The issue of gay intolerance

[ladybri77]

Actually, I think the real question addressed by this thread is more along the lines of:

Whether or not you consider something a sin, do you have the right to impose a religious definition of sin onto secular laws that affect people who do not share your religious beliefs?

Well, marriage in itself has had the same definition almost forever in the U.S. So, people who like to stick with the basic foundational institution of our nation will probably have a problem with a minority group coming along and changing the sole basis for it in the first place - procreation and the natural law of man, don’t you think?

Also, if we open the door for immorality in any of our laws, it will eventually affect our whole society, as it already has with kids being forced to read books about homosexuality in schools which says it’s okay, against what the parents are trying to teach their kids and just opens the door for more immorality to come in, like legalizing incest, polygamy, etc.

It will affect all of society.

 

[rossum]

Yes, the legal definition of marriage has changed,

And the legal definition may change in future. In some states it has already changed.

We will not sit idly by and watch a basic foundational institution/sacrament go unchallenged and see our country dissolve into hedonism along with the family.

You have the right to vote and to present your arguments as you wish. So does the other side.

I would suggest you ask God to tell you what truth works and which are absolute.

I am Buddhist so I see all the gods as irrelevant to my path. If they are not enlightened then they know less than the Buddha. If they are enlightened then they will tell me the same as the Buddha.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

"ladybri77:

Who knows where this legalizing same sex marriage will lead to next in the U.S. Maybe legalizing polygamy? Incest? We have a moral obligation to stand up for morality and vote against laws which stand for immorality and against the common good. Civilized rings a bell.

This is a slippery-slope argument.

Very true.
fairytail:

At least you didn’t mention bestiality, as others (including earlier in this thread) have done.

And why not? The “slippery-slope argument” is a valid argument, and can easily be shown by history to be a valid representation of what happens when you let the camel’s nose in under the tent - pretty soon you got the whole camel in with you.

In the case of homosexual marraige, if you allow marriage for homosexuals, then you have no legal, or logical, basis to deny polygamy, incest, or even bestiality. As horrendous as the the possibility is, it still exists. Even a man in the state of Maine tried to marry his dog.
fairytail:

But the fear that one type of legislation will lead to another is, in itself, not a reason to vote against marriage rights for same-sex couples. It is a specious argument.

Or, rather, you’d like to claim that it is. It is a very powerful argument, precisely because we can look back in time at our own nation, and even within our own lifetimes, and see the result of the sexual revolution on our own lives.
fairytail:

And if you accept the premise that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are just and fair, then you need to justify this based on secular law and secular society - not just Church teachings.

This is a false argument, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere. The laws in our country are made by ALL CITIZENS, and reflect their beliefs and values. You CANNOT separate the religion from the state, any more than you can separate the religion from the man. It’s a fallacy, and one that secularists have done very well in fooling others to accept.
fairytail:

It is unfortunate that the same term, “marriage,” is used to refer not only to the religious sacrament, but also to the secular legal contract.

For you, perhaps? Not for those of us who are religious, and who recognize that we cannot separate our beliefs from our decisions when we enter into the voting booth. The fact is, the reason that the state uses the term “marriage” is because the several states in the United States, from the very earliest of times, found it necessary to support the concept of marriage, and to regulate it alongside of the church. Why? Because when families fall apart, society does too. You cannot isolate the family from the society, because the family is the bedrock of society.
fairytail:

And while the Church certainly does have the right and authority to regulate sacramental marriage, that authority should not extend to regulating the secular legal contracts of others. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” would apply.

And the Church’s authority does not extend into the realm of the State. The Church teaches its adherents the right way of living, who in turn live out their lives in a dualistic fashion - residing in the world, but having citizenship in Heaven. It’s preposterous to believe that somehow Christians should not reflect their values in the society that they live in.

 

[ladybri77]

And the legal definition may change in future. In some states it has already changed.

You have the right to vote and to present your arguments as you wish. So does the other side.

I am Buddhist so I see all the gods as irrelevant to my path. If they are not enlightened then they know less than the Buddha. If they are enlightened then they will tell me the same as the Buddha.

rossum

Jesus is definitely enlightened above all other gods!

 

[PEPCIS]

By calling homosexuality an “internal disorder,” you are passing judgment.

Oooooooo!! (extreme sarcasm on)
fairytail:

I’m not saying you are wrong to do so, but I think there is a danger in furthering the notion that you aren’t being judgmental.

I would say that fbr1221 is not being any more “judgmental” than are YOU.
fairytail:

The American Psychological Association corrected their stance on homosexuality being a psychological disorder about 35 years ago.

The fact is, The APA is wrong, and this is not the only time that they have been wrong on this issue. They changed their stand on homosexuality by dropping homosexuality from the category of aberrancy in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Revision Version III.

This action, by the APA was in spite of the abundance of established psychoanalytic and psychological knowledge on human sexual behavior. They had absolutely no scientific grounds for their action.
fairytail:

. . . homosexuals are people who are not “disordered” but who simply have different desires and on at least one issue, different values than you do.

LOL “Different desires”? Yeah, how about DEVIANT and ABERRANT desires? Just because the APA excluded such definitions from the DSM does not mean it is not so. You can call a red car “black” but that will not make the car black.

“Different values”?? Yeah, you can say that again.
fairytail:

If you truly believe that it is not your place to judge, then you will simply live and let live, and accept that people can be “normal” and still disagree with you on this.

It is the height of ignorance to attempt to place that which is deviant as “normal”, and it is incredibly foolish to attempt to get fellow Christians to do so.

 

[PEPCIS]

I very much agree with you on this issue, I myself tried to explane this to a group of leftists on a Right wing group. Someone sent a letter to my employer and since Thursday last week i have been suspended ! from my work because of Homophobic comments !!! Britian has LOST her FREEDOM of SPEECH due to the Very Left wing goverment that sits in the commons at the moment. GARY COLLINGE

I am very sorry for the trouble that you are experiencing. I would like to encourage you to continue to speak the truth, and to include a positive gospel message of salvation whenever you can. Don’t ever be afraid to speak the truth!!! My heart and prayers are with you, and your fellow Christians in the land that has lost its Christianity.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The “problem” is that our laws are Judeo-Christian, and as such, they reflect our beliefs. A repudiation of our laws is a repudiation of our beliefs.

Your law on marriage changed in 1967 because of Loving v Virginia.

What a strange argument!! “My” law? LOL Anti-miscegenation laws were around long before I was born. I was barely 11 years old when that law was changed.

rossum:

The laws of the USA allow divorce, and also allow divorced people to remarry. Those laws are a repudiation of Catholic beliefs.

Very true. Just like those laws were repudiated by a wayward and drifting culture, so too are those laws against sodomy and homosexuality being repudiated.

rossum:

The laws of the USA reflect a consensus of views of the people of the US, that consensus usually does not reflect the religious beliefs of all of the people.

How wrong you are. Every law in the US is a moral law, and reflects the religious beliefs of its people.

And who is the state? They are “we, the people.” Or did they not teach you that part in American History?

rossum:

Where I went to school I did British History; I live in the UK.

Sorry, it’s hard for me to swallow your ignorance when you just finished attempting to feed me my own law.

Yes, the gays war on religion is on two fronts:

• legal - change laws to allow it
• social - change minds to accept it

Looks like they are winning on both counts, doesn’t it?

rossum:

We can agree on that.

Agree that America is following Great Britain down the toilet? Sure.

 

[PEPCIS]

MOST people who have ever lived and are living now have always believed in marriage as one man and one woman. And WE THE PEOPLE have spoken in most states INCLUDING California. We, there, upheld proposition 8 and shot down gay marriage. I believe the majority of Americans believe in marriage as what it is, what it has always been and what it is meant to be - One man and one woman. Period. Which, by the way, will always be the definition of marriage in its truest form.

Excellent - well stated.
ladybri to rossum:

Your quote - The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth - is so inherently wrong! There is “Ultimate Truth” and He is the man, Jesus Christ! There is also ABSOLUTE truth, so get used to it.

Yes, rossum is a postmodernist, where all truth is relative. If a tree falls in the forest, for him it does NOT make a sound.
ladybri:

I will pray for you.

You have a kind, Christian heart.

 

[rinnie]

Actually, I think the real question addressed by this thread is more along the lines of:

Whether or not you consider something a sin, do you have the right to impose a religious definition of sin onto secular laws that affect people who do not share your religious beliefs?

I understand what you are saying. But this is something I have never understood. Our whole Justice system is based on the word of God. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help me God.

Now if the whole world is based on the word or God, how would it be our religious definition of sin. See what I mean? This is not my definition this is Gods definition here. It is not a Catholic, protestant etc its the word of God here, which we all agree says the same thing. God destroyed the people in the O.T. who were doing this sin. It can’t be taken any other way. Its clear on that issue. So to say it does not go against the teachings of God would be a lie,

 

[rossum]

What a strange argument!! “My” law?

Blame the removal of ‘thee’, ‘thou’ etc. from the English language. My “your” was a plural, echoing the plural “our” in thy post I was replying to (emphases added):

The “problem” is that our

laws are Judeo-Christian, and as such, they reflect our beliefs. A repudiation of our laws is a repudiation of our beliefs.

Your

law on marriage changed in 1967 because of Loving v Virginia.

My “your” was intended to refer to the laws of the United States which was changed by Loving v Virginia.

I was barely 11 years old when that law was changed.

We agree that the laws of legal marriage can be legitimately changed by the appropriate authorities.

How wrong you are. Every law in the US is a moral law, and reflects the religious beliefs of its people.

I disagree. How do the laws of marriage reflect the views of the Moslem and fundamentalist Mormom citizens whose religious beliefs include polygamy? How do those laws reflect the religious beliefs of Catholic citizens who do not accept divorce? The laws are a compromise between many different groups with many different ideas. Currently the compromise seems to be shifting.

rossum

 

[Newbie2]

Originally posted by fairytail3982: It’s funny how quickly you and the other poster are to label my response as a knee-jerk reaction simply because I disagreed with you and felt that you each brought up inflammatory and stigmatizing labels. Let me assure you that my reactions were neither knee-jerk nor made without contemplation. I simply came to different conclusions than did you or he.

In the case of the other poster, I remarked that I was surprised it had taken until then for NAMBLA to be brought into the conversation and commented that most homosexuals are not in support of NAMBLA nor its mission. The other poster brought up NAMBLA in response to a claim from another poster that love is present in (consenting adult) homosexual relationships. The comparison was made that if we are to accept consenting adult homosexual relationships as loving, then couldn’t someone also claim that pederasty is a loving relationship. I posted in response to that not as a knee-jerk reaction, but to point out that 1) NAMBLA has often been used to stigmatize or discredit homosexual men as a group even though the majority do not support it, and 2) comparing consenting adult relationships to statutory rape is a case of apples and oranges.

Again, you completely avoided adressing my point. (I’m the “other poster”). Is there or is there not an element of “love” in any such man-boy relationship? It is so claimed. So if love is present, God must be present, according to your logic.

Forget about NAMBLA for a minute. How about sex between consenting adult brothers and sisters? Is there love involved? If so, again by your assertions, God is involved and therefore the relationship must be good.

How about relationships between adult parents and their adult children? Isn’t “love” involved? Once again, using your logic, God must be present and these relationships must be good.

If you use the “Love is present so God must be present so this relationship must be OK” argument for homosexual relationships, then this argument must also hold for incestual relationships as well, no? Or does God take exception, in your mind, only to incestual relationships? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[PEPCIS]

"ladybri77:

MOST people who have ever lived and are living now have always believed in marriage as one man and one woman.

I would need to see some support for that statement.

Every single time that this issue makes it to the ballot box, where the people can collectively express their will, they always place laws which regulate marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Of course, this is in America. I wouldn’t expect the same in GB where morals are so lax.

rossum:

Muslims believe that marriage is between one man and up to four women. Abraham and Solomon also had multiple wives. Many cultures have accepted polygamy, and a few polyandry. While the one man one woman formula is common it is not universal and I am not sure that it is a majority.

Monogamy became the norm in Western culture, largely because of the Christian influence/culture, and is now nearly universal in application. Despite polygamy being allowed in Muslim cultures, the places where Muslims live restricts them to primarily monogamous relationships. In the rest of the cases, most Muslims cannot afford more than one wife.

I’ve seen Muslims exploit their women, and this is largely due to the existence of a polygamous mindset that is prevalent in their culture. Monogamy became the norm in MOST of the world precisely because it affords women the highest degree of respect and equality. If it were not for Christianity, women would still lack the rights that they have today.

But, that in itself is not an argument for, or against, homosexual marriage.

 

[PEPCIS]

Saying that a homosexual person has the same right to marry a member of the other sex as a heterosexual person does makes no more sense than saying that a Catholic has the same legal right as a Protestant to eat a hamburger on Good Friday.

Not true. The analogy is not appropriate. Saying that a homosexual person has the same rights as heterosexuals is assuming that abberant sexual practices are equal moral choices. They are not.
fairytail:

Gay marriage != incest != polygamy. My original point was that bringing these specious arguments into it is not relevant.

They are entirely relevant. Since homosexuality is a deviance in behavior, just as incest, or bestiality, it needs to be treated as deviant, and not as a viable expression of human sexuality.

 

[ladybri77]

Not true. The analogy is not appropriate. Saying that a homosexual person has the same rights as heterosexuals is assuming that abberant sexual practices are equal moral choices. They are not.

They are entirely relevant. Since homosexuality is a deviance in behavior, just as incest, or bestiality, it needs to be treated as deviant, and not as a viable expression of human sexuality.

And what’s to stop these groups from coming forward to legalize their behavior after gays have won rights in certain states?

 

[PEPCIS]

I think she means we didn’t choose the feelings, the attractions. No one would choose it.

No, I think I understand what she meant. I just disagree with that assessment. By saying that they don’t choose their feelings is just as bad as saying that they are born that way. The only difference is in how they acquire their “affliction.”

I believe that they do choose their feelings, and that they are subtle changes that take place over their childhood. Children make choices because of evil circumstances that come into their lives, and may be mitigating factors for them choosing a homosexual orientation. But they are just as responsible for their lives as a murder/rapist is who was molded by the forces of his upbringing.

I know that in today’s society, it seems to be a favorite past time to blame my current situation on my upbringing, or my genes. For example, alcoholics are alcoholics because they have a genetic pre-disposition toward alcoholism. A day doesn’t go by where a scientist is not announcing that he has found a genetic pre-disposition for one human choice or another. People are no longer accepting responsibility for their lives, and are blaming their actions on anything other than their own free will choices.

“So, it is somewhat deceptive to state that no one chooses this “affliction,” because this “affliction” is the product and culmination of a life of immoral choices that leads one to homosexuality.”

Ladybri:

It’s only if you act on these feelings that it’s sin. You are wrong with the above statement. Homosexuals are not sinning in themselves, it’s what they do with those attractions. It’s also not through a series of sins that they committed that makes them homosexual. They have those feelings to begin with. Hopes this clears things up.

I would agree to a point. But I do remember Jesus saying that you didn’t have to actually COMMIT adultery for you to be guilty of that sin. All you had to do is to entertain the thought in your mind. I’m not sure how this is any different than homosexuals who don’t act on their thoughts.

 

[PEPCIS]

Hey 50-50 is better than nothing!

I wouldn’t go to any doctor that said that the best chance I have is a 50-50 chance in living. I’d get a second opinion.

 

[PEPCIS]

And what’s to stop these groups from coming forward to legalize their behavior after gays have won rights in certain states?

Nothing except people like you and me. But it has to start with denying homosexuals the right to be equal moral choices in lifestyle, and endorsing their lifestyle with laws.

 

[ladybri77]

No, I think I understand what she meant. I just disagree with that assessment. By saying that they don’t choose their feelings is just as bad as saying that they are born that way. The only difference is in how they acquire their “affliction.”

I believe that they do choose their feelings, and that they are subtle changes that take place over their childhood. Children make choices because of evil circumstances that come into their lives, and may be mitigating factors for them choosing a homosexual orientation. But they are just as responsible for their lives as a murder/rapist is who was molded by the forces of his upbringing.

Which is why I brought up the point that as children we might make an unconscious decision or “vow” to close off a parent or other significant person emotionally, and thus suffer the spiritual and emotional consequences of this. That is “our responsibility” and we must ask for forgiveness for this. This will sometimes cause one to be “attracted” to the same sex in order to get the natural need for love met if they have closed off the parent for it. Believe me, I did not want to feel those feelings, but I did, and I went through so many things to try and change it from prayer to counseling to support groups. Believe me, I know, I’ve struggled with the feelings. I have learned much about why I’ve felt this way, what caused it, and the above is a very logical explanation. But I’m still responsible for my “actions” no matter how I “feel”.

We can be attracted to anyone and are sometimes attracted to many, married or otherwise, it’s what WE DO with these feelings. Do we focus on them and lust in our hearts? No, that’s adultery. Do we act out on them physically? No, that’s adultery. To just be attracted is not wrong. We can pray and give these attractions to the Lord. We can also look to see what the need is underneath these attractions. Becuase it’s ALL ABOUT LEGITIMATE NEEDS not getting met. How can I meet this need in a HEALTHY way which would be honorable to God and myself? These are some of the questions we as strugglers or anyone else should ask themselves.

They actually have found an alcoholic “gene”. This is no excuse to go out and drink alcohol. I know a lot of people who know they are susceptible to alcoholism because their father was, and will not take a drink because of it. There are actually some people more susceptible to alcoholism than others if it runs in the family. I also know this from experience, (not myself but family member).

However, there are NO studies done that have proven there is a “gay” gene which that community uses for an excuse for being the way they are. They don’t know what causes it, but there are many studies done showing that environment or nurture has a good deal to do with it. There could possibly be a hormonal imbalance that happens at the time of fetal development in the womb, but no studies have confirmed this.

However, sin is sin and one must take responsibility for his actions. Just like someone who has an affliction of multiple sclerosis, it becomes their cross which they can offer up to God daily as many ex-gays and strugglers do who remain celibate according to the teachings of the Catholic church and who do not want to sin against God. There are spiritual support groups to help these like-minded people remain strong in the Lord. There is much Grace available to those who choose to be celibate and turn to God to meet their needs.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

It is a choice, of that there is no doubt. I think what you mean to claim is that a homosexual orientation is not a choice. But that would be wrong as well, as even the APA has (finally) admitted that there is no scientific evidence to make such a statement.

Actually, that’s not accurate. What they have acknowledged is that much of the research already done to try to prove a biological cause for sexual orientation was flawed, and that they cannot conclude that there is a genetic or other biological cause.

Which means that there is NO scientific evidence to make any such statement that homosexuality is not a choice. What I said.
fairytail:

They also cannot [SCIENTIFICALLY] conclude that sexual orientation is caused by something else.

Exactly. Which is why we remain in the old camp that homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior.
fairytail:

And, as even the biased article linked above stated. . .

What “biased” article?
fairytail:

. . . the general position is now that sexual orientation (not just homosexuality or bisexuality, but heterosexuality too) is caused by a complex array of factors including both “nature” (biological) and “nurture” (environmental) causes.

That’s poppycock. Homosexuals, and homosexual advocates are appealing to some ethereal concept that orientation is CAUSED. Orientation is a choice. People choose heterosexuality because that’s how God made us - male for female (or as I heard before - God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).

 

[PEPCIS]

Actually, I think the real question addressed by this thread is more along the lines of:

Whether or not you consider something a sin, do you have the right to impose a religious definition of sin onto secular laws that affect people who do not share your religious beliefs?

Yes.