Saint Zero Explains "Immoral" For Us

The BBQ Pit
101

IMHO

All I can add is I get shit from almost ALL points.

I’m bi, just in case you’ve never heard of me or read my posts. So, I’m breaking almost EVERYONE’S rules. I get bashed by heterosexuals and homosexuals. I hear, “Make up your fucking mind!” all the time.

I don’t “fit” in with either group and I’ve taken a lot of shit for it. Do I think it’s a moral choice? No, my morals are fine, thank you. But my sexual orientation is to both men and women. And I’m not ashamed of it in the least. I don’t think THAT, my sexual orientation, has a damn thing to do with my morals.

I don’t do certain things because I think they are morally wrong. Like, well, murder. I’ve never killed anyone. I doubt I ever would. However, I do not see my bed partner as a “moral” choice. It’s not about morals. It’s about sex or love or what ever I and that person have going on with each other. My moral code isn’t about sex; I conduct bedroom activities with other consenting adults and I think that is all the “moral code” I need. I do not force anyone into my bed or my arms.

And that, in and of itself, may seem “immoral” to some and that is fine. You have the right to draw your own lines in the sand; but please, do not tell me where to draw my “sexual” lines just because your moral compass is different. I do not think that taking any adult into my bed is “morally” wrong.

JIMHO

102

The problem with just letting people live with their little version of morality is that it spreads, and some of the people who believe the actions of people to be immoral, take violent action against those others.

Cases I can think of are: Mathew Shepard (sorry if I spelled that wrong), abortion clinic bombings, James Byrd (the man who was dragged to death behind a truck) and there are many, many others.

Back in previous centuries, people who were different enough from others were sometimes burned as witches.

But even if the action isn’t violent, and is more subtle, like snubbings or someone smugly saying something like “I think you are immoral but I don’t think you are a bad person,” there are people who have to put up with this crap every day, and it decreases the quality of their lives.

I haven’t been posting on this board all that long (since July) but I think lissenser’s posts are mild compared to some of the posts I have read in the pit. This is the place for flaming and strong emotions, and I think lissener has every right to say the things he said. And Saint Zero, because of the first amendment (I hope that’s the freedom of speech amendment) has the right to voice her/his opinion, and anyone who agrees or disagrees can chime in also.

I am adding my voice to that of lisseners and other people who have agreed with him because, no matter what some church tells anyone, homosexual relationships are not any less moral than heterosexual relationships.

103

lissener, CajunMan and Dr. Matrix…

So, you accuse those of us who are Christians of being intolerant because, (gasp of horror) we actually believe the moral teachings of our faith. Then you launch into a spiteful diatribe against a faith that has teachings and beliefs on the subject of sexual morality. Seems to me that you’re being just a tad bit tolerant of our beliefs.

Now… if the State wants to legalize gay marriage, well, being a believing Catholic, I don’t think it’s a good idea, but I have to recognize the fact that most people in this country don’t share my beliefs. But the Church wouldn’t recognize the marriage as being valid. If gays want to be civilly married, assuming it becomes legal, they can go ahead and do it. Just don’t come to church and expect to receive Holy Communion when you are openly practicing a lifestyle that the Church teaches is morally wrong.

I also believe in the separation of Church and State.

'nuff said.

104

a tad bit intolerant
I will preview before I post…

105

A little over two centuries ago, Puritans believed that other people practiced withchcraft. If enough evidence could be brought against alleged witches, they were stoned, or drowned (in earlier centuries they were burned at the stake). This happened because people believed the moral teachings of their faith without question. Eventually, enough courageous people spoke out against such practices, and those practices ended.

Many practicing gays were also raised Catholic, and found that the loving god who created everyone considered them to be an abomination and they were no longer welcome in the church unless they lived a lie.

This is fortunate.

I agree.

106

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Saint Zero *
The “Lifestyle Choice” thing. I dunno. I don’t think it’s genetic, but some people seem to have a predisposition towards it.

If some people seem to have a predisposition towards it, we call that genetics.

But I still fail to see the point of all this research into it. I hell, does it really matter why some people prefer same-sex partners? I mean seriously, when I boil everything away, I’m left with the final question: “What’s the big fucking deal, anyway?”
** Problem: Homosexuality seems to be a modern invention.**

Homosexuality is an invention? Damn. I wish I had the copyrights to that one.

Seriously, I think the ‘modern’ prevaling attitudes are new. (modern in a global sense, like say last millenium and a half or so) And I think these attitudes are the ‘problem’, if you absolutely must find probs with homosexuality.

I think back to my old job as an ancient Greek statesmen. Hell, back then nobody gave a shit about sexual orientation. Sex was sex. Ahhh… those were the days.
Having clarified the above, I’m going to step out on a limb here and back Saint-Zero. I think he should be allowed his opinion. Having morals is about personal choice. Forcing that moral code on another is a very different thing. Zero doesn’t seem to be doing that.

I’m personally of the opinion that the waxing of the bikini line is immoral. God/Goddess (assuming, for the sake of argument such a deity exists and give a hoot about body hair orientation) obviously meant for hair to grow there. It hurts like hell, and leaves the area raw and painfull afterwards. Shaving of the armpits - same thing.

Do I try to force those opinions on others? No. Would I bias my hiring of employees based on these criteria? Nope. But I still believe it’s fundamentally wrong.

I’ll fight for my freedoms and rights. But I won’t fight to remove or alter yours. That includes the right to an opinion, regardless of it’s validity.

I’d pull up the O-OP “So you’re gay. Who gives a rat’s ass.” If you want to talk about the persecution you’ve suffered, I’ll listen. I’ll even walk with you in your parade, and fight injustice when I can. But do I actually care who you’re sleeping with? As long as it’s not my wife, do what ye will, an it harm none. (Even wax your bikini line, if you feel you must)

107

lissener said

So now I should join a violent, hateful group because I believe gays have as much right to do their thing as anyone else, but I also believe that people have the right to have personal reservations about homosexuality?

lissener, I don’t much like your kind.

“Your kind” being, of course, intolerant know-it-alls with a misguided sense of moral superiority.

You’re painting with a pretty broad brush there, slappy.

You’ve spewed more hatred than Saint Zero ever thought about posting. I should join the Klan? You should stick your head up into your duodenum and roll away.

If Saint Zero or anyone else makes a statement advocating hatred, violence or intimidation toward any gay man or woman, I’ll be among the first to condemn it and him. It ain’t happened yet.

You forgot to make a Nazi reference. Try harder next time.

108

One little detail you might want to think about here is that very few people I have ever heard about have been persecuted for waxing their bikini line hair, or been discriminated against because of that, or insulted, or maimed or murdered.

And yes, everyone does have the right to their own opinion and to voice that opinion. lissener is quite vociferously proclaiming his opinion, which is within the rules of this forum. It is also within the rules to positively or negatively comment on the opinions of others.

It is my opinion that some opinions of others need to be challenged. This is how, eventually, change comes about. While (hopefully) Saint Zero and people who hold the same opinion are not actively persecuting and disriminating against homosexuals, their attitude does nothing to discourage the people who do actively persecute and discriminate.

During Hitler’s reign in Germany, the prevailing opinion (that which was voiced and adhered to) was that Aryans were the superior race. Apparently there were many people who did not agree with this opinion, but did not speak up against it (and probably because of this, were not persecuted themselves). Then there were the people who agreed with the prevailing opinion and by doing so tacitly agreed with the massacre of millions of people who happened to be Jewish, or homosexual, or physically deformed (to name some of the main reasons).

I don’t know if I would have been courageous enough at that time to speak out against the regime and risk my own death. I know many people did. But one of the advantages of studying history is so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

So my point (and I do have one) is that, yes, people can voice their opinions, but other people have the right to criticize them for this and one might even say a duty.

109

I guess I supplied the Nazi reference.

110

Everytime I hear a gay activist organization like GLAAD claim that someone’s opinion will lead others to commit violence, I cringe. What they are doing is advocating speech censorship, and I am completely against that.

You could also look at it at in the reverse. By speaking out against religious attitudes, gays are advocating the bashing of the religious.

Saint Zero is no more responsible for the actions of a gay-basher, than I am for the actions of a guy who burns down a church. In my opinion, only gay-bashers are responsible for the actions of gay-bashers.

I don’t believe that Saint Zero is contributing to an atmosphere of hatred. It’s clear that he lacks the hate necessary to be called a bigot. Nor does he advocating any actions against gays. He seems to have a “let’s agree to disagree” attitde and I can accept that. I’ll leave him to his faith and he’ll leave me to my homosexuality. It is possible to peacefully co-exist.

111

Actually, I’ve made two, if you’d been paying attention.

And if you want to naively separate actual unequivocal hatred and violence from the culture of intolerance that spawns and supports them, be prepared for a third.

112

And by saying that Christians are bigots you are promoting religious persecution, and censorship, by that line of reasoning. Nonsense.

Yes, in the Christian religion, if someone is only attracted to the same sex, and they are Christian, then, they are to remain celibate. It does make it “ok” if they are not committing the action.

113

I have a hard time respecting someone enough to comment on their post, when they cannot participate in a debate without becoming overly emotional, and resort to name calling, hate, and insults from the get go. Whenever I see someone get that upset when someone disagree’s with them, I tend to think they are struggling with their own beliefs. I feel for lissener, they have obviously had a hard time of it, but there is no point in trying to argue with someone like that.

114

This is such bullshit. In the first place, you really see no distinction between discussing the negative effects of particular speech, and advocating for its censorship? In the second place (Hello? Is this thing on?)–religious freedom is protected by the constitution. They use their religious freedom to advocate against my freedom. We’re not advocating against their freedom, we’re simply engaging in the fight for our own.

It’s always helpful to remember this: They started it. Think about it. The reason you never hear straight white men (well okay, sane straight white men) fighting for their rights is because their rights have never been challenged. We’re not protesting in a vacuum here. If the culture we live in had simply lived and let live from the get go, none of this would be an issue. The reason it’s so easy to imagine that homosexuals started this whole thing is because it’s so easy to take the status quo as a given. But it’s not: it’s a culture created by man, and as such is vulnerable to flaws and subject to revision. Sorry to go so far afield, but I’m trying to communicate the abstract concept that cultural evil doesn’t have to be active and violent; it can be systemic and silent. And silently supporting it doesn’t make it any less evil; only more silent.

“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” and “Silence = Death” mean exactly the same thing.

No one is advocating censorship. But I will shout you down if your speech supports, however tacitly and with whatever carefully planned deniability, a culture of hatred against me.

115

Can someone find this person a map? They’ve accidentally fallen into the pit and They can’t get up.

Thank you. I quite agree.

116

I don’t think challenging the opinions of others is the same thing as speech censorship. I do underestand your point about Saint Zero not actively persecuting anyone and having the right to her/his own opinions. Neither do I think that Saint Zero is responsible for the actions of the gay-bashers, and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. But by an intelligent person like Saint Zero holding that opinion and expressing it to others, s/he invites discussion and has not backed away from it, and seems to be open to that discussion. I have learned lots from posting on this board in the short time I have been here, and it has been by exchanging ideas with other posters.

Here in the pit that is not always done with decorum, and there are lots of strong feelings being expressed here by people who have been persecuted because of their sexual preference(s).

I think organizations like GLAAD serve the purpose of bringing social inequities to the attention of the public. What they are doing is challenging opinions to hopefully change them (I think).

bdgr: are you quoting someone who said Christians are bigots? This is a long thread and I may have missed that somewhere. Name-calling directed at a religion does qualify, in my book, as religious persecution. However, if someone is questioning the belief system of a certain religion, while within the religion it may be considered heresy, it isn’t from outside that religion.

Also, you seem to be even newer to the board than I am. This forum is the Pit, and the posters who post here can rant and rave and flame with impunity (for the most part). The civil debates forum is called Great Debates.

117

Not to apologize for my pitty behavior, but SpiderWoman makes the point much more clearly than I did with my sarcastic aside.

I for one don’t know why this great debate wasn’t begun in Great Debates. If it had been, I’d have participated just as enthusiastically, but much more civilly. The constraints of the other forum might have inspired me to keep the heat to a comfy, approachable glow rather than the raging conflagration I’ve indulged. But fuel has not been hard to come by, and I hope at any rate it’s burned clean and bright without too much smoke.

(Whew! I’ma hafta have me a little lie-down after that one!)

118

Not when someone is saying “you said __________, it cause someone else to do _________, therefore you must stop saying it.”

Sounds like censorship to me.

Where Saint Zero advocated that our freedoms be limited? If we were talking about Fahlwell, Robertsons, etc I’d be in total agreement with you.

I never said that homosexuals started anything. I also believe our cause is just. I was pointing out that if we could see that Saint Zero’s speech causes violence against gays, then he could turn around and say that our speech causes violence against the religious. I was trying to point out the absurdity of the argument. People who hate and hate and hate will beat whether the mainstream supports their views or not. Look at the KKK and Neo-nazis, the mainstream condemns them and yet they still lash out.

119

Well said. I think the OP was a call for debate cross-dressing as a rant. I let it go for a while (obvously people had some anger to work out) but a three page flame is nothing but trouble.

GD would be the perfect place to ask many of the questions posed here without all the accusations. You want some ideas for GD OPs?

– Is there any reason why anyone should belive homosexuality is immoral besides “the Bible says so”?

– Why does the Bible say so?

– What, if anything, is the difference between the statements “I don’t approve of homosexuality” and “I have no desire to engage in homosexual acts”?

If you do open a thread, be sure keep a civil tongue in your mouth, you degenerates. David and Gaudie run a tight ship.

As for this bad boy, I’m closing it.