I guess I’m just playing the Devil’s Advocate.
Like I said, no one has to agree with anyone.
lissener, haven’t you ever disapproved of something a friend did?
Like say, oh, they had an abortion (and you didn’t agree with that), or they slept around on their spouse, or took drugs, etc etc? Or they ate meat, and you thought it was wrong and immoral to eat meat?
(Not that you believe any of this stuff, just using it as an example.)
How is Saint Zero’s position any different from that of Vegan who thinks that eating meat is immoral, yet does not call out his friend for doing so, or tell his friend that said friend is evil and going to Hell?
Just playing the Devil’s Advocate, something I like to do.
I appologize if I got a little heavy handed, but I admit, I LOVE to argue!
Ay, chi mu mu!!!
Thoughtcrime is not, and cannot be unless we get telepathic cops, a penal offense. And everyone has a right to an opinion, no matter how exalted or inane that opinion is.
Uh, Satan, I hate to disagree with you on a thread we are largely in agreement in, but you were in error above. Hate crime legislation does not punish anyone for holding a particular opinion – it increments the punishment for committing another crime if the reason for that crime can be shown to be prejudice against the victim of that crime due to his membership in a “protected class” under the particular legislation. I.e., Bubba McDivitt beats up DeWayne Jones. Assault is charged. Happens Bubba is white and DeWayne is black – no problem, other than a few rabble-rousers on both sides taking offense. But then we discover that Bubba, ten minutes before the fight, said, “Gonna go find me a nigger and pound him senseless.” Hate crime law kicks in.
For Bubba to think, all blacks ought to be beaten up, no matter how reprehensible his ideas, is not criminal. For him to act on them is.
I’m not altogether convinced about hate crime laws, but let’s at least get our facts straight.
Oh, and Lissener? I want to make a point here, and I want to get things accurately understood. Read carefully before you flame, OK?
I am a Christian. Like every Christian, I am committed to follow Jesus and to obey his commandments. In my understanding of what he preached, human beings should not judge one another for anything, including the question of whether they (a) are of homosexual orientation, (b) fall in love with someone of the same sex, or © practice sexual activities with someone of the same sex. Working from the same sources as I do, some highly decent people, including Lauralee and (I believe) SaintZero, have developed a different understanding. Judging others is out for them too. Speaking out on what is considered sinful behavior in others, including homosexual activity at a minimum, is proper as part of a call to a moral life and turning to Christ.
It does not matter whether you like this, or whether you agree, it’s part of their religious viewpoint. You may rest assured that at least one of the above is not doing a self-righteous number. For many Christians, self-righteousness and lack of any understanding of what gay people think and feel is a major problem. For others, the idea that “it is a sin according to the word of God” is coupled with a deep compassion towards people who are “afflicted with homosexual tendencies.” ('Sprix, Lissener, et al. – note the quotes; I’m expressing their understanding.) For myself, I don’t find any element of the above as necessarily a sin – God has his own plans for everyone, and he has not vouchsafed to explain to me why you and others are gay. I prefer to let Him make the call here, and to understand what you feel and try to speak out for you when others condemn. However, that shoe fits both feet. You were condemning others for expressing a viewpoint that you were not cognizant of how and what they felt. Right, SaintZero and Lauralee find homosexuality a sin. Please note clearly the difference between the abstract concept and a human being. They did not, and would not – and in one case I know this with as much certainty as I can have of other human beings – condemn you as a person. There is a detailed and tough list of “ungodly” things that conservative Christians are called to abstain from – and they are quite cognizant of their failure to live up to that standard. The fact that you don’t live up to the standard they set themselves is something they feel you ought to know about, because in their opinion your right to eternal life after death hangs in the balance. You may find this less than moving if you do not accept their worldview, but if you look at it from their eyes, they are sincerely trying to do you a favor in advising you of the fact. And, BTW, if I recall the original comment that gave rise to the Pit thread and this one, all Saint Zero was doing was expressing his personal opinion.
Me, I would like it if nobody was condemned by any other person for things not in their power to change. But nobody left me in charge. So I’m trying to maintain lines of communication between those who appear to be doing the condemning – and, IMHO, you were the judgemental person this time around. (And when somebody posts stupidities about gays again, I’ll jump into the fray and flag their error.)
Forgive me for not responding to the rest of your post, but it was based on the misconception you communicate above. To wit, I will continue to insist that your (and SZ, et al’s) attempt to separate “the abstract concept and a human being” is wrong, in the sense of being incorrect, and wrong, in the sense of condemning me as a person. I feel a bit put upon that by continuing to suggest that they can “love the sinner but hate the sin” you seem to have ignored the single most important part of the argument at the heart of the referred-to thread, and are therefore demanding that I restate the entire three-page thread, for which forgive me please if I have better things to do.
And as far as me “condemning others for expressing a viewpoint that you were not cognizant of how and what they felt,” what I was doing was “condeming others” (if telling them they’re wrong is the same thing as condemning them) for–get this–“condemning others for expressing a viewpoint that [they] were not cognizant of how and what [homosexuals] felt.” So forgive the flame, but your post is A) misinformed in that you apparently didn’t read the previous thread, and B) hypocritical for condeming me for condemning them for condemning me (getting a sense yet of how long this could go on?).
If you want to label my vehemently defending myself from judgmental people as judgmental, fine, but I find that very judgmental of you. :rolleyes: Likewise, southern Blacks were very judgemental of the white establishment behind the Jim Crow laws. Spare me, hon, your indiscriminate use of such a flabby word.
As I recall, nobody attacked you. Even though it was in the Pit, nobody got nasty. (Except for you, of course.) Nobody judged you. A question was asked, and I (and others) attempted to answer it. That simple. I’m sorry if that offended you. Personally, I thought that’s what this board was all about.
What you all continue to refuse to understand is that when you live in a culture that condemns your existence, whenever someone blithely states that they support that status quo, and then disingenously hides behind the false innocence of the word “opinion,” it really is an attack.
Until you’ve lived a life where you feel you must constantly fight for recognition of your own humanity, you may never understand this.
Anyone who expresses an opinion that condemns the existance of any other person should be prepared for a defense. For you to be so fucking cavalier about expressing such condemnatory opinions just indicates to me either that you just don’t get it, or that you’re intentionally hurtful to others’ feelings.
And again…
You have a cheery outlook, don’t you? I can say with absolute certainty, that despite your obvious opinions, I do not and will not condemn your behavior, much less your existance. That would be against my moral code. However, I will concede that you have the right to believe that you think you know what I believe. You have the right to any misconception you choose to hold.
Thanks. I’ll try to be cheerier. :rolleyes:
I haven’t had much to add to this thread for a while, but I am curious about another thing…
A person is “fair minded” enough to not vote for any opressive or anti-gay laws, would vote for laws that helped promote fairness to gays, but yet still privately holds beliefs that “I don’t approve personally”. Would their personal opinions matter so much? They are taking pains to act in a fair manner towards you., after all. I don’t think their actions would be ones that promote the status qou, or condemn your existance.
To quote a previous statement:
So, if they have the opinion, but don’t promote it being legislated into another person’s life, that’s OK with you? I am assuming so from your statement, I guess I just want clarification.
Needless to say, I don’t ever expect you to like their opinion, I don’t expect you to not want to debate with them, when the opportunity arises.
Polycarp, it is the fact that we are bringing their thoughts into the motive in this manner that makes hate crime laws an attempt to legislate ones thoughts.
The fact that we are trying them for a crime that was committed is not the end of it. It is a seperate and harsher penalty to be prosectued under hate crimes laws, which therefore makes the motive either a seperate charge, or at best a stiffer penalty for the same offense without the designation.
Either way, the thoughts which led to the crims are what is being looked at, not the crime itself.
No, we have not yet legislated thoughts ipso facto as of now. And I won’t grease up the slope to say that it is something we might be headed towards either.
But we are making unpopular thoughts part of the legislative process with hate crime laws, make no mistake about it.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 17 hours, 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
5789 cigarettes not smoked, saving $723.68.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
I am quite clear that being gay is integral to your identity, your self-image, and I am not about to judge it. Nor, evidently, is Lauralee. Can you, despite that, make the distinction between who you are and what you do? I am fairly capable of that: I can decide to do things or not without feeling that my worth as a human being is thereby lessened. I think you are too.
Now, any person who condemns you for who you are is in my mind contemptible. And I have said as much on other threads. (Esprix, Sqrl, please bear witness to that!)
What Joe Christian (to manufacture a name) might say to you is that according to what he understands to be the Word of God, following your desires to have sex with another man is considered a sin. Not the only sin, just one among many. And not your having those desires, not your orientation as a gay person, not the fact that you may have your partner’s picture where someone else may have his wife and kids), not your desiring to love and be loved by another – and that other being another man. Just the sexual act. (Flag me where I’m wrong here, Christian followers of this thread.) There are self-righteous, judgmental types hiding under the banner of Christianity who would judge you for who you are. We are not talking about them.
And there are a large group of liberal Christians like me who feel that your love, expressed physically, is no more sinful than anyone else’s. And we’re quite happy to fight the judgmental types at your side. We hate that sort of discrimination.
But it does not seem too difficult to me for a person to see the line between actions and inner self, and to understand how someone might find one wrong without judging the other.
Complete, non-sexual parallel: my best friend’s younger brother just turned 18. His attitudes and lifestyle are such that I can see him heading for major trouble in a few years. I know him, inside, quite well – he has a warm and caring heart, less sense of responsibility than a young man his age should have but it’s there, a lot of hurt and anger from abuse and neglect in his younger life. I fully understand why he is rebellious. I am afraid for him, and warn him about where his actions are leading him. I am judging his actions. I care very much about him – I’m not judging him – the inner person.
Does that parallel illustrate the distinction I’m trying to draw a little better? Or are we still at odds over “us condemning you” – we aren’t, and I would withdraw the full argument if it were necessary (and I think Lauralee would too).
To reiterate – I want to see you happy and free of fear that who you are will be condemned by anybody. And I have no problem with your loving whom you want. But I think it is possible to tell you that an action you may wish to carry out is wrong without calling you evil in the process. And in my mind, that’s what SZ and LL were trying to do. Feedback?
Satan, you snuck that in while I was responding to Lissener’s last post. I completely agree with the premise you raise. But what would you suggest is the appropriate means of discouraging violence against minority members where that idea has reared its ugly head? I feel it needs to be done; I don’t have a clue how. As I’ve noted, I’m of mixed emotions about hate crimes legislation. I do not want to see another Matthew Shepard case – and there are a couple on the docket right now – one in rural West Virginia with some nasty overtones (BTW, the town as a whole pretty much liked the young gay victim and is very down on his killers – and this one hits home; the accomplice in the case is very likely a relative of one of my three former foster sons.) And of course there’s that guy from Texas killed for being black at about the same time Shepard was killed. I am quite frankly at a loss on what ought to be done, but I feel something should. Any of you that can take time out from misjudging each other’s words got any suggestions? :rolleyes:
You got it pretty good there.
My only objection, really, with any of it was being told that I had no right to that particular part of my moral code. I’m not asking you to live by it. I was simply answering a question. If you don’t want to hear the answers, don’t ask the question.
Yes, I would be more than happy to withdraw from the homosexuality debate with lissener. He obviously doesn’t like it, and I’m not especially into it. But… I refuse to agree that I have no right to believe what I believe. If those two debates can be seperated, then have at it.
I’m incapable of expressing the RAGE I feel at seeing this still be a part of this discussion.
I refuse to continue assuring you that no one is questioning your right to hold an opinion.
I refuse to continue repeating that I have as much right to tell you you’re wrong as you have to tell me I’m immoral.
I refuse to continue repeating the fact that my homosexuality cannot be separated from myself, and any condemnation–ANY CONDEMNATION AT ALL–of homosexuality is a condemnation of my existence. My behavior is not at issue here, because you do not know anything about my behavior. You are condemning me for–and only for–my self-identification as a homosexual. By your logic of continuing to pretend that a homosexual is separable from his homosexuality by invoking the irrelevant word “behavior,” a quadriplegic homosexual is more virtuous than a fully ambulatory homosexual.
Until you acknowledge the fact that saying you “love the homosexual but hate the homosexuality” is exactly–EXACTLY–the same thing as saying you “love the black person but hate their blackness”–until you acknowledge my right to protest that OPINION as loudly as I know how, which in no way infringes on your right to have archaic opinions, I’m not interested in debating any further.
In any case, I’m growing less and less interested in continuing to educate people who don’t appear very eager to be educated. I’m also growing more and more bored with posting on a single issue at SMDB: in the real world I’m more interested in talking about music and movies, science and art, than gay activism; it really rarely comes up for me in real life. So please: go, um, educate yourselves. Your opinions mean less and less to me with every ignorant post.
Esprix, Sqrl, Freyr, goboy, andygirl, et al.:
I regret to inform you that you must stop being homosexual. You see, homosexuality is identical with being lissener. And I would not any one of you confused with him.
You may, however, continue being gay. And if they ever reach a decision on the term, you may be queer if you like. And you can love whomever you want. And show that love in any way that suits the two (or more) of you.
And if any of you happen to see this, would you be so kind as to let lissener know that I do understand his point about gayness being an important part of his identity. He seems to have tuned me out.
I have not and will not preach anything about homosexuality being sin. I attempted to make clear the distinction that some well-meaning Christians who do think homosexual behavior is sinful try to make between the person and the action. I failed miserably.
End of rant.
**
Somewhere in the archives is a lengthy and quite intense hate crimes discussion. There I outline my position much better than I can here without digging again.
In a nutshell, I’ll say what I said to SqrlCub when he was in favor of the laws: I say we punish those who do these crimes to the fullest letter of the law. Too many times, people get off easier than they should because of lame judges, and that is reprehensible and needs to be changed.
It is quite sad, but a fact: Some of the penalties for the hate crime perpetrators already carry a death penalty for them (such as the case you mention). If this does not dissuade people, what next? Torture?
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 20 hours, 12 minutes and 53 seconds.
5793 cigarettes not smoked, saving $724.21.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
lissener: I agree with Polycarp. You are acting like an ass here, and really, what for? Because people don’t like that you suck dick? Like this is somehow a new thing for you to deal with? Dude, you’re lucky you’re alive now. As recently as 20 years ago, you would be a lot different i think.
I’m sorry that some people have issues with how you live your life. It sucks, but “rage” won’t make it go away.
I’m not gay, but here’s a newsflash: People have issues with how I live my life too.
My hair is too long. The language I use. The company I work for. The job I do. My weight. My love for the Yankees. My spiritual beliefs. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
I don’t sweat it. Rolls off my back.
You can’t even see with this “rage” of yours that you are becoming exactly what you despise. Someone dislikes how you love, you dislike how they think. How is that any different?
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 20 hours, 19 minutes and 14 seconds.
5793 cigarettes not smoked, saving $724.23.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
…Ah, there… that feels better…snicker Sorry, folks but that’s about how I feel on this issue. I have questions for both sides.
Satan: I basically agree and disagree with you about Hate Crime legislation. I don’t think it’s a way of criminalizing thoughts, but simply actions. However, how effective would it be? The people that murdered Matthew Shepard or Billy Jack Gathier or James Byrd did got the harshest punishment the law can give. I don’t believe hate crime legislation is effective tho. I don’t image any pounding the shit out of someone they loathe will stop and think wow, man! I could do serious time in prison for this!
I believe hate crime legislation came about because, all too often, these people were literally getting away with murder and judges were giving them a slap on the wrist and simply saying “boys will be boys”. I’m happy to see more prosecutors pressing for harsh punishments for harsh crimes. Sometimes I think they get carried away, tho. The whole “mandatory sentencing” for drugs crimes seems rediculous to me. But that’s an issue whole a whole 'nother thread.
Polycarp: Let me try Lissener’s arguement this way. Can you completely divorce yourself from the sexual side of your personality and still remain the same person? Can you become a completely non-sexual being and still remain Polycarp? That’s the point that Lissener’s trying to make. Our sexual expression is intertwined with our own psyche. Trying to separate out sexuality unravels the whole tapestry of our personality.
When people say “I hate homosexuality, but love homosexuals” they’re ripping away part of my personality.
After the ruling of the judge in the case of the man seeking refugee status in the States for fear of his persecution back home as a transexual, can you see my point?
For both Lauralee & PolyCarp, I ask my question again, the same one I asked in this thread and the Pit thread. If you say homosexuality is immoral (and I assume you’re quoting Leviticus on this) I feel I have the right to hold you to the same moral standard. Do you follow all the laws in the OT, too? Or are you simply picking out one and ignoring the rest that are inconvenient to you. I asked this of St. Zero and Lauralee earlier, but didn’t quite phrase it as a question, so it got ignored. Can you please respond?
Lissener Chill dude! 
Remember, these wonderful people are our friends! Believe it or not, they’re on ourside. While this is a point of contention, it’s not worth losing sleep over. Or losing friends, either. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.
Actually, I agree with what you are saying here. But isn’t this already somewhat SOP? Don’t we classify the various gradations of murder/manslaughter by intent as well? How is classifying murder one, murder two, and manslaughter by such qualifications as “malice aforethought” any different than dividing simple assault and a hate cimes by their motivations?
Freyr, I may not have made myself clear, so please read the following bolded statement, put in a quote box to make it stand out, though it’s my own words:
In my humble opinion, the proper behavior for anyone who considers himself a believer in God was summed up in two statements in the Torah (God being the speaker of record), quoted by Hillel, and commanded by Jesus:
Further reference to Jesus makes it clear that “neighbor” means every other human being.
As far as I am concerned, the second half of this is a good ethic for anybody who doesn’t believe in my God, either. At least it’s something Sqrl and I agree on.
I don’t think any of the other commandments in the Bible are necessarily binding on a Christian. They may give guidance in how to live up to those two, in which case they’re useful (ex: “Judge not, lest you be judged”). Or they may be total then-and-there items. For example, the prohibition of pork, the commandment to avoid intercourse during menstruation, the Pauline stricture about women wearing hats in church and the other one about them not talking during church. Some of them I think are pretty good ideas: I object to the idea of teenage girls and boys offering their bodies as temple prostitutes. And I feel strongly that nobody should gang-rape an angel anally (the only crime I see that meets the definition “Sodomy” except failure to be hospitable). 
In the infamous Christianity and Love thread, I cracked Esprix up with the following line:
Gaudere, ever the instigator, pointed out that she’d misplaced hers when very young, so she was glad to hear this. But you get the point.
Just in case anybody reading this has missed Lissener and Freyr’s point, consider the following:
As a married person, you spend most of your non-working hours with your spouse. You are expected to go to parties together, you count on him/her for solace when you are down, you have his/her picture in your wallet, you feel your life was less than full before you met him/her, he/she is a vital part of your life in far more ways than sexually. As a single person, you are likely to dream of meeting someone that would be all those things to you. Now consider what a gay person experiences.
Exactly the same feelings. Except that “society” thinks all he wants is sex. And prohibits him from marrying. (And the same for Lesbians, BTW – I was getting tired of him/hers.)
I get that fact. Loud and clear. And I’m for gay people falling in love, and for laws to allow gay marriages.
But I can understand how people who believe in the God who presumably gave them the Bible as a guidebook to behavior can see prohibitions against gay sexual activities in it as applicable. And they’re still honor bound to love Lissener and other gays as they do themselves. But to not practice behaviors commanded against in the Bible themselves, and help other people to see that they shouldn’t either. And that’s a far cry from the self-righteous judgmentalism that most gays think most Christians have. (Sometimes with cause, I’m sorry to say.) And I was hoping to get that point across to Lissener, because it’s my personal belief that how Christians react to gays and how gays accept their reactions is important to what happens in history in the next few years. And I seem to be one of the few people who can hear and empathize with both sides.
So I jumped into the frying pan. And Lissener turned up the heat.
I probably ought to apologize for the sarcastic post above. But I think I’ll let it stand. There is a difference between saying, “Hey, if you want my opinion, doing that will cause you problems” and “You’re detestable.” At least in my opinion.
And while, to repeat myself once again, I don’t agree with the “love the sinner, hate the sin” view of homosexuality, I can see how it can be ethically practiced by decent people. And I was hoping that I could explain that to Lissener. But he doesn’t appear to want to lissen. 
I searched the board for the thread so long ago when myself, SqrlCub and The Crimson Hipster Dufuz went at this one in one of my favorite threads to participate in. I could not find it, alas. I think it was archived before the switch in software and is not gone. Which is a shame, because I actually researched for posts in that tthread for the first time here.
Anyway, while searching for it, I came across a post from Spiritus Mundi in another thread about hate crimes which answered the “motive is already taken into account” question better than I could now:
The link to that discussion which died rather quickly is right here, and it also has a Cliff Notes version of why I am against Hate Crime laws.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 23 hours, 7 minutes and 56 seconds.
5798 cigarettes not smoked, saving $724.82.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 3 hours, 10 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]