An objective standard to which we agree is by definition not self righteous. I’m talking about statements like “murder is wrong”. We can agree on on an objective definition of murder, and we’ve established a process, a trial, to test particular cases against the standard.
For me to confront someone who’s committed or contemplating the comission of a murder, I can judge their behavior and call it “wrong” by an objective, agreed-upon standard.
To claim that homosexuality (or preference switching) is “wrong” is a not based on an agreed-uponstandard. It’s certainly objective (homosexual practice can be objectively defined), but a judgement is based on the person’s internal assumed standards. To hold another to such a personal assumption is self-righteous.
Amusingly enough, judging a statement as self-righteous is itself an appeal to an agreed-upon objective standard. I’ve defined it objectively above, and I think that I have substantial agreement that such behavior is morally wrong.
Of course, an individual could respond that they do not agree, that they do not hold self-righteousness as incorrect behavior. In that case, my comment would be descriptive and not derogatory. The judgement is implicit in the definition and conditional upon the moral attitude of the listener.
Try telling that to 10 million Mormons, who happen to agree upon that idea. See, your “agreed-upon standards” and their “agreed-upon standards” are in conflict, yet both you and them see their point of view as both objective and agreed-upon.
Flinx: I mean agreed upon by the judger and the judgee. If I wish to judge your morality, I must judge it by according to an objective standard that you and I agree on. That’s why I stated way back that the “accusation” of homosexuality loses its moral derogation and becomes merely self-righteousness when the person judged repudiates the moral standard against the practice.
Okay, I think I see what you’re saying, SingleDad. All I know is, I certainly don’t want to judge anyone or be “self-righteous” or anything. I can really only judge myself adequately anyway…there are too many factors that I’m unaware of in others for me to judge them. I was just giving an example of someone who had changed his orientation (me) to refute the argument that sexual orientation can’t be changed. That’s all.
Oops! This cookie on my parents’ computer is still set as “peaches8” instead of “Flinx.” The above post and this post were made by Flinx, not Peaches8. I’ll have to figure out how to fix this. Sorry!
You seem to be confusing “people can (and should) change who they are attracted to by an act of will” with “people are sometimes attracted to different things in people at different times in their life”, Flinx. And why are Rose’s cookies on your computer anyhow, hmmm?
Gaudere, the way I’ve been taught all my life is that homosexuality is a weakness that should be overcome in the same way alcoholism should be overcome. Whether these weaknesses are genetically caused or not is irrelevant, at least to an extent. So yes, I believe that homosexuality should be fought against in oneself, and that Christ’s grace will make up the difference, after all we can do, in overcoming such weaknesses.
I realize, however, that there are some who, in spite of fighting it, simply cannot adequately overcome homosexual tendencies. For them, there will be provision made in the afterlife for them to have a decent chance to overcome these tendencies.
Here is an excellent article in the LDS church’s “Ensign” magazine by an LDS apostle, Dallin H. Oaks, on the subject of same-sex attraction:
(Oh, and Rose stayed here for a couple of weeks and we got to know each other, which is the main reason we’re getting married. She left behind her glass slippers (her cookies) on my parents’ computer, heh, and I didn’t realize it until I had posted under her name.)
I have to agree with Flinx on this one, mainly because he cited the Ensign and Dallin H. Oaks, perhaps one of the smartest, greatest men in the past 50 years, but that’s just my humble opinion.
This article completely and utterly is exactly what I have been trying to say in various threads, including Why Do so many people hate gays.
Even if you don’t agree with what is being said, I encourage everybody to read that article, so at least you all can know what I am coming from when I get in these debates.
One of the many differences between homosexuality and alcoholism is that alcoholism is harmful to both the alcoholic and those around him/her. Homosexuality does no more harm than heterosexuality, if it does any at all. Various religions often choose to label harmless (and even beneficial) things a “sin” based on the decree of some God, and whether this labeling is “utterly ridiculous” or “wholly righteous” seems to depend entirely on which religion you yourself belong to. I cannot agree with this decision, but it is near impossible to argue with a belief founded on faith rather than reason. The most I can hope for is to influence religions to emphasize the love in their teaching more than their hate, and to argue from the basis of compassion and honest doubt to urge them to hesitate when they have the power to outlaw and restrict acts and feelings that have no more evidence that they are harmful than the reported words of a certain God.
As I see it, your God is essentially saying an act with no more inherent harm to it than heterosexuality should be a sin, and the desire denied, on His word alone. It may make sense to you, but to me it is much as if He decided any other arbitary harmless desire was a sin, like enjoying talking to people of the same sex, or using a computer, or liking the color blue. Certainly a God that considered it a sin to like the color blue would probably be laughed at; heck, I’m even less impressed with a God seems so excessively concerned with what we do with our genitalia (sexual desire is also a heckuva lot stronger and more important to our lives than color preference, as well). He is supposed to be Love personified, yet he demands that harmless, joyous sexual love between two people be considered a failing and a sin because of their sex.
Homosexuality no more needs to be “overcome” than does atheism or Republicanism. Whether it’s a choice or a innate characteristic is really beside the point.
The point is that deprecating or derogating the manner in which a person expresses his or her sexuality is arrogant, self-righteous bullshit. It’s as contemptible and digusting as racism or anti-semitism. I don’t care in what phony biblical rationalization you wrap up your hatred, it’s still evil.
I’m surprised and disappointed that my truly Christian colleagues have not confronted those would represent their religion as evil and hateful.
I’m losing patience here. This is not an intellectual debate; it’s a fight against evil and oppression. I have no political talent. All I have is an intelligent mind and a small platform on this board. But I will fight my part the battle where and how I can: Here, and with logic and reason.
I have been guilty of promoting racism and homophobia in the past. I have overcome my ignorance and the evil it caused, in no small part because I was confronted with the contempt and disdain my actions deserved. There’s no one so rightous as a reformed sinner, and I’m proud to fit that stereotype here.
All right, call my God petty and me evil and hateful because of my beliefs (which do not include hatred of my fellow man, BTW, in spite of assertions to the contrary). I don’t throw rocks at homosexuals; I don’t call blacks derogatory names nor think them lesser than myself; I don’t burn witches at the stake; yet my “hatred” of homosexuals, which is non-existent, is again and again asserted by people who have no idea what they’re really talking about.
Homosexual fornication and heterosexual fornication are both sins. When I say sins, I don’t mean that the people who commit them are bad, evil people who should be condemned. I assert, however, that fornication hurts both partners in ways that are not immediately noticeable.
My church teaches that sexual sin has enormous impact on the lives of those involved, and even on the lives touched by the people involved. Thus, I believe that fornication IS harmful, much as murder is harmful, to those involved. That is a fundamental difference between our beliefs. You think it’s harmless; I think it’s harmful.
Do I have all the answers? Of course not. But I trust that the prophets are correct in their condemnation of the sin (not the sinners) of homosexual behavior.
So call me hateful, evil, bigoted, whatever, regardless of the falseness of these assertions, but I will believe what I will believe. I have tasted the punishments associated with sex sin, and have found them really awful. I will avoid sex sin. Y’all do what you want, but just remember that there are natural consequences that are not readily apparent immediately after the sin is committed. God cannot change these consequences, so He has warned us against them. Once again I will say, I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
Unfortunately, Flinx, there is no proof that homosexuality is inherently any more harmful than heterosexuality. If a behavior makes you, personally, unhappy and you choose to avoid it and think it wrong for you, fine. But I don’t see any evidence that Esprix or Otto or matt_mcl are doing themselves harm, and I most certainly do not see them harming the people around them. Even if they were, we certainly allow people to harm themselves; we know the dangers of smoking, but people are free to smoke. And I’ve never heard of anyone getting cancer from second-hand homosexuality. Saying that “there’s no proof this causes harm, but my church says so, so it does,” is not very convincing.
I don’t think you’re evil or hate gays. I realize that you are certain that your faith is correct, but so is everyone else. Unless you think it acceptable for someone else’s religious beliefs deny you, say, the right to marry the person you love simply because you do a harmless thing that that religion says is a sin, I would urge you to hesistate when it comes to voting to deny rights to homosexuals.
BTW, when’s the wedding? Did I miss a MPSIMS thread?
Well, Gaudere, I’m not going to quote scripture at you, but let me just say that, according to LDS doctrine, the penalty for unrepentant fornication (homosexual OR heterosexual) is a “second death,” or a death as to things pertaining to righteousness. In other words, you become unable to be spiritual. This may not sound too bad, but believe me, I’ve experienced it in part and still am, to an extent, and it is awful beyond words.
Of course people are allowed to harm themselves; no one is denying them that right. I don’t think I would vote against people having the right to smoke cigarettes in a place where their second-hand smoke wouldn’t harm anyone. But I would vote against them having the “right” to smoke around non-smokers who don’t want lung cancer from that second-hand smoke.
As for voting against gay marriage, I think I will, but with reservations. In other words, I’d rather not, but if my church asks me to, I have faith that the Prophet knows what he’s talking about. As I said, I don’t know all the answers, but I trust the Prophet(s) and believe them to be inspired.
As for the wedding, we haven’t set a date yet. We’ll have to talk it over, figure out when we can get a decent apartment, etc. We’ll let you know.
Hm, and I suppose any homosexuals who say that they are very spiritual and happy must be just fooling themselves? You set up a definition of harm that cannot be proven wrong; homosexuals can’t be spiritual, so if they say they are, they must be fooling themselves. Well, I say that anyone who likes blonde men can never be truly happy, and if you like blonde men and seem happy, well, you’re just fooling yourself and aren’t really happy. I trust you can see why this is not a killer argument. Also, if your comment about second-hand smoke was meant to imply that there is even a shred of evidence that one person’s homosexuality hurts other people I’m going to laugh my ass off.
Congratulations on the wedding plans. [unasked for advice]Now, don’t go rushing in to anything; you’re planning on forever, right, so what’s waiting a bit? I’ve just seen too many of my friends rush into marriage and now they’re going though divorces.[/unasked for advice] And remember what I said about having it during ski season!
Nope, they probably are very spiritual and happy. For a season. But, IMHO, if we don’t repent of our sins and live the gospel of Jesus Christ, then eventually we’ll reap disappointment. For most unrepentant sinners, they die the second death AFTER their mortal, physical death. So we can be happy, but it isn’t lasting happiness unless we center our lives around the gospel of Jesus Christ and live according to His teachings.
Well, again you have to distinguish between homosexual feelings versus homosexual behavior. Fornication always hurts both partners, IMHO. Adultery, whether homo or hetero, always hurts both partners AND their families. IMHO.
It may very well be that time before we do get married, I don’t know. We haven’t discussed concrete plans, but I think you’re right. We do need to take it slowly. Thank you for the advice–I think it’s very good.
(yes, its really Me this time, my cookies were apparently eaten by Bill…)
I guess ya can’t start a thread for Zion here, …he just won’t show up! And where Was he anyway? Adam…
I didn’t call you or any other specific person or belief evil and hateful. But if the shoe fits, wear it.
I have been happily fornicating for twenty years. I have yet to notice any harm to come to me or my partners from the activity myself. If any latent harm is implicit in the activity, it’s certainly taking its time to show itself. Some people may not find fornication to their taste. It is certainly not the right lifestyle for them, and they risk their temporal happiness by engaging in behavior to which their nature is unsuited. But that is not itself evidence that the lifestyle or behavior itself is harmful.
Why does homosexual fornication seem to get all the attention? Given that only 3-10% of the population is homosexual, it seems that heterosexual fornication is much more common. Are the churches going after homosexuals because they’re just an easier target? The “sin” of fornication (as opposed to homosexuality) is cured by marriage. To deny a homosexual the benefit of marriage is to make impossible a righteous form of expression of their sexuality. Such a contradiction seems to expose an especially cheap rationalization.
Murder is objectively harmful. There is no evidence that fornication in itself is objectively harmful. To equate the two is to elevate your internal beliefs to the state of objective fact.
I’m absolutely not interested in your superstious beliefs. If one wishes to adopt the idea that a particular behavior is unsuitable for him and wishes to refrain from engaging in it, well good for him. But when one arrogantly and self-righteously elevates one’s personal superstitions to be equivalent to fact and smugly asserts one’s moral superiority, he does nothing but demonstrate his lack of intelligence and character.
I am deprecating neither you nor your beliefs. I am calling evil and bigoted the assumption that such beliefs are equivalent to objective facts and their application to people who do not hold those beliefs.
An assertion without a shred of evidence to support it. Again, such practices might not be correct for you, in which case do not engage in them yourself. But unless I am mistaken, no one has appointed your personal nature the universal touchstone of ethical behavior; to assert the contrary shows nothing less than incredible arrogance.
Gaudere:
Not only is there no proof, there’s really not any evidence. Not only is such an argument “not convincing” but it’s fallacious on its face.
Flinx:
I have consciously adopted a philosophy of non-spirituality. I’ve experienced it and it is liberating and empowering. Different strokes…
This assertion is clearly false. Many people are attempting to criminalize homosexuality, or to oppress homosexuals by denying them ordinary civil rights. I’m not just talking about the right to marry, I’m talking about the right to hold a job and to occupy a residence. The passage of Amendment 2 (to overturn ordinary local civil rights laws) in my own home state proves my point. To support such efforts, even abstractly, is to participate in such oppression.
This statement disturbs me deeply. At least the honest bigot displays personal integrity and speaks his own mind. I have nothing but contempt for someone who abrogates the dictates of their own conscience to an external authority. Take responsibility for your actions. Don’t try to slough off the responsibility on the church.
At what point does such a person reassert their own authority? When the church asks them to deny “important” civil rights, such as the the right to hold a job? The right to occupy a residence? The right to vote? The right to speak freely? The right to liberty? The right to life? If one’s church and one’s priests’ interpretation of teh “inspired Prophets” tells you to find homosexuals and murder them, would you do it? Are you absolutely certain they would not ask that of you?
Let me make this perfectly clear. I don’t care and it’s none of my business what beliefs you hold and what practices you consider suitable or unsuitable. I would offer my blessing, except that my opinion of your lifestyle is (or should be) absolutely irrelevant. It is not my place to condone or condemn. So long as you observe the ethical and legal agreements of our culture, society and government, I have nothing to say about your lifestyle, either in approval or disapproval.
Let me offer this analogy: I am strongly tempted to become a professional musician. I love music, and the idea of being able to perform it strongly attracts me. But I know what it’s like to have talent, and I know I don’t have talent at performing music. It’s just not in my nature. For me to attempt a lifestyle as a profession musician would bring me nothing but heartbreak and grief. Thus I draw back from the temptation, even to the extent of not often listening to music because I know, for my own good, that I must not give in to the temptation.
But it would be absurd and incomprehensibly bizarre for me to assert that my own nature, my own lack of talent, has any external relevance. For me to thus call the practice of professional music a “sin” would justifiably expose myself to nothing but ridicule and contempt.
