Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

"Yes, we are still friends."

Yeah... about that.

"I think you should be treated as a second-class citizen, but we can still be buddies, right?"

Ehhh..

 

[Mumei]

To answer the OP's question, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is fundamental to Christian doctrine. Christians believe that human beings began as innocent, basically good creatures but have been corrupted over time by their own gravitation to sin, of which homosexuality (and really, all sexual behavior that is not procreative heterosexual coupling within a church-recognized marriage) is one.

I'm not going to disagree with this, but I'd argue that condemnatory Christian responses towards gay people haven't historically reflected this perspective. If you look at what they actually have said, it's that gay people are the products of molestation, sexual abuse, or dysfunctional family dynamics. Or they use falsified research and unscientific magazine surveys to make general claims about the prevalence of unrealistic sexual practices involving rodents in places they wouldn't go, to make up lies about the effects of actual sexual practices, the prevalence and causes of mental illness among gay people, reductions in average lifespan by gay men, the negative results of children being raised in gay homes, and so forth. Or they fight tooth and nail against anti-bullying measures specifically because the idea of gay children being accepted is anathema to them. It says something that the same people from the same organizations that have been telling the same lies for decades are responsible for the situation in Uganda, and that campaign was just as based in animus as any of the campaigns here have ever been.

They don't actually spend a lot of time talking about the inherent evil of a man being with another man or a woman being with another woman so much as they spend time trying to convince people by dint of lies that gay people are actually engaged in disgusting, degenerate, and immoral-on-their-own-terms behaviors. And you just don't see that sort of vitriol directed towards alcoholics, even inveterate alcoholics who haven't admitted they have a problem.

I'll admit that there's a difference between the misled (the rank and file, by and large) and the people who have promulgated that nonsense, but to the extent that these attitudes have been broadly supported by conservative Christian institutions and organizations supported by that rank and file, I don't feel especially charitable here.

Anyway, in the time where Christianity came into being, "homosexuality" as a marker of identity, rather than behavior, simply did not exist.

This is also right, though, and I think it's a big part of the gap in perception. You can actually see the best illustration of this perspective in the form of ex-gay or reparative therapy. In their conception, a person is "ex-gay" when they stop engaging in homosexual behaviors. This doesn't mean that they are no long gay; they're sometimes quite clear that the feelings do not go away and that they continue to struggle with it. Of course, the rhetoric that "You can change," hasn't generally been portrayed as, "You can stop doing this behavior," but as, "You can get rid of these feelings," but I digress.

Anyway, this means at most they might argue that in the same way one person struggles with alcoholism or a tendency towards petty shoplifting, another person feels the impulse towards sodomy. The problem is that this isn't how gay people (or frankly anyone well-informed about human sexuality) defines sexual orientation.

 

[gblues]

An absolutely terrifying lack of critical thinking here. Straight up frightening.

Hey GAF, my wife's a Christian and I'm not. Does that blow your mind?

I'm in the same boat myself.

Of course, we were both Christians when we were married 13 years ago.

Thankfully, she's not a biblical literalist and fully supports the SCOTUS ruling. She's got a pretty strong libertarian bent and sees it as a "government should be only minimally involved in marriage in the first place, and sexual identity isn't the state's business."

I'm now a secular humanist, which actually has quite a bit of overlap with Christianity--enough so that I can frame humanist positions in Christianese almost disturbingly well.

My main pain point in my emotional life right now is dealing with my dad, who doesn't yet know I've ditched the Jesus train and is more likely than not to share something similar to the OP. I don't think he understands how his attitude only differs from Westboro Baptists by degrees.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Serious question.

I've pointed out before that if you showed post-surgery Micheal Jackson photos to a young child, without them knowing about pre-surgery Micheal Jackson photos, they would undoubtedly believe that Micheal Jackson was Caucasian.

With that in mind, Mormonism used to believe that Africans were cursed with the mark of Cain. They've since shed that belief, but lets say they didn't. Or if you can't get over that, lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.

Would it be acceptable to then disagree with being African in appearance? Bleaching your skin and getting some cosmetic surgery might be expensive, though you could always use a Church program to secure funding. It seems to me no more unreasonable than expecting a life of celibacy from gays. Would that be just fine and dandy for someone to disagree with? If not, what makes disagreeing with homosexuality different? People say that they don't dislike the person, but the "lifestyle" (whatever that means). Similarly people born with African features wouldn't be condemned for having those genes, but would be disliked for choosing to not cosmetically alter those genetic features? Is this fair?

Super easy when you aren't Christian. Just like holding the idea that African features aren't the sinful mark of Cain is easy when you aren't a Mormon from the time before they shed that belief.

Please take this strawman and burn it someplace else. That's a bullshit question.

Michael Jackson suffered a disease called Vitiligo. He dyed his skin so that he wouldn't have blotches of white and black skin as a performer. He also had major surgery performed on his body so that he didn't feel self-conscious about his appearance.

He did it so people could talk about his ability to perform and not about his skin color.

That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain/Curse of Ham has been manipulated and twisted by multiple congregations so much that it's original meaning is lost.

 

[jmdajr]

Another thing some folks go into is that gay behavior is detrimental to the advancement of our society because folks won't have children.

Right. Everyone on the planet is now going to give in to their inner homosexual desires and never procreate with the opposite sex again.

Maybe we aren't reproducing as fast as before, but it's for totally different reasons.

 

[CornBurrito]

Please take this strawman and burn it someplace else. That's a bullshit question.

Michael Jackson suffered a disease called Vitiligo. He dyed his skin so that he would have blotches of white and black skin as a performer. He also had major surgery performed on his body so that he didn't feel self-conscious about his appearance.

He did it so people could talk about his ability to perform and not about his skin color.

That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain.

Please read the rest of the post. I know he didn't do that to look white. But the fact is that he did look white as a result of bleaching his skin and the facial surgeries.

The point being, if Mormons or some other religion believed Black features were the Mark of Cain would I then have to tolerate them believing that all Blacks should get the same cosmetic work MJ had done? Or would that be disgusting? Because I find that disgusting, but I also find the notion of disagreeing with homosexuality similarly disgusting.

I'm going to just assume you let anger (and good that you got angry, because such religious beliefs WOULD be disgusting) make you completely miss the point of my post. Since the reason why MJ got the work done has literally no bearing on my post.

 

[Sianos]

Why is that a problem? If Christians are not going to shun their homosexual friends, why is it okay for the homosexual friend to shun their Christian friends for their beliefs?

I feel like there is a reversal that is happening for the role where Homosexual use to be the ones afraid of coming out of the closet. Now, anyone with a religious belief against homosexuality are the ones that are going to be the ones afraid of stating their religion because they don't want to step on the homosexual community's toes.

I think both sides should respect each other in this case. Just agree and don't engage in heated debates because neither ideals are going away.

This is a pretty glaring false equivalence and another attempt at "both sides are the same" rhetoric.

No, there is no reversal in play: there is a huge difference between misled Christians being indoctrinated to disapprove/judge/condemn/hate the sin of another persons existence and people rallying up and saying its no longer okay to be so judgmental and hateful.

Religion cannot be used to justify hatred and no one should be forced to tolerate hatred because their oppressors claim some mystical magical moral high ground. It's like saying segregationists are oppressed because its not socially acceptable to be openly racist any more.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Please read the rest of the post. I know he didn't do that to look white. But the fact is that he did look white as a result of bleaching his skin and the facial surgeries.

Please read the rest of the post.

That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain/Curse of Ham has been manipulated and twisted by multiple congregations so much that it's original meaning is lost.

The point being, if Mormons or some other religion believed Black features were the Mark of Cain would I then have to tolerate them believing that all Blacks should get the same cosmetic work MJ had done? Or would that be disgusting? Because I find that disgusting, but I also find the notion of disagreeing with homosexuality similarly disgusting.

I'm going to just assume you let anger (and good that you got angry, because such religious beliefs WOULD be disgusting) make you completely miss the point of my post. Since the reason why MJ got the work done has literally no bearing on my post.

No, because just like Christian denominations, not all LDS denominations are in agreement with interpretation of that specific ideology.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Though many on this forum have expressed that they would like to do exactly that.



If you shed relationships based on different perceptions of morality, you're going to live in a echo chamber really fast.

You're being too kind with "different perceptions of morality". We're talking about people who want to deny people their basic right to marry, and to stigmatize a group of people as being wrong, and will no doubt have their children following the leader(if only for a little while, to be optimistic) with such outdated manner of thinking. This is shitty behavior, dangerous behavior, which makes it difficult for a whole lot of people to feel comfortable with who they are, and to feel safe in their surroundings.

If we aren't family, I'm not down to try and tolerate that shit, not anymore.

 

[CornBurrito]

Please read the rest of the post.

No, after you.

or lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.

A new religion made up in 2015 for this thought exercise.

But I suppose just getting mad over the example used is easier to do than actually engaging in the thought exercise. I'll simply save my responses for someone willing to engage.

 

[Hale-XF11]

About as effective as a motivational poster.

 

[Sianos]

Please take this strawman and burn it someplace else. That's a bullshit question.

Michael Jackson suffered a disease called Vitiligo. He dyed his skin so that he wouldn't have blotches of white and black skin as a performer. He also had major surgery performed on his body so that he didn't feel self-conscious about his appearance.

He did it so people could talk about his ability to perform and not about his skin color.

That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain/Curse of Ham has been manipulated and twisted by multiple congregations so much that it's original meaning is lost.

Indeed, the mark of Cain and curse of Ham HAVE been twisted and used to justify hatred against another group of people while maintaining a mystical yet ultimately illusory moral high ground.

This sounds remarkably similar to how scripture is twisted, purposely truncated, and read out of context to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.

Soon just as the mark of Cain and curse of Ham were "redacted" so will the misconstrued passages against homosexuality be "redacted" - and people will actually follow the spirit of their religion.

 

[minor effort]

If you shed relationships based on different perceptions of morality, you're going to live in a echo chamber really fast.

I think I might be okay with that echo chamber. I have shed relationships based on how people discriminate against others.

Just excusing it as part of your religious beliefs isn't sufficient for me to overlook it. People who still vocally oppose same-sex marriage or homosexuality in-general, I'm not sure if I can relate to them as friends anymore.

 

[AzureRonin]

Religion should only be about how you want to live your own life. These standards do not apply to anyone else, so it's not worth discussing with people what you accept is right or isn't right in their life. It's of no consequence, and is judgmental. Religion should be introspective, but people consistently expect that their world view should be applied to everyone else, whether Catholic, atheist, straight, gay, muslim, etc.

 

[DoktorEvil]

No, after you.
A new religion made up in 2015 for this thought exercise.

But I suppose just getting mad over the example used is easier to do than actually engaging in the thought exercise. I'll simply save my responses for someone willing to engage.

Strawmen aren't worth engaging. You asked a question about a strawman, and I'm expressing my anger over a strawman that was used.

This:

Or if you can't get over that, lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.

Would it be acceptable to then disagree with being African in appearance? Bleaching your skin and getting some cosmetic surgery might be expensive, though you could always use a Church program to secure funding. It seems to me no more unreasonable than expecting a life of celibacy from gays. Would that be just fine and dandy for someone to disagree with? If not, what makes disagreeing with homosexuality different? People say that they don't dislike the person, but the "lifestyle" (whatever that means). Similarly people born with African features wouldn't be condemned for having those genes, but would be disliked for choosing to not cosmetically alter those genetic features? Is this fair?

is more like attempting to justify a worldview that there are people who would gain widespread support for a Christian denomination that supports one very specific Old Testament ideal and use black skin to justify their existence.

What about this strawman should I care about? It is fundamentally un-Christian.

Indeed, the mark of Cain and curse of Ham HAVE been twisted and used to justify hatred against another group of people while maintaining a mystical yet ultimately illusory moral high ground.

This sounds remarkably similar to how scripture is twisted, purposely truncated, and read out of context to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.

Soon just as the mark of Cain and curse of Ham were "redacted" so will the misconstrued passages against homosexuality be "redacted" - and people will actually follow the spirit of their religion.

How else do you convince people that appeal to the "fire and brimstone" part of the OT to congregate?

 

[Aaron]

It's amazing how many people who believe in the Bible don't actually read it.

 

[Nozem]

An absolutely terrifying lack of critical thinking here. Straight up frightening.

Hey GAF, my wife's a Christian and I'm not. Does that blow your mind?

My group of friends is about 50% evangelical christian and the other 50% is atheist. We disagree on a ton of things. One half thinks the other half is 'lost' (read: will go to hell). One half thinks the other half is indoctrinated. Both halves think the other half has some truly fucked up moral values. We're all fully aware of the differences. That doesn't stop us from being great friends, helping each other out whenever we can and having a great time together. Because both halves recognize the other half means well, even though they're misguided. And we treat each other with respect.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's amazing how many people who believe in the Bible don't actually read it.

This is very common. I would say they get told what the bible "says" from their parents, and just run with it, never actually doing any kind of research themselves.

 

[CornBurrito]

Strawmen aren't worth engaging. You asked a question about a strawman, and I'm expressing my anger over a strawman that was used.

This:



is more like attempting to justify a worldview that there are people who would gain widespread support for a Christian denomination that supports one very specific Old Testament ideal and use black skin to justify their existence.

What about this strawman should I care about? It is fundamentally un-Christian.

1. What Strawman did I use? I never said why MJ got the surgery, only that he looked white as a result.

2. I never said this though exercise religion was Christian. I'm saying would people defend that religion?

To me there is no difference between disagreeing with homosexuality and that hypothetical religions' disagreement with not altering African features through surgery and skin bleach.

 

[Bornstellar]

I think I might be okay with that echo chamber. I have shed relationships based on how people discriminate against others.

Just excusing it as part of your religious beliefs isn't sufficient for me to overlook it. People who still vocally oppose same-sex marriage or homosexuality in-general, I'm not sure if I can relate to them as friends anymore.

I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.

You're being too kind with "different perceptions of morality". We're talking about people who want to deny people their basic right to marry, and to stigmatize a group of people as being wrong, and will no doubt have their children following the leader(if only for a little while, to be optimistic) with such outdated manner of thinking. This is shitty behavior, dangerous behavior, which makes it difficult for a whole lot of people to feel comfortable with who they are, and to feel safe in their surroundings.

If we aren't family, I'm not down to try and tolerate that shit, not anymore.

Yet here you are stigmatizing a group of people as being wrong. Regardless of your feelings of moral superiority, you yourself are seeking to impose your morality on others. Which is perhaps the greatest crime of all (and, for the biblically minded, the cause of Satan's fall).

This is very common. I would say they get told what the bible "says" from their parents, and just run with it, never actually doing any kind of research themselves.

Its also very common to see people who have no interest in religion to act as if that they know everything there is to know about it.

 

[Opiate]

I'm not going to disagree with this, but I'd argue that condemnatory Christian responses towards gay people haven't historically reflected this perspective.

Great post, Mumei, and I would add something else; not only has this not historically been the response, but one could make a fairly reasonable assumption that the only reason that anti-gay rhetoric has become increasingly softened is that it is no longer socially acceptable to be so condemnatory. It's a bit like a jerk who starts acting nicer once the boss shows up; it's hard to have faith that their suddenly agreeable nature is sincere. Maybe it is -- that's possible -- but it's easy to understand why some would be skeptical.

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.

Sexuality is a significantly more core aspect of someone than smoking. To me it is no different than being against someone not altering their racial appearance via surgery.

 

[GeordieMark]

You're being too kind with "different perceptions of morality". We're talking about people who want to deny people their basic right to marry, and to stigmatize a group of people as being wrong, and will no doubt have their children following the leader(if only for a little while, to be optimistic) with such outdated manner of thinking. This is shitty behavior, dangerous behavior, which makes it difficult for a whole lot of people to feel comfortable with who they are, and to feel safe in their surroundings.

If we aren't family, I'm not down to try and tolerate that shit, not anymore.

Is the right to a catholic wedding a basic human right though? I'm not against gay marriage at all, but even as a straight guy, I don't believe a catholic wedding is one of my basic rights.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

This is a pretty glaring false equivalence and another attempt at "both sides are the same" rhetoric.

No, there is no reversal in play: there is a huge difference between misled Christians being indoctrinated to disapprove/judge/condemn/hate the sin of another persons existence and people rallying up and saying its no longer okay to be so judgmental and hateful.

Religion cannot be used to justify hatred and no one should be forced to tolerate hatred because their oppressors claim some mystical magical moral high ground. It's like saying segregationists are oppressed because its not socially acceptable to be openly racist any more.

What hate is there in the OP image?

If someone is Christian and has a homosexual friend that they like very much, there is no hate. I'm not talking about how every Christian acts. I'm talking about the relationships where Christians won't impose their beliefs in a friendship.

Will the homosexual person end friendships because they don't believe in homosexuality? That's what this Christian in the OP image is speaking out against.

Is the right to a catholic wedding a basic human right though? I'm not against gay marriage at all, but even as a straight guy, I don't believe a catholic wedding is one of my basic rights.

If you believe in homosexuality, you're not a Catholic. You can't have a Catholic wedding without being a Catholic.

Marriage use to be a Religious binding where you get God's blessing in the binding of man and woman, but now, it's just a legal signing of papers so that you can get a relationship status change for Government reasons. The religion part is something entirely separate.

 

[jmdajr]

My group of friends is about 50% evangelical christian and the other 50% is atheist. We disagree on a ton of things. One half thinks the other half is 'lost' (read: will go to hell). One half thinks the other half is indoctrinated. Both halves think the other half has some truly fucked up moral values. We're all fully aware of the differences. That doesn't stop us from being great friends, helping each other out whenever we can and having a great time together. Because both halves recognize the other half means well, even though they're misguided. And we treat each other with respect.

I feel in the middle as well. They both upset me in different ways!

 

[Enron]

This makes no sense. You have no problem with homosexuals but have a problem with the lifestyle. You just said that lifestyle is used interchangeably with homosexual. So translating your sentence I get:

You have no problem with homosexuals, but have a problem with the homosexual.

It makes plenty of sense. also, "thinking something is a sin" and "I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE" are not quite the same thing.

This post is a good example of something I was talking about earlier. Some people are so desperate for their opponents to be MONSTERS, that they'll do their best to find that one thing they can twist so the dogpile can start - even if they actually agree on a lot of things.

previously I said
1. don't oppose gay marriage
2. don't think others sexuality is any of my business, its between you and god
3. don't think the "sin" of homosexuality is any big deal

However you've decided to latch onto that "sin" part and try your best into twisting it into "i have a serious problem with gay people", despite repeatedly saying the opposite. Bye CornBurrito.

 

[CornBurrito]

It makes plenty of sense. also, "thinking something is a sin" and "I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE" are not quite the same thing.

This post is a good example of something I was talking about earlier. Some people are so desperate for their opponents to be MONSTERS, that they'll do their best to find that one thing they can twist so the dogpile can start - even if they actually agree on a lot of things.

previously I said
1. don't oppose gay marriage
2. don't think others sexuality is any of my business, its between you and god
3. don't think the "sin" of homosexuality is any big deal

However you've decided to latch onto that "sin" part and try your best into twisting it into "i have a problem with gay people".

No, I asked you to define what "lifestyle" meant and you said it means "homosexual."

You said something to the effect of not having problem with gays, but having a problem with the lifestyle. Which means your sentence no longer makes sense, because it becomes "I have no problem with gays, but I have a problem with gays." Because in this case you said "gay" and "lifestyle" are synonyms. I don't mean it doesn't make sense morally, I mean that it isn't an understandable English sentence.

 

[Bornstellar]

Sexuality is a significantly more core aspect of someone than smoking. To me it is no different than being against someone not altering their racial appearance via surgery.

Someone's sexuality has little bearing on my judgment of their overall character.

 

[Enron]

No, I asked you to define what "lifestyle" meant and you said it means "homosexual."

You said something to the effect of not having problem with gays, but having a problem with the lifestyle. Which means your sentence no longer makes sense, because it becomes "I have no problem with gays, but I have a problem with gays." Because in this case you said "gay" and "lifestyle" are synonyms. I don't mean it doesn't make sense morally, I mean that it isn't an understandable English sentence.

Are you seriously trying to play this ridiculous word game?

goodbye.

 

[Opiate]

Sexuality is a significantly more core aspect of someone than smoking. To me it is no different than being against someone not altering their racial appearance via surgery.

What if you are a hard determinist (or, in religious terms, a predistinationist) and think the difference is illusory?

 

[CornBurrito]

Are you seriously trying to play this ridiculous word game?

goodbye.

I'm not playing. I'm asking what you mean by "lifestyle". Because if you actually define it as a synonym of "gay" then one of your previous sentences ceases to be an understandable English sentence.

Someone's sexuality has little bearing on my judgment of their overall character.

Does eye color or ethnic background have any bearing on your judgement?What if your friend wants to marry someone outside their race? Do those things factor in your judgement? Should they? I'm not sure why sexuality should have any more bearing than eye color.

 

[minor effort]

I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.

I don't know if that particular smoking analogy applies, but discrimination does matter when it comes to friendships, and it does say a lot about their overall character. I'd feel just the same if a friend started vocally opposing interracial relationships. At a certain point there's no amount of "it's just the way I was raised" rationale that excuses it.

So yes, I think bigotry and discrimination do reflect one's character.

 

[haikira]

How could you not believe in gay marriage? There's plenty of proof.

ba dum tss...

But yeah, fuck that shit. I rarely say this, but it seems an apt time. Haters gonna hate.

 

[Opiate]

Are you seriously trying to play this ridiculous word game?

goodbye.

He seems to be trying to understand what you mean. It's very hard not to have a semantic discussion when the core issue is that he doesn't understand the language you're using.

When you say you object to the "lifestyle," can you explain what you mean? If the word is interchangeable with the word "gay," then how is that different than saying you object to homosexuality? These are honest questions. I'm trying to understand your position.

 

[Kinsei]

I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.

Smoking is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's not complicated.

 

[CornBurrito]

Smoking is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's not complicated.

This is where we get "but acting on homosexual urges is a choice." Indeed it is. But so is choosing to not bleach your skin and get facial surgery to pass as Caucasian in a racist society. Oh? It is ridiculous and abhorrent to expect people to surgically alter their racial appearance to appease racists????!!! Golly gee that's almost as that's my point.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Great post, Mumei, and I would add something else; not only has this not historically been the response, but one could make a fairly reasonable assumption that the only reason that anti-gay rhetoric has become increasingly softened is that it is no longer socially acceptable to be so condemnatory. It's a bit like a jerk who starts acting nicer once the boss shows up; it's hard to have faith that their suddenly agreeable nature is sincere. Maybe it is -- that's possible -- but it's easy to understand why some would be skeptical.

Isn't a bit hard to tell whether it's A causing B or whether it's the same thing that causes wider society to change - afterall, it isn't just within Christianity where views have softened, isn't it? I mean, Christianity (and most religions) lag behind the rest of society, but there are all manner of issues that most Christians don't care about anymore that their parents, or their parents, or their parents would have cared about.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Great post, Mumei, and I would add something else; not only has this not historically been the response, but one could make a fairly easy assumption that the only reason that anti-gay rhetoric has become increasingly softened is that it is no longer socially acceptable to be so condemnatory. It's a bit like a jerk who starts acting nicer once the boss shows up; it's hard to have faith that their suddenly acquiescent nature is sincere. Maybe it is -- that's possible -- but it's easy to understand why some would be unconvinced.

Oh, there's no doubt about that, and the same can be said about racism. it's gotten a bit more subtle(i.e diet racism, I have family that have become devout is such behavior) over the years, with many exceptions of course, but it's absolutely a thing.

Is the right to a catholic wedding a basic human right though? I'm not against gay marriage at all, but even as a straight guy, I don't believe a catholic wedding is one of my basic rights.

Marriage isn't fundamentally a religious institution and a church isn't forced to do anything.

 

[Opiate]

Isn't a bit hard to tell whether it's A causing B or whether it's the same thing that causes wider society to change - afterall, it isn't just within Christianity where views have softened, isn't it? I mean, Christianity (and most religions) lag behind the rest of society, but there are all manner of issues that most Christians don't care about anymore that their parents, or their parents, or their parents would have cared about.

Yes, totally possible. That's why I included that "that's possible" in the post you quoted.

I think it's generally difficult to argue that Christianity/Christians have been on the forefront of gay rights, rather than followers of that progressive movement. But it's possible, and certainly possible if we focus on specific Christians, because of course there are individual exceptions to any generality.

 

[Sianos]

How else do you convince people that appeal to the "fire and brimstone" part of the OT to congregate?

Religion is truly dead when it discards its core meaning to appeal to bigots in an attempt to raise the size of the congregation (and the amount of money in the donation basket, I presume). People who latch onto such contradictory and warped scripture to justify their hatred will be the downfall of Christianity.

The goal of religion should not be to inflame and incite hatred to boost congregation - it should be the foster tolerance and love for all, aka what the Bible when read as a whole actually promotes. The Antonin Scalia school of reading comprehension is caustic to what the religion actually represents.

Spoiler

is this sarcasm i can't tell

What hate is there in the OP image?

If someone is Christian and has a homosexual friend that they like very much, there is no hate. I'm not talking about how every Christian acts. I'm talking about the relationships where Christians won't impose their beliefs in a friendship.

Will the homosexual person end friendships because they don't believe in homosexuality? That's what this Christian in the OP image is speaking out against.

The issue is that statements do not exist in a vacuum. You can't say that you disapprove of homosexuality yet are also not judging homosexuals. Logically, if one disapproves homosexuality they must hold some sort of a negative belief of it to justify the disapproval. Whatever judgment has been levied against homosexuality as a concept is also levied against homosexuals as people, since the one quality to be placed in the subgroup of "homosexual" is being homosexual.

I personally think that most people against homosexuality cannot even articulate why they are beyond the fact that they are told to. They cannot reconcile the fact that they are supposed to be against homosexuality yet know plenty of nice homosexual people. Hence, the paradoxical rhetoric of trying to both simultaneous be tolerant of a group of people yet still following the twisted letter of misappropriated, antiquated scripture.

 

[DoktorEvil]

1. What Strawman did I use? I never said why MJ got the surgery, only that he looked white as a result.

2. I never said this though exercise religion was Christian. I'm saying would people defend that religion?

How can one quote out of context the Bible and not be a Christian denomination?

Anyway, there are plenty of pro-government and pro-religious freedom people and laywers who would quite easily pick up their pitchfork in support of your absurd scenario, because their job is to support an ideal, not the denomination, & because the freedom of worship is a core US Bill of Rights tenant. Realistically, they wouldn't get anywhere because they do not have real authority to speak on behalf of Christianity.

To me there is no difference between disagreeing with homosexuality and that hypothetical religions' disagreement with not altering African features through surgery and skin bleach.

This is quite a leap.

 

[Unbounded]

I was talking with a friend on facebook and a girl I know who are both really, really deeply entrenched in their beliefs. The way they basically explained it to me was that they didn't see marriage for love in general as the correct way to go about it, and marriage is essentially for the complete bond of man and woman, or something like that.

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with them. It just became... sorta easier to understand after hearing them explain it though, I guess? Their belief system primarily comes from the bible, so even if they accept that homosexuals are allowed to marry now, I guess they'll always see it as lesser. On top of that they felt that even if there were people who legitimately considered themselves homosexual, they should still marry the opposite sex, and "you can have a deep friendship with whatever sex you are instead" or something like that.

Whatever.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I was talking with a friend on facebook and a girl I know who are both really, really deeply entrenched in their beliefs. The way they basically explained it to me was that they didn't see marriage for love in general as the correct way to go about it, and marriage is essentially for the complete bond of man and woman, or something like that.

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with them. It just became... sorta easier to understand after hearing them explain it though, I guess? Their belief system primarily comes from the bible, so even if they accept that homosexuals are allowed to marry now, I guess they'll always see it as lesser. On top of that they felt that even if there were people who legitimately considered themselves homosexual, they should still marry the opposite sex, and "you can have a deep friendship with whatever sex you are instead" or something like that.

Whatever.

Fucking no.

 

[GravityMan]

People are free to believe whatever they want, and practice whatever religion they want. Most people don't give a damn about what you believe. Hell, you're free to believe that the Earth is flat and that the Moon doesn't exist and that science is evil.

But...regardless of your stance on an issue (such as gay marriage), articulating something along the lines of "I have nothing against [you/this], but [that]" is very patronizing, judgmental, and cowardly. It is that simple. It says a lot about your core character, in a bad way. It's easy to see why folks like that are often widely disliked (even among some of those who share similar views), and why those people seldom gain the respect of others.

 

[Unbounded]

Fucking no.

Why do you think I disagreed?

Generally, they didn't think that you get married to make yourself happy.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that they're so deep that nothing I can do will convince them. My best bet is to hope it changes with their kids.

 

[Enron]

He seems to be trying to understand what you mean. It's very hard not to have a semantic discussion when the core issue is that he doesn't understand the language you're using.

When you say you object to the "lifestyle," can you explain what you mean? If the word is interchangeable with the word "gay," then how is that different than saying you object to homosexuality? These are honest questions. I'm trying to understand your position.

I thought that was pretty clear in my second post on this - that I think homosexuality is a sin, but it's like any other garden variety sin and I really don't care about it beyond "yes, i belive it is immoral" along with a bunch of other shit that I really don't care about and don't hold against anyone else. So here it is again for the second or third time in this thread for all of you that keep wanting to play this stupid semantics game.

1. Do I think homosexuality is a sin? Yes.
2. Do I care? No.
3. Should two men or two women be able to marry each other? Yes.
4. Are homosexuals horrible people because they live in sin? No. We all sin, and we all are not horrible people.

This is the same thing I've said in other posts here. I don't know what the confusion is about. I'm sure cornburrito or someone else will find some other grammar loophole in this and ask me to repeat this a 4th or 5th time though.

On second thought, I should probably just leave it at this. Have fun with this thread.

 

[Opiate]

Thanks Enron, that made your position clear for me.

 

[Tesseract]

i don't hate you, i hate what you are. you are you, but i don't hate you, only you. ~ captain picard

 

[CornBurrito]

This is quite a leap.

How so? Neither race nor sexuality are controllable. But acting on sexuality is supposedly a choice, and expecting celibacy out of gays so that they can avoid sin is fine apparently. Not changing your physical appearance is a choice. Expecting people to change their physical appearance to avoid discrimination isn't fine? What's the difference?

 

[-Minsc-]

I wonder how many homosexual couples who fully agree with the image in the OP will be too afraid to speak up and stand firm with that belief due to all the hatred and backlash they'll receive from former supporters?

Edit: To clarify, I'm referring to the final paragraph.

"But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those of us who stand for what we believe is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe, same as you have a right to speak what you believe."