would generally not include gunpoint-coercion or the like ( ). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion.
Interesting. Where do you think that line is? Or, since it's probably not a well-defined border, what needs to be considered when deciding what would constitute excessive coercion?
It's complex. But anything that I might do that is assisting someone else to sin, is also a sin on my part. When I have questions about what I may (or should) do, I consult with my rabbi.
quote: I agree, which is why I was very particular in my wording. My main concern is not whether or not it is a choice to sin, but whether it is appropriate for people to try to control other people's choices to sin or not sin. And if it is appropriate, how far can it be taken before it becomes inappropriate? People have often told me before in relation to other, more temporal sorts of intervention, that you can only open the door; you can't make anyone walk through it. At what point are we justified in pushing them through?
Perhaps at the point where their not walking through threatens our well-being as well? But I would agree that this is a poorly-defined line, on which intelligent, moral people can (and do) disagree.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I am glad that you have posted in this thread.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions, saxon, and the effort you are taking to understand a POV that is not your own. It isn't easy to do, but it helps bridge gaps and helps us to see eye to eye. I know I have enjoyed reading this thread.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
KarlEd![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). However, there can be disagreement over what might be considered encouragement versus excessive coercion. Hence, I believe that legislation against homosexual behavior (aside from the legal issues that Dags pointed out) is excessive; but for the populace to refuse to endorse such behavior is another thing entirely.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
