Many born again types don’t speak about the subject as if they picked their faith. They appear to be convinced that their faith picked them, i.e. God appeared to them in some powerfully persuasive way, and they were “saved”. I don’t know what to make of that, really, but for the sake of argument, faith may be experienced as a compulsion in some instances. Maybe asking them to be athiests would work about as well as asking a homosexual to live a hetero lifestyle, I dunno.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that you, also, rock. I do have some philosophical questions about your stance. Oh, and one snarky comment.
Too late!
(That was the snarky comment.)
So why not just say “Premaritial sex is immoral?” And related to that, since it’s not possible for most gay couples to get married under secular law, is it at all possible for a gay couple to have sex that you would not consider immoral? While the government may not recognize it, lots of gays are in dedicated, monogamous, hopefully lifelong relationships. Would sex in such a relationship be immoral to you? I’m assuming that you don’t require people to be married in your particular church for their marriage to be valid. If I were to be married, it would almost certainly be an entirely civil ceremony with no religious overtones. That would be a perfectly valid marriage to you, right? So what your saying, then, is that secular government recognition has the power to remove the stain of sin from a sexual relationship, which sounds theologically shakey to me. Surely, it’s the emotional dedication that validates the relationship, right? If I’m in a relationship with another man that I fully intend to be lifelong, and I have sex with him, surely that’s not immoral simply because its legally impossible for us to get married?
Again, so there’s no confusion after my above questions, you totally rock.
Force by who? If it’s by internal pressure from the group’s own members, that’s awesome. But as much as I would bitterly oppose and dispise such a group, I’d be absolutely opposed to any sort of government attempt to shut it down.
Consider the possibility that you, yourself, rock.
I assume, then, that you guys would deny funding to Muslim student groups? Most Muslims abhor homosexuality as much as this woman does.
Sorry, where has anyone said anything about denying funding in this thread?
Okay, I’ll rephrase. Do you jerks feel the same slobbering, lunatic hatred for most Muslims that you feel for this woman? Because I assure you that most Muslims share her sentiments.
But then, couldn’t you say that there’s no gene that made the woman currently pitted a fundamentalist, either but that she didn’t choose to be one, hence that she can’t be faulted for being what she is and thinking what she thinks?
(I’m sure said woman , providing she doesn’t believe in predetermination, wouldn’t agree with her not having chosen freely to accept god, but still, if you state that you didn’t have a choice in your lack of religious belief, it logically follows that she didn’t have choice in her religious beliefs, either. Actually, you could make the case that a racist couldn’t help becoming racist, or even a murderer couldn’t help becoming one. At some point, we have to accept, if only as a convenient fiction, that we have some responsability for our beliefs, values, actions, etc…)
Your non religious marriage, according to many denominations, would have no validity, so there’s nothing theologically shakey here.
I’ve already made this point in the past, but some poster (I can’t remember who) argued quite well to the contrary (that a christian condemning homosexuality without hate on the basis of his religious beliefs was still a bigot). If he recognize himself, or if someone is willing to make the case for this, I’d be interested, because though I remember the arguments seemed rather sound to me, I forgot completely what they were, and as a result am still undecided about this issue.
“Slobbering, lunatic hatred”?! The wha?
And really, what is the point of this question? What possible purpose can your dragging Islam into this thread have?
Same question: who in this thread has expressed “slobbering, lunatic hatred?” There’s a fair bit of justifiable anger at her, because she’s an unapologetic bigot, but I don’t see anything that raises to the level of hatred, let alone the irrational drooling variety.
For the record, I don’t discriminate between bigots who are Christian and bigots who are Muslim, and bigots who have no religious affiliation. A bigot is a bigot. Not sure what point you think you were making by bringing up Islam, although I suppose I could make some guesses.
My question was specific to Charger and his particular interpretation of his faith.
I think that was me, but I forget the specific argument I made in that thread. Generally, I don’t think that it is necessary to think that homosexuality is a sin to be a Christian. Lots of Christians, including some whole denominations, don’t believe any such thing. A Christian who insists that homosexuality is sinful has made a conscious decision to embrace that particular belief, and that leaves them open to criticism for making that particular choice. It is, after all, possible to interpret the Bible in such a way that it condones racism or anti-Semitism, but no one is going to get a pass for hating Jews because they “killed Christ.” It’s an abhorent belief, and all the Biblical authority in the world doesn’t excuse someone from holding it. The same applies to Biblically-derived homophobia, as far as I’m concerned.
Where’s the link about the Muslim bitch who is suing her college? If you’re bringing it up in this thread, I assume you’ve got one ready.
Unless you’re just making a sad weak-assed argument. And I’m sure that’s not the case.
-Joe
In which case, we can say that a person whose faith “picked them” still chooses to *act * on their “compulsion.” Again, it’s a chosen behavior, so I don’t think the young lady in the OP has much reason to expect accomodation from others. She could keep it to herself, believe whatever she wants, and just not subject the rest of us to the spectacle.
At that point, about all we’re left with is the notion that her beliefs are somehow more valid than someone else’s beliefs (say, mine).
Pal, please get off the cross. [There, you can take that as an anti-Christian remark if you like.] The country is 80% Christian, and the country is run almost entirely by Christians. Try being part of a group that is disliked by much of that 80% and you’ll have some perspective. There are people who hate anybody, but you’ve got nothing to worry about but occasional ridicule, and frankly, I don’t think Christians really get much of that compared to some other groups.
I do agree that we’re getting away from the important thing in this thread, which is the idiot at Georgia Tech. I don’t care what her (or anybody’s) excuse is for not liking gays. It’s bullshit nonetheless.
I do appreciate what you’re saying, but perhaps some compulsions are more…er…compulsory than others, at least in the mind of those who experience them. I chose to act on my compulsion to ask my wife to marry me, but if you asked me why I did it, I’d answer “How could I not?” Maybe it’s like that for them. Again, I don’t claim to really know. I just wonder to what degree faith is really a choice for some people.
That’s precisely my point. If we define “faith” as one person’s gut-level feeling that a set of beliefs is true and correct, then we’re describing something that’s integral (although not necessarily inborn) to that person. However, the expression of that faith is a matter of individual choice.
Here’s a non-sexual example. I believe these things as a matter of faith:
(1) G-d permits us to kill and consume non-human animals.
(2) G-d commands us to kill animals for food in the manner that causes the least possible pain and distress.
I can express this in several ways, each of which is held to be correct by different authorities (some religious, some secular):
(1) I can eat meat that has been certified as coming from an animal that was slaughtered in a particular manner which is said to be minimally painful.
(2) I can abstain from eating meat because I believe that all current methods of slaughter inflict an unacceptable degree of pain and distress.
(3) I can eat any meat I want, but ask G-d’s forgiveness for my part in inflicting pain and distress.
(4) I can assert that all people who eat meat are violating G-d’s will, insist loudly and publicly that no one should eat meat, and demand that people who eat meat be excluded from public life or punished in some other way.
Options 1 and 2 are public expressions of faith, to the extent that they’re visible to others. I don’t expect others to do these things; I simply ask that they not prevent me from doing them.
Option 3 is strictly private. Unless I own up to the difference between my behavior and my belief, it’s between me and G-d only.
Option 4 is generally regarded as obnoxious and offensive. I really am a vegetarian for the stated reasons, and I’m annoyed by people who scream “Meat is murder,” etc.
It seems to me that the same applies to anti-gay people who screech that they are “prevented” from being Christian (Jewish, Zoroastrian, whatever), when they’re merely being asked to accept that gay people exist, are exercising Option 4. I have serious doubts about much Christian theology, but I don’t feel the need to exclude Christians from my life, to lecture Christians on the shortcomings of some particular point of belief, or to use derogatory language when speaking about Christian people. Surely these “people of faith” can extend the same courtesy to others?
No, she does not. Neither do you. Cope.
First, learn to use the language. You sound like a moron. Second, learn to form a cogent argument. You sound like a complete moron.
Cite? Have you ever, in fact, entered a university?
It does mean that one is a complete moron.
And here we have the proof of your utter stupidity. Here’s a plan for you: Turn off the FOX News, put down the Aryan Nation tract, and GET A LIFE!
I believe it usally referrs to one of two things.
- Same-gender Anal Sex.
Apparently that simple difference makes it a “lifestyle”.
- The more stereotypical “gay guy” who has a limp wrist, speaks with a lisp, acts effeminate and wears “fabulous” clothing and dresses like Judy Garland when watching “The wizard of Oz”.
A lot of people apparently think all homosexuals are just like this.
I suspect an elaborate hoax. Everyone knows there are no women at Georgia Tech.
You know, I’ve been open about my Christian faith on this board ever since I joined up and I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being a bigot. I have been attacked a few times by Atheists for being a Christian (I believe “illogical” is one of the more common ways I’ve been described), but that’s fair enough. Faith should transcend logic, at least in my rather quirky book. On the other hand, I’ve also been attacked by Fundamentalists.
I’ve been thinking about this thread, trying to decide what to say and how to respond. What the woman did was, in my opinion, wrong. Paul and Jesus condemn gossip, malice, and slander just as strongly as they condemn fornication, yet this woman certainly indulged in malice and slander, particularly that business about calling a gay-straight alliance “a sex club … that can’t even manage to be tasteful.”
I was in church last night, at a Maundy Thursday service. The service recounts Jesus’ last acts before his betrayal and crucifiction. In it, we are reminded that, knowing he would be killed within 24 hours or so, Christ washed the feet of his disciples and gave them a new commandment: Love one another as I have loved you. As a Christian, I am required to love others and show them respect and courtesy. This woman’s actions don’t jibe with that commandment, although her denomination may well not recognize Lent or Maundy Thursday.
I’m a straight woman who’s madly in love with a straight man. We can hug or hold hands in public and no one will say a word. I can talk about him at work or at church and not be accused of “flaunting my heterosexuality”. If I say I hope to marry him, it’s not seen as some sort of strange attack on marriage, but an affirmation of it, if anything. Otto, Miller, and Sister Coyote don’t have that privilege, and in my opinion based on my Christian faith, that’s wrong. So, I’ll keep on fighting to change things.
Peace be with you, friends.