Homosexuality

[Breetai]

I'm done debating, i'm sorry i've offended people, truly. I knew the potential existed, so this probably should've been debated in PM's, maybe, dunno.

...

Again, sorry to have hurt feelings.

Maybe I'm biased since I'm on your side of the faith thing, but I don't see how anything you're written here is directly offensive to anyone. Yes, people might be offended by the Christian teaching that same-sex... sex is sinful and an "abomination before God", but all you did was convey that and say that you were of the same system of belief that teaches that acting upon homosexual urges is sinful. I think that you have shown yourself to be respectful of others, although you have certainly been unwilling to entertain the notion that you could be wrong (and I know why and would not expect that you would do otherwise). Then again, plenty of people here with an opposing viewpoint have displayed that same unwillingness on the other side of the fence.

I have also noticed that some of the responses to this have displayed a lot of ignorance, intolerance and could easily been seen as offensive.

ALL of this is to be expected in a thread like this. I'm sure dsheinem must have expected there would be some heated posts when making this thread. If anyone posts in this thread, I think they need to be aware that their views may very well be challenged and that they are likely to feel offended and attacked. It goes with the territory.

All in all, I don't think this thread has really gotten too bad. I've seen much worse!

[optmusprimenumber]

If anything, I believe others have been more intolerant of Christian beliefs in this thread...

just in case i've been misread as intolerant, i'd just like to point out that i was merely looking to hear about peoples' convictions, in some instances in the face of disbelief; the whats and the whys and whys for the first whys. meant no offense at all.

[BurningDoom]

If anything, I believe others have been more intolerant of Christian beliefs in this thread...

just in case i've been misread as intolerant, i'd just like to point out that i was merely looking to hear about peoples' convictions, in some instances in the face of disbelief; the whats and the whys and whys for the first whys. meant no offense at all.

Nah, the last paragraph of that post I mention that I don't think it was bad and that everyone has been pretty respectful of everyone else. I was just trying to press the point that mjmjr25 was far from offensive, IMO.

[optmusprimenumber]

roger dodger

good talk guys, good talk

[Breetai]

Well, the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself." Good thing that everyone should follow, even if they don't believe in their creator.

[Michi]

Is it just me, or does it sort of feel like this thread is coming to an end?

When it does, does that mean we should all take part in a giant Racketboy group hug to show there are no hard feelings?

Don't mistake passionate for ornery.

I always just assumed you liked a good verbal joust, myself

[Jrecee]

To believe in a religion is to believe in something that was created and practiced by/for a society that is not our own. To have religion in our modern society, and yet function acceptably in it, requires one to live in a hypocritical fashion. Depending on your upbringing, and individual personality, it may be easier or harder to reject or accept certain things. All this is to say, that the only way that someone who has beliefs such as mjmjr's, can possibly answer some of the questions you are asking, is to suddenly overcome the contradictory nature of everything he has been taught in life. No easy task. I'm not suggesting that anyone should stop asking questions, just that the frustration of not getting the answers that seems so obvious to atheists, can lead to harsher tones or arguments, which doesn't accomplish anything.

However, some of the answers to these questions have been more vague than illogical, it feels like political debate dodging at many points in this discussion.

[foxhound1022]

I'm not really sure what I can add to this, so I'll just say that I try not to be a judgmental person, for that is not our place to do so. One is only measured by the content of their character, so things such as sexual orientation mean little to me; what someone does with the life they have been given is their own solumn business. I was raised up Catholic, so obviously the traditional stigmas were taught and reiterated time and time again.

I'm not really sure as to what lies beyond this gritty exterior, if anything at all, but I try to live my life in a way that is not malicious toward others, and help those I care for in any reasonable means. I'm one who is very inclined to believe that which is tangible, and can be proven; so in this the theory of "energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred", can be percieved in relation to the life force which drives us; our souls, ki, chi, what-have-you.


@Mike - I know it was not your intent at all to offend anyone; you were simply conveying your beliefs on this particular topic. I've conversed with you in PM's, and there was never any perception of hatred or ill-will toward anyone at any time that I noticed. You seem to be a level-headed man whose judgment is sound IMO.


@Bone - I know I've only been a member here for a short while, but through all of the topics I've read, I can see that you are a man of strong principles, and we all hope that you would continue to remain a part of this community; if not, then I wish you the best of luck, friend.


I think that beliefs are a good thing to have, but in the same turn I also believe that religion and the associations that go with them can be used in either a benevolent or malevolent fashion. They can clothe the poor, feed the hungry; but also mislead those who wish to seek favor with the powers that be to commit depicable acts "In the name of God". So it is better for one to acquire knowledge and form one's beliefs on their own, rather than simply accept what has been handed to them, and attempt to live in a manner that is peaceful, and try to participate in what is a more complete and unified society.

I know I'm probably just rambling, and not making any sense, but this is just what I'm thinking at this juncture.

[Jrecee]

The core of this topic, if I'm assuming correctly, is "even if your religion/beliefs are against homosexual marriage, why would you, if required, cast a vote to limit that freedom. And if that is what you would do, can you not see how that would be looked down on by others, because you are in essence, enjoying the freedom of religion that our country grants, while at the same time denying that right to others."

Correct? I mean, That seems to be what everyone was getting at towards the beginning, and I haven't seen it satisfactorily answered. But maybe it won't be, due to the reasons I said above.

[dsheinem]

The core of this topic, if I'm assuming correctly, is "even if your religion/beliefs are against homosexual marriage, why would you, if required, cast a vote to limit that freedom. And if that is what you would do, can you not see how that would be looked down on by others, because you are in essence, enjoying the freedom of religion that our country grants, while at the same time denying that right to others."

Correct? I mean, That seems to be what everyone was getting at towards the beginning, and I haven't seen it satisfactorily answered. But maybe it won't be, due to the reasons I said above.

That's something like what I was getting at, but the questions were specifically worded as they were because they could be tackled one at a time. What I think I learned, mostly from mjm and DinnerX and somewhat from BurningDoom:

1) Is this disapproval strictly grounded in (Christian) religious teachings?

-"Yes."

2. How do you reconcile your disapproval of homosexuality as a "choice" with scientific evidence that supports the biological/genetic existence of homosexuality?

-"Lots of biological/natural urges are dangerous to the individual and society and treated as such. Homosexuality is no different: it causes harm. Science suggesting otherwise is likely incorrect science."

3. What is meant by "disapproval" anyway?

-"It means that we'll "bear witness" to disapproving of homosexuality (when asked) and vote/speak against any state efforts to legalize (and thus legitimize) anything related to it."

----

To try and summarize my objections to these answers:

1. The interpretation of Christian teachings on homosexuality as such are theologically contested and this uncertainty should serve as a reason to doubt the legitimacy of one's disapproval.

2. Homosexuality does not cause harm by any definition other than a particular religious one (a specific interpretation). Accepting scientific research for many things while disregarding science only on those issues where you find it inconsistent with your beliefs is disingenuous.

3. "Bearing witness" of that disapproval through any actions that push to institute God's law at the state level and apply it to everyone is tantamount to endorsing theocracy.


There is more stuff pulled out in the thread, obviously, but since you asked about the OP, it seemed a good place to summarize the arguments stemming from those specific questions. I have tried to characterize them fairly, and I think they reflect the impasses we reached on the questions posed. For me, I felt I reached a point where further dialogue was pretty much futile, as the basic underlying logic on the two sides is seemingly unbridgeable.