Look at it in the frame of “rights as an American citizen,” then. I don’t care if you call it marriage, as long as the same rights are given. Would you support the concept of separate but equal in this case?
Is it right to deny gays institutions? Why?
I suppose that if the U.S. were a theocracy, your feelings would have more legal weight. But as Christianized as government can be, there is still a maintaining of the separation of church and state, and advocates of gay marriage tend to take things on the state level.
Pathros, my biggest problem with your arguments is that you seem to think that if you’re not committing or advocating physical violence against gay people, you’re not hurting them. No-one can be that blind; I have to assume that you’re in denial about the harm caused by people sharing your political position. Because, whatever the religious rationalizations behind it, what you’re espousing is a political position, which results in legislation being passed which has a severely detrimental effect on my life, and the lives of other gay people in this country.
I haven’t been posting about the trials and tribulations of being a gay man in this country because I want your pity; I’ve been pointing out the harm that your politics can do. If that makes you feel bad, then the feeling involved is most likely guilt.
As to your continual references to the OP, please realize that here in the Pit, you’re expected to stand up for your statements and defend them, even if they’re made in posts subsequent to your original statement. Notice that I didn’t join this conversation until you made a remark I considered personally, deeply offensive.
If you consider me to be insulting, I challenge you to find a personal insult directed at you in this thread that rivals “abomination”. I do believe that you are ignorant, in that you insist on leaving your views on homosexuality unexamined; you have repeatedly stated that you consider it wrong, and fallen back on the tired refrain that your religion tells you it is wrong. I believe that as a moral person, it is my place to examine my ethical code constantly, and adapt it to make certain that I am not hurting anyone. I mean, that’s what a moral code is for, isn’t it; it’s a set of rules to live by so as to be the best person you possibly can, right? It amazes me that you value your moral code more than other peoples’ wellbeing.
As to the biblical thing, here’s my summary. The big rule that you like quoting, the one that condemns gay relations as an “abomination” and recommends putting gay people to death, is out of Leviticus. Wasn’t one of the central tenets of Paul that Jesus had freed us from that Law? Do you follow all of the tenets set down in that chapter of the Bible? How come, if you’re so adamant about following God’s law, you don’t advocate the death penalty for gays? I mean, in for a penny, in for a pound, right? Either you’re following the law, or you aren’t. And you, Pathros, aren’t. When you pick and choose which laws you’re going to follow, don’t you think that it might make sense to pick them by some moral standard, such as, say, picking the rules that don’t entail harming other people? I’d have no problem if you decided that the one rule you follow from Leviticus was the prohibition against eating lobster, for instance; as long as you didn’t tell me that I was a sinner for eating lobster, and try and get legislation passed marginalizing lobster-eaters.
Thanks for bringing up the illegality of homosexual acts in several states. You may want to believe that I’m complaining about my lot in life needlessly; that the rights I ask for as an equal citizen of the United States are minor, but can you be arrested, tried and convicted for having sex with your wife, in your own home? Can you imagine what living under that stricture would be like?
Can you please clarify that statement? I’m afraid I can’t make heads or tails of it.
Oh, and one more thing…
Stop using that straw man, would you? I consider this one aspect of your one faith to be based on a biased misinterpretation of the Bible. I consider faith and moral standards to be admirable attributes, as long as they are based on compassion, charity, and kindness. This one aspect of your religion is detestable in its consequences, and I’m hoping that you can separate yourself from your precious moral code long enough to recognize that this one aspect of it is deeply immoral.
So do I. Those Mormons who are gay, however, are excommunicated from the Church if they make it open. I’m curious as to how they can be Mormon and Gay, can you explain? are they active in the religion? Do their Bishops know? Sorry, this is a hijack, on my own thread even so I’ll back off. I do know people who call themselves gay Christians, and their interpretations of the bible are different than mine, obviously. That’s their right, but unless someone can prove to me otherwise, the majority of Christianity sees homosexuality in a different light.
Imagine how that comment makes me feel about my values, andygirl. “you’ve got a bunch of cheerleaders in the back.” Now, suppose how you feel about being the minority. Probably the same feeling. You get equally upset over people, like me, who are against gay rights, as I do for people like you who are for it, and even try to use my own values to support your lifestyle. I have not tried the “bullying up approach,” so I ask that you don’t do the same. (even though this has yet to happen, which I thank you.) As for the second half of that post as rights as an American? I guess you’d have to look at whose rights are more important. My values, or your equality. You could equate that with the civil rights movement, as so many do, but remember you are not fighting ideas, but faith in a religion.
YES!! I TOTALLY agree with you. If gays were in the majority of a state, and wanted to pass laws legalizing their marriage, as they have done in the past, then SO BE IT. If I lived in that state, and was in the minority, I would probably leave, because my arguments would be pointless. If I were in the majority, and this was being passed, I would have serious problems with it, as I have said before. That’s inherently dixiecratic, but like ive said so many times before, I base my opinion on my religious beliefs.
Obviously, in your mind and in the minds of other gays, my opposition against gay marriage is hurting them. I see it differently, and obviously to you that makes me “blind.” I could say you were equally blind for not sharing my faith. We agree to disagree. As for having a detrimental effect? I guess there’s a certain level of detriment. There are things that the government does that I find detrimental to my person. It does not cause extended suffering, however. I could see the suffering in not being allowing to marry, but everything is relative. I find it hard to believe your situation is as adverse as you make it out to be, but that’s just how I see it. I cannot begin to speak for how you see it, as you cannot for my faith.
Your attempt to use my words against me never ceases to amaze me. You take my argument on how you are using tactics to evoke pity, to suggest that its actually me saying that because I’m feeling guilty. I do not want to play a game of “whose had it worse, you or me?” I do feel sympathy for those gays who suffer extended pain by their peers, but I do not feel guilty for making laws against them, because obviously I do not see homosexuality as you do.
I didn’t make any hostile remarks towards gays in the OP. When I did make that remark, I did so saying it was irrelevant to the OP and to simply answer a question brought to me. Yes its the pit, and I should defend what I say, but my intent was to defend a persons right to think whatever they want, not defend whether or not what I think is right or wrong.
This debate has become about my moral codes, not how I came to those moral codes, what I feel about those moral codes, what I’ve gone through in my life to achieve where I am today. You cannot begin to question me, and assume that I unexamined my views on homosexuality and simply blindly say “my religion tells me so.” Its not really necessary for me, in this thread, to explain my struggles and insights on my morals. I find your calling me ignorant equally insulting, because you do not know the religious trials I have endured, or what I went through in my life. To call what I have struggled so long for and what I consider to be a strong faith essential to my well-being as being “ignorant” is insulting. In your eyes me calling what I consider a sin an abomination is equally insulting, so does that make it right? No, but we both think we are the right ones here, so perhaps we are both right in our own minds.
I used Leviticus as an example, probably a bad one. I SAID I WASNT GOING TO ADDRESS A BIBLICAL DEBATE. That belongs in another thread. There’s still the issue of the creation, if you want to debate this, create another thread, otherwise accept the fact that I consider homosexuality to be a sin. No, you don’t have to accept whether or not I’m right, just that is how I feel.
Okay, that was in reference to you having sex with your boyfriend. NOTE: I did not say anything how having sex with your boyfriend is wrong, or how states are right in having laws against it. I just noted that they do, and in those states, because that is the law, you’d be violating the law. As for how I feel personally? Let me just clarify is, so that its not confusing anymore. ** I don’t care if you have sex with your boyfriend, that’s your agency to do so.**You know already my feelings on marriage, though.
Straw man? Oh, you mean my faith and biased misinterpretations. What about misinterpretations that justify sin? At least that’s how I look at things. If someone disagreed so wholeheartedly against your lifestyle, then they would perhaps see YOUR beliefs of the bible as biased misinterpretations. After all, you wouldn’t want to admit you were a sinner, who would? You and I just see differently there. Its funny how you put charity and kindness above following the commandments of God. You question my moral standards, which you know nothing about, because in your eyes they lack charity or love. I find it disgusting how you would consider my disapproval of homosexuality immoral. My religion does not say “Homosexuality is wrong, that’s the number one rule.” How would you know where I put charity, and other aspects of my moral code? The most prominent thing I follow is to become, and act like Christ. Does that mean that is all I do? No. I try to be like Christ, but in the process uphold his commandments and live valiantly in my faith. That means, yes opposing gay marriage like I do. I find it very insulting for you to look at my morals, refer to them as a straw man, question my faith in these morals (referring to my ignorant reference to my religion, as you put it), and try to undermine them by saying they are not based on compassion, love, or charity, when you cannot begin to fathom my faith in these morals to begin with.
Pathros, you’re making me feel pretty damned good just about now. I always love this point in the debate, where the opposition has determined that there is no rational response to any of my questions, and refuses to continue discussion in any direction. Invigorating.
But I don’t want you to get completely incoherent, here. I’ve been enjoying the opportunity to point out the fallacies inherent in your prejudice, seeing as you can put together a coherent sentence most of the time. Most of the people whom I’ve encountered who consider homophobia to be a moral value can barely speak English, and tip over into frothing hysteria when questioned. So, a note for next time; watch your reading comprehension. You missed a couple of key points in mine and andygirl’s posts.
For instance, in your first set of questions to andygirl, you didn’t notice that she was referring to Mormons who are gay-friendly. I’m sure she knows about your charitable tradition of expelling gays from your church.
And as to me having “cheerleaders in the back”, yes, there are other people on the board who support my views. There are others who support yours, too, and have chimed in on your behalf; TiredofCrap springs instantly to mind. In any public debate, there are supporters of each side, hopefully. We’re not ganging up on you.
You said:
Ah, how true that is. Or, actually, not. I’m fighting against the baseless belief of some religions that homosexuals are deserving of secondary status as citizens of this country. I fully support your right to practice your religion as you see fit, as long as you don’t impose your morals on me. I don’t impose my morals on you, after all; I’m not forcing you to have sex with others of your same gender. But you are forcing me to kowtow to your God’s misinterpreted decrees, and that, Pathros, is wrong.
See, that’s the straw man I was referring to in my post above. A straw man, you see, is a debating tactic that’s used to divert attention from the main subject. You keep claiming that I am against religion in general, Christianity in general, or your faith in particular. It’s like saying that because I don’t like SUV’s, I am against America. That’s a straw man; I have never claimed to be against any of the above. What I am arguing against is the way that certain religions view gay people, and how they work to undermine our status in society. I have no problem with religion in general, or any religion specifically; what I have a problem with is one aspect of some religious conduct.
But, as it’s been pointed out to you repeatedly, you’re not just thinking these things. You’re acting on them, and that’s the difference. Thinking whatever you want is fine. But your actions, combined with the actions of other people burdened with the same prejudices, are creating legislation that is harmful to others, and is creating a climate in which violence against gay people thrives. That’s what I’m debating here; I think you should be able to think anything you want, but when you start acting to harm others, then you’ve gone into morally questionable territory.
Breaking it down into simple terms, Pathros: Hurting people is bad. Not hurting people is good. I’m not hurting anyone by trying to gain equality in this society. By contributing to the prejudices that keep gay people from earning that equality, you are causing direct, provable harm to your fellow human beings. How Christian is that?
I agree to no such thing, Pathros. You think your religious intolerance isn’t hurting gay people? How much evidence will it take to prove that it is causing pain, suffering and death every day in our society? I can prove this point, Pathros, and there’s not a thing you can do about it. You see, I have facts.
According to the American Psychological Association’s report on Hate Crimes Today, “The most socially acceptable, and probably the most widespread, form of hate crime among teenagers and young adults are those targeting sexual minorities…” and goes on to identify in the types of assailant the “Ideology assailants report that their crimes stem from their negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality that they percieve other people in the community share. They see themselves as enforcing social morals.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Task Force on Youth Suicide issued a report in January of 1989 concluding that lesbian and gay youth may constitute “up to thirty percent of completed suicides annually” and that “homosexuals of both sexes are two to six times more likely to attempt suicide than are heterosexuals.” (DHHS, Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide, ed. Marcia R. Feinlieb, 1989)
Pathros, do you really think seeing themselves derided, legislated against, and having their status as citizens eroded doesn’t contribute to this problem? Do you think that religious attitudes toward homosexuality are not partly to blame?
And, finally, to the marriage issue. You may think that what I’m asking for in trying to be able to marry the spouse of my choice is minor; you couldn’t be more wrong. I assume you didn’t read that government report listing 1049 benefits conferred by marriage that gay people cannot enjoy. Here’s a summary, then…
If I’m not married to my mate, I cannot:
visit a partner or a partner’s child in a hospital;
inherit from your partner if she or he doesn’t have a valid will;
obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
enter joint rental agreements;
make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf in event of illness;
take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner’s child;
choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
determine child custody and support in a divorce;
have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
file joint tax returns;
obtain veterans’ discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and
obtain domestic violence protective orders.
(List courtesy of the ACLU)
What I’m asking for is not something small, or petty, or ill-defined. I’m asking for these legal rights, that heterosexuals enjoy without question, but that I cannot obtain. Your religious beliefs are hurting, and even killing people. It’s time you re-examined them, and decide which is more important to you; a moral code which you’ve agreed may be flawed, or the knowledge that you are no longer causing your fellow human beings harm. WWJD indeed.
Tired of Crap- I am the guy you quoted in your original post concerning M-TV.
Please listen. Its perfectly fine to have strong opinions and to be forceful about them. But one of the main rules here on the SDMB is DONT BE A JERK. I think you should tone it down a bit.
OK - Mr. Visible, as said in the subject heading, I had a really long reply typed with URLS, so as to clarfiy a few things, but alas, it was deleted, and I have been out of town for a few days. (forgive the poor grammar here)
This is a website that I came across that I have found to be fairly neutral, and it outlines the different approaches to homosexuality and its acceptance in society. It basically has been saying what both of us have been ranting on for the past week or so. The point is, as said in the OP, that people think different ways and those ideas should be respected if one promotes free thought. I’m not going to get into an argument about whether or not im promoting YOUR freedoms, but look at the site, and you will see the differences in what we believe. Finally, if you still have a problem with conservative Christians having the ideas then they do, and acting on that in legislation as you do, then the only solution is to fight it, and maybe gain popular support from those who are neither liberal or conservative Christian. In any case, we have as much right as you do to feel what we do, and in both cases, we feel we are morally justified. Enough. Heres the website: http://religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm
I picked this site simply because it was the most neutral I could find. I had others which were more abrasive towards homosexuality, but figured that would just make things worse. So, theres the site.
I am morally justified in thinking that you are an arrogant, smug, self-satisfied, judgemental, hypocrite. I have a right to feel that way.
I am not morally justified in trying to turn others against people like you, and try and inspire them to hate all people who are arrogant, smug, self-satisfied, judgemental, and hypocritical. I would also have no moral justification in trying to pass or support laws that would marginalize you, due to your arrogant, smug, self-satisfied, judgemental, hypocritical ways.
You are morally justified in feeling repulsed by the fact that I am a homosexual.
You am not morally justified in trying to turn others against people like me, and try and inspire them to hate all people who are homosexual. You would also have no moral justification in trying to pass or support laws that would marginalize you, due to my homosexual ways.
Got it? Thoughts, feelings = Okay! Hurting people = Bad!
What you’re doing is hurting people.
And, as you suggested, I do fight for my rights. One of the ways in which I do so is to make sure that, on this message board, this bulwark against ignorance, no-one spouting your brand of ignorance goes unchallenged. Otherwise, readers of this message board might think that you political position might have a real moral justification, instead of being the dogmatic regression to an obsolete and vengeful pre-Medieval code of conduct.
So when I promote violence towards gays, then im not morally justified, right? Promoting violence towards any person is wrong, am I correct? I agree 100 percent.
But you said its okay to feel this way? Wait a second, so I’m not morally justified in thinking homosexuality is a sin? What if I don’t promote violence? WHICH I HAVE NEVER DONE. You have problems with saying that, though, because then It would show that I’m justified in thinking how I do. You stated how im justified in feeling a certain way, yet somehow no matter what I do those thoughts are automatically catalysts for violence. I have YET to start a post saying why all “homos are going to hell,” which would undoubtingly prove you correct. Spouting rhetoric on the evils of homosexuality in your mind, and rightfully so, would promote those to enact judgement on gays. On the other hand, you have started a thread showing your repulse in Conservatives who are violent towards gays, and its your right to feel such way. The manner that you subtly equate those violent actions with thought, is itself equally disgusting as those crimes. So You can talk all you want how evil it is for someone to have conservative ideas, and how evil it is for someone to think homosexuality is a sin, yet somehow you are the morally justified person, and not the person who is against homosexuality?
Someone opposed to homosexuality would NOT be morally justified in using their ideas to promote violence, but would be morally justified in using that rhetoric to preserve their values.
Wow. Such hateful words. Labeling my beliefs as an “obsolete and vengeful pre-Medieval code of conduct.”
Its quite hilarious to watch you label me as the ignorant knave whos the hateful and arrogant one, when you arrogantly attack my beliefs without an ounce of faith in my belief system. Is that ignorance? Faith? Some consider faith to be the purest form of knowledge. Faith in a god who doesnt promote love, as you said it, is a faith that you could never share. “How can a God condemn someone for loving someone else?” Do I need to re-post that site, or go on forever on my explanation for that? Look, you have different beliefs than I do. My political beliefs ARE morally justified in the way I interpret Gods law, just as much as you can claim yours are morally justified through your interpretations. Im sick and tired of being labeled the ignorant one, when I could easily label you the one addicted to a sexual perversion. I will agree to only one thing that you’ve said, or rather, that we can both recognize through endless confrontation, and that is: we look at things differently, and view the morallity of homosexuality differently, and when someone promotes violence then they are not morally justified. In your mind, though, your thoughts are “ok” and mine “promote violence.” Some bloody double standard. Thanks for proving my rant in the OP so right.
Pathros. Get this through your thick skull. Beating people isn’t the only way to hurt them. Political action designed to marginalize a population is, in itself, hurtful. Read the rest of my previous post. Here, let me re-post a chunk of it below:
Here’s a helpful debating tip; when arguing, try and argue against what the other person is saying, instead of arguing against stuff you just make up on the fly. You keep stating that I’m accusing you of committing violence against gay people. I’m saying that your political position is directly harmful to gay people. There is a wide distinction between the two.
If you’re under the impression that the promotion of your “morals” in regards to this matter is not harmful, take a look at the thread I started today; take a look at the statistics pages it’s linked to. I have facts to back up the proposition that the climate of hate toward homosexuals in this country is getting more violent. You think it’s just a coincidence that that happens just as the anti-gay rhetoric coming from religious circles is getting more virulent? Care to try and support that particular coincidence theory?
Throughout this thread, I have expressed respect for religion itself, and for its practiotioners who exhibit tolerance and acceptance of those who do not share their religious beliefs. Nowhere have I stated that conservative viewpoints are evil, or that religious ideology is evil. I have been consistently espousing the less-than-radical notion that hurting people is evil.
Interesting. So, anyone who doesn’t share your faith isn’t qualified to criticise your belief system? Nice way to avoid having to think about what you do.
You’re right; I don’t have faith in your belief system. And you have yet to make any case for why laws predicated on your belief system should apply to me, or to anyone who doesn’t share your faith.
Probably I should just let this go, but I feel compelled to clarify a bit. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons, or LDS) don’t distinguish between the phrases gay, homosexual, and actively homosexual. LDS leaders have used the term “same-sex attraction” or “same-gender attraction” to refer to the condition (whether considered inborn or not) of being (surprise!) attracted to members of the same sex. It is clear that there is a difference between being attracted to people of the same sex, and having sexual relationships with people of the same sex.
LDS disciplinary action (excommunication, etc.) is based on behavior that is inconsistent with LDS teachings, and considered serious enough that the person has put himself or herself outside of the LDS church. Sexual sin (yes, that’s sin as defined by the LDS church–I realize there are many on this board who do not consider homosexual sex or premarital sex to be sinful) is not always a reason for excommunication. Unrepentant sexual sin certainly is (the person has chosen to not abide by the commandments we LDS accept, and so has chosen not to be LDS). Public advocacy of acceptance of homosexual relations is also a reason (opposing the order we LDS believe God has ordained means the person has chosen not to be LDS). However, if someone is indeed attracted to people of the same sex, but does nothing to act upon it, then there is no need for church disciplinary action. [See here for an LDS conference talk on the subject](http://library.lds.org/Library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign october 1995.htm/samegender attraction.htm). Indeed, people who have desires which go contrary to their beliefs, and yet live their beliefs are to be admired.
YEp, I know and I agree. I should have clarified and said “LDS who act upon that sin and who do not repent.” I tried getting the idea that “its not wrong to feel, but its wrong to act.” I’ve been a little too harsh for those who have “homosexual” thoughts, when I know its just can easily be equated with “pornographic” or “sexual” thoughts. I must point out that the church still views dimly on both thoughts, but they are thorns in the side, and encourages people to try to control their lusts. Although it is sinful to lust, and to think certain thoughts considered, they do not codemn those people to hell, or excommunicate them. They DO codemn those who act a certain way and do not repent for those action. Emarkp would agree that if someone participated in pre-marital, homosexual, or adulteras acts would not be allowed in the temple until they repented. Thats repentance, it still does not justify action; it just provides a way to seek forgiveness for those who are truely sorry for their deeds. To the subject of gay marriage, that takes that action, and gives it justification. Now can you see mr visible, if you read that site, why I view it as being wrong? I just tried to not let this get into a theological debate, even though it looks like I failed miserably.
(theres no sarcasm when I say this) Thank you Emarkp for the site, and clearing that up. This isnt the first time ive fouled up LDS beliefs, even though I AM LDS. (The thread about The church and debate - a clear mistake when I said LDS are not allowed to debate - but that, along with the post here were posted a little too prematurely. I.e I need to revise what I write more often)
Also, as to respond to Mr. Visible: read that site that emarkp posted. Thats all I have to say, and if you still have problems with it, then c’est la vie.
I don’t care what you think is wrong. I care that you’re hurting people. You can’t prove anything to me with Bible verses or the words of your prophets; I don’t believe in your religion. But I can prove to you, with verifiable facts, government surveys, and statistics from reliable sources, that promulgating your viewpoint through law is causing real harm. To real people. How is that not wrong?
To restate from two posts above:
You’re right; I don’t have faith in your belief system. And you have yet to make any case for why laws predicated on your belief system should apply to me, or to anyone who doesn’t share your faith.
Unless you adress this, then yeah, you’re right, we’re done.
First of all, thank you for finally not reffering to me in an insulting manner. I appreciate that. Im only going to respond to one thing you said, that is:
As for the first part, how can you prove that these laws are the cause for the many suicides and gay beatings? These laws, like any other, can be equated with this violence, but its only theory. Its a valid theory, but no more valid than me saying the exact opposite. So, putting physical harm aside, I would concede that gays not being allowed the many rights that go along with marriage could be constituted to be harmful. My only response, and that comes through my faith, is that is your choice, and that institution cannot be recognized and you know why I feel that way.
As for the latter half, which coincides with the prior, Why should my belief system apply to you? Heres a better question: Why should I not allow my belief system to remain in tact and be allowed to live in a society where my beliefs are shared?
Thats why I live in Utah. Thats also probably why you DONT live in Utah. Its a state’s rights issue, and as said before, if your state passed a law concerning gay marriage, then I would respect that law simply by not living in that state. Why should I? Obviously they don’t agree with my values, and I don’t agree with yours. Again, its why I live in Utah, and you don’t.
Do you have any idea how weak that answer is? How pathetic an explanation it is to someone who has suffered the scorn of the similarly self-righteous since childhood? I know why you feel the way you do; your religion tells you to. Do you think that excuses you causing harm to others?
Every atrocity ever committed by mankind has had behind it the idea that “the ends justify the means”. Ask yourself, in this case, what your ends are. What are your means? And is it justifiable? Weigh the pain you’re causing against the possible results of your imposition of your religious values on an unwilling population. Think about this.
If your religion recommends harming people in the name of morality, it is, in my opinion, deeply contemptible. I’ve met toddlers with stronger moral codes.
Prove to me that your belief system will be harmed by gay people having the same rights as citizens as straigh people. And I mean prove it. Facts. Figures. Verifiable sources.
And as to why you can’t live in a society where your beliefs are shared… not everybody shares your beliefs. You yourself said that the government still classifies your religion as a cult. This country is made up of millions of people practicing thousands of religions, and every single one of them deserves consideration. The only way we can offer that consideration to them is to make laws that are based on justice and respect for humanity, not on the beleifs of any particular religion.
Your religion applies to the practitioners of your religion. It does not apply to me, nor should laws based on your religion apply to anyone who does not voluntarily practice it. I applaud your faith; what I decry is your attempts to impose it on the rest of the country.
Gee, Pathros, I guess it’s hard to prove what motivates anyone else to do anything. I do find it interesting that you’re the first one to bring up suicide in connection with these laws. Maybe I can’t prove what caused someone to commit suicide, (because, you know, they’re dead) but it seems to me that you understand a bit more about this than you think. Maybe feeling a bit of guilt?
I can, however, tell you that these laws did play a part in my own suicide attempt, at the age of sixteen.
If you don’t think you’re playing a part in creating a similar hell for today’s kids, you’re deluding yourself.
I found this quote from emarkp particularly telling:
So, I guess, if you agree with me on this, you get booted out of your church? Is that the case, Pathros? Because if so, this discussion is over. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for your loss of your religious foundation if you were to come to agree with me.
But I find it interesting; no-one within your church is allowed to advocate gay rights, or they’re excommunicated. And you took me to task for attacking your belief system, even though I don’t share your faith. Please, Pathros, if you answer nothing else said here, answer these questions: Who is qualified to question your belief system? Can your belief system ever change? Can you yourself even question the morality of your beliefs?
Pathros, I got the jest of Genesis (indeed, the whole shit-n-shebang) a long time ago. That’s why I’m an atheist.
As for your comments, MrVisible is doing a better job of reaming you out than I could, but I still want to state a few things:
[ul]
[li]Saying you don’t advocate violence is worthless. Spouting philosophies that make anyone’s lifestyle or opinions out to be an ‘abomination before god’ is the equivalent of actually advocating violence to so many people, responsible people don’t do it.[/li][li]Which leads into my next point: There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Creating or advocating a society where holding certain views, or living a certain way, is so looked down upon people are driven to suicide is the moral equivalent of actually running or advocating death camps.[/li][li]And finally, saying “love the sinner, not the sin” is beyond stupid. Philosophies and lifestyles define people, in that without them we would all be droids. So saying you hate something that defines a person but still love that person makes absolutely no sense.[/li][/ul]
Boy, derleth, you are SO late its not even funny. First, the thread is not a theological debate. Hell, you’re an atheist why should I even try to explain faith to you.
Yes, I believe homosexuality to be wrong, and an abomination, but where did I say it was okay to go out spouting that? Where did I spout that? If I recall, my opinion was asked, and I gave it. I also gave what I figured to be the consensus of many other conservative Christians. I did not proclaim Mr. Visible to hell for his actions, nor did I say it was okay to sit on a pulpit and do so.
Boy, you’re even more insulting and condescending than Mr. Visible was in his prior posts. So what about stealing? The last time I checked stealing is looked down upon, but I don’t see you advocating a society that allows stealing for the sake that someone might kill themselves. Look at it from my PoV: Homosexuality is a choice. Duh, both Mr. Visible and yourself disagree, but if someone views it as a choice, then in their eyes their laws are not running a “Death Camp.” Dont give me this ignorant crap either, I’ve already addressed this issue, and obviously its a matter of disagreeing.
Now, what if what defines the person is a moral choice, and I find that choice wrong, but would not condemn the person simply because they exist? You forget one VERY important thing that defines who a person is, and that is their agency. Do you condone all forms of agency? If you did, you would be an anarchist, and if that were true, then theres nothing I could say against you.
Finally to address what Mr. Visible has said. The only thing I can possibly say is that yes, I chose this religion. It is not a blind faith where I do everything that my religion tells me to; I am always in search of truth. The path that led me to this religion is not something that can be easily explained. My testimony developed over a long period of time, and as you can tell I find my morals to be sacred, and truth. Who can question my faith and morals? I can, and I have. I still do. I am the only one who has a right to question what I believe to be right or wrong. Does that mean I am somehow superior to you? No. What it DOES mean, is that if you want to question my morals, you can do so by presenting your standards and allowing me to chose. This means that yes, my belief system change. Has it changed before? Yes, thats why I became a Mormon.
Would I find my beliefs physically harmed by allowing gay marriage? Yes. Can I give you statistical analysis showing how my beliefs are harmed? Gay marriage does not exist, therefore those stats would be very difficult to come by. But take another approach to this. Look at the entire history of the mormon church. The church is located in Utah because of mobs who pushed them out of the US. (the US of the early 19th century) By passing gay marriage laws you will say that society does not support what I believe, and honestly, what happened 100 years ago will happen again. Sure in your mind thats far fetched, but in my mind, its not. Therefore I will defend my values, as you will defend your right to chose.
Finally, I’m going to admit that this post is NOT thorough. Ive left a lot of places where I can be attacked, and the reason being is because in the long history of this thread I have probably adressed something that would be said against me. The only thing that I will say, is that I cannot allow gay marriage, because it will be as if I were allowing homosexual acts and condoning them. If you have problems with my morals, or anyone else for that matter, don’t live in a society that condemns homosexuality. If I have a problem with yours, then I will do the same. (this is why I said gay marriage is a state issue. I would still oppose the morality of homosexuality in that state, but I respect the laws of the land, and they clearly show this to be a state issue.)
If you want to respond I ask only one thing: Ask questions or ask me to rationalize further anything you feel I am neglecting. Don’t continue (this is not directed towards mr visible for as he seems to be staying away from this) badger my morals, my beliefs, or associate them in a manner that is insulting.
Man, Pathros. I’m starting to worry about you. If you need to take a little time off from our debate here, feel free. You might want to think a bit more about your answers, because, as you noticed, you left some serious openings.
First off, you might want to re-read Derleth’s post; he made his point strongly, but I can find no instance of him being either insulting or condescending. Berate me for these flaws all you like; I have, as you’ve noted, demonstrated them in this thread. But you may owe Derleth an apology.
This is a public forum. People read what we post here. Responsible people don’t spread hateful ideas, which may cause violence. And as to where you said that, “Yes, I believe homosexuality to be wrong, and an abomination” was at the beginning of that paragraph, I believe.
Stealing causes demonstrable harm to the victim. It hurts people. Therefore, it is wrong. When I love my boyfriend, when I make him laugh by being my goofy self, when I do something nice for him, or tell him how happy he makes me, or make slow, passionate love to him, it makes him happy. Please prove to me how loving my boyfriend and mugging him are equivalent. And I do mean prove it.
Interesting term, agency. What does it mean?
Wow, Pathros. That’s really, really scary stuff, there. “I am the only one who has a right to question what I believe to be right or wrong.”
Personally, I trust my family. I trust my friends. I trust my lover. They act as a touchstone, letting me know if my attitudes or opinions are off kilter. They give me advice when I’m conflicted about something, when I have trouble deciding what’s right and what’s wrong. And if they were to tell me that something I believed was wrong, I would trust them. I trust people who are wise to set an example, and I follow that example.
But I guess you don’t need that sort of touchstone, Pathros. You have absolute knowledge of Good and Evil, huh? Where’d you get that from, some snake? Apple tree? And you’re sure God is behind you all the way on this one?
That’s what’s happening to gay people right now. Has any gay person ever said that once we’re accepted by society, we’re going to throw out all the religions? Has any gay person said that once we can get married, we will start harassing the Mormons?
Why is a hypothetical situation that might happen sometime in the future take precedence over the distress of millions of people right now? Why is taking care of your future more important than taking care of our present?
Yeah. And that would be bad… why? Personally, I see two people in love, I smile. I don’t care what kind of people they are, they’re bringing more love into a world rife with hatred. I will hereby take a stand, and say that I condone all acts of love between consenting adults. How can love be wrong? How can hate be right?
That is my goal, Pathros. I want to live in a society that doesn’t condemn homosexuality. America. I think it’s worth working for. It’s even worth spending days arguing over.
Just a P.S., here. To you, this argument is about morals and principles and religious doctrine. To me, it’s about my life. While walking my dogs this very evening, a neighbor of mine called me a “fudgepacker”. She lives across the street, and two houses down from me. It’s a nice neighborhood. I’ve lived here for years. And less than a block from my own home, peacefully walking my dogs, I get to hear that kind of slur. Can you blame me for wanting that sort of thing to just… finally… stop?
Apparently according to him, all homosexuals are godless atheists who want to see Mormons persecuted (oh wait Pathros or whatever his name is didnt say that, even though it’s implied). So if i read his post right, marriage for homosexuals = persecution of mormons. What a funny thought there.
Trust me Pathros, i dont really care about Mormonism enough to persecute y’all.
It isn’t faith I’m not getting. It’s your stupidity and hate that I’m not processing.
MrVisible has pointed out where you said homosexuality was an abomination. Hell, I can see it right fucking now! You can’t weasel out of it.
I never advocated anything that might hurt anyone else. And in your eyes, homosexuality might be a choice and laws that deny homosexuals basic rights might be good. In your eyes, the shit that comes out of your ass might be made of solid gold. Still isn’t so.
What does agency mean? Does it simply mean action? If so, no, I do not condone all actions. I am a Libertarian, and I think that the government should prevent coercion. That does restrict some actions, but it is much more likely to restrict your actions than it is MrVisible’s actions.
And you did choose your religion. You also chose to be a very hateful, bigoted idiot. I hope you someday learn to see people as individuals with individual worth, not as entities to be grouped into us and them.
And, as I go about reading this thread more in-depth, I really hope some of those Christians that hate being lumped under the broad brush of “those Christians” chime in and point out that the OP does not speak for all Christians.