Homosexuality, Culture, and Theology

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

It is your and my right to believe Sterling or the rancher are disgusting human beings for saying the things they did. And, you and I have the right to disagree with them and express that they are a bunch of idiots.

That right to say what we want isn't any less for them as it is for me or you to speak out against them.

 

I'm not sure why you brought up your right to kick me or anyone off the board. Don't think that has anything to do with what I'm saying.

 

Let me explain how I believe homosexual acts pertains to me. I believe it is wrong for me to have sex with another man. I don't care if someone else does. This is no different in my mind as when Amish people think it is wrong for them to drive a car but they don't have a problem if I do. They don't judge me as this horrible human being because I drive a car. But, their religion says they shouldn't drive a car.

 

What is wrong with me having a religion that says I shouldn't do something that is becoming more and more socially acceptable for other people to do?

 

Am I a bigot because I'm a Christian and don't think I should have sex with a man?

 

 

 

RE: The bold - because everyone associates me with the banhammer and I guess it's an easy reference. Kinda the knapplc version of Godwin's Law. It meant nothing and was a poor example. Please forget I said that.

 

RE: The italicized - agreed.

 

RE: The underlined - My biggest concern with an organized religion denouncing "sins" like this is that it can be abused. My experience with the church/churchgoing people is one of love, acceptance, kindness, wholesomeness. I have great memories of the church and the people in it, and if everyone had the same experience with the church that I did, we'd have as much angst against the church as we have against the Girl Scouts. Unfortunately that's not always the case, and when we throw the word "fundamental" in the mix, things go haywire.

 

The churchgoers I'm concerned about aren't you, JJ, Landlord, Streeter - heck, anyone on HuskerBoard, near as I can tell. But religion is prone to zealotry, and zealotry breeds mayhem, and that's what I'm concerned about.

 

I can understand that. Maybe the best way to handle it is not just making blanket statements about Christians or Church in general. There are lots of Christians I disagree with. There are lots of Christians that have taken parts of my religion and abused them for their own gain or in some weird way they think God wants them to act even though it is totally different than the Christianity that I know and try my best to practice.

 

I am glad you posted the bolded sentence because most of the time your posts do not come across as that being true. I get frustrated some times because I have considered myself a Christian all my life. I have belonged to both Protestant churches and the Catholic church. I have never been in at church when someone preached any of the vile that I see on TV from people who claim to be Christian. It's like those people have a totally different "Christianity" than me.

 

It gets very frustrating sometimes.

[Excel]

Delete

Edited May 19, 2014 by Excel

[JJ Husker]

 

 

The bold word there is the only place I'm going to disagree with you. Like gays, hate gays, whatever a person wants to do in the privacy of their own mind is just fine. But when it leaves your skin, either via your mouth or your fingers (typing), that's where I draw the line.

 

I'm free to hate Blacks. I can think the worst things about them, have incorrigible angst and anger regarding them, and that's within my rights inside my own skin. But when I speak , write, or in any way act on that, I'm a bigot, and I'm wrong.

 

The thinking is bad enough. The acting is unsupportable.

I want to be sure I understand what you're saying here. So, if I make this statement "I think it is a sin for a married man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife" in writing on an internet message board, or if I speak it audibly, then that makes me a bigot or that is bigoted behavior. Is that what you are saying?

 

Oi. We can go waaaaaaaaay down that rabbit hole about this or that statement. Because I don't (and I suspect you don't, either) want to spend the rest of our natural born lives deciding what is or isn't bigotry, however much white or black we add to the gray mixture, I'm not going to answer that.

 

Do you have the right to think it? Of course. Should you say someone else is "sinning" when by your own religion's definition you are the same as them? No, you shouldn't. What good does it do?

 

Now, you and I both know there are a million caveats to those very broad, general statements. What if it's your dad/brother/best friend/someone you have a close relationship with? That's hugely different. In general terms, for broad classes of society, it's not OK to throw around "you're a sinner."

 

We are basically in agreement here knapp. It may seem like parsing words or splitting hairs but I feel it is central to how some peoples comments have been treated in this thread. I don't go out of my way commenting on what I think or feel about homosexuality, if I think it is a sin, etc. In fact, the only few times I have done so has been here on HB when that issue was at the heart of the topic being discussed. I know in my heart I am not a bigot or predisposed in any way against gays. But, I have gotten the distinct feeling that many in this discussion feel the mere statement that a person may feel it is sinful is enough for them to classify that person as a bigot. I don't agree with that and I don't appreciate it being intimated that there must be some bigoted or hateful condition at the core of my feeling that way. Hell, everything is a sin in the Catholic church. Why should gay sex be any different? I'm pretty sure they probably view sex with my wife, done for pleasure without trying to get pregnant, as a sin also. lol-but I'm serious.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

And Boom!

 

 

@HuffingtonPost: "How to Train Your Dragon" character will come out as gay in upcoming sequel http://t.co/qEIyyYzq4Q

[JJ Husker]

And Boom!

 

 

@HuffingtonPost: "How to Train Your Dragon" character will come out as gay in upcoming sequel http://t.co/qEIyyYzq4Q

"Train Your Dragon" ??? there's a euphemism I haven't heard before. "Choke Your Chicken" yes, but.........

[knapplc]

The lone difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with. It's not that I think children should be shielded from the gays, I think children should be shielded from sexuality, full stop.

 

Making that character gay serves no purpose in a children's show. Children don't need to know about sex - gay, straight or otherwise.

 

I'm not in favor of that move. It seems unnecessary and dumb.

[BigRedBuster]

The lone difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with. It's not that I think children should be shielded from the gays, I think children should be shielded from sexuality, full stop.

 

Making that character gay serves no purpose in a children's show. Children don't need to know about sex - gay, straight or otherwise.

 

I'm not in favor of that move. It seems unnecessary and dumb.

 

I would agree.

[Creighton Duke]

My problem with this and many other similar types of discussions is that everyone wants to educate others (specifically those who have been labeled as "bigots") during their downtime at work while perusing Huskerboard, but nobody wants to take any action.

 

he beauty of this country is that there are so many options, so many different types of people to hang out with, different viewpoints, different backgrounds, etc. that if you don't want to deal with a "racist" or a "homophobe" or a "Christian" or a "misogynist", you don't have to. You don't have to shop at their stores, you don't have to watch their television programs, etc. Find new friends, watch new television programs, eat someplace else. Don't support those beliefs or those who harbor them.

 

Unfortunately, most people would rather just make other people change their views, lifestyles, preferences, etc. than to make a difficult change (or any kind of change, it seems like) than to change anything about their own lifestyles or routines. It's like the Sterling incident. If all of those people who were condemning him cared enough, they would have stayed away from the arena for a week and watched ANY of the other 5000 channels that they have instead of the NBA Playoffs. That guy would have lost his team overnight, but God-forbid you take away someone's precious NBA Play-offs (it only comes on 40 night each year!)

 

My first few years of college, I was a complete drunken buffoon. Nobody wanted to deal with me and they let me know so by leaving the bar when I showed up or staying in their rooms when I came into common areas. What did I do? I slowly reflected on my behavior and changed a lot of what I was doing. In hindsight, I realized how stupid an inappropriate I was acting. If there are people like this in your life who have beliefs and views that you don't agree with and that you actually feel strongly about, you should act in the same way (if you actually have the courage to do so, that is) and more than likely, they will come around. I admit, people harboring strong views doesn't stop me from eating in certain establishments or watching certain programs, but I also don't complain about these types of beliefs that people are allowed to keep in a free country such as our own.

 

To end my rant, I'm sincerely curious as to what action those who have such a problem with people who have different beliefs than them are doing besides writing on an internet message board such things as "you are on the wrong side of history" and the like. If you're still hanging out with people who believe in things that you feel so strongly about, eat at the restaurants, etc. rest assured that you are contributing to those belief structures that you are so quick to and so strongly condemn.

[JJ Husker]

The lone difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with. It's not that I think children should be shielded from the gays, I think children should be shielded from sexuality, full stop.

 

Making that character gay serves no purpose in a children's show. Children don't need to know about sex - gay, straight or otherwise.

 

I'm not in favor of that move. It seems unnecessary and dumb.

I would agree. And I think the propensity for Hollywood, ABCFamily, Disney, etc. to seemingly always be making a pro-gay statement by the characters they have and subjects they cover has a lot to do with some of the push back by certain groups. In some ways that lifestyle is being placed front and center for many people that would just as soon ignore it and not be exposed to it. I assume this is bound to manifest itself in some degree of out of whack focus on the subject. So, I would say it is not just some of these ultra right fundamentalist religions that have an unhealthy focus on the subject but also some of the proponents who don't seem to want to miss any opportunity to put it in peoples faces. I agree there is a significant difference between adults and children when it comes to being exposed to any sexuality. It seems a bit odd to me that two of the worst offenders, ABC Family and Disney, are primarily for childrens programming.

 

I would bet there are people on here that think this is an entirely proper way to gain wider acceptance faster. Anybody?

[knapplc]

 

The lone difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with. It's not that I think children should be shielded from the gays, I think children should be shielded from sexuality, full stop.

 

Making that character gay serves no purpose in a children's show. Children don't need to know about sex - gay, straight or otherwise.

 

I'm not in favor of that move. It seems unnecessary and dumb.

I would agree. And I think the propensity for Hollywood, ABCFamily, Disney, etc. to seemingly always be making a pro-gay statement by the characters they have and subjects they cover has a lot to do with some of the push back by certain groups. In some ways that lifestyle is being placed front and center for many people that would just as soon ignore it and not be exposed to it. I assume this is bound to manifest itself in some degree of out of whack focus on the subject. So, I would say it is not just some of these ultra right fundamentalist religions that have an unhealthy focus on the subject but also some of the proponents who don't seem to want to miss any opportunity to put it in peoples faces. I agree there is a significant difference between adults and children when it comes to being exposed to any sexuality. It seems a bit odd to me that two of the worst offenders, ABC Family and Disney, are primarily for childrens programming.

 

I would bet there are people on here that think this is an entirely proper way to gain wider acceptance faster. Anybody?

 

 

The bold is why I've never been a fan of Ellen DeGeneres. I'm old enough to remember her as a not-very-funny standup comic. She was a z-level celebrity you'd barely ever heard of, until she came out. Then she was brave and amazing and super awesome and clever and funny and bap bap bap. I watched about ten minutes of her show in a doctor's office once. It was horrid. She's still the same blah, unfunny comedian she always was, but she's "somebody" because she came out.

 

Thankfully, today, coming out isn't an instant claim-to-fame. We've moved on from that hurdle, but Ellen still has a show.

[sd'sker]

i like sex.

[knapplc]

i like sex.

 

Bold stance you're taking there.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

The lone difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with. It's not that I think children should be shielded from the gays, I think children should be shielded from sexuality, full stop.

 

Making that character gay serves no purpose in a children's show. Children don't need to know about sex - gay, straight or otherwise.

 

I'm not in favor of that move. It seems unnecessary and dumb.

 

By reading the article it seems that it's done very subtlety. I'm sure my 10yr old will be oblivious to its significance. I'm not prepared to have this conversation with him especially due in part to an animated children's movie. He doesn't understand why some animated shows are off limits(South Park, etc) but mostly I'm not ready to have any conversation with him regarding sexual relationships. He's been well versed about what's good/bad touching from anyone family or otherwise, but that's about all I feel he's mentally and emotionally capable of understanding/handling at his age. I agree it serves zero purpose but barring the makers of the film asking me for advice on the subject, i guess I'm gonna have to have some version of an explanation should he pick it out of the movie, or as it is with most things, he hears older kids comment on it and then comes to me with questions.

[sd'sker]

i like sex.

Bold stance you're taking there.

i'm trying to build a consensus.

[zoogs]

The lone difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with. It's not that I think children should be shielded from the gays, I think children should be shielded from sexuality, full stop.

 

Making that character gay serves no purpose in a children's show. Children don't need to know about sex - gay, straight or otherwise.

 

I'm not in favor of that move. It seems unnecessary and dumb.

That's not the lone difference. The difference is who they love and have romantic relationships with.

 

We've had movies and shows with straight love featured prominently shoved down our faces. Even children's movies :o :o

 

I'd make a list, but I think it's all of them.