I think what you’re missing is the whole *bigot *part, because you’re comparing the “sin” of homosexuality to a bunch of other sins like adultery, theft, and premarital sex. Someone might adhere to a religion that thinks adultery is a sin while holding no particular ill-will towards adulterers other than some bland acknowledgement that their actions are immoral. That’s fine. But adultery, theft, and premarital sex are all choices, and homosexuality is not. Adhering to a religion that considers homosexuality to be a sin is the same thing, for our purposes here, as adhering to a religion that considers being dark-skinned to be a sin. If someone thinks having dark skin is immoral just because their religion says so, that doesn’t absolve that belief or the believer from being bigoted, even if they don’t act on that belief in any of the other ways that we typically associate with bigots.
The only possible out you have with your argument is the weasely notion that Christians don’t think mere homosexuality is a sin, only homosexual acts. But that’s dumb, and a modern invention designed to make Christians* seem less bigoted than they really are.
*Of course, not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin, as has been acknowledged 100 times in this thread. But I still feel that I need to say it again.
I don’t think this quite covers it. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is considered a choice or not – even if it’s a choice (or one believes it’s a choice), it’s still bigoted to claim that it’s sinful and morally wrong. I think a better comparison would be to a religion (like Southern Baptists in the past) whose leaders claimed that it was sinful and morally wrong to marry or have sex with people from a different race. That’s also a bigoted claim, even though it’s definitely a choice whether or not to marry and have sex with people from a difference race.
That’s interesting, I hadn’t thought of that. I still think there’s an element in there of non-choice – two people love each other, and one of them can’t help be a different race. For instance, I know a lot of Catholics don’t consider it proper (not sure if it rises to a sin) for a non-Catholic to marry a Catholic, and I don’t consider that to be a bigoted belief for some reason. You’ve given me something to chew on.
I agree, so long as these people do not believe that homosexual acts are sinful. If they do believe that, then they’re homophobes, and it doesn’t matter whether they are like this because of their religion or not. You dodged my question, by the way, so I’ll just answer it for you:
The difference between many things which modern christianity considers “sinful” and homosexuality (and having sex before marriage, and eating shellfish, and various other things Christians by and large neglect in the modern day) is that the other things are harmful and/or antisocial for those involved and others, do not involve two consenting adults, and are ethically wrong by any rational ethical system. Simply equating homosexual sex with an ethical wrongdoing like that is, in fact, bigoted.
magellan really did a great job bringing this thread off topic with his bizarre claims that Christians who thinks homosexuals are inherently evil murderers aren’t bigoted, and atheists on the SDMB are ok with Muslims attacking women. And then accusing us of not living in reality. Just, what the fuck?
All one has to do is look at the Episcopal/Anglican split over the issue. The bigots got mad and left rather than accept the new teaching of their church to show that you are demonstrably incorrect on this issue. Apparently some people do REALLY care that the icky gays are kept in their place.
“They[A&E]’re going to have to apologize,” agreed another. “If they want them back, they’re going to have to eat crow. They’ll probably do it right after Christmas. Look for a note sometime over the next week and a half.”
That nowhere near what the quote you’re responding to said. You may want to reread, unless you a deliberately attempting to misquote people… which wouldn’t be a first for you, in this thread.
Did you actually read the quote I was replying to? magellan01 claimed that if a church changed the stance on homosexual acts being sinful that people would stay since they’re not really bigoted, they just believe it’s a sin since the church tells them so. I proved that wasn’t true, the bigots would rather leave and start their own church then give up on their bigotry.
Show me where Christ said homosexuality was a sin. Seems to me like He hung with a lot of people that “sinned” and I don’t remember Him judging them. He was pretty specific that it ain’t a human’s job to judge another human’s relationship with God. Something about motes and beams and eyes. Hmmm…if only somebody would go through and highlight the things said directly by Jesus - maybe if they made the words red or something…
Depends on what “sin” means. If it means that something is taboo for followers of a particular cult, then sure, it can be sinful. But if it means that it’s wrong for everyone, and if part of that cult’s doctrine is that its beliefs ought to be imposed on nonbelievers via law, then we’re in the category of a social question, and unless we’re prepared to accept debaters who advance theocracy and reject the concept of liberty, it’s all right for us to consider this position a problem.
We also have a very long history of folks who make public declarations about the sinfulness of homosexuality, comparing it to bestiality and murder. The number of people who make such judgments who don’t show antipathy toward gay folks and a desire to deny gay folks of equal rights such as protection from discrimination in the workplace or the right to marry their beloved? I can’t say for certain that number is zero, but I can say for pretty damned near certain.
And yes, I know that’s not exactly on-point to what you asked, but then what you asked wasn’t exactly on-point to what you were responding to either, so I figure we’re even :).
… and just as I predicted, A&E caves and crawls back.
The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series – and since he didn’t miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.
