In the grand scheme of things many people are hateful bigots, most don’t even realize it while they falsely accuse others of it. When one hateful bigot accuses another person falsely of being a hateful bigot, I feel it is a opportunity to point out the irony of his statement.
Without going backover your text I don’t know if you did.
Now where did I say that practicing gays have any more chance of going to hell then celibate gays.
Is the question why does sin matter, or why is homosexuality a sin?
You certainally did sidestep it, it is not irrelevant, the issue is hate here, your claim is that barring 2 people from marrying is hateful - I say it’s not in and of itself.
you are not the first one to be surpried in this thread. The answer is no - they can speak as they see fit, it is a pet peeve of mine why the people dont’ just say to the actor shut the f’ up about (insert political issue) - you have no better expertise in this issue then my dog, and I don’t want to hear my dog’s opinion on the issue either.
I’m firmly on “your side” of this issue, but I think this analogy is a bit flawed.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Bible says anything about mixed-race marriage. There is contextual support (however flawed) for religious-based disapproval of homosexuality. I don’t think that such support exists for prohibiting inter-racial marraiges.
Of course it is, unless there’s a just reason for it. Telling two consenting adults that they don’t have the right to do something as universal, and as closely linked to human happiness, as marrying is fundamentally a cruel and hateful thing to do.
If you’re going to do such a thing, you need to have a valid and convincing reason for it that specifically addresses the conditions of the proposed marriage. Just saying “Oh, but these other two people aren’t allowed to marry either, so that makes it fair, right?” definitely isn’t good enough.
But both you and the Pope believe that it’s only OK to be gay if one represses their inner need for love and affection. That’s not help, that’s hate.
Well, originally it was just the first one, but now that you’ve introduced the second one, well, let’s play ball.
Starting in Lev 19:19, it’s noted that planting two crops in the same field is a sin, as is wearing garments made of two different fabrics. This is not too many verses away from the part about a man lying with another man being a sin etc. How come the Pope (and the rest of the world’s Judeo-Christian fanbase) is so worried about homosexuality when there’s a much bigger problem of people mixing fabrics and farmers planting multiple crops? How come one section of Leviticus is eternal and unchanging, but another can be safely ignored and chalked up to a-changin’ times, even though in the original text they’re equal sins?
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. My claim is that demanding that any two consenting adults who don’t pose a danger to the gene pool repress their inner need for love and their desire to consummate that love is evil, as is denying same two adults the right to take on the responsibilities of marriage.
Surely you hear your friends out on their political opinions. What’s to say those actors don’t know as much or more about politics than your friends? If you don’t do that, surely you hear yourself out–who’s to say you’re more knowledgeable than the actors? Besides, politics in a democracy is a game that everyone is supposed to play; each adult’s political viewpoint is as good as any other’s, and that’s why we’re ruled by the opinions of the majority. (Theoretically.)
Quite a bit of the argument for anti-miscegenation laws involved quoting of bits of the Bible and a generalized argument that God put different peoples on different continents because he intended them to be separate.
The judge in the original Loving vs Virginia trial cited God’s purpose. In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving for evading Virginia’s law against white-black marriages by marrying in Washington, D.C. “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” Bazile declared. “And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.”
Whoops, you’re right. Sometimes it’s hard to follow when we’re talking about law and when we’re talking about opinion and morality in threads like this. My bad.
I don’t believe it’s useful to call the Church’s stance “bigotry.”
They take the position that God has revealed certain universal truths, and that among those truths are the fact that a marriage represents a religious sacrament as well as a civil contract, and that it’s not possible for a sacramental marriage to exist between two people of the same sex.
Their motive for this claim, then, is not animus towards gays, or, indeed, towards anyone. Their motive is that God said it, and it is therefore so.
Now, you may disagree, of course, on any number of grounds. You may object to the notion that this is what God actually meant, you may object to the notion that anything that God said is valid guidance for civil, secular law, or you may say that the entire notion of God is absurd; there IS no God, and thus forming any policies based on God’s word is foolish.
But I don’t believe you can impute to the Church the sort of mailce that the word “bigotry” commonly conveys.
For example, it’s not necessarily misogynistic for a military officer to refuse to assign women to combat infantry. He may simply be making that decision because that’s what the law currently requires. It’s not correct to call him bigoted against women.
Will allowing gay marriage change this? Somehow make it not sinful? If so I don’t see how. I would add that there is no non-sinful way for any person to live their lives. Gay sex is just one of many sins - and we all have sins.
Though we are sinful it doesn’t mean that we should not strive not to be. In the Cathloic belief the only non-sinful sex is marrital - all others according to their belief system is sinful. Remember God destroyed two cities due partly to non-marrital sex acts, dwarfing the US destruction of 2 cities to end WW2 thousands of years later. Sort of puts the pope between a rock and a hard place on the issue of gay marriage.
Eve was acting evil when she shared the apple with Adam, I would not say she was being hateful towards Adam nor God, if evil means actions forbidden/declared sinful by God.
Not speaking for the pope here, but this is not my opinion and I stated no such view.
OK the 1st one, if anyone can get into heaven by belief and baptism, why strive not to sin:
1 - If you accept this, Jesus will have to pay for your sins.
2 - You are causing damage to the furure land claim of the Kingdom of God every time you sin, which will have to be repaired by us after the 2nd coming. We can see in Iraq that if we leave a job undone during the 1st gulf war, that the cost to go back and do it right is much more complex.
3 - It may have something to do with your place in heaven - yes you will still get it, but it’s the difference between a big house with a view of a lavafall and a big honkin’ antimattered powered sport utility intergaltic hyperdrive spaceship and a mid sized home on the dark side of the moon, with a sub compact intra-planetary fusion drive scooter and you will have to take mass transit for out of system trips.
If you read my entire posts, you will see that my view is that we are all sinners to one degree or another. The RCC has taken on the sin of homosexuality as a key one to stress, others have taken on the eating of pork, I’m sure that still others have taken on the issue of multi fabric clothes. Any one is a sin and commiting them make us unworthy of the Kingdom of God.
Having had these discussions with people before (actually, it sounds as though there’s an instructional series called “Debating Why Hetero Marriage Should Stay Hetero” which people study), there seems to be one way out of this mess.
You believe in a version of god. Wonderful, mazel tov, good for you. You choose to live by the principals of your god as you understand them. More power to you.
There are signficant numbers of people who do *not * believe in your version of god, or a god at all. Fabulous, wish ya the best. They live by their principles (as long as they do not violate certain HUMAN tenets, such as murdering or the like) and get along in a secular society. Marvelous.
The US government’s way out of this is to grant EVERYONE civil unions - hetero and homsexual. Grant them all the same SECULAR rights, such as tax bennies, insurance rights, inheritance, etc. For those that wish to get “married” in the religious sense of the word, go find a priest/minister/other person of the cloth.
This thread reveals the challenge of having what should be a secular discussion (such as marriage or civil unions) with a religious person. Most times, the Bible/Torah/Koran/Chick Tract gets brought into it, and the discussion (as the religious person sees it) is over. You’re right because the Bible, etc. says so, and that’s it.
The religious person needs to keep in mind that, for the unreligious person, your reference book does not apply. For the cheeky non-believers amongst us, I recall a bumper sticker saying “He’s your god, they’re your rules, *YOU * burn in Hell”.
Take religion out of it. Debate it on a secular basis. To invoke various higher powers (on either side of the argument) yanks the discussion off-course and will, most likely, never be solved.
Sorry that this posting is not more organized - there’s only so much I can do during lunch
Oh, I would, but I’m no good at it; I’m just not very good with people.
And hating a person and organization I consider to be evil is bigotry how ? These people chose their religion, and spent decades getting to be where they are; despising them is no more bigotry than hating the Republican leadership is. Is it bigotry to hate Stalin and his followers ?
Well, I think it is, and it is bigotry.
Bigotry in the name of a god or by a god is still bigotry. If they are right about God, that just means God is evil, not that they are in the right.
False analogy. First, there are objective arguments ( size and strength ) against women in the infantry; there is no such argument against gay marriage, only bigotry.
Second his decision affects no one outside of the military, and only his particular military at that; it’s not the same as shaping all of secular law to fit his prejudices.
Third, he’s not pretending that he’s right in some cosmic sense, but just following orders. He’s not saying it’s a sin for women to be infantry.
It’s not the Pope’s or God’s or my business to control what consenting adults do with each other.
Assuming God existed, that’s an argument for killing him, not following him. Remember, I’m the atheist; I’m the one who’s supposed to make God look bad.
And how was that evil ? Her mistake was in only getting the fruit from one tree, not both.
Now that is evil; it’s called shirking responsibility.
Which I and the majority of humanity neither believe in nor care about. In other words, so what ?
The God you descibe is an evil God; I have no desire to go to his heaven, and I seriously doubt anyone would go there. A hateful God like yours would send us all to hell, simply for the malignant fun of it.
Never happen; the majority of the population would be enraged at their marriage being degraded to the second-class version. The whole point of civil unions is that they aren’t marriages, but a second rate imitation.
For one thing, the church didn’t start persecuting homosexuals immediately upon its foundation. They started attacking Cathars as heretics in 1208, and hit upon sodomy as something they could conveniently claim was a sin that the Cathars favoured. By the 1290s we have our first record of someone executed for homosexuality (a Flemish knife-maker) and by the early 1300s the Templars were being executed on trumped-up charges of sodomy so the church could get at their cash.
The earliest evidence we (or at least Byrne Fone, Homophobia: A History) can find for the Church seriously treating homosexuality as a sin, then, is the thirteenth century, and then because it was politically convenient to do so, not because it was some tenet to which the church had always adhered.
But even if they could reasonably argue that God put them up to it, that wouldn’t excuse them of charges of bigotry. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was also a faith-based initiative. That’s not treated as an acceptable excuse.
In fact, for anyone who may have brought up this stupid little argument in the past, that’s one of the reasons why the threads against Christian homophobia go on longer than the threads against Muslim homophobia: for some reason, nobody ever insists on saying it’s acceptable for the Muslims to do it because God put them up to it.
Homophobia is not morally acceptable under any circumstances. Not because you have a note from your mommy, not because you’re feeling dyspeptic that day, not because you think God told you to. There are plenty of Catholics who do not believe homosexuality is a sin. There are plenty of Catholics who disavow, publicly and otherwise, the Pope’s and the hierarchy’s position on it (and on a lot of other stupid, regressive doctrines). Catholics are not some mind-melded mass who have to believe everything that’s put to them. They have the choice whether or not to agree with each statement that’s put to them, so they don’t get a bye when they choose to believe things that are bigoted.
Maybe kanicbird would be happier if you said you hated the bigotry but loved the bigot.
This reminds of me of how men used to think that women shouldn’t go to college or get executive jobs because it would be too stressful for them. They said, and probably truthfully, that they were doing it for the women’s own good. Sometimes the results are the only thing that matters, not the intention. I’m sure that the Catholic Church’s struggle against condom use is virtuous in their own eyes, but people still die.
I’d ask if he thought heterosexuals had the same compulsion, but a bunch of self-selected celibate no doubt think so. Remember, sex, except for reproduction, is inherently wrong for this crowd. How much can you expect from those who think birth control is sinful?
But the Pope isn’t just telling Catholics what to do; he’s talking about the rules of civil society which apply to “both believers and non-believers”.
The Pope can tell believers what to do all he likes; that his job, and if they don’t like it, well, they can find another church. When the Pope starts telling everyone what to do, he must expect criticism from those who disagree with his views.
Christ, what a weasel. There is no one that is “taking on” the “issue” of multi-fabric clothes. It’s not an issue. It’s not a sin. Nobody fucking cares. The Pope is wearing BVD’s with an elastic waistband and a cushiony, absorbent cotton scrotum pocket. The simple fact of the matter is that your precious, eternal, unchanging religion is different than it once was. Hell, it’s different than it was 10 years ago. And eventually, when the civilized world finally pounds it into the religious mind that homosexuality is a biologically unavoidable, perfectly normal variant of human sexuality, it will change again. Step out of the cave. We have some pretty nice stuff out here in the real world.
This implies that the Church has no voice in determining exactly what it is that “God said”. I don’t think that’s accurate. The Church does not interpret the entire Bible with the same degree of literalness—for example, they no longer claim that God has revealed in the Bible the “universal truth” that the sun orbits the earth instead of vice versa.
I agree that the term “bigotry” introduces communication problems of its own, and that there are more diplomatically “useful” terms. However, I think it’s incorrect to suggest that the Church is “just following orders” on what they consider to be divine revelation. It’s their choice of interpretation that partly determines what those orders are.
And as MEBuckner points out, if the Pope is extending the Church’s interpretation of divine law to include criticisms of civil society including both Catholics and non-Catholics, then civil society is entitled to judge his views by its own standards in return.
I’m just looking to make sure I understand your position, here. No tricks; it just seems like I should know where you stand and what you believe if I want to discuss it with you (or even if I should just drop it).
Why are you sorry? This seems a bit like a sidestep, here. Were you wrong to bring it up?
Anyway, new question; what’s your own personal belief? I mean, do you think personally that gay sex isn’t a bad thing, but because God says it is you follow that? Or something else?
you are not the first one to be surpried in this thread. The answer is no - they can speak as they see fit, it is a pet peeve of mine why the people dont’ just say to the actor shut the f’ up about (insert political issue) - you have no better expertise in this issue then my dog, and I don’t want to hear my dog’s opinion on the issue either.