Homosexuality, Culture, and Theology

[Landlord]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I would be very interested in those studies.

 

 

 

 

"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.

 

Being tall is demonstrable and something people have zero control over. Being asian is demonstrable and something that people have no control over. Being fat can be representative of poor genes that someone can't control, or it might be representative of them being an unhealthy lard ass with zero self control. BEING homosexual is generally not something you have control over, but I've never said there is anything wrong with being homosexual.

 

I've never said that homosexual orientation is sinful, the way you want to keep pidgeon-holing me. I make the distinction at actions, not essence, so at least do the respect of giving me that distinction because it is a pretty crucial one. Why?

 

Because it would be irrational to say someone is wrong for being big and tall - it wouldn't be irrational to say someone is wrong for acting towards that goal by taking illegal substances.

 

It would be irrational to say someone is wrong for being asian - it wouldn't be irrational to say that someone is wrong because they are acting in ways that are discriminatory towards other races.

 

 

 

 

Now even pretending that you can actually grasp the difference in arguments and still think it's irrational, I would just say... why, exactly? Because it doesn't ascribe to the same morality you do? Sorry but it's entirely a moral issue, and without having an objective precedent to base our morals on, there's nothing to say that my moral conclusion is irrational or wrong compared to yours other than majority opinion.

[tschu]

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently there's nothing wrong with BEING gay, just don't have sex with other gay dudes. Yeah, that's a philosophically sound and rational viewpoint. :

[tschu]

It's a moral issue alright, and one that you're on the very wrong side of.

[HeyBurke]

Landlord, you never said anything about homosexuality being bad, necessarily, but you did say that they make bad decisions. As if gay people choose to be gay. That has got to be one of the most idiotic statements anyone could possibly make about this issue. Why in God's green earth would someone choose to be gay? That would be like choosing to be black during most of America's history. And why is having gay sex a bad decision? Other than the fact that the Bible prohibits it, do you actually have a good reason for this belief? It's obvious that you don't strictly adhere to everything in the Bible, so I think it's a little hypocritical for you to base your opinions of homosexuality off of what the Bible says.

[EbylHusker]

There's nothing wrong with being gay, but it's wrong to have sex with another man? So God has a hand in everything, and makes (allows?) a man to be gay, but then makes it a sin to have sex with another man? That's some serious lulz.

[JJ Husker]

It's a moral issue alright, and one that you're on the very wrong side of.

His Highness tschu has decreed. It has been written so it shall be. Lol.

 

The only real bigotry and intolerance I have witnessed in this thread is bigotry towards believers and intolerance for their viewpoint. I guess that is the result when so many have failed to succeed at grasping the religion they claim to have studied so thoroughly or in other cases have not even given it a chance. Have fun playing with that moral compass that has no true north direction.

[HeyBurke]

 

It's a moral issue alright, and one that you're on the very wrong side of.

His Highness tschu has decreed. It has been written so it shall be. Lol.

 

The only real bigotry and intolerance I have witnessed in this thread is bigotry towards believers and intolerance for their viewpoint. I guess that is the result when so many have failed to succeed at grasping the religion they claim to have studied so thoroughly or in other cases have not even given it a chance. Have fun playing with that moral compass that has no true north direction.

 

 

Believe it or not, you don't need to be religious to have morals. The fact that you think you need a deity to tell you what's right or wrong is pretty silly. Frankly, it is intolerant to believe that two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry because your holy book says so. It's the same justification that people used in days past to justify slavery.

[tschu]

 

It's a moral issue alright, and one that you're on the very wrong side of.

His Highness tschu has decreed. It has been written so it shall be. Lol.

 

The only real bigotry and intolerance I have witnessed in this thread is bigotry towards believers and intolerance for their viewpoint. I guess that is the result when so many have failed to succeed at grasping the religion they claim to have studied so thoroughly or in other cases have not even given it a chance. Have fun playing with that moral compass that has no true north direction.

 

 

The old "no religion = no morals" argument. Figured it was only a matter of time before we got there

[Junior]

Have fun playing with that moral compass that has no true north direction.

Ha. I don't have the energy to express the irony in this post.

[ZRod]

I would be very interested in those studies.

 

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

 

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/p06.pdf

 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/tick-for-samesex-families-20130605-2npxf.html

 

http://www.aifs.org.au/cfca/pubs/papers/a145197/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361102

[JJ Husker]

Of course you all missed the point of my post. I know it doesn't take religion to have morals. The point was; why does tschu (or any one else) get to decree who is on the right or wrong side of a moral issue? I'm not the one in this discussion telling anyone else they are right or wrong.

 

And HeyBurke gets the top prize for the grossest misrepresentation of my position on gay rights. Instead of making up lies maybe you should show us where I have ever said two consenting shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry. I'll give you a clue, you won't find it.

 

I wish I knew what it was like to be so afraid of something that I was unable to consider it. I bet some of you would jump a f'ing mile if I snuck up behind you and whispered "religion" or "God" or "Christianity". Of course there is no force more destructive known to man. You guys crack me up.

[HeyBurke]

Of course you all missed the point of my post. I know it doesn't take religion to have morals. The point was; why does tschu (or any one else) get to decree who is on the right or wrong side of a moral issue? I'm not the one in this discussion telling anyone else they are right or wrong.

 

And HeyBurke gets the top prize for the grossest misrepresentation of my position on gay rights. Instead of making up lies maybe you should show us where I have ever said two consenting shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry. I'll give you a clue, you won't find it.

 

I wish I knew what it was like to be so afraid of something that I was unable to consider it. I bet some of you would jump a f'ing mile if I snuck up behind you and whispered "religion" or "God" or "Christianity". Of course there is no force more destructive known to man. You guys crack me up.

 

Yeah, I wasn't referring to you, but I guess the world revolves around JJ. I was referring to the view that a good amount of Christians, specifically Landlord, have about homosexuality. No one in this thread is afraid of religion. Some of us just find it laughable when religious people defend their bigoted beliefs with religion.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Of course you all missed the point of my post. I know it doesn't take religion to have morals. The point was; why does tschu (or any one else) get to decree who is on the right or wrong side of a moral issue? I'm not the one in this discussion telling anyone else they are right or wrong.

And HeyBurke gets the top prize for the grossest misrepresentation of my position on gay rights. Instead of making up lies maybe you should show us where I have ever said two consenting shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry. I'll give you a clue, you won't find it.

I wish I knew what it was like to be so afraid of something that I was unable to consider it. I bet some of you would jump a f'ing mile if I snuck up behind you and whispered "religion" or "God" or "Christianity". Of course there is no force more destructive known to man. You guys crack me up.

 

Yeah, I wasn't referring to you, but I guess the world revolves around JJ. I was referring to the view that a good amount of Christians, specifically Landlord, have about homosexuality. No one in this thread is afraid of religion. Some of us just find it laughable when religious people defend their bigoted beliefs with religion.

No, the world doesn't revolve around me numbnuts but your comments were directed at me (that is what people assume when you reply directly to something they have said and when you use the word "you" in addressing them). Jeebus frikken crist, do I have to explain how everything works to you?

 

But yeah, you didn't mean to say that was my position.........give me a f'ing break.

[HeyBurke]

 

 

Of course you all missed the point of my post. I know it doesn't take religion to have morals. The point was; why does tschu (or any one else) get to decree who is on the right or wrong side of a moral issue? I'm not the one in this discussion telling anyone else they are right or wrong.

And HeyBurke gets the top prize for the grossest misrepresentation of my position on gay rights. Instead of making up lies maybe you should show us where I have ever said two consenting shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry. I'll give you a clue, you won't find it.

I wish I knew what it was like to be so afraid of something that I was unable to consider it. I bet some of you would jump a f'ing mile if I snuck up behind you and whispered "religion" or "God" or "Christianity". Of course there is no force more destructive known to man. You guys crack me up.

Yeah, I wasn't referring to you, but I guess the world revolves around JJ. I was referring to the view that a good amount of Christians, specifically Landlord, have about homosexuality. No one in this thread is afraid of religion. Some of us just find it laughable when religious people defend their bigoted beliefs with religion.

No, the world doesn't revolve around me numbnuts but your comments were directed at me (that is what people assume when you reply directly to something they have said and when you use the word "you" in addressing them). Jeebus frikken crist, do I have to explain how everything works to you?

 

But yeah, you didn't mean to say that was my position.........give me a f'ing break.

 

 

You are trying to defend Landlord in your post, smarty pants. That's why I replied to you. You are defending him, and you are the one who brought about the discussion about non-believers not having morals. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

[Landlord]

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently there's nothing wrong with BEING gay, just don't have sex with other gay dudes. Yeah, that's a philosophically sound and rational viewpoint. :

 

 

What exactly is the problem with it? If someone has reason to believe that homosexual activity is harmful, seems pretty fair to hold a position that there's nothing wrong with a person being oriented towards something if they don't act out on it. I get that you don't think there's harm in it so you don't make the same comparisons, but I do (will address this further down), and that in mind I can compare it to other more easily demonstrable examples:

 

There's nothing wrong with being prone to alcoholism, but staying sober-minded is healthy and good.

There's nothing wrong with being prone to violence, but control your anger and don't curb stomp people.

There's nothing wrong with being unhappy in your marriage, but don't be unfaithful and an adulterer.

 

 

It's a moral issue alright, and one that you're on the very wrong side of.

 

Prove it man. Give me something worthwhile to show me how I am objectively wrong that isn't based on the inconsistent and ever changing cultural agenda of the present time. If it's this obvious then just prove it to me - especially when my side of the moral issue leads me to love gay people, to have close and treasured relationships with them, and to fight for their liberties and rights.

 

 

 

 

Landlord, you never said anything about homosexuality being bad, necessarily, but you did say that they make bad decisions. As if gay people choose to be gay. That has got to be one of the most idiotic statements anyone could possibly make about this issue. Why in God's green earth would someone choose to be gay? That would be like choosing to be black during most of America's history. And why is having gay sex a bad decision? Other than the fact that the Bible prohibits it, do you actually have a good reason for this belief? It's obvious that you don't strictly adhere to everything in the Bible, so I think it's a little hypocritical for you to base your opinions of homosexuality off of what the Bible says.

 

 

Sorry for the confusion, but I never implied or said that gay people choose to be gay. That wasn't the choice I was referring to (the choice being homosexual acts). It's pretty well established that sexual orientation is almost entirely determined by genetics and social conditioning.

 

As far as homosexual acts being a bad decision, yeah, I have a number of reasons to think this is the case outside of just "The Bible says so":

 

1. Drastic promiscuity and homosexual behavior go hand in hand. 75% of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime, half being strangers, and something like 7-8% of all homosexual people have relationships lasting longer than three years. As a Christian this is disturbing from the spiritual perspective when taking into account the ideas of purity and covenants, but even as a practical person you have to acknowledge the significantly greater propensity for diseases, lack of worthwhile relationships and other things. Promiscuity among homosexual men isn't a stereotype, or even really a 'majority' experience - it is very close to the entirety of experience.

 

2. With that comes seriously ramped up drug usage. I'll have to find the study but it showed that 47% of homosexual men have a history of alcohol abuse and 51% have a history of of drug abuse, with a direct correlation between number of partners and amount of drugs consumed.

 

3. There's also overwhelming evidence that some mental disorders occur with a lot more frequency in homosexual people, with attempted suicide rates six times more than heterosexual counterparts and much higher propensity towards serious depression. Some of that, no doubt, has to do with facing the societal pressure that heterosexual people don't have to suffer through, but all of it? Eh, I'm skeptical.

 

4. Homosexual sex is just straight up devastating to your body. It results in stuff like prostate damage, ulcers and ruptures, anal warts, chronic diarrhea and incontinence.

 

5. Finally, the diseases man. Not including AIDS, 75% of guys carry some kind of STD. Still excluding those with AIDS, the life expectancy of a homosexual man is 45 years old. Compared to 70 for men overall.

 

 

 

Moving on, what don't I adhere to in the Bible? Not sure what you're referencing, but in addition to the objective reasons why I come to the conclusion that homosexual acts are bad news, there is still the matter of my faith. You guys seem to be throwing around this strawman reasoning where I and others just proclaim "THE BIBLE SAYS SO" as if it's an isolated and arbitrary statement that doesn't have any meaning. When, IF, I say I believe something because the Bible says so, it's because I believe the Bible to be God's word, which is true and right and just do to believing that God is omniscient and loving and just and merciful.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with being gay, but it's wrong to have sex with another man? So God has a hand in everything, and makes (allows?) a man to be gay, but then makes it a sin to have sex with another man? That's some serious lulz.

 

Look above to other examples. If you can't see that the world is absolutely FULL of people that have all kinds of self-destructive tendencies that need to be fought against, then maybe I can grab a shovel and help scoop some of the sand away from where your head is buried. If you're going to throw out the "HAHA YEA RITE GOD MADE SOMEONE THE WAY THEY ARE BUT THEN TOLD THEM NOT TO BE THAT WAY" argument, can't you find a better example of serious lulz than homosexual people being chaste?

 

I would think that people molesting children, committing suicide, overdosing on hard drugs, or hundreds of other examples would be better evidence for your case, you know? But regardless, the answer to that is quite simple and centered around the idea of the corruption of sin making us not what we ought to be.

 

 

 

 

Believe it or not, you don't need to be religious to have morals. The fact that you think you need a deity to tell you what's right or wrong is pretty silly. Frankly, it is intolerant to believe that two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry because your holy book says so. It's the same justification that people used in days past to justify slavery.

 

 

 

Everyone has morals. And I personally don't believe what you have described. I think people should be allowed (different than believing they should in general, or that it's a good idea) to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't immediately and demonstrably harm someone else.

 

But, the point I would make is that positions like tschu's that just point-blank call someone else wrong are pretentious and unfounded. You have your morals. I have my morals. We both can say to the other, "I think you are wrong", and for me it might be based off my belief in God and what He has revealed to be right, for you it might be based off of science or reason or logic (please don't red herring me and take this to say that I don't appeal to science/reason/logic as a person of faith), but how can either of us say YOU. ARE. WRONG.?

 

We have different ideas of a lot of things, and the reality is that every action is morally freighted in some way and has good/bad consequences that are determined by your world view. Our idea of what is right and wrong is not empirical or objective - it is based on our beliefs, and each of our individual beliefs about what is harmful is based on what we believe human beings are for.

 

So like... say I hand you a rock. Is it a good rock or a bad rock? I say that I hammered a nail with it and it broke so it's a bad rock. You say that you wanted something to drink out of and crushed it into sand and turned that into glass so it's a good rock. We've come up with different ideas of it being good or bad depending on what we believe the rock is for. In the same way, if I believe that we as humans are for God's glory, then things that I understand to be contrary to His nature and commandments are things I will think are wrong. What do you believe we are for? That determines your moral compass in a lot of ways, and I'm waiting to see one legitimate answer as to why I am wrong in my thinking that is based on an objective truth of morality and not just on the current cultural narrative and chronological snobbery.