Support NeoGAF

[leadbelly]

Celibacy is usually an individual vocational choice. I'm gay, and a Buddhist, and I often consider celibacy or ordaining as something I'd like to do in the long term. The only people who are going to do well with renunciation are those that choose it for meaningful reasons. The irony of the church telling people that homosexuality is God calling us to be celibate is most gay people would tell you that it isn't their calling. It's either something that resonates with you or it doesn't and the only way to know that is if you have options and it's something you can actually choose.

Yeah. I'm sure it is something very difficult to put into practice. You would really have to be committed to that way of life, and even then there would be times when it is difficult. I'm sure it isn't a way of life many people would choose.

 

[Karsticles]

From this Christian perspective, you hate the sin, not the sinner. Being gay is no different from being a drug user, according to this perspective. You can stop sinning and live a better life.

This is not my perspective, so hopefully no one tries to argue with me or get angry.

 

[hobblygobbly]

The meme/picture shit usually on social media is stupid but the message I think it's trying to convey is tolerance.

It's kind of an interesting situation. I don't know how someone who doesn't support homosexuality can be friends with someone that is gayl, friends require support, if you don't support their homosexuality, that's not a friend and I don't think the gay friend will want to be associated with one that is simply tolerant.

However, when it comes to strangers/in general, that's a bit different.

Tolerance in acceptance of a lifestyle or view one might have, meaning they won't oppose homosexuality but won't support it because it goes against their own beliefs/views. However it is a fine line with the status-quo.

Not once in human history has anything ever had all agreed upon view regarding social issues, religion, etc and I think it's improbable that'll it ever happen. The best way in society to treat each other is tolerance which is what that image means.

I think it's the only viable way society can deal with itself, if you truly do not oppress, do not support anti sentiment of an issue, etc, I think that is fine. You don't have to support an issue, you don't have to agree with it if it goes against a belief you may have, but you have a responsibility then to not aid the status-quo or oppression, in other words if you see someone being homophobic, you should confront that behaviour even if you disagree with the lifestyle or view because if you don't it goes against some of the values of tolerance - you should confront bigotry.

I support LGBT, I'm not gay but if I were I wouldn't want someone who doesn't support me in that way to be a friend, and that goes for anything, if you're simply tolerant and won't support (in terms of friendship), that's not a friend to me.

 

[DrROBschiz]

What the fuck is this shit? I've seen it floating around Facebook a bunch recently and I don't get it. How can you love and accept your friends if you completely disagree with their lifestyle? How is this not still bigotry? I don't get it.

The disagreement is fine

Legislating oppression into Law is what I have a damn problem with

 

[Principate]

Actually, it is an opinion supported by scientific research subject to change. As is sexual preference.

A lot of things you hold as fact do indeed evolve with time and scrutiny.

In this very thread, you can't even find people who can agree if sexuality as biolgocially driven or behaviorally driven. That's the nature of ever evolving studies and misinformation due to the internet.

But, the state has no right infringing on a citizens civil rights regarding something like marriage as a union. I agree with SCOTUS.

Well yeah science constantly changes things held as absolute steadfast truth have been proven incorrect many, thousands of times over history, but that's a quagmire in itself, in practical terms you work with the currently held beliefs or research validity. in belief terms who the fuck knows or cares, you probably won't even be alive to realise whatever scientific beliefs you built your life around are incorrect, which is why I just don't build my life around it, research and build your own conclusions unless humans somehow eventually become omniscience no one will ever truly know the right answer either way.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

I just don't see why people even give even the tiniest drop of shit ovet what other consenting adults do. After 10 years of marriage I'm of the mind that if gays want to be a miserable as everyone else, who am I to stop them.

 

[atr0cious]

And you need to ease off on the self-righteous comments and slights. You sound more like a bigot.

Note:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

But your reaction to other's beliefs is.

That's not how it works. You can't disagree with fact though. It's like saying you disagree with gravity. You look, rightly, like a fool.

 

[Opiate]

You're really starting to lose me, and in my opinion you've utterly failed to present a coherent argument to support your initial post which is what I was responding to:



Is it not possible for religions and their respective dogmas to be inherently judgemental in one or more aspects?

It is. What I'm saying is that this definition of judgmental seems to include all religions, because there are zero world religions which do not suggest that X is bad and Y is good. What X and Y are may change, but the fundamental property of judgment (as we are currently defining it here) is something all religions engage in.

So if we reject any judgment at all (where judgment is saying "this behavior is bad/sinful") then we fundamentally object to the concept of religion.

All Christians do not believe in the exact same Christianity in the exact same way and criticising a specific aspect of a religion is not objecting to the entire concept of religion.

It is if you object to the concept of saying "X is wrong," because there really isn't any segment of Christianity which doesn't do that in some form.

Finally, yes assuming the worst is not a particularly good thing, but that has not been a focus of the arguments that I've made. And assuming the worst could also be said of those who are criticising the criticism of those who condemn gays.

I absolutely agree that many critics of homosexuals (and anyone who supports equal rights for homosexuals, whatever their orientation) engage in bad behavior and assume the worst of those they disagree with; I'm just asking we work hard not turn around and do the same to them.

 

[Pete Rock]

Who cares? Believing is for fools. Knowing is for champions.

Even if language is a virus from outer space, you can't fix ontological retardation, no way no how.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

This is that love the sinner hate the sin nonsense the Christian people use (have to use) to maintain they're good people.

 

[Principate]

That's not how it works. You can't disagree with fact though. It's like saying you disagree with gravity. You look, rightly, like a fool.

But bro what is gravity, how does it occur. Are there graviton particles that exist but we haven't discovered yet?

The universe is strange bro.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Eh, if I got offended at every dissenting opinion on Facebook I would have closed my account years ago.

I've rolled my eyes at tons of Facebook posts from sanctimonious religious zealotry to smarmy self righteous atheist propaganda. Is all the same bullshit in the end.

 

[Opiate]

From this Christian perspective, you hate the sin, not the sinner. Being gay is no different from being a drug user, according to this perspective. You can stop sinning and live a better life.

This is not my perspective, so hopefully no one tries to argue with me or get angry.

(First, acknowledgement that this isn't your position and that you are just trying to further discussion).

I think others have already identified the key problem with this analogy; unlike something like drug use or even simply obesity (gluttony is a sin, after all), homosexuality seems to have deep genetic or epigenetic roots, such that it is not meaningfully a choice in the same way.

Generally, as a society, we tend to be more forgiving of behaviors that seem to have deep genetic roots and which aren't meaningfully chosen. We don't blame or fault people for being born mentally handicapped in the same way we'd blame someone who isn't born handicapped but who "chooses" not to get educated, for instance.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Christian feeling on the matter are irrelevant honestly

Every American should value the freedom we are offered and afford it to everyone in the same measure

Anything less just comes off as a form of control and oppression

 

[Terra]

Christian feeling on the matter are irrelevant honestly

Every American should value the freedom we are offered and afford it to everyone in the same measure

Anything less just comes off as a form of control and oppression

This is exactly my feelings, although you can just as well switch the "american freedom" part with "freedom that the democratic world provides".

 

[DrROBschiz]

This is exactly my feelings, although you can switch the "american freedom" part with "freedom that the democratic world provides".

One step at a time

 

[EmptySpace]

From this Christian perspective, you hate the sin, not the sinner. Being gay is no different from being a drug user, according to this perspective. You can stop sinning and live a better life.

This is not my perspective, so hopefully no one tries to argue with me or get angry.

typical mentality. circumnavigating the issue and mounting on reasons to make your views work instead of actively changing your views. at first gays are sinners. then let them exist but shhh...don't even say it. then they can love but no sex. then let them do whatever they want but they shouldn't get married.

what's frustrating is how close-minded people accept things at such a slow pace. if we're going to get here anyway, we should've gone here in the first place. is any christian dying over this issue? no.

Who cares? Believing is for fools. Knowing is for champions.

Even if language is a virus from outer space, you can't fix ontological retardation, no way no how.

aahah damn.

 

[berzeli]

It is. What I'm saying is that this definition of judgmental seems to include all religions, because there are zero world religions which do not suggest that X is bad and Y is good. What X and Y are may change, but the fundamental property of judgment (as we are currently defining it here) is something all religions engage in.

So if we reject any judgment at all (where judgment is saying "this behavior is bad/sinful") then we fundamentally object to the concept of religion.

It is if you object to the concept of saying "X is wrong," because there really isn't any segment of Christianity which doesn't do that in some form.

I absolutely agree that many critics of homosexuals (and anyone who supports equal rights for homosexuals, whatever their orientation) engage in bad behavior and assume the worst of those they disagree with; I'm just asking we work hard not turn around and do the same to them.

Your argument is abstracted to the point of meaninglessness, which is why earlier I objected to you saying that it is to "follow this logic through to its natural endpoint". As per this line of reasoning that means that anyone (including Christians) who has a differing opinion on women in the clergy from what is/was conventional wisdom is fundamentally objecting to religion (even if that person belongs to said religion). By the same virtue, you eating meat is fundamentally objecting to religion (specifically Hinduism). I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your logic in this matter.



And a facebook post which includes homosexual marriage in quotations and condemnation of homosexualitity in general (i.e. not specific actions) may not be a particularly good starting point to say who is participating in "bad behaviour".

 

[Ke0]

I swear it's deja vu with America. I remember seeing photographs that said something like this

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in interracial marriage."

It hasn't even been 60 years and they're already repeating history.

 

[Principate]

I swear it's deja vu with America. I remember seeing photographs that said something like this

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in interracial marriage."

It hasn't even been 60 years and they're already repeating history.

I'm still trying to figure out the biblical basis for that other than racism just because.

 

[Opiate]

Your argument is abstracted to the point of meaninglessness, which is why earlier I objected to you saying that it is to "follow this logic through to its natural endpoint".

You earlier complained that my examples were too anecdotal and specific. I'm not sure I can hit a point where this will get through, then.

As per this line of reasoning that means that anyone (including Christians) who has a differing opinion on women in the clergy from what is/was conventional wisdom is fundamentally objecting to religion (even if that person belongs to said religion). By the same virtue, you eating meat is fundamentally objecting to religion (specifically Hinduism). I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your logic in this matter.

That is not what I am saying.

Hindus believe that when I eat meat, I am being evil/sinning. That is a judgment, based the definition I am using. If we object to people being judgmental, then we're going to object to virtually every religion, because every religion does this in some form; they say that doing X is bad or doing Y is good, and as such yes, people who do X are being bad/wrong.

 

[Clinton514]

I swear it's deja vu with America. I remember seeing photographs that said something like this

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in interracial marriage."

It hasn't even been 60 years and they're already repeating history.

Where and when have you seen this?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I swear it's deja vu with America. I remember seeing photographs that said something like this

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in interracial marriage."

It hasn't even been 60 years and they're already repeating history.

It just goes to show you how irrelevant these people actually are in the face of inevitable progress. Let them stew on it, doesn't really matter.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I swear it's deja vu with America. I remember seeing photographs that said something like this

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in interracial marriage."

It hasn't even been 60 years and they're already repeating history.

I guess its only natural that any group of people who live by a set group of rules and principles tried to enforce those ideas on everyone around them?

Hopefully we can get to a place where the law of the land matches what our Country and society in general should actually stand for

Less we turn to more endless cycles of bigotry and violence.

 

[Zelias]

These sorts of things always seem like a way to have their cake and eat it. 'I don't like the gays but if I say I'll still be friends with them I get to be smugly self-righteous and morally superior!'

 

[bernardobri]

"I just don't want you to have the same rights than I do. It's not personal, I swear."

 

[DoktorEvil]

I swear it's deja vu with America. I remember seeing photographs that said something like this

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in interracial marriage."

It hasn't even been 60 years and they're already repeating history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Point out which ones are doing this. Using Christian as a catch all is the same as broad-stroking all Americans to be fucking yokels and uneducated compared to Europeans.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

It doesn't sound too outlandish to me. One side is actually trying to make things work while still holding onto their religious beliefs.

If someone says they "disagree" with homosexuality, they're not worth talking to.

The other side not so much.

 

[DrROBschiz]

These sorts of things always seem like a way to have their cake and eat it. 'I don't like the gays but if I say I'll still be friends with them I get to be smugly self-righteous and morally superior!'

It so effing contradictory since we wouldn't even be able to enjoy being able to practice our freedoms if it werent for coexisting and working with others of different backgrounds/beliefs.

Lets all get along until it no longer suits our way of the world and then go on oppressing people we dont like!

 

[Metroxed]

I've seen a word-by-word Spanish translated version on my feed too. Why people care so much? Just don't marry a gay person and done.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

Eh. Don't see how this is worth fussing over. They're basically saying "God don't like this gay marriage business, and he's the boss so I can't condone this behaviour, but I still want to be bros. Can you stop calling me names for what those other pricks are doing please?"

 

[v1lla21]

Ugh, my Instagram and FB were littered with shit like this. I just unfollowed and unfriended the people.

 

[Siegcram]

It doesn't sound too outlandish to me. One side is actually trying to make things work while still holding onto their religious beliefs.



The other side not so much.

Nothing says making things work like actively denying equal rights.

 

[Sai-kun]

It doesn't sound too outlandish to me. One side is actually trying to make things work while still holding onto their religious beliefs.



The other side not so much.

"Make things work" and yet they don't support an entire segment of the population having equal rights?

Ooookay

 

[psylah]

You've been visited by the "PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN OF IRRELEVANCE"

Your Body of Christ will stay crunchy in milk only if you post "STAY SAFE, BELIEVER" in this thread.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Point out which ones are doing this. Using Christian as a catch all is the same as broad-stroking all American to be fucking yokels and uneducated compared to Europeans.

No, it's not. The people doing this call themselves Christians. Maybe the denominations who aren't up in arms against basic civil rights should stand up and separate themselves from this idiocy. It isn't our place to do so.

 

[Mecha]

It doesn't sound too outlandish to me. One side is actually trying to make things work while still holding onto their religious beliefs.



The other side not so much.

I don't think Siegcram is religious.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Where and when have you seen this?

I don't have any pictures but the same kind of rhetoric was often used against interracial marriage. I'm sure a google search could easily give a lot of information on the subject.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm -- one of the first links i came across, and it talks about the similarities.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

(First, acknowledgement that this isn't your position and that you are just trying to further discussion).

I think others have already identified the key problem with this analogy; unlike something like drug use or even simply obesity (gluttony is a sin, after all), homosexuality seems to have deep genetic or epigenetic roots, such that it is not meaningfully a choice in the same way.
.

I think the Christian argument would follow that everyone is born with the capacity and tendancy to sin, whether its mental, emotional, genetic, whatever. What happens to murderer who does so because he's not right in the head? Did he really have a choice? Not everyone gets delt the same hand. Fixating on whether you had a choice or not is a bit of a moot point in Christian theology because everyone has sinned and needs redemption, and that redemption is available for all regardless of what the sin was or how many times you did it.

 

[berzeli]

You earlier complained that my examples were too anecdotal and specific. I'm not sure I can hit a point where this will get through, then.

That is not what I am saying.

Hindus believe that when I eat meat, I am being evil/sinning. That is a judgment, based the definition I am using. If we object to people being judgmental, then we're going to object to virtually every religion, because every religion does this in some form; they say that doing X is bad or doing Y is good, and as such yes, people who do X are being bad/wrong.

Yes, I am saying that I am not satisfied with any of your logic or evidence so far and have presented my reasons for doing so. I do not agree that by criticising a part of a whole is criticising the whole and I do not agree with your sense of logic so far.

The example of women in the clergy then, which is one that I've brought up; if a woman wants to be a priest is she objecting to the concept of religion by going against and criticise those who judge her for it?

Furthermore I find that "they say that doing X is bad or doing Y is good, and as such yes, people who do X are being bad/wrong" isn't somehow exclusive to religions which also undermines your argument about how criticising a specific aspect of religion is objecting to religion as a whole. In a society, say a state where the death penalty is legal and a majority support that, is criticising the death penalty objecting to the concept of a society/state?

 

[Principate]

You earlier complained that my examples were too anecdotal and specific. I'm not sure I can hit a point where this will get through, then.



That is not what I am saying.

Hindus believe that when I eat meat, I am being evil/sinning. That is a judgment, based the definition I am using. If we object to people being judgmental, then we're going to object to virtually every religion, because every religion does this in some form; they say that doing X is bad or doing Y is good, and as such yes, people who do X are being bad/wrong.

TBF society as whole does this, otherwise we wouldn't be having legal systems and courts, fact of the matter is I you have any kind of morality or sense of right or wrong this will come about. Hell you don't even need morality for it. It's just an inevitable part of human society.

Something must be used as a bar for an ideal result whether that be wealth, technological advancement, certain types of cultures ideologies what have you those that don't lead to that result are inevitably considered bad. What the ideal result is shifts with the populace and who is in charge, but society judges constantly.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

"I think you deserve less basic rights than I do, but I'm not prejudiced."

Fuck off.

 

[GeordieMark]

The way I see is that right or wrong, people have right to believe what they want. We don't all have to agree or get on. That's an impossible dream.

Not saying I agree with the sentiment. I find it ignorant, but I'm not a religious person at all. But I do understand that for some people, faith is everything and they will defend what they believe, and that is their right, until it interferes with, or causes suffering to anyone else.

 

[DoktorEvil]

No, it's not. The people doing this call themselves Christians. Maybe the denominations who aren't up in arms against basic civil rights should stand up and separate themselves from this idiocy. It isn't our place to do so.

They do and have. Ex: Episcopalians are known for being a very socially & politically progressive congregation. They are one of the few congregations to have female and LGBTQ deacons, priests, and bishops.

That same church elected their first black Bishop.

Bishop Curry supports gay rights, speaking against North Carolina’s 2012 constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage, which is now invalid, and allowing same-sex church weddings in the North Carolina diocese. The denomination has emerged from a period of turmoil after the 2003 election of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion. Many Episcopal conservatives left or distanced themselves from the national church after his election.

The convention also plans to vote on eliminating gender-specific language from church laws on marriage so religious weddings can be performed for same-sex couples. Clergy could decline to perform the ceremonies. Right now, each bishop decides whether their priests can conduct same-sex marriages.

They're one of the few Christian denominations who move within the times to preserve spirituality and maintain positive goodwill, despite not being accepted by the Church of England. Robin Williams was an Episcopalian and converted from Catholicism because of their stance on gay rights.

Protestantism is one of the bedrocks of American religious freedom.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Eh, if I got offended at every dissenting opinion on Facebook I would have closed my account years ago.

I've rolled my eyes at tons of Facebook posts from sanctimonious religious zealotry to smarmy self righteous atheist propaganda. Is all the same bullshit in the end.

Gay folk are not just a matter of opinion.

I'm sick of this idea that hating guy people is just you know the other side of the story.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

No, it's not. The people doing this call themselves Christians. Maybe the denominations who aren't up in arms against basic civil rights should stand up and separate themselves from this idiocy. It isn't our place to do so.

They do, but passing around dumbshit Facebook memes isn't in their strategy. Plus, being open and nice isn't newsworthy or interesting.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't really have a problem with that tbh. There are all sorts of things religions dictate about the life one should lead. If they didn't then they wouldn't really be religions, no? This sounds about as benign as it's possible to be whilst still believing in a religion.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

They do and have. Ex: Episcopalians are known for being a very socially & politically progressive congregation. They are one of the few congregations to have female and LGBTQ deacons, priests, and bishops.

That same church elected their first black Bishop.



They're one of the few Christian denominations who move within the times to preserve spirituality and maintain positive goodwill, despite not being accepted by the Church of England. Robin Williams was an Episcopalian and converted from Catholicism because of their stance on gay rights.

Protestantism is one of the bedrocks of American religious freedom.

Never knew that about Episcopalians, very good.

Now we just need Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and all the nontrinitarian groups to speak up to condemn this nonsense and we'll have something going.

 

[Opiate]

Yes, I am saying that I am not satisfied with any of your logic or evidence so far and have presented my reasons for doing so. I do not agree that by criticising a part of a whole is criticising the whole and I do not agree with your sense of logic so far.

Then explain why. I'm certainly willing to be wrong.

The example of women in the clergy then, which is one that I've brought up; if a woman wants to be a priest is she objecting to the concept of religion by going against and criticise those who judge her for it?

If she specifically believes that religions shouldn't judge people then yes, she is. Of course. What other conclusion could there be? Every major religion judges people based on their behavior.

Furthermore I find that "they say that doing X is bad or doing Y is good, and as such yes, people who do X are being bad/wrong" isn't somehow exclusive to religions which also undermines your argument about how criticising a specific aspect of religion

It definitely isn't exclusive to religion, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

 

[Siegcram]

The way I see is that right or wrong, people have right to believe what they want. We don't all have to agree or get on. That's an impossible dream.

Not saying I agree with the sentiment. I find it ignorant, but I'm not a religious person at all. But I do understand that for some people, faith is everything and they will defend what they believe, and that is their right, until it interferes with, or causes suffering to anyone else.

Which it has. Plenty.