Homosexuality, Culture, and Theology

[Landlord]

You didn't outright say they were bad, but you're comparing the behavior to alcoholism and drug use, two self destructive behaviors. You're right you can be a good person and still be an addict, but how is homosexuality in anyway self destructive?

 

How am I making a definitive moral claim? Tell me how homosexuality is self destructive. Do you spend all your money on it? Lose a job because of it's grip on you? Destroy your body because of it? Does it eventually kill you?

 

 

I do love the way you berate people you see as less intellectual than yourself.

 

 

I could give some responses to how homosexuality can be destructive, and they would be centered around ideas completely foreign to your beliefs such as what sexuality was actually created and designed for by God, the covenantal representation of Christ and his bride, etc., and others that you might understand but still disagree with such as the healthiness of a mother and father in raising a child and the history of that being the sanctuary for bringing forth and bringing up children, but ultimately those would be falling on deaf ears because you don't hold Scripture in high regard and agree. Which I'm fine with, but I'm also ending the conversation at "I disagree with you", and letting you keep on thinking what you want.

 

But even then, reducing immorality to the basis of whether or not it causes harm is a bad idea. What if a man cheats on his wife but she never finds out because he hides it well? No harm comes but are we going to say that isn't wrong? There are tons of things that people consider wrong that aren't immediately and demonstrably harmful - don't act like you don't believe in some things being wrong that aren't obviously harmful.

 

Imagine typical reactions to someone burning an American flag, or what your response would be if your dog was killed by a car on the highway and I suggested we eat the meat. All of our moral codes are filled with tons of things that are perceived wrong by more than whether or not they're harmful.

[walksalone]

What I don't get, and I'm sure I could be accused of it as well, why do people get so butthurt over issues that have no direct affect upon their daily lives?

[NUance]

What I don't get, and I'm sure I could be accused of it as well, why do people get so butthurt over issues that have no direct affect upon their daily lives?

 

Those whose daily lives are affected have the MOST butthurt.

[MLB 51]

What I don't get, and I'm sure I could be accused of it as well, why do people get so butthurt over issues that have no direct affect upon their daily lives?

This is a question I asked in another thread.

If you perceive this to be a sin, then how does their sin affect you. It doesn't, it's their sin. If you believe in sin that is.

[MLB 51]

What I don't get, and I'm sure I could be accused of it as well, why do people get so butthurt over issues that have no direct affect upon their daily lives?

This is a question I asked in another thread.

If you perceive this to be a sin, then how does their sin affect you. It doesn't, it's their sin. If you believe in sin that is.

[NUance]

I always thought Flying Spaghetti Monster was a poor excuse for an argument. Basically it just says, there is no God since I can make up something you can't logically disprove. How lame is that?

Um... isn't that Christianity?

 

The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

The FSM actually meets the criteria for any other religion and is just as logically sound. It proves nothing, but it does ironically demonstrate the fallacies of religious belief.

At the risk of derailing this fine thread, I’ll address these two posts. But I should first mention that I find it especially humorous when people who purport to be scientists and scholars trot out the old spaghetti monster every time the topic of God comes up. Why do people do this? Are you afraid to go into a church and investigate for yourself? Can't you cough up a few bucks for a bible? Or just Google the topic? Or if you don’t want to investigate God (like a real scientist or scholar would do) then at least come up with an original argument. Or if originality is lacking, then at least copy a valid argument.

 

The spaghetti monster argument is tired and lame. It’s not even a serious argument. It’s troll bait. Pastafarians would have us believe that God doesn’t exist because SM can’t be disproven. Or if God does exist, then SM also exists. But is that really the way we disprove something? Okay then, fine. Since we’ve disproven God with the SM, let’s go after atomic theory. Atoms do not exist. Instead, matter consists of tiny gumdrops held together by toothpicks sprinkled with magic fairy dust. Since my gumdrop-toothpick theory cannot be disproven, conventional atomic theory is invalid. See what I did there? That’s the logic you’re using when you trot out the old spaghetti monster argument.

 

/ End thread derail. Since this thread is about gays and one man’s view of Christianity, not the existence of God, I’m afraid discussion of the lazy, weak minded spaghetti monster argument will need to be carried out in a different thread. Have a nice day.

[Junior]

NUance allow me to make several points. First, going to church or reading the Bible is not scientific evidence of anything at all. There are numerous editions of Hardy Boys mystery books, so I am to assume they existed in real life?

 

Second I have been to church and I have read the bible. I would be willing to bet my knowledge of the good book is better than 90% of self purported Christians.

 

Finally, ask yourself why literally every historical culture on the face of this planet had/has some sort of god/omnipotent being they believe in, yet they are all different from the other. Did "God" only reveal himself to handful of his lucky children and the rest were to go f themselves? Native American who had never heard of Jesus, simply because of where they were born... Was that God's plan? No, your religion is a product of simple circumstance, where and when you were born. That's it. That Christianity is such a globally successful religion in modern times speaks to European colonialism rather than the legitimacy of the religion. So when you talk about scientifically proving the existence of God... It's a laughable notion.

[funhusker]

"While Lutherans hold various convictions regarding lifelong, monogamous,

same-gender relationships, this church is united on many critical issues. It

opposes all forms of verbal or physical harassment and assault based on

sexual orientation. It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights

and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services.

It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and

support same-gender couples and their families and to advocate for their

legal protection.

The ELCA recognizes that it has a pastoral responsibility to all children of

God. This includes a pastoral responsibility to those who are same-gender

in their orientation and to those who are seeking counsel about their sexual

self-understanding. (this does not mean "pray the gay away", it may mean helping a person accept the fact that he/she is gay)

All are encouraged to avail themselves of the means of grace and pastoral care."

Taken from ELCA's view on human sexuality, which homosexuality is definitely part of....

[funhusker]

"In daily life, cultural, ethnic and racial differences matter, but they can be seen and celebrated as what God intends them to be — blessings rather than means of oppression and discrimination. We are a church that belongs to Christ, where there is a place for everyone. Christ’s church is not ours to control, nor is it our job to sort, divide, categorize or exclude." -

 

Not all churches are made up of judgmental a**holes....

[tschu]

Are we still missing the overall point that despite Landlord and JJ and NUance's claims that there are good Christians who stand up for homosexuals out there, that overwhelmingly Republican politicians get elected running on platforms that include protection of the "sanctity of marriage" ...whatever the hell that is? That same-sex marriage is illegal in 33 states homosexuality has no protection in anti-discrimination laws. Why? Because people want to keep it that way. Why? Because of religious views. You're the exception, Landlord, not the rule.

 

Here's a post I made well over a year ago:

 

Hilarious how America was settled due to religious persecution and was founded on the idea of separation of church and state; yet a large percentage of the population still believes that not only is it okay, but that it is correct to discriminate against a certain subset of the population merely on the basis of what their religion deems to be unholy. "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because my religion says it's a sin" is some of the worst logic you can ever come up with.

 

And you claim that we shouldn't blame Christianity, yet things like this continue to happen. It's absurd.

 

Nebraska, in November, will elect a guy who, right on his campaign website, says things like

 

Ben Sasse believes that our right to the free exercise of religion is co-equal to our right to life. This is not a negotiable issue. Government cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances. He will fight for the right of all Americans to act in accordance with their conscience.

 

and

 

Ben believes marriage is between one man & one woman, and that the family is the foundational unit of society.

Ben will oppose all federal government initiatives that undermine the family's ability to flourish, nurture, and educate children

 

 

So I don't care if I lump in a few innocent Christians who happen to love gays or whatever, but get right the hell out of here with the "don't blame religion, it's not our fault." THE STATE OF NEBRASKA IS GOING TO OVERWHELMINGLY ELECT THAT GUY. Absolutely terrifying.

 

I suppose one guy doesn't prove anything though right? Hm, here's our soon-to-be governor Pete Ricketts' stance:

 

Pete believes that marriage is the union of one woman and one man and will fight to protect the sanctity of marriage.

 

Yeah.

 

Secondly, your "It's not bigotry to believe that something is wrong" Uh, let's look at a definition for bigot: " a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" ...so okay, glad we can debunk that too. Now I don't think you have hate in your heart or anything, but the fact that you think that religion isn't a huge component, if not the entire, problem here is absurd. "I believe that being homosexual is a sin" ...let's flip it around based on other characteristics of people. "I believe that being tall is a sin" or "I believe that being Asian is a sin" or "I believe that being fat is a sin" ...do you see how absolutely insane you sound to the rest of us? How there is almost no way to argue rationally against that sort of irrational thought? And how frustrating it is for homosexuals and for those of us who simply want that sort of line of thought and behavior out of this country? Thought influences behavior, and you can yell otherwise until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true.

 

I'll be here all day.

[Ulty]

I am in absolute agreement with Tschu and Knapplc in this thread (sorry if I missed anyone but those are the ones who stood out) - it is irrational to somehow think that homosexuality is sinful or harmful. There is no basis for that except for the rare biblical passage, which is does not count as actual evidence of anything, except that it has been a commonly held belief by many.

 

However, I do so some progress in much of what JJ says (and some of what Landlord says, although his assertiveness on the subject still indicates much hypocrisy), in that, even though this line of thinking is the same attitude that leads to people being oppressed and discriminated against, at least they say that they do not themselves advocate for discrimination. As Zoogies said, these sorts of long held beliefs do not change overnight, but a step forward with any civil rights battle, whether it is sexual orientation, race, religion, sex, etc (and yes, they are definitely analogous), is for those who don't believe in equality to stop openly pushing for it.

 

There are still a lot of despicable racists out there, but they are mostly hidden in the shadows, as they know it is not acceptable to spew their beliefs. As a civilized society, we still have a duty to educate them and correct the evils that have occurred, but at least the tide has turned. With homosexuality, the tide is turning, and people are finding that it is no longer acceptable, or soon won't be, to advocate for hate and discrimination. In backwards states like Nebraska and many southern states, bigots like Sasse and Ricketts and many other Republicans can get elected based on their reprehensible beliefs, but I think it has become a bigger issue simply because the tide is turning, and cockroaches tend to scurry about when you shine the light on them.

 

The next step for these folks, especially as the public finds that sort of bigotry less and less acceptable, is for them to stop advocating for discrimination and shut up about it entirely. It's evolution, baby.

 

Homophobia won't entirely be stamped out, but they will be the ones in the closet for a change. And the next generation past that won't be indoctrinated with it as much. It sounds like that's where JJ is, and TonyStalloni as well. Maybe Landlord is heading that direction as well, but he feels the need to fight it a little harder. But it's okay to evolve. People evolve, society evolves, even religion can evolve. You can't stop it, guys.

[Ulty]

"In daily life, cultural, ethnic and racial differences matter, but they can be seen and celebrated as what God intends them to be — blessings rather than means of oppression and discrimination. We are a church that belongs to Christ, where there is a place for everyone. Christ’s church is not ours to control, nor is it our job to sort, divide, categorize or exclude." -

 

Not all churches are made up of judgmental a**holes....

 

 

See, that's a great attitude to have, it should be applied more often. Religion can still have positive value if it is used like this, instead of to hate, discriminate, and divide.

[ZRod]

 

You didn't outright say they were bad, but you're comparing the behavior to alcoholism and drug use, two self destructive behaviors. You're right you can be a good person and still be an addict, but how is homosexuality in anyway self destructive?

 

How am I making a definitive moral claim? Tell me how homosexuality is self destructive. Do you spend all your money on it? Lose a job because of it's grip on you? Destroy your body because of it? Does it eventually kill you?

 

 

I do love the way you berate people you see as less intellectual than yourself.

 

 

I could give some responses to how homosexuality can be destructive, and they would be centered around ideas completely foreign to your beliefs such as what sexuality was actually created and designed for by God, the covenantal representation of Christ and his bride, etc., and others that you might understand but still disagree with such as the healthiness of a mother and father in raising a child and the history of that being the sanctuary for bringing forth and bringing up children, but ultimately those would be falling on deaf ears because you don't hold Scripture in high regard and agree. Which I'm fine with, but I'm also ending the conversation at "I disagree with you", and letting you keep on thinking what you want.

 

But even then, reducing immorality to the basis of whether or not it causes harm is a bad idea. What if a man cheats on his wife but she never finds out because he hides it well? No harm comes but are we going to say that isn't wrong? There are tons of things that people consider wrong that aren't immediately and demonstrably harmful - don't act like you don't believe in some things being wrong that aren't obviously harmful.

 

Imagine typical reactions to someone burning an American flag, or what your response would be if your dog was killed by a car on the highway and I suggested we eat the meat. All of our moral codes are filled with tons of things that are perceived wrong by more than whether or not they're harmful.

 

You could give those responses and I would point to studies that show that children from same sex couples are no worse off than those from heterosexual couples. It's not that it's falling on deaf ears, I'm genuinely interested in the debate and glad that you're more progressive than the majority of Christians in this country, I just don't understand how you can compare a person's genuine love for another human being to alcoholism and drug use. I guess that's where we disagree.

[EbylHusker]

Considering religious doctrines and views are essentially altered through history to keep the religion afloat in the face of a changing world, I'm sure we'll see the same trend continue with homosexuality. As the older people die off, things will continue to progress.

[The Dude]

 

JJ, think of it this way. 1964 American South. A Black man wants to marry his White girlfriend. People say it isn't right, it's against their beliefs, it's against their faith.

 

 

Except that race and sexual activity are not comparable. At all.

 

Not that it's relevant to the point. At all.