I think it means Miller is a fuckin’ moron.
That’s just Murphy’s Law-if you were gay, you’d have women throwing themselves at you.
What’s the virtue of having a firmly-held set of beliefs? Why is that good? Wouldn’t it be better to have a loosely-held set of beliefs that change easily to do the most possible good when new facts are presented?
Agreed.
What about when we present evidence that espousing these beliefs does an enormous amount of harm to actual, real live people? And they can’t prove that espousing these beliefs does anyone any good? Isn’t that the point at which espousing those beliefs becomes willfully evil?
I wish with every fiber of my being that I could walk away from these discussions, and never think about this subject again. However, as long as these people espouse these beilefs, they’re causing direct and immense harm to millions of people. Including myself, and my family. Nothing would please me more than to just let the straight supremacists wallow in their ignorance, but left uncontested, they tend to murder me and my kind. So I’m obligated to call their bullshit whenever I see it. In as nice a way as I possibly can at the time.
Dammit, you leave Miller alone, you fartswilling pestilent excuse for a…
Oh. Hi, Miller. Hm.
I’d elaborate slightly and say that it’s lust coupled with acting on the lust (the sex itself). The lust angle itself is based on usury of the person: you’re treating the recipient of your lust as an object to please your sexual desires. It’s based on the concept of the dignity of the human person: people are meant to be treated as people, not as objects. If I look at Sally or Joe and think of them as a means to a blowjob, I’m effectively using them.
I hereby declare Mr. B to be my new best friend. 
But what’s all this about lissener being my mortal enemy? [Bart Simpson]"I’m only 25 and I already have two mortal enemies![/Bart]
No, it certainly would not be better.
Let’s say we’ve got who He sees a fruit stand outside a grocery, nobody’s around, and, hey, he’s hungry – not starving, but he could eat. Under your idea that one may reasonably operate on a day-to-day basis with some purely situational morality, this man may steal fruit from the grocer because his belief that stealing is wrong is “loosely held;” he can see “new facts” indicating stealing is okay (he won’t get caught, the grocer can afford the loss, the grocer might not even know any fruit is missing); and in his mind the “most possible good” is accomplished by the theft, because then he won’t be hungry and he of course naturally construes “the most possible good” to mean the most possible good to him, seeing as how his morality is situational and does not include the tenet that he must respect the property of others (so long as he can think of a “good” reason not to).
A set of beliefs that is only “loosely held” is easily abandoned for any reason that the person momentarily holding the belief can think up. And the abandonment of loosely held beliefs is far more likely to be rationalized by selfishness than by the noble conclusion that the person is doing the most possible good for someone else.
MR VISIBLE –
Except that you can’t prove that holding – or even espousing – the belief that gay sex is morally wrong, without more, does any amount of harm. In order to make it harmful, you must add some other element – some feeling of hostility or superiority or fear, or some act of discrimination. And those things IMO can be challenged; the mere belief cannot. You can try to explain to someone that what is harmful and indefensible is the way in which they allow their belief to manifest itself in their interactions with others, when those interactions make others feel bad or unworthy or afraid.
But you CANNOT ascribe a malicious motive or action to a mere belief. It alone does not rise to the level of homophobia, and it alone certainly is not “evil” – though I must say pronouncements of “evilness” sound a little odd from someone who in the same breath argues for moral relativism.
You’ll notice that I was not condemning those who hold the beliefs they do. I was condemning those who espouse those beliefs. And it’s been proven, time and time again, that spreading the belief that homosexuality is sinful is creating strife, torment, and even death for thousands of people, through creating an atmosphere of hateful intolerance towards them. Meanwhile, I dare anyone to try and prove that calling homosexuality sinful is beneficial to anyone. Stating your opinion is an action, and actions are what I judge by.
Believe you’re a big block of Gouda for all I care. Just don’t go stinking up my house.
I admit, though, that I’m not a moral relativist. I do have one guiding principle that I adhere to. It’s not complex. It’s not sophisticated. It’s not elegant. But it works for me.
“Don’t hurt people.”
I adhere to it as best I can. And I can never seem to understand how some people can create complex systems of morals that somehow justify breaking that one rule, time and time again.
Yes, but that doesn’t make it any less insulting or, for that matter, disingenious.
I could very easily ask them to change, but your point is that they won’t (or at least not easily).
Where do I get to draw the line between providing logic, education, patience and understanding to someone to draw them out of their ignorance (for truly, judging my life as sin or continuing to believe that I am wrong for expressing love is the epitome of ignorance) before I’m allowed to give up on them? There comes a point where it wastes my time and annoys the pig, to coin a phrase.
Furthermore, if they’re thinking it, they’re living it. Yes, they may treat me just fine, maybe even work for my civil rights, but if they always believe I am a sinner, that information is being taught to others - their kids, through their church, etc. No one lives in a vacuum. Yes, it’s great that they’re going to support me in civil matters, but in spiritual matters I will always be, essentially, damned.
I also question whether these people could ever really be my friend. Even if they believe “we are all sinners, and I’m no better than you,” there is still the fact that I believe that saying we are all sinners cheapens humanity. I can believe no one is perfect, but “sinner” carries much different baggage than “imperfect.”
Not really, as you proved in your very next paragraph:
You have just provided me with what I can ask of people - think about why you believe what you believe. Blindly accepting dogma is dangerous, and when homophobia is propogated such as it is by religion, politics and society, it is made especially dangerous to queer folk. I accept and I appreciate that you question your church’s stance and your own beliefs and that you’re giving honest thought to how it fits into your worldview. THANK YOU! 
This is good, too, and I can appreciate that kind of view. (It still leaves the subject of SIN, which I have a deep-seated problem with, but that’s another debate entirely. )
Esprix
The only thing I can offer is-there’s ALWAYS going to be somebody who deeply disagrees with something about you, or me, or anyone, that is very important to us. As long as they’re willing to LIVE AND LET LIVE*, that’s the very best we can ask for.
Trust me, accepting this earlier would have saved me a lot of headaches and heartaches.
*And please, don’t tell me I’m saying you have to be a saintly martyr. If someone is living and letting you live, they’re just existing and have nothing to do with you. It’s not REMOTELY the same thing as people going out and gaybashing, despite what lissener would have us believe.
MRVISIBLE –
I’m amazed you don’t see how artificial this is. If the belief is stated in a way making it clear that the holder in no way condones “creating strife, torment, and even death for thousands of people,” much less participates in any such thing, it will be pretty damn hard for you to prove that holding the belief – or even, God forbid, admitting it – without more, does any of the things you and others insist it does. The issue quite obviously doesn’t turn on whether the belief is held or even said, but rather on the actions and attitudes that quite often accompany it. Those you can reasonably object to; the belief, you really can’t. Which is not to say I don’t expect you to, as I said, it’s not something you can reasonably do.
I am also amazed you don’t see how pernicious this is. Having a belief is okay, but saying it is not? Do you imagine for one minute it is the beliefs of the majority that are going to be impeded by this sort of thinking? Do you think it’s straight people who will be muzzled if we all adopt this attitude? You are all in favor of telling people what they can and cannot say, based on the fact that you think their speech is “dangerous” to certain segments of society. I mean, holy shit – is it possible you don’t see this as the obvious weapon it is, perfect to be used against you?
There is a reason you as a gay person should be adamantly opposed to any attempt at “thought policing” or at shouting down the opinions you consider unsavory or unpopular. Because outside of this very tolerant forum, the people who will be silenced on such flimsy grounds are you and your friends.
ESPRIX –
Sure, it’s insulting, even if unintentionally so. But you have not shown that it is disingenuous. If a person holds the belief that gay sex is wrong, and simultaneously holds the belief that all people, regardless of orientation, should be embraced and treated with respect and equality, then this is quite likely where they’re going to end up.
And don’t think I don’t know why this gravels you. I realize it’s not the same, but here’s my experience: I am a Christian. One of the chief tenets of my faith is that there is only ONE God. But I also believe in the trinity. Because they do not understand and/or they reject the concept of the trinity, many Jews believe I (and all Christians) are polytheists who worship more than one god. This is deeply insulting to me on some level, because it is a belief that I absolutely reject and that is diametrically opposed to what I actually believe. But what the hell can I do? That’s what they believe. That’s their reasoned understanding of Christianity, and they believe it as firmly as I believe the opposite. And they have just as much right to hold that opinion as I do to hold mine. So as long as they are respectful of me and my beliefs, as long as they don’t treat me with contempt or discriminate against me, I have no right to quarrel with what they believe. The best that I can hope for is that they will “love” me in spite of this perceived “failing.” Because that’s going to be the best they can do, isn’t it? But does it gravel me, when I bother to think about it? Sure. Not a lot, but some. Knowing full well there’s nothing to be done about it . . . but still – some. So I’m not saying I understand fully, but I do think I understand it part. And I freely admit, if I was in your shoes, it would piss me off too.
Two points: First, you have not shown that a moral belief that homosexual acts are sinful is “the epitome of ignorance.” Many societies in our world believe this and many major religions believe this – not just Christianity, but Judaism and Islam as well – and it is cannot be chalked up to simple “ignorance” any more than can the beliefs that adultery is wrong or eating pork is wrong. They are beliefs. I am not saying you have to consider them legitimate – naturally you don’t, as why should you? – but it is too simplistic to say that simply holding the belief means the holder is as ignorant as he or she could possibly be. Second, only you can decide when to give up on them. Though since you ask me, the point at which the belief is accompanied by a superior or hostile attitude and/or discriminatory action, would be an excellent place to give up. But why would you “give up” on someone who is respecting you and defending you, in spite of holding this belief?
You can hardly quarrel with an individual’s right to teach their moral beliefs to their own kids. Unless you’d like someone to tell you what you can teach to yours? And it is NOT true that “in spiritual matters you will always be, essentially, damned.” Sin does not automatically equate to damnation, especially since we are taught that we are all sinners.
Jeez, there’s just no end to the objections, is there? They can’t say they believe gay sex is wrong, and no they can’t even say that they believe everyone sins – because YOU believe that “cheapens humanity” and because YOU believe “‘sinner’ carries much different baggage than ‘imperfect.’” So how does this work? Their beliefs may be dismissed, but yours much be respected? They are not allowed to distinguish (or try to) between who you are and what you do, but you are allowed to declare that their beliefs “cheapen humanity”? Again, don’t you see the danger in this? You cannot take it upon yourself to judge people based SOLELY on what they think, as opposed to what they do, unless you are willing to allow them to judge you the same way: We don’t care how good you are, or how nice you are, or what a productive and important member of society you are, you believe that gay sex is okay, so the hell with you. We do not attempt to separate what you believe from what you do, and we give you no credit for your many good points and contributions. We see you only in terms of this one piece of dogma and if you do not agree with us regarding its validity, we insult you and dismiss you. Surely you see that allowing this attitude to proliferate is very, very bad for everyone who is not firmly in the majority. That includes you and, since I’m a woman, to a lesser extent it includes me. So yeah – ask people to think about what they believe. Expect them to defend it. But don’t demand that – poof! – they magically just stop believing it. And don’t insult them for believing it (not that you have done this).
You’re welcome.
Jodi is a dirty whore. I’ve seen her on a porn site, which I, of course, am not allowed to link to. She’s doing absolutely unspeakable things, things that involve power tools and barnyard animals, and though I don’t condone violent action against her, the fact remains that what she’s done is just atrocious. I’m appalled that people like her exist.
Disclaimer: none of the above is true. In my actual opinion, Jodi is a thoughtful, articulate person, and has never to my knowledge done anything untoward with either power tools or barnyard animals.
So, Jodi. Was it nice of me to say that? Posting it in a public forum was going too far? What if I was to tell all your neighbors that exact same thing; would that be right, if I truly believed it, even though I have no proof? Would you appreciate me getting up in front of all the congregations of all the churches where you live, and saying that exact same thing?
There is a point at which responsible adults realize that the things they say are causing harm to others. If the have a speck of decency in their souls, they stop freaking doing it.
MR VISIBLE, your reasoning is as faulty as your analogy, though neither is as clumsyas your transparent rationalization for insulting me. Which, don’t worry, I’m not offended by – You had to work so hard for it and it’s such an obvious ham-fisted blugeoning that I can’t respect the effort enough to be pissed off by it.
(A) If you post one thing followed by a “disclaimer,” then we are from the gate not talking about something that you believe. So to the extent this is even an attempt at an analogy of any person’s beliefs, it very obviously does not work.
(B) Something that is held as an article of faith or belief – such as whether something is “right” or “wrong” or “moral” or “immoral” – is not amenable to attack because it’s not amenable to proof. Is dancing moral? How about card playing? How about infidelity? How about eating pork? There is an obvious difference between such things – which are none of them inherently insulting, including a belief that gay sex is wrong – and slurs against a person or their character, especially when those slurs amount to factual assertions (like “whoredom”) that are in fact amenable to proof or disproof.
© Opinions and morals are not the same thing. The latter are generally held by many people and are based on centuries of collective thought or assumptions. The former are yours, and may be yours alone. The latter are generally intended to promote what is considered to be virtuous conduct and, hopefully, honorable actions. The former are merely the expression of the person holding them, and can be on any old thing. I’m not sure if you are being disengenuous to claim that “Jodi is a dirty whore” and “it is morally wrong to have gay sex” are even comparable, or what. Perhaps on some level you don’t really know what morals are, or what they mean to people who hold them in a nonsituational way.
(D) No one has in any way condoned or defended the right not just to hold a given moral belief, but to extrapolate from that moral belief such obviously harmful riders as “I’m appalled this person exists.” This would be the type of attitude which is not merely holding a moral belief but using it as a pretext for hostility, contempt, or discrimination – the very things that I have repeatedly said are not okay and are objectionable – extremely so, for obvious reasons. But to the extent you in fact intepret “Person A believes gay sex is wrong” [full stop] to mean “Person A is appalled that gay people even exist,” I hope you will have the intellectual honesty to see how indefensible that extrapolation is.
(E) I never said anything about moral beliefs being “nice,” or about whether it’s “nice” to air them. To the contrary, I very explictly explained to EXPRIX that I believe I understand why it’s gravelling to hear that someone thinks something you believe or do or are, is inherently wrong. But then, I also admit I have no grounds to quarrel with it (whatever it is), so long as it is a legitimately held moral belief. Certainly I have no reason at all to quarrel about anyone teaching moral beliefs based on religion in “the congregations of the churches where I live.” Where else would they teach it? Or is it your position that no person has the right to teach what they believe is morally right, because YOU don’t agree? Again, please keep in mind how easily such a position might be used on you – at this point IMO the major point of this discussion, but one you have conveniently ignored.
So, if somebody really believed that you were a sinner, and condemned you for it, and encouraged an atmosphere where violence against you became much more likely, you’d be okay with it? Because they really believed it?
Wow.
Yeah, seeing as it’s not the extrapoplation I’m defending, it’s pretty indefensible. The one I’m defending goes like this:
Person A tells lots of people that homosexuality is a sin, that homosexuals are abominations before God. Person B believes that, and goes out and acts on it. Person A shares some responsibility for the consequences of their action.
As I’ve said before, once it’s revealed to you that your actions harm people, and you can’t prove that they help people, you stop freaking doing them.
This seems pretty simple to me.
Let’s see. I was condemning you for a sexual practice. Seems pretty comparable to me. Why is condemning an individual more moral than condemning a million individuals? Perhaps on some level you don’t really know what morals are.
Once again, loudly, for the peanut gallery:
**once it’s revealed to you that your actions harm people, and you can’t prove that they help people, you stop freaking doing them. **
That would be the whole point of the discussion, it seems to me. However you dress it up, you’re defending causing direct, demonstrable harm to other human beings. What kind of system of morals allows you to do that?
So tell us, O Wise One, what should we do? Is there a solution to getting equal rights for gay people that doesn’t include contesting the beliefs of others? What tactics should we adopt in this fight? When preachers tell their parishioners that we’re sinners, that we’re an abomination, from their pulpits every week, what should we do? When people believe them, and go out and commit violence against us, with the belief that they are right, because we’re abominations, what should we do?
So far, we’ve waged the most pacifistic movement for human rights I’ve ever heard of. We’ve had one riot, where nobody got killed, way back in the sixties. We haven’t killed anyone, despite the gaybashing we’ve suffered, we haven’t adopted the tactics of violence. Hell, Fred Phelps is still alive. Now you’re advocating that we should stop being angry at people for condemning us.
So, we’ll need an alternative. And since you’re so smart, let’s hear it.
What should we do?
Wrong. I’m sorry, but debates about morality, outside of Moral Relativism, cannot help but conflict. Merely believing that homosexuality is wrong is an attack upon MY moral sense that it is great. It cannot help but be such an attack, because that is what it means to call something immoral.
So what makes it wrong for me to attack your morality but not wrong for you to attack someone else’s?
MR VISIBLE –
Are you intentionally being dense? I never said this. NEVER. The part that I have bolded in this sigularly stupd quote is more particularly the part that I have NEVER said. I defy you find one instance where I have ever said, anywhere, that “encouraging an atmosphere where violence against you became much more likely” was in anyway okay. You persist in incorporating something beyond the belief itself into the discussion – in this case, the encouragement of an atmosphere of violence – but don’t you fucking dare say this is something I have done.
First, I never said anything about anyone being “an abomination before God” – again, I suppose it’s too much to ask that you confine yourself to something I actually said. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of actions. It does not include labelling people with whatever hateful label you’d like to paste on them, be it “abomination” or “dirty whore.” Second, it is unfair of you, not to mention inaccurate, to ascribe to every single person who believes that homosexual sex is morally wrong, the believe that homosexual people are “abominations.” Again, I suppose it’s easier to attack this position if you demonize it first, but I’m hardly going to help you do that. Third, telling people that someone else is “an abomination before God” would pretty much be definitionally an expression of an attitude of contempt and hostility, wouldn’t it? You know – the sort of attitude I have said repeatedly goes beyond merely holding a moral belief and therefore is not okay.
Seems pretty simple to me too, which is why I’m surprised at your continuing inability to distinguish between an action and a belief.
Oh, I think I’m pretty safe there. I’m not the one who’s asking “Gee, how come it’s better to have a system of right or wrong that doesn’t change every day?” or “Gee, isn’t calling one particular person a nasty name the exact same as accepting a widely-held moral tenet that condemns a particular action?” If you want me to assume you know what I’m talking about when I use the terms “moral” and “morality,” then post as if you do. Again, morality is about actions, and the determination that one particular action is immoral is not the same as the determination that a person is, in the entirety, an immoral person. I swear. Some people consider that immoral. Does that mean they necessarily “condemn” me as an “immoral person”? No. It means they think I shouldn’t swear.
Once again, loudly, for the peanut gallery: There is a difference between beliefs and actions, and if all you’re talking about is beliefs alone, and you have no proof that the beliefs alone are harming you (or anyone), you don’t condemn people based on them – which you’re hardly in a position to do anyway.
This is such bullshit. Here’s what I’m talking about: You have a person who believes that homosexual sex is morally wrong. That person, as a good member of whatever religion he or she belongs to, also believes that everybody sins, that no one is in a position to judge the sins of others, and that every individual should in all cases be treated with love, respect, and equality. Now you explain to me how this person, holding this particular belief, is “causing direct demonstrable harm to other human beings.”
Well let’s see. You wait until the go beyond merely holding the belief to using it as a rationale for treating you with contempt, hostility, or fear, and/or using it as a pretext for discriminating against you, and then you attack that. So if preachers are telling their parishoners that you’re an abomination, hell yes, take strong exception. If people are committing violence against you, hell yes, demand that they be punished. But not every person believing that gay sex is a sin thinks you’re an abomination or condones violence against you. And you are wrong, as a matter of pure logic, in insisting that a belief in the immorality of gay sex must in all cases be accompanied by hostility or violence. Because it ain’t necessarily so.
I never said anything like this. I don’t know if it’s that you can’t understand my point, or that you won’t. I’m happy to discuss it with you, if you ever manage to find it, but I will NOT allow you to misrepresent it. And every time you do so, I will correct you.
You should take issue with the things that yo can reasonably take issue with – the way people act and the way you are treated. Whether you do so softly or loudly, peacefully or violently, or whatever, is another discussion. You should not take issue with things that you really are in no position to quarrel about – like attempting to insist that other people can’t believe what they actually do believe. You should not assume that every person who disagrees with one single thing you do loathes every single thing you are. You should recognize that demonizing the side you consider your opposition will only harden their position and the debate, which will never, ever, in a million years benefit your side. You should stop calling people who hold this one particular moral belief “homophobes” and “evil” if that is the only thing you know about them, if for no other reason than that you hate it when they call you “degenerate” and “evil” based on the one single thing they know about you. You should stop pretending that this is not a complicated issue that a lot of people of good will are struggling to come to terms with, as if it’s just as easy as insisting everyone believe what you want them to believe.
APOS –
Nonsense. If you think eggs are great and I don’t like them, and I tell you I think they suck, I am not “attacking” your fondness for eggs. Assuming I am not trying to impose my morality upon you – a huge assumption in this context, I know, but that’s another discussion – and assuming that I have arrived at my morality for sound and independent reasons, my statement of belief is not an “attack” on yours just because you believe the opposite. It does not exist or change in reference to your belief at all, and therefore manifestly is not an attack upon it. You are free to construe it as such, but that hardly strikes me as my problem.
Jeez, GR8GUY, way to say in one sentence what I’ve been trying to say for four pages.
And just to clarify my stake in this, to the extent that I have one. I am a member of the United Methodist Church.
My church has struggled and continues to struggle with the queston of homosexual acts being considered “sinful” and how to reconcile that – if indeed it can be reconciled, and many members think it cannot – with the idea that we are called to love one another and embrace those who would seek to follow Christ. This has lead to conflict and dissention within the UMC, which may eventually face a serious schism because of the issue, just like the one the world-wide Anglican church is facing right now. The schizophrenic events within the church as a whole as it openly and honestly tries to deal with this issue can be reviewed in a greatly summarized form here. In fact, at the last General Conference held in 2000 there were riots over the issue – Methodists! Rioting! The next General Conference is in 2004 and it is NOT an overstatement to say the UMC may splinter because of this. And with all due respect to the non-religious, it would be very difficult for me to explain to someone not affiliated with a national church the enormity of a potential schism, and just how painful, saddening, and demoralizing even the prospect of a schism is to people who have found a home and a faith within the church.
So to say that the issue is causing a significant amount of pain and soul-searching is an understatement. The parties on both sides are people of good will who are wrestling to do the right thing as they understand it. Some answer the question YES, and some answer the question NO. But all are struggling.
But even during this stuggle my church as a whole has declared:
So it bothers me to see this debate and this problem – which is so important to me on a personal level – reduces to “those who disagree with us are homophobes” or “those who disagree with us are evil.” Because it’s not that easy, and it does an enormous disservice to a lot of people – in this church and in other churches – who are trying to do their best to be good Christian brothers and sisters to all people, gay or straight, while remaining true to their beliefs, as they feel bound to do.
They may be misguided. They may, at the end of the day, be supporting a position that is wrong. But it is unsupported and unfair to paint them all as homophobes.
Mr. Visible, if I may interject: Jodi, unlike Shodan is discussing this matter in good faith. I think you are needlessly pissing off a potential ally, and that’s a shame, because in spite of any faults I might find with her arguments (I’m an atheist), I’d sure love to have someone as articulate and evidently decent pulling with me in any struggle.
Just my $.02.