Sorry - this is my 3rd post and I still havent figured out how to add the “originally posted by” part to the quote itself.
I have not seen any credible study indicating that homosexuality is a directly inherited trait.
I didn’t realize that you felt morally obligated to “help” all homosexuals you come into contact with. May I ask what form your help generally takes? Do you consider simply telling a gay person that they are “wrong” for engaging in sexual behaviour to sufficiently fulfill your moral obligation to them or do you “help” them further?
Second, you’re wrong. Let’s take, for example, a fundy that believes that homosexuality is a sin but truly does follow the “hate the sin, love the sinner” mandate. This person would never bash anyone or advocate bashing, and would indeed step in to prevent bashing if s/he witnessed it.
How is this view “inherently harmful” to homosexuals?
Is the fundy’s view that stealing is a sin also inherently harmful to thieves?
I don’t think you’re (capable of) thinking this through correctly.
Second, you’re wrong. Let’s take, for example, a fundy that believes that homosexuality is a sin but truly does follow the “hate the sin, love the sinner” mandate. This person would never bash anyone or advocate bashing, and would indeed step in to prevent bashing if s/he witnessed it.
How is this view “inherently harmful” to homosexuals?
Is the fundy’s view that stealing is a sin also inherently harmful to thieves?
I don’t think you’re (capable of) thinking this through correctly.
I’d say it’s due to cultural oversaturation of the issue.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in my view, those who aren’t directly involved (i.e., those who are not gay/lesbian or who don’t have a perceived interest in issues of gay rights) see gay issues as just another ultra-controversial topic in the pantheon of abortion, gun control, fiscal policies, etc.
Combine that with the fact that in popular and political commentary, the arguments on these issues often relate to legalism and other societal consequences. Consider “Marriage Protection Week”, where talk about “the sanctity of marriage and family”, etc., was just another brick in the wall being built to prevent gay marriage.
So in debates of these issues anywhere, it’s easy to view talk of the morality of homosexuality (or the alleged lack thereof) as some sort of political statement.
Because many people think that it’s hypocritcal and/or impossible to “love the sinner and hate the sin.” Or at least believe that both are equally harmful.
Because the more people who think homosexuality is a sin, the more accepted and easy it becomes for other people (at least, in this first example, without your hypothetical fundy’s qualms) to bash gay people (not to mention get away with it) or pass laws that restrict the rights of gay people or simply socially reject/berate gay people, which, as you’ve seen in past threads, is hugely harmful.
Re: the people acting that way in the other thread. They’re assholes, plain and simple. And control freaks to boot. They can’t take it that other people refuse to kiss their ass and tell them what they want to hear so they do whatever they can do put them down. Heaven forbid someone out there have an opinion that they didn’t pre-approve.
Labeling is big with 'em. “Homophobe, human trash, fuckwad, etc. etc.” The same words they label other people with are the same words that they want to be labeled as “hate speech” when someone uses them to refer to someone gay. They’re fucking hypocrites, and that’s why ANY chance they had for me to hear them out went out the window a long time ago. There are nice gay people on these boards, just as in real life, but as far as the asshole ones on this board are concerned, fuck 'em.
As an abstraction, this is perfectly fine. However, practical experience shows that human beings as a group are not capable of practicing such noble self-control and discretion. People discuss how much they hate the sin, and sometimes the sinners, with others they assume feel the same way. Kids who hear their parents’ opinions aren’t mature enough to distinguish between sin and sinner and therefore think they’re doing a good thing by abusing and ridiculing the gay kid(s).
On an ideal, individual basis, one can argue that no harm comes from a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. On a practical, society-wlde basis, however, it’s pretty easy to see how abuse of gay teens is a pretty consistent and predictable result.
Thanks, SnoopyFan. Hundreds of people who are on the fence on this issue are going to read your post, decide that they don’t want to be associated with the likes of you, and join in on the gay rights side of things.
Stealing:
[list=1]
[li]Takes property/money from unwilling people causing them financial harm.[/li][li]Is a choice someone makes. Nobody is born a natural thief who is forced by nature to break into your house and steal something.[/li][li]Can lead to directly violence when the people resist the thievery and such.[/li][/list=1]
Homosexuality:
[list=1]
[li]Is between the gay person and another consenting adult. If you are going to say they harm you by getting The Gay on you, you have issues. If you are going to say that they’re destroying marriage, then perhaps you can explain in what way marriage is damaged. If you think it’s a sin, perhaps you can explain what makes it evil and whatnot.[/li][li]Is not a choice according to all of the gay people I know, and most of the people on this board.[/li][li]Harms nobody except when fuckwits attack homosexuals. Which wouldn’t happen if the poorly-based view that being gay is evil wasn’t continually transferred like a disease.[/li][/list=1]
Perhaps not the best comparison, eh?
So, I’m going to have to go with Binarydrone said with, “You seem to be unable to tell the difference between an unpopular view and one which is inherently harmful to other human beings. How sad for you.”
On preview: Too much coffee for me, can’t hold the mouse steady to aim and click. :smack:
(When “being gay” is a sin,) There is the question of what happens to the self-worth of a child, gay, who grows up hearing this from his parents and community. “It’s a sin to be gay! Oh, you’re gay, son? Well, I still love you, but you’re broken, and wrong in the eyes of God.”
And some psychologists might question the merit of suppressing sexual expression. Permanently. Or, as long as possible, followed by release and feelings of guilt over sin and lack of self-discipline. I think they used to worry that we were giving our kids neuroses by telling them this about masturbation.
Since the prevalence of this view would add ot the support for laws banning thievery, and the perception among thieves that they must change, and that they are hurting society by being thieves, then yes, it is harmful to thieves, in that they would feel bad, and perhaps abandon their ways. But the comparison is invalid, considering that thieves can stop thieving, and return to a life of being ordinary citizens. As far as I know, gays cannot stop kissing each other and simply become straight. Nor can they manufacture the desire for hetero-sex that would bring them into that category. Gay is gay, not Gay is as Gay Does. You’re gay whether you kiss the boys or not. And of course, gays aren’t actually harming anyone the way thieves are.
Well, actually, maybe they are. I suppose their actions (being gay without hurting people - or even acting on gay feelings without hurting people) are harming fundamentalists, by providing a counterexample to their tenet that they are the only posessors of the formula for a righteous, fulfilling, acceptable and unhurtful way of life. This type of harm is called “Forcing them to accept reality on at least the level of silent acknowledgement” and is in some jurisdictions a capital offence. As far as I can see, the only harm by homosexuality I’ve seen a fundamentalist be able to claim: some vague ‘corruption of morals’ or of society by its very existence, or, if it be allowed to exist, by their apparence. In this, I can only conclude that the flaw is in fundamentalism, which as an ideology is apparently so fragile that the existance of a counterexample to it is enough to convince its followers’ children to ‘corrupt themselves’ and abandon it. (Or to fiercely reject the counterexample’s existence or validity, but here we delve into stubbornness, not reason)
But the inherent harm isn’t even the question, even if we can show that it’s a ridiculous argument. the question is whether gays, like thieves, choose to be who they are. Thieves became thieves when they chose to steal. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are affectionate with their own gender becasue they are gay; they are not gay simply by the virtue of having kissed a boy.
A distinction which many opposed to homosexuality (including, but not limited to, those who rabidly fear being ‘come on to’) fail to understand. Gay is Gay. Thief is as Thief Does.
Everyone is capable. Sometimes they need help from people with other ideas. That’s why they come to the boards: to play Socrates.
I was thinking about this and I think I’ve hit on a key difference. I’m sure there are any number of people who read threads about people who they think are doing something morally wrong but keep their mouths shut about it out of respect for the thread and the poster.
Let me give you a concrete example. As it happens, I believe having children out of wedlock is morally wrong. I realize that children sometimes result from having sex with someone you’re not married to, but that does not change my firmly held moral belief that doing so is wrong, sinful, etc. What Snoopyfan, debaser, etc. did is, to me, the equivalent of me going into a thread where someone is talking with joy about the anticipated birth of a child and saying that they shouldn’t be happy because I think what they’re doing is wrong. Since the pregnancy is already a fact and I think abortion is more wrong than having a child outside of wedlock, my saying so would accomplish nothing but harm unless I somehow managed to put things in such a way that someone reading the thread would think twice before getting pregnant while not married or engaged.
One other thing that gets me in particular is an issue I raised in the OP. Mr. Visible’s nephew stands to get harangued and harassed for a sin which, I assume, he has not yet committed – homosexual activity. Given the sins that are condemned in the same passages which are read as condemning homosexual activity, I don’t understand why people are apparently given a free pass when committing sins (I’m thinking gossip, malice, and slander) in their treatment of someone who has so far only expressed the temptation to sin (given, of course, that homosexual activity, is sinful). If being tempted to sin is the same as committing a sin, I think I might be in the market for a new religion after all!
Siege, if I were a man – or if we were both gay – I’d marry you. Well, no, I wouldn’t marry you if we were gay, because we couldn’t get married, because somehow that would hurt somebody. But um, I would hug you and kiss you and squeeze you and pet you.
TaxGuy, I see that other posters have chimed in and (I hope) given you some things to think about concerning this argument, but I will go ahead and share my 2 cents.
First, although we like to think that every thought and moral belief holds equal value (just so long as no one is hurt), the fact is that this is not true. Some opinions are simply wrong, and some moral beliefs are as well.
My assertion is that the belief that homosexuality is wrong or sinful is not only factually incorrect, but that it is also inherently harmful. This is not a matter of a view that is simply unpopular here at the SDMB.
It is inherently harmful because people that hold this belief are voting for congressman who author the defense of marriage acts, raising children to be ashamed of their sexuality and in general contributing to the atmosphere of oppression experienced by sexual minorities. This is a bad thing.
So, when I say that you seem incapable of distinguishing between something that in inherently harmful to a group of people and something which is simply not a popular point of view I mean just that. There is a huge and vitally important difference.
Finally, I feel compelled to mention that when you attempt to use theft as an analogy to make your point or when homosexuality is placed on the same plane as alcoholism (by another poster) you are basically on a slightly higher part of the same slippery slope occupied by the folks that attempt to compare it to pedophilia or bestiality. Not really the best company to keep.
So, if this is a fact… you can demonstrate it, right? Or is it just your opinion after all?
Well, if you could demonstrate that holding the view that homosexuality = sin implies the things you’ve claimed it implies, you would be onto something. But of course, the belief that homosexuality = sin doesn’t translate into the belief that homosexuals should be an oppresssed minority, that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, that they may be legitimately be discriminated against, and whatnot. I grant your point regarding the raising of children.
Hence, your factual assertions are in need of substantiation. Which places you in the company of people who attempt to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or beastiality. Not really the best company to keep. :rolleyes:
It couldn’t possibly be because we’ve put up with this for much too long. It couldn’t possibly be because pieties about other people’s sex lives have been used for centuries to deny us our equality. It couldn’t be the number of times someone’s private moral code has been used as the structures under which we must live. It can’t be because of the number of us who grew up underneath Bible verses used as clubs. It can’t be because personal disgust has been used to justify murder.
First, pardon my grammar; I’d forgotten that how a post’s grammar is constructed is FAR more important than the content.
Secondly, maybe i'm missing something here, but why am I obliged to be interested in gay relations? I'm straight, I was born straight, I didn't learn to be straight. I didn't learn a dislike of homosexual P.D.A.s, I simply find the practice a little gross as i'm straight. Like I said before, it's not wrong, or deviant, it's just not my cup of tea, and i find it a turn-off.
