Homosexuality

[dsheinem]

Late to the discussion. I mostly agree with mjmjr25.

...but not being gay. And somehow the idea of a few gay people getting married worries people more than the reality of tens of thousands of straight people getting divorced.

The divorce rate in the U.S. is appalling. In just about every church I've been to you'll hear the divorce rate preached as one of the greatest shames to the nation.

So why not start pushing for legislation defining marriage as a permanent life-long commitment and criminalizing divorce? You might hear about it in your church, but I don't see Focus on the Family trying to push the Republican party to "defend marriage" from this particular "sin".

Anyway, I am glad to see you join in the conversation too after yesterday's thread (same to you Forlorn and, of course, mjm). I'm glad to see that we can have a civil discussion, and I hope you feel that you can explain yourself here (knowing that you'll likely get into a debate) without the fear of being belittled.

[mjmjr25]

How does anything happening behind closed doors affect anyone else? How does my meth lab, that I use only for myself, in my own home that I own, behind closed doors affect anyone? It doesn't, it is a consensual action that I am taking on my lonesome.

C'mon Mike. You can do better than that and you know it.

Ummm, maybe, but it's the same idea, Colin. It doesn't matter what analogy I use, I don't think it will be quite understood by most participating in this thread. I truly do not distinguish it as a sinful act different from gambling, or adultery or murder. I don't. That is a tough thing to grasp for most. From David's last post, I see where he is coming from clearer. That he simply does not see concrete affirmation that Christ (not Christian practitioners of today) viewed homosexuality as sinful. I can appreciate that. I can also appreciate that as the son of a priest, he knows well that revelation tells us ad nauseum (as well as throughout the bible) that evil forces will attempt to betwixt and confuse what we know to be true.

I was at a similar point to where David may be right now with his faith. When I moved out, I went to college and took theology and world religions, read the Dhamaphada, Bhahagavad Gita, Koran, and Talmud, among other texts. I convinced myself that Christianity was just another way to control the behavior of a populace. I started to want to justify things I wanted to do (mainly drink and gamble) and I would point out to my mother that God admonished Moses's children when they did not cover him with a blanket, after he passed out drunk. I said, "See! If drinking is bad, then why did God admonish Moses, and not his sons? How do you say it is a sin?" And it took a long time (about 7 years of womanizing and drinking before I couldn't convince myself of that any longer). I read a book called "Letters from a skeptic" and it put things back in focus and cemented so many things I knew to be true, but for earthly pleasures, I wanted to believe were not.

I think many people see homesexual discrimination as something akin to racism, or ageism. I have no tolerance for either. I would hope that had I lived 200 years ago, my conviction would have been as strong.

I'm not agreeing to be at an impasse, David. I get to the point where the occasional post pops up that seems just utterly pointless (not from you or Colin) but some of the others, and it's like, "eh, i'm gonna go shoot something instead."

Debate with you and Flake (and a few others is always good for the soul )

[Hobie-wan]

And again, I don't see how what 2 people are doing in a room where you can't see affects you.

Again, because you do not view homosexuality as a sin, so I would not expect you to.

How does anything happening behind closed doors affect anyone else? How does my meth lab, that I use only for myself, in my own home that I own, behind closed doors affect anyone? It doesn't, it is a consensual action that I am taking on my lonesome.

When those two people leave that room, if it was consensual, it is very likely they'll have no detrimental effect to their health.

If you leave your 'personal only' meth lab there will be a definite effect on your health eventually. This is where my concern for your well being would step in.

[mjmjr25]

And again, I don't see how what 2 people are doing in a room where you can't see affects you.

Again, because you do not view homosexuality as a sin, so I would not expect you to.

How does anything happening behind closed doors affect anyone else? How does my meth lab, that I use only for myself, in my own home that I own, behind closed doors affect anyone? It doesn't, it is a consensual action that I am taking on my lonesome.

When those two people leave that room, if it was consensual, it is very likely they'll have no detrimental effect to their health.

If you leave your 'personal only' meth lab there will be a definite effect on your health eventually. This is where my concern for your well being would step in.

Exactly, Scott. That's what i'm saying. I believe that if those people were to die after engaging in that act, now this is going to upset people, but I believe they died with sin in their heart and as their last acts. There is no simple way to say it, so i'll be blunt. I believe they are damned to hell. That is not a fun thing to say. But that is how it affects me, as a person who loves all of God's children. Do not take this as phuey, or holier than thou attitued, or arrogance. It is how I try to live my life, Lord knows i'm not perfect, and I have hate in my heart at times, but I always ask God to help me with that hate, and to love my brother, for he is my brother. That is why it affects me, if we are saying that these things directly affect us. You care more about my physical health as a meth addict? I'd rather you care more about my eternal soul.

[DinnerX]

The way I see it, basically every law on the books comes from some sort of moral belief. Maybe it's a belief about how much money people should have. Maybe it's a belief about how how cautious people should be required to be.

Almost every law comes from the Code of Hammurabi. The goal was not morality, it was stable society. Morality as a reason to enact laws did not come into play until monotheism became a thing.

What exactly makes a society a stable society? It's still based on beliefs. An anarchist and authoritarian will both probably tell you they want a stable society.

[dsheinem]

From David's last post, I see where he is coming from clearer. That he simply does not see concrete affirmation that Christ (not Christian practitioners of today) viewed homosexuality as sinful. I can appreciate that. I can also appreciate that as the son of a priest, he knows well that revelation tells us ad nauseum (as well as throughout the bible) that evil forces will attempt to betwixt and confuse what we know to be true.

I was at a similar point to where David may be right now with his faith. When I moved out, I went to college and took theology and world religions, read the Dhamaphada, Bhahagavad Gita, Koran, and Talmud, among other texts. I convinced myself that Christianity was just another way to control the behavior of a populace.

That's the "prodigal son" narrative which is not really where I am, though those in the faith would probably always see me that way (it is a convenient fiction used to dismiss dissent).

Much of my departure from any established faith comes more from using the tools that I developed while in it (a keen sense of hermeneutics, an appreciation for context and history, cross-referencing sources, etc.), which largely taught me that religion in and of itself is little more than a set of moral guidelines which are enforced through the application of inconsistent rules and mandates "handed down from deities" as a "key to heaven" but enforced by those with something to gain. Is it possible there's a god? Sure, I wouldn't rule it out. Is it possible that "god" is anything like the one presented in the scriptures of any faith? I guess, but empiricism and history suggest to us that it is not likely.

I read a book called "Letters from a skeptic" and it put things back in focus and cemented so many things I knew to be true, but for earthly pleasures, I wanted to believe were not.

When you say you "knew" these things to be true, what do you mean by "know"? A gut instinct? How do you know it wasn't just pangs of regret for living immorally, and that you found religion to be a useful tool to refocus your life when you couldn't do it yourself?

[Forlorn Drifter]

I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but his popped in to my head and I can't help but bring it up.

I understand your views on homosexuality... now tell me, how do you feel about polygamy? Just to get a general consensus on how you guys feel about this. I think its a decent point to bring up. If homosexuality is okay, why can't I have 4 wives?

[Hobie-wan]

You care more about my physical health as a meth addict? I'd rather you care more about my eternal soul.

Well, to also put it bluntly I think we're all just worm food when we die and there's no such thing as a soul. So yes, I'd be concerned about your well being now as opposed to when your chemical and electrical processes cease. But even ignoring opinions on souls and what happens after death, making sure you aren't physically unhealthy now is also going to also help insure that you are mentally/spiritually healthy. So keeping you out of your lab would likely end up serving both beliefs in a positive manner.

[MrPopo]

The way I see it, basically every law on the books comes from some sort of moral belief. Maybe it's a belief about how much money people should have. Maybe it's a belief about how how cautious people should be required to be.

Almost every law comes from the Code of Hammurabi. The goal was not morality, it was stable society. Morality as a reason to enact laws did not come into play until monotheism became a thing.

What exactly makes a society a stable society? It's still based on beliefs. An anarchist and authoritarian will both probably tell you they want a stable society.

Beliefs, not moral beliefs. I could create a system of laws based purely on game theory that I believe would create a stable society. But that doesn't mean "morals" entered play. For example, take murder laws, which seem to exist in every society, though in different forms (one might be killing any person is murder, while another is only killing people inside the tribe is murder). There are two good explanations for having such a proscription against murder. The first is the traditional moral argument, which says that killing people is immoral (with various backings as to why, such as God said so, or that people have a right to life). The second is a game theory argument, which states that if I kill person A then his buddy person B will likely kill me. Similarly, if person A kills me then my buddy person Z will kill him. Thus, it is in our best interest not to kill each other.

As a result, you tend to see basic laws repeated across all cultures, regardless of religious affiliation; violations of person and violations of property are universal. These are the sorts of laws that are stabilizing to society.

Here's the thing that really gets me about opposition to gay marriage legislation. It confuses the religious state of marriage with the legal state of marriage. The religious state of marriage is the contract between the couple and their deity(s). The legal state of marriage confers certain benefits that are completely independent of the religious aspect. It gives things like changes to your tax filing, grants legal rights such as medical visitation, and allows for trivial inheritance at death, among other things. One can be legally married without having gone through any sort of religious ceremony. One can be legally married while violating every tenant of one's religious obligations of marriage. So I don't understand why the legal definition of marriage should be opposed due to the religious notions of marriage.

If homosexuality is okay, why can't I have 4 wives?

Personally I think polygamy is fine, as long as all parties involved can reach a mutual agreement. Today a guy and three girls (or the inversion, a girl and three guys) are allowed to live together and engage in all the activities a traditional married couple is able to but aren't allowed to be treated equally under the law. Just like with homosexuals I think they should be able to enter into the legal state of marriage.

[Hobie-wan]

I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but his popped in to my head and I can't help but bring it up.

I understand your views on homosexuality... now tell me, how do you feel about polygamy? Just to get a general consensus on how you guys feel about this. I think its a decent point to bring up. If homosexuality is okay, why can't I have 4 wives?

I'm pretty good at sharing most things in my life I think, but a single exclusive significant other is one case where I'm selfish. I have no desire for multiple female partners and once when I was in that available situation it didn't feel right. However if others wish to do so consentually, I guess whatever floats their boat. *shrug* I might just give someone the stink eye if they're hogging the goodies.