Saint Zero Explains "Immoral" For Us

The BBQ Pit
81

I have a suggestion which might actually clear things up a bit: Lauralee, St. Zero, et al, fuck you.

I’m really just not interested in having a conversation with someone who comes into the conversation with the primary position that my existance is immoral. I’m supposed to be all opened minded and shit and acknowledge your right to that opinion, but fuck you. I’m supposed to be open minded about your opinion, but you can choose not to be open minded about my existance? Fuck you.

For you to say “I love the sinner but hate the sin” is bullshit. Fuck you. “I love the short man but hate the shortness.” There is no distinction. For you to insist that there is, is a fiction born of ignorance, and I don’t have to recognize the validity of any opinion based on such a fiction.

Your defenders say, “That’s just their opinion. That’s just the way they feel.” That’s bullshit. You have no right to feel that my existance is immoral.

For you to say homosexuality is immoral is exactly the same thing as saying “having six toes is a sign of the devil,” and I don’t have to acknowledge your “right” to say so.

Of course, I never meant to suggest you don’t have a legal right to say whatever stupid thing you want to say, and for those of you who want to object to my prior statements refusing to grant the ignorant the right to have an opinion about the moral nature of my existence, I offer you a great big roll of the eyes. I would never suggest, for example, that people who hold an unpopular political opinion do not have the right to march with signs; let the world see how stupid they are.

But you have not earned the right, as a human being, to express an opinion about the morality of my existance. In the first place, it’s nonsensical: what’s your view of the morality of time? the morality of north? In the second place, say we were to participate in a discussion of art, a subject more open to opinion than most. If you were to begin the discussion from the position that “red is immoral,” I would not grant you the validity of that opinion; you do not come to the discussion equipped with the proper tools, and I would refuse to grant you the right to participate.

Your “opinion,” your “feelings,” feed this disease that I have in my life. You are a disease in my life, and I am nothing in your life. I must spend a great chunk of my time on this planet fighting the disease that you incubate and spread in order to try to live that life, which I did not choose, and which was given to me just as your was give to you. You take from my time on the planet; I do not take from yours. So fuck you.

I’m going to try to fit this into your mythology. The devil has tempted you to close off your heart to a part of god’s creation by whispering in your ear the insidious lie that you can distinquish the homosexual from his homsexuality. You have failed your god by indulging that temptation.

I hope you have children that turn out gay. You will conform your life to the devil’s whispered temptation and teach your children to hate themselves. And they will someday grow to understand that their only hope for happiness lies in learning to hate you, because you are the sin.

82

Too much intolerance in this thread for my taste, even for the BBQ Pit.

Funny how it’s the “Intolerance Thought Police” that are spreading it all, though.

83

Bravo, lissener!

Beautifully stated.

My feelings exactly.

84

If you publicly say “_______ is immoral”, you’re promoting discrimination against ________. What you think is your own damn problem. Fill in _________ with say, rape, and you have the same thing. The thing is, rape is pretty much universally considered immoral (within our society, anyway), and we * do * discriminate against rapists; we lock them up. That’s not to say we don’t try and provide rehabilitation, but the fact is that we discriminate against them. If you * say * “homosexuality is immoral”, you are promoting discrimination against gays. Your problem is that you’re not separating actions and thoughts.

coughbullshitcough
Being gay is not an easy life, because of people like you. Why on eath would someone choose it? Whatever the causes of homosexuality, most gays I know (mother included, see?) have known * at some level * for most of their adult lives, at the least. Many didn’t have a name for it, or admit it until after a failed marriage or two (hey, I came from * somewhere * ).

So the question becomes, in your silly scheme, what if they’re a non-practicing homosexual: does that make it ok, since they still are one, but aren’t “committing” the action? :rolleyes:

85

lissener

I agree with everything you said. I especially like where you compare homosexuality with shortness. To those in the majority, it seems that it is hard to understand what it is like being different. Being gay is not something that can be discarded at will. As you pointed out it is part of the essence of who and what a person is.

Milossarian

Intolerance cannot be fought by silence.

86

and isn’t fighting ignorance what the SDMB is all about?

I think the people who Milossarian may be referring to here as the “Intolerant Thought Police” are probably the ones who have been victimized by this very intolerance, and the Pit is the place to air grievances about it. The regular civility rules don’t hold sway here.

87

Intolerance? Milossarian, get your French collaborationist, Nevil Chamberlin head out of your 1960s Alabama cracker ass.

Do you understand the phrase “not in my lifetime?” Do you understand that this is a phrase that I live with every day of my life? What’s missing from your life that won’t come to pass in your lifetime: porno on network TV? Free groceries for guys named Milossarian? How about in my lifetime: the right to equal civil rights under the law? the right to marry whom I choose? the simple peace of mind of not wondering how my new boss feels about homosexuality, because the law protects him if he descriminates?

Do you understand that I only have one lifetime? And these dusty-minded, inquisitionist sinners-within-their-own-system-of-sin continue to shore up the cultural structure that shows no real promise of real change in my lifetime?

These fuckers feed the system that legislates their “opinion” that my existance is immoral. The system that makes the world I live in a very different place from the one they live in. And you counsel patience and tolerance? Please feel free to take for yourself a generous helping of my “fuck you” above.

What would have been your counsel to the south of the sixties? “Let’s extend this debate ad nauseum by continually validating the opinion that backs are inferior to whites.” “I love the black person, but I hate their blackness.” This is an “opinion” that you would have counseled an African American to tolerate, and to be open to discussing? Or would you finally say to the government of Mississippi that they were just plain wrong and we no longer have to tolerate their “opinion”? Fine, wear a hood, burn a cross: I defend your Constitutional right to do so. But call me intolerant for stating unequivovally that you’re wrong?

The people in power have tried from time immemorial to legislate their fears of the things they don’t understand. It’s our duty as a healthy modern society to continue to chip away at those archaic artifacts of church-as-state. Your inappropriate conflation of their fears with my rights only prolongs this process, and narrows my world for me.

Can you understand my need for this change to occur within my lifetime? Please don’t lecture me about tolerance.

88

Lissener, will you marry me?

89

Lissener’s gay.

Of course.

Dammit.

90

Posted by DrMatrix and seconded by GLWasteful:

This is incorrect. The view of the RCC is as follows:

On marriage outside of the Catholic Church:

Marriages between non-Catholics of whatever religion, are considered valid. The situation can be complicated because there are two kinds of marriage: natural (ordinary) marriage and supernatural (sacramental) marriage. Supernatural marriages exist only between baptized christians. Assuming no impediments, marriages between Jews or Muslims would be valid natural marriages. Marriages between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would be valid, presuming no impediments, but these would be supernatural (sacramental) marriages.

On Marriage between a Catholic and a non-catholic;

When one spouse is a Catholic and the other is a non-Catholic the situation changes. Just as the state has the power to regulate marriages of its citizens by requiring them to get a blood test or to marry in front of a competent authority, so the Church has the right to regulate the marriages of its “citizens.”

If one participant is a Catholic who has not left the Church by a formal act, such as by officially joining another church, he or she must obtain a dispensation for the marriage, which would otherwise be blocked by the mixed-marriage impediment or by the disparity of cult impediment. A Catholic who has not left the Church by a formal act also must obtain a dispensation to be married in front of a non-Catholic minister. If either of these dispensations is not obtained, the marriage will not be valid.

Just trying to keep the facts straight.

91

Yeesh, being CAtholic is complicated!

While I don’t agree with Lauralee’s and Saint Zero’s views, I will say this: banging them over the head about it will NOT make them more tolerant. Why not try and be gentle, and educate them?
Um, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar!

By going out and screaming at them and throwing things at them, I don’t think you’re going to entice them to your point of view.

The only way to fight bigotry and ignorance is through EDUCATION, not VIOLENCE.

92

barker

Thank you for keeping me in line with the facts. My question still remains. How would you (agisofia) view a marriage not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, for example, a “mixed” marriage where dispensation was not obtained? Should the state not recognize such a union? The opinion of a religious body is irrelevant to civil marriage. I really don’t care what the RCC’s view is. If they don’t wish to recognize gay marriage, that’s just fine with me. So, let’s not confuse civil unions with marriage in the church. They are two related but distinct things.

The problem with establishing another type of union for same-sex couples is the that “separate but equal” is not equal. If they are equal, they should not be separate.

93

I usually avoid these discussions because I’ve wasted too many years arguing them elsewhere, but what the hell, it’s Saturday night so I’ll throw my two cents in.

Homosexuality is a natural behavior. I believe it, like all other behaviors exhibited in humans, exists in potentia in everyone, to one degree or another. Culture, environment, and experience help decide which way someone’s going to lean. We see other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, apparently untaught, which would support this theory. Humans are a far more sexual animal than any other, except possibly dolphins, so it stands to reason that the fact that we are always in season combined with the neotanous(sp?) curiosity we display well into adulthood would give all sorts of sexual behavior more opportunity to be tried on for fit. It has been around for a long time, often acccepted and encouraged by mainstream society (classical Greece and Sparta jump to mind, both very successful cultures). Hell, in Sparta, you couldn’t be real man among men without it. You got married to have children, but real love happenned man-to-man (and I would guess woman-to-woman, since the guys wouldn’t be home too many Friday nights.)

Morality does not exist in nature. It is entirely artificial and changes year to year, place to place, culture to culture. If someone personally chooses to attach an arbitrary right or wrong attitude to it, well, I can’t stop them. However, it is very unfortunate that the laws of this country continue to operate on an arbitrary, intrusive, and pointless code of religious morality. If you want to think it’s wrong and not engage in it yourself, fine. But if you want to say it’s wrong and make it illegal for anyone else to choose who they will love/boink/whatever, then you need to rethink things.

94

I see a lot of people complaining about the tone of lissener’s post, but none are addressing it’s substance. It’d be nice to see some people address his post rather than try and turn this into yet another pointless slap-fest.

95

My mother (a otherwise devout Roman Catholic)had a great thought on the morality of gays and lesbians according to Christianity: If homosexuality is so immoral why is it that Christ never got around to directly mentioning it in any way? Would he overlook something made so important by his professed followers? Even Paul hardly made it a big part of his writings. Two whole passages, I believe. And there is debate about exactly what he was refering to in those two (generally, that these are a reference to the cultic temple prostitution of competeing religious movements, quite distinct from contemporary gay and lesbian relationships.) I do recall a lot about not judging and the importance of love.

96

What I see is Saint Zero making an initial statement that,

*… OK … everybody pay attention here, these next few words are important … *

AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED, FOR HIM, homosexuality is not acceptible, based on his belief structure.

Didn’t hear him saying anything about condemning anyone else. Didn’t hear him say anything about treating anyone anywhere with anything less than kindness and acceptance.

lissener, matt, anyone else … I’m very happy you have very strong answers for yourselves on this subject. Reject SZ’s message entirely, tell everyone how ignorant he is for thinking that way. That’s your right.

You may not be aware of this, but not everyone has to think like you. How incredibly arrogant of you in particular, lissener. And the fact that they have uncertainties about the morality of homosexuality in their own heads and hearts is none of YOUR fucking business, unless they personally treat you in a less than humane way.

When religious fundamentalists try your approach on this board, “this is the way it is; you’re nothing if you don’t think so,” they get skewered.

When the topic is politically correct enough to be on Oprah’s show, though, I guess it’s OK.

Actually, I’m a northern hick; not a southern one. And I already said I have no problem with any adult having sex with any other consenting adult.

My problem is with assholes who think they have all the answers to very complicated issues on which no one can possibly be all-knowing. And spread vitriol on those who deign to think differently than them.

Yep; you’re all so very enlightened, and people like Saint Zero (and me, I suppose, judging by the quoted condescending comment) are ignorant clods wandering in the darkness.

The fact you fuck people of your own gender has about as much to do with how enlightened you are as the fact that I fuck people of the opposite gender. Nada.

97

Thanks, Milossarian, for pointing out that you’re not from Alabama. Why didn’t also point out that it’s not actually the 60s, that you’re not French, and your name is not really Neville Chamberlin. Or better yet, why don’t you stand up: maybe it’ll come around again. (It’s revealing, though, that this is the only passage you felt up to quoting. Watch, everyone, this will goad him into desperately dissecting the rest of my post.)

While all of you want to sit around, sipping absinthe and arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, my allotted time on this planet is ticking away, and I still live in a world in which I can’t accept matt_mcl’s proposal of marriage.

Whenever any of you for whom “homosexuality is not acceptible, based on [your] belief structure,” says so, in my hearing, I will jump down your throat. You want to (to quote Walter Mosley) “piss on my head and tell me it’s raining,” I will throw that piss back in your face. I will put forth every effort within my power, short of actual violence, to drive you into the closet; after all, you built it.

I will not use honey, and I will not “educate.” I will march and I will demand, and I will tell you to join the fucking KKK if you want a more receptive atmosphere for your opinions.

98

I don’t recall getting a dispensation to marry my wife ( the Papist ). Perhaps the priest wrote 1 that I don’t know about? I do recall that I had to have been baptised, I needed a parent to affirm that I had never been married ( I wasn’t a minor, I was 29 ), and I had to agree to raise our children to be Papists as well.

I also remember that the priest was a condesending jerk.
I “forgot” to pay him.

99

Well, Milo, you know me, we’ve both been around for a long while, but your statement:

misses a big BIG point. While you and I can sit in our ivory towers and debate this until the cows come home, he (she?) has to live every day with the predjudice of society. I see your statement as the equivelent of white plantation owners debating the plight of slaves, circa 1850. Is it any wonder that the people in the fields might have a different view. How can we condem his(her…oh fuck it- male pronoun used from here on out for convienence) rage?
I believe that I have demonstrated through my posts that I view gays the same way I view straights, but I refuse to deny the fact that others don’t.( and yes, this is a bit of a change from the POV in my OP of the post that spawned this one. I’ve learned a bit from your replies, and am a bit ashamed by my naievity.) The fact of the matter is that these people have to live constantly on the edge with the knowledge that they may be descriminated against out of the blue because of how they are. How dare we assume that they should just sit calmly in the face of hatered? WE may sit and say “I feel thus and so” and be suprised when they react with vitorol, but WE don’t have to deal with the Fred Philps( I think) of the world. ( actually, I’d like to deal with him with an Ak-47 in my hands) Remember that while to us it is simply an intelectual exercize, to them it is real life. It’s here every day, and it isn’t always plesant.

I would like to apologise to everyone out there for breaking one of my sacred maxims. In this post I refered to “us” and “them”. I generally avoid such terms because they are usualy an excuse not to think. There is no “them”, only people, each with their own hopes, dreams and rights, but in this case there is a true line, those with same sex attractions and those attracted to the other sex. It was not meant as any kind of condemnation of “them”. You’re different. Great! Lets get together and celebrate the differences. I’ll learn from you and let me teach you.
As I finish thia post, it’s very ironic that one of the all time best songs ever is playing in the background. These are the words I just heard:

How true are these words when applied to each of us?

You tell me.

100

Sorry, Milossarian; since the bulk of your post was saying nothing more than that I should play nicer, I failed to notice at first that you actually tried to make a point:

Well A), religious fundamentalism is protected by law–by the constitution, no less–you smug fucking suckling at the dugs of the status quo. (Thought of that one walking home from The Cell. Might set it to music.)

And B), do you really want to try to sell the idea that everything I’ve said has just been in the service of political correctness?