You Hate Me! You Really Hate Me!

[Apologiaphoenix]

They are the editors btw, not the authors. The chapters on each cultural group are by different anthropologists.

Here's an extract (from here):

Great. I've been trying to find these online but I'm not having as much luck. If someone can get a link somewhere, I'd be glad to review them.

That sort of cultural pattern of the ability of males to change their gender to a third gender, a gender that is viewed as somewhat feminine and magically inclined, and which can marry and have sex with people of the male gender, is strikingly similar to the Two-Spirit pattern present among native american tribes. Polynesian tribes in the pacific also had, and to some extent still have, a similar practice called fa'afafine in Samoa, fakaleiti in Tonga, mahu in Hawaii, mahu or rae rae in Tahiti, akava'ine or laelae in the Cook Islands, vaka sa lewa lewa in Fiji and fiafifine in Niue. So it seems quite a widespread cultural pattern.

Again, I'd need to see more on this before signing on the dotted line. The whole Secret Mark thing is still looming in the background.

That particular book is quite dense. If you want a more general and easy to read introduction about homosexuality throughout history in various cultures, then I would recommend starting with Louis Crompton's book Homosexuality and Civilization, a highly readable and highly regarded work that looks at how various major civilizations over the last 2000 years have treated homosexuality.

Sure. I'll see how much it costs on Amazon and if I can afford it now. If not, perhaps the library, though interlibrary loans take weeks to do.

I'm beginning to see why they might. Obstinacy and an unwillingness to change one's position are key attributes for any apologist. I should know, I used to be one.

No. My position has changed radically on numerous issues over the years. I think you're confusing me with someone who can't accept the meaning of the term homophobia even when shown explicitly otherwise. Nice to end with a personal testimony too. Some things never change apparently.

There are, of course, a few Feminazis on the left, who I ignore in much the same way most Christians ignore the Westboro baptist church. In general, though, I find that most people on the left love talking about issues, and will talk your arm and leg off given half a chance.

I find that odd because I have found most of them just start spewing venom immediately.

[Starlight]

Great. I've been trying to find these online but I'm not having as much luck. If someone can get a link somewhere, I'd be glad to review them.

I don't have endless time to hunt them all down for you, but I started with the first one.
It's online here. Clicking on Vol 2, and then entering image number 823 will take you to the correct page (1558 of the book itself) on which you'll find the cited quote:



I'm not quite sure why you want the original source here. Having a third gender (wiki) is a cultural pattern that has been observed in dozens and dozens, probably hundreds, of cultures. That wiki article has a long, and poorly organized, list. Some of those cultures still maintain their historical practices through to the present day. All 17th century documents on the subject could be works of fiction for all it matters. It would still be the case that third-gender is an extremely common cultural pattern, that has been observed at some point in history on all continents and appears to have been ubiquitous in the cultures of the pre-colonial Americas and the peoples of the pacific.

The common pattern across cultures is that men (sometimes also women) can renounce their former gender and move to the third gender. They wear different clothes that are generally part way between male and female clothes, and perform different societal roles - often they can choose to what extent they wish to perform "men's" roles and to what extent they wish to perform "women's" roles. In many cultures they are regarded as having, or as having gained, spiritual or magical powers. They predominantly or always have sexual relations with people of their own birth gender, whom they are usually allowed to marry. Marriage in such cultures is usually polygamous and a man will marry multiple wives and at most one person of the third gender. Marriage to a third gender person is generally considered lucky within the society. Such marriages are usually viewed within the culture as "heterosexual" rather than "homosexual" because they understand the person born male to have truly changed his gender to the third gender, and hence the man marrying him and having sex with him is understood to be doing this to a person of another gender, just as if he were marrying a female.

The whole Secret Mark thing is still looming in the background.

I think you're confusing me with someone who can't accept the meaning of the term homophobia even when shown explicitly otherwise.

I've showed you the results of polling gay people on what they understand the meaning of homophobia to be. Those were pretty clear. Over 80% of them understood the word to denote any kind of opposition to gay people, homosexuality, gay relationships, or gay rights. So if you see any gay people use the word "homophobia" that should probably be your first guess about what they're meaning by it.

I've showed you the forum threads that came up when I typed 'homophobia word meaning forum' into google, and they were all along the lines of people asking "how come homophobia doesn't mean a fear of gay people?" and the answers consistently given was that the meaning of English words are determined by their usage not their suffixes, and that phobia as a suffix can mean general aversion in any case such as a "hydrophobic" surface that repels water.

If you can't cope with the fact that the standard usage of homophobia in modern society has changed from what the word originally once meant, then I give up. It reminds me of 10 years ago on forums when I'd regularly talk to people who insisted that LGBT people were "stealing" the word "gay" and that they refused to give up it's "true meaning" of "happy". Those people seem to have given up their somewhat misguided crusade to hold back the changing of our language.

I find that odd because I have found most of them just start spewing venom immediately.

I strongly suspect you first say something fairly extreme in order to trigger such a response.

[fm93]

It is amazing that five entire pages of this thread have been devoted to arguing about a single word's meaning.

[Starlight]

Having a third gender (wiki) is a cultural pattern that has been observed in dozens and dozens, probably hundreds, of cultures. That wiki article has a long, and poorly organized, list. Some of those cultures still maintain their historical practices through to the present day. All 17th century documents on the subject could be works of fiction for all it matters. It would still be the case that third-gender is an extremely common cultural pattern, that has been observed at some point in history on all continents and appears to have been ubiquitous in the cultures of the pre-colonial Americas and the peoples of the pacific.

The common pattern across cultures is that men (sometimes also women) can renounce their former gender and move to the third gender. They wear different clothes that are generally part way between male and female clothes, and perform different societal roles - often they can choose to what extent they wish to perform "men's" roles and to what extent they wish to perform "women's" roles. In many cultures they are regarded as having, or as having gained, spiritual or magical powers. They predominantly or always have sexual relations with people of their own birth gender, whom they are usually allowed to marry. Marriage in such cultures is usually polygamous and a man will marry multiple wives and at most one person of the third gender. Marriage to a third gender person is generally considered lucky within the society. Such marriages are usually viewed within the culture as "heterosexual" rather than "homosexual" because they understand the person born male to have truly changed his gender to the third gender, and hence the man marrying him and having sex with him is understood to be doing this to a person of another gender, just as if he were marrying a female.

While browsing some of the wiki links I found my way to this fascinating article written by an Australian PhD student who lived in Indonesia from 1998 to 2000 among the Bugis people, who still to this day have a 5-gender culture. i.e. what I've been calling the 'third gender' they split into three genders: Women who have opted to become pseudo-men, men who have opted to become pseudo-women, and magically inclined. (That same tripartite splitting of the third gender also appears in some pre-colonial cultures in the Americas) She mentions how a woman who had become third gender had married another woman and that they had adopted a child.

Other types of third-gender traditions still survive to the present day in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. ABC News has a little slideshow with information and photos from India. All three countries have recently granted official recognition and legal protections for their traditional third gender people, who have suffered quite a lot of discrimination since the colonial period.

Things start getting controversial/interesting when we consider questions like whether the Bible has any terms for third genders, and whether the cultures the Israelites were interacting with had any third gender customs. e.g. There's been arguments over what the Sumerian 'assinnu' ('women-men') were, and whether they were a third gender. And there's been increasing acknowledgment that the term 'eunuch' may well have denoted third-gender people in general rather than merely referring to castrated people.

[Jedidiah]

. . . I'm not quite sure why you want the original source here. Having a [third gender] is a cultural pattern that has been observed in dozens and dozens, probably hundreds, of cultures. . . .

So because this 'mental illness' exists and has existed in humans beings other than the "western world" means what?

[Starlight]

So because this 'mental illness' exists and has existed in humans beings other than the "western world" means what?

Here's a deal: You don't imply LGBT people have a mental illness, and I won't imply religious people have a mental illness. Deal?

The discussion came up in the context of Nick's statement in which he implies same sex marriages have been pretty much entirely absent from every society in human history:

I have a problem with two people of the same sex getting married based on what I think the definition of marriage is. I'm also right in line with most every society in human history up until our time.

That's a pretty egregious statement to make as an American, because to the best of our knowledge, most, perhaps all, of the native american peoples both in north and south America used the third (or fourth or fifth) gender cultural constructs to facilitate marriages between people of the same sex. Such constructs are also found extensively across the peoples of the pacific, south Asia, and Africa, and have been documented for hundreds of years by European explorers and anthropologists.

While third gender is easily the most common way that societies in history have provided for marriages between people of the same biological sex, other cultures, such as in Siwa seem to have based same-sex marriages on age and not gender. Overall, there's been a huge amount of diversity on such issues and different cultures have come up with lots of different social structures to facilitate people with same-sex sexual attractions and people with transgender inclinations.

An idea that a lot of modern evangelical Christians have, which Nick is giving voice to, is that virtually all cultures in history have had exactly 2 genders, and only opposite-sex marriages. They see modern Western same-sex marriage and modern transgender people changing their gender as being all but unprecedented in the history of the world. Little could be further from the truth.

Thus, for example, the American Anthropological Association's official declaration in response to George Bush's push to ban same sex marriage:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."

[Apologiaphoenix]

I haven't managed to find much on Purchas yet, but at this point I do know that often travel accounts contained many strange phenomena that weren't entirely accurate but told to show strange discoveries. This goes back even to ancient times. Again, you can laugh about Secret Mark, but if I find someone who's buying into an idea that is known to be false in the field, then it really calls into question their research abilities everywhere else.

As homophobia, I could just as well say that Adrift showed you otherwise and I have in fact been accused of having a fear of homosexuals and such regularly so yes, it's a very real thing.

And as for saying something extreme, no. I will often just state that I disagree with homosexual practice. I thought we were supposed to be tolerant. I guess that only goes one way.

[Jedidiah]

Here's a deal: You don't imply LGBT people have a mental illness, and I won't imply religious people have a mental illness. Deal?

I believe that the whole sexual deviation thing is purely mental illness. Even if I stop saying it you will still bad mouth Christianity in various ways.

[Starlight]

at this point I do know that often travel accounts contained many strange phenomena that weren't entirely accurate but told to show strange discoveries. This goes back even to ancient times.

Sure. Some people consider the bible one such fictional work.

I guess if you're concerned about the quality of ancient travel accounts, you could start with the Australian PhD student who did her PhD in 1998-2000 on that Indonesian people group, and then move on to checing wiki's direct quotes about Siwa's same-sex marriage tradition from 6 different 20th century explorers, anthropologists, and writers. No particular need to concern yourself with sources from the 1600s.

I have in fact been accused of having a fear of homosexuals and such regularly

Okay. I guess if lots of people say it, and only you deny it, I'm inclined to believe the greater number.

I will often just state that I disagree with homosexual practice.

If you disagree with homosexual practice, then don't have a homosexual relationship. It's not something you need to go around stating.

I thought we were supposed to be tolerant. I guess that only goes one way.

The tolerance thing is basically a social deal (similar to the kind I offered Jedidah) to live and let live. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" as it were. If you start poking your nose into other people's business and telling them what you think about their lives and their relationships and passing judgement on them, you've broken the deal. At that point they're no longer under any social obligation to tolerate you or your unsolicited opinions, and can freely express their judgements of you. They are not obligated to continue to tolerate you even after you've started being intolerant... in fact they're somewhat socially obligated to censure you for your intolerance because the social-contract needs to be enforced otherwise everyone could freely break it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Sure. Some people consider the bible one such fictional work.

Yes, that's why I also rely on the work of critical scholars who disagree with the Christian claims about the Bible to see what they agree to about the Bible.

I guess if you're concerned about the quality of ancient travel accounts, you could start with the Australian PhD student who did her PhD in 1998-2000 on that Indonesian people group, and then move on to checing wiki's direct quotes about Siwa's same-sex marriage tradition from 6 different 20th century explorers, anthropologists, and writers. No particular need to concern yourself with sources from the 1600s.

Sure. Let's see what hard evidence can be provided.

Okay. I guess if lots of people say it, and only you deny it, I'm inclined to believe the greater number.

Ah yes. Forget examining the claims. Go with quantity.

But when a greater number of experts in the field say secret Mark is bogus, well the rules change.

If you disagree with homosexual practice, then don't have a homosexual relationship. It's not something you need to go around stating.

If you don't agree with disagreeing with homosexual practice, then you don't need to disagree with homosexual practice. You don't need to go around stating it.

If you don't agree with rape, don't commit rape.

If you don't agree with child abuse, don't abuse your children.

Wonderful logic dude.

And oh yes, once again, we were told for so long to have tolerance and now it's "Shut up!" You do realize you're essentially saying you want some people to lie and be dishonest about their moral convictions just because some people can't take others disagreeing with them. Do you really want society to be built on us being dishonest?

The tolerance thing is basically a social deal (similar to the kind I offered Jedidah) to live and let live. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" as it were. If you start poking your nose into other people's business and telling them what you think about their lives and their relationships and passing judgement on them, you've broken the deal. At that point they're no longer under any social obligation to tolerate you or your unsolicited opinions, and can freely express their judgements of you. They are not obligated to continue to tolerate you even after you've started being intolerant... in fact they're somewhat socially obligated to censure you for your intolerance because the social-contract needs to be enforced otherwise everyone could freely break it.

Um. No. Tolerance does not mean it's live and let live. It means we have something serious that we disagree on, but that we still value each other as persons and can disagree. Keep in mind also we're the ones having something shoved down our throats. We're the ones told that we have to accept this as normal behavior and we can't speak out against it and we can't disagree. I know many ministers who fear the day a homosexual couple comes to them wanting to be married and they say no out of their convictions and lose everything they have because of the tolerance of the homosexuals.

[fm93]

Most people, regardless of religious or political views, agree that things like rape and child abuse are wrong. They may disagree on precisely what constitutes rape and child abuse, but they will always agree that acts which they think do cross those lines are immoral. One of the key reasons is that rape and child abuse are always observably harmful. The same can't be said of homosexual practice. There are certainly some instances of homosexual practice that are clearly harmful, but 1) those would also be harmful if done between heterosexual partners, so they're not strictly homosexual issues, and 2) there are others that aren't.

Now, one could try to argue that something can be morally wrong without showing any observable signs of harm. But in that case, one must acknowledge that fact, not keep insisting that certain practices are observably harmful when they just aren't.

But to me, what's even more significant than the lack of observable harm is the presence of observable benefit. When I was in college, I once had to share a co-ed apartment with three other students after I was late submitting my housing application. One of them was a young woman who was in a relationship with another young woman (who lived elsewhere, but often came over to visit). Because we shared an apartment, I saw them almost every day. That means that almost every day, I saw that warm glow light up their faces when they were in each other's company. I saw them thoughtfully leave surprise gifts for each other when they were swamped with work/school, or for no special reason at all--just because they wanted to make each other's day. I saw them shop together, make dinner together, snuggle up by the couch watching movies together, care for each other when one of them was sick. More importantly, I saw their lives and personalities characterized by what Galatians calls "the fruit of the Spirit"--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

We know from Romans 6:23 that "the wages of sin is death." But when I observed those two young women, I didn't see that. To the contrary, they never seemed more alive than when they were together. Sure, some things that are bad take a while to manifest, so it's possible to temporarily not have any negative signs. But to lack negative signs while also having positive signs seems to be something different.

Now, despite all this, I still can't prove that homosexual behavior isn't universally immoral somehow. But I do think it's easy to understand why people such as them might think traditionalist Christians* are harboring hate. If I tell someone "Your lifestyle is immoral" without even knowing that person or what his lifestyle actually entails, I'm definitely not convincing him that I'm telling some truth in tough-love. Nor will I come across as being loving if I insist to someone that her behavior is harmful when it actually appears to be beneficial.

The traditionalist view of the Book might be correct, but I'm not being loving if I primarily view my fellow people through a book.



*I haven't kept in touch with them very closely since then, but one of those young women currently lists her religious views as "Christian," and they're still together, for what it's worth.

[Starlight]

If you don't agree with disagreeing with homosexual practice, then you don't need to disagree with homosexual practice. You don't need to go around stating it.

If you don't agree with rape, don't commit rape.

If you don't agree with child abuse, don't abuse your children.

Well if you went round stating "I think rape is wrong" it would lead to people giving you weird looks, because most people don't see the need to spontaneously express their opinions on such issues.

But the problem in general that gay people face is that they are stigmatized and ostracized minority group. Negative words hurt them, because of this, far more so than normal. This is a well-known problem that minority groups facing discrimination and prejudice thoughout the world face. Humans are social animals and highly sensitive to social approval or disapproval. If dozens or hundreds of people tell a person that they are a bad person and that the group they belong to is bad / evil / immoral / to be shunned etc, that tends to really mess people up. The person can start to believe that maybe they are as bad as everyone thinks and that maybe they're better off dead. Even if they don't kill themselves, it regularly causes depression, anxiety and chronic stress, and other negative health consequences.

So out of love, we need to give consideration to the effects of our words on others. It is not enough merely to go around self-righteously speaking what we see as the truth.

As a result, publicly stated opposition to homosexuality is a different kettle of fish to publicly stated opposition to rape. Because it is a negative statement towards a minority group who has had a history of suffering from very serious discrimination and prejudice. So we need to be more thoughtful and loving in the language directed towards them, than we need be about language directed purely towards abstract ideas.

we were told for so long to have tolerance and now it's "Shut up!" You do realize you're essentially saying you want some people to lie and be dishonest about their moral convictions

If you're being asked to shut up, then you're not being asked to lie, because you can't lie if you're not talking. So I think you're being disingenuous here.

Tolerance does not mean it's live and let live.

Like a few Christian apologists I've encountered, you willfully misunderstand the ideas behind 'tolerance' in order to twist them into being both self-contradictory when you want to attack them, and also to use them as a shield for yourself when you're being critiqued.

The idea of tolerance, as a liberal social idea, is that each person should be allowed to live their own life as they please so long as it doesn't harm others. So I should therefore tolerate you going to church on sundays, because that doesn't impact me. You should tolerate someone else getting married, because that doesn't impact you, etc. Tolerance says it's fine for you to make up a rule for yourself like "I won't marry a man, because I believe God doesn't want me to." But the moment you start sticking your nose into other people's business and saying "You shouldn't marry a man, because I say so." you've broken the social contract of tolerance.

We're the ones told that we have to accept this as normal behavior and we can't speak out against it and we can't disagree.

You're the ones who are doing the harm in a scientifically measurable way. Health organizations around the world have testified in court about the harms caused to gay people as a result of social stigma and public prejudice and discrimination.

If and when you can show me scientific proof that Christians are suffering measurable medical harm due to social discrimination, such that it is stripping years off their life expectancies. Then I will start to take seriously the notion that you might be the victim in all of this. At the moment it's like the school bully who has beaten a kid black and blue, wailing when the teacher tells him that he's not allowed to throw another punch. Telling the bully to stop beating the other kids up isn't victimizing the bully.

I know many ministers who fear the day a homosexual couple comes to them wanting to be married and they say no out of their convictions and lose everything they have because of the tolerance of the homosexuals.

"Lose everything", LOL. I suspect their fear doesn't hold a candle to the bonfire of LGBT kids in America who are terrified their parents will kick them out of home and onto the street. Being kicked out of home by Christian parents is currently a major cause of homelessness for gay young people in America.

[Adrift]

Most people, regardless of religious or political views, agree that things like rape and child abuse are wrong. They may disagree on precisely what constitutes rape and child abuse, but they will always agree that acts which they think do cross those lines are immoral. One of the key reasons is that rape and child abuse are always observably harmful. The same can't be said of homosexual practice. There are certainly some instances of homosexual practice that are clearly harmful, but 1) those would also be harmful if done between heterosexual partners, so they're not strictly homosexual issues, and 2) there are others that aren't.

Now, one could try to argue that something can be morally wrong without showing any observable signs of harm. But in that case, one must acknowledge that fact, not keep insisting that certain practices are observably harmful when they just aren't.

This seems like a very trees for the forest view of the harm of homosexuality. There are all types of ways that homosexuality can be and is harmful to people that isn't immediately visible. Whether it's the confusion and despair, and a loss of identity that adolescents feel when they find themselves in a world without borders that says "do whatever feels good", to the man or woman who is drawn to more extreme forms of perversion through gateway experiences. Wasn't it Ginsberg or Burroughs who, awash with anger and frustration over the gay rights community's separation from NAMBLA, declared that the love between a man and a boy was age old and universal in the homosexual community? Not that every gay person would eventually become a pedophile, but that it was accepted practice, and just part of that world since before the Romans. How dare the community turn its back and pretend that it's something it isn't, he thought. I've already read pedophile apologists on Reddit who are making arguments that gay rights advocates made 30 years ago (and they said there would be no slippery slope). We already see the issue in the trans community. Look what's happened to people in our society. We're celebrating people who've mutilated their bodies, and who, as a group, still suffer from ridiculous levels of co-morbidity and suicide. Men who get into rings and beat up women pretending to be women, who flaunt their sexual confusion, and leave others confused in their wake. Our world is sick, and you all pretend that it's just fine and dandy, and it's not. Line up all your soft-science experts who are pushing the same agenda, looking for ways to continue selling the world's wisdom, because that's all they have.

And that's what it comes down to for the Christian...the spiritual component. The greatest harm is the spiritual harm. God desires holiness and orderliness, and he says that homosexuality moves men and women away from his order, his will, and his desire for us to move into relationship with him. God isn't vindictive. He's not a big meanie about homosexuality because he doesn't like gay people. He sees the big picture, and knows what is best for us, and Christians believe they have good reason to trust him.

But to me, what's even more significant than the lack of observable harm is the presence of observable benefit. When I was in college, I once had to share a co-ed apartment with three other students after I was late submitting my housing application. One of them was a young woman who was in a relationship with another young woman (who lived elsewhere, but often came over to visit). Because we shared an apartment, I saw them almost every day. That means that almost every day, I saw that warm glow light up their faces when they were in each other's company. I saw them thoughtfully leave surprise gifts for each other when they were swamped with work/school, or for no special reason at all--just because they wanted to make each other's day. I saw them shop together, make dinner together, snuggle up by the couch watching movies together, care for each other when one of them was sick. More importantly, I saw their lives and personalities characterized by what Galatians calls "the fruit of the Spirit"--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

We know from Romans 6:23 that "the wages of sin is death." But when I observed those two young women, I didn't see that. To the contrary, they never seemed more alive than when they were together. Sure, some things that are bad take a while to manifest, so it's possible to temporarily not have any negative signs. But to lack negative signs while also having positive signs seems to be something different.

Now, despite all this, I still can't prove that homosexual behavior isn't universally immoral somehow. But I do think it's easy to understand why people such as them might think traditionalist Christians* are harboring hate. If I tell someone "Your lifestyle is immoral" without even knowing that person or what his lifestyle actually entails, I'm definitely not convincing him that I'm telling some truth in tough-love. Nor will I come across as being loving if I insist to someone that her behavior is harmful when it actually appears to be beneficial.

The traditionalist view of the Book might be correct, but I'm not being loving if I primarily view my fellow people through a book.



*I haven't kept in touch with them very closely since then, but one of those young women currently lists her religious views as "Christian," and they're still together, for what it's worth.

It's a lie. I don't care how many Hallmark moments you've seen, sin is sin. Sometimes our little pet sins look innocent, beautiful even, but it's a lie straight from the father of lies, who masquerades as an angel of light.

But I say all this taking a hard line approach to 1 Cor 5:12-13, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.'" At the same time, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit comes to correct the world concerning sin and righteousness, and the Holy Spirit works through people. As long as Christians are allowed a voice in their community, they will speak their minds on these things. I don't think we should come in a spirit of condemnation, but in a spirit of openness, love, and understanding. What one does with that understanding is their own business.

[Starlight]

Whether it's the confusion and despair, and a loss of identity that adolescents feel when they find themselves in a world without borders that says "do whatever feels good", to the man or woman who is drawn to more extreme forms of perversion through gateway experiences.

That's beautiful. Homosexuality: The gateway drug!

Not that every gay person would eventually become a pedophile, but that it was accepted practice,

It confuses me that you claim to have gay friends. Yet apparently they don't give you a friendly punch in the face when you compare them to pedophiles every 5 minutes.

I've already read pedophile apologists on Reddit who are making arguments that gay rights advocates made 30 years ago (and they said there would be no slippery slope).

Do you understand that people making arguments is not the same thing as other people accepting those arguments???

The standard they have to meet is a standard of "does not cause harm". By all sorts of scientific measures, pedophilia causes psychological and developmental harms to the children involved. For this reason, the punishments for pedophilia and child pornography have been raised by an order of magnitude in recent decades. While at the same time same-sex relationships have been legalized because they don't cause harm and it was demonstrably harming gay people for them not to be legal. In both cases it's the same harm-based standard that is driving it.

We already see the issue in the trans community. Look what's happened to people in our society. We're celebrating people who've mutilated their bodies, and who, as a group, still suffer from ridiculous levels of co-morbidity and suicide. Men who get into rings and beat up women pretending to be women, who flaunt their sexual confusion, and leave others confused in their wake.

These people suffer from a problem: The gender that their mind tells them they are is different to the gender their body is. If God snapped his fingers and changed your current male body to a female body, you would have a similar problem. It might be a fun experience for you for an hour, a day, a week, or a month. But within a year you'd likely be praying on a daily basis for God to change your body back to being male. People who told you to just "get over it" and to accept that you're female, wouldn't be being very helpful.

Our psychologists have not been able to come up with any drugs or any therapies to help alter the minds of these people to match their body's gender. However our doctors have come up with increasingly good methods of changing their bodies to match their minds. So we do what we can to alleviate their suffering. And we encourage other people to be kind to them and not mock them or make fun of them, because we don't want to see their situation made worse than it already is. That's what it comes down to... being kind and loving, as much as we can.

God desires holiness and orderliness, and he says that homosexuality moves men and women away from his order, his will, and his desire for us to move into relationship with him.

Unless you're advocating salvation by works, gay people can't be moved into a relationship with god by acting heterosexual. And any person who is in a relationship with with God won't be damned by virtue of being gay. It might be something that God gradually works with them on over the course of their lifetime, but that is between them and God, not for you to judge. A lot of Christians seem to have things in their lives that they feel God is drawing their attention to for them to work on.

He sees the big picture, and knows what is best for us, and Christians believe they have good reason to trust him.

In the bible, Paul says being single is best, but marriage is an acceptable second-best for those who burn with lust. Jesus says divorce is not at all ideal and not how things were 'in the beginning', but was a compromise given to man due to the hardness of the human heart. So on relationships, God seems to know what is ideal and best, but accepts that post-fall humanity isn't perfect and that human relationships need to be a bit more flexible than than the ideal. Same-sex relationships can be quite reasonably viewed in this biblical light - not necessarily part of God's 'original plan', but something that's necessary due to the human condition.

It's a lie. I don't care how many Hallmark moments you've seen, sin is sin.

Wow. The willful blindness and propaganda is strong it seems. "I have a religious belief! So don't believe your lying eyes regarding all that evidence to the contrary!"

[Apologiaphoenix]

Well if you went round stating "I think rape is wrong" it would lead to people giving you weird looks, because most people don't see the need to spontaneously express their opinions on such issues.

Irrelevant. I just used the exact same wording that you used and all of a sudden it doesn't apply. Why is that?

But the problem in general that gay people face is that they are stigmatized and ostracized minority group. Negative words hurt them, because of this, far more so than normal. This is a well-known problem that minority groups facing discrimination and prejudice thoughout the world face. Humans are social animals and highly sensitive to social approval or disapproval. If dozens or hundreds of people tell a person that they are a bad person and that the group they belong to is bad / evil / immoral / to be shunned etc, that tends to really mess people up. The person can start to believe that maybe they are as bad as everyone thinks and that maybe they're better off dead. Even if they don't kill themselves, it regularly causes depression, anxiety and chronic stress, and other negative health consequences.

Yes. We have Gay Pride parades all over the world and we have a Gay Pride month and we have had the White House decorated in the Rainbow Flag and we have positive portrayals of hoomsexuals in popular media.

The stigma to live with! Too bad they don't have it easy like the blacks in the Civil Rights era who had hoses turned on them on public TV.

Meanwhile, businesses like Christian Mingle are sued and forced to go against their belief system because of the homosexuals.

Do you even pay attention to reality any more?

So out of love, we need to give consideration to the effects of our words on others. It is not enough merely to go around self-righteously speaking what we see as the truth.

I have no problem with that. I have a problem with my being blamed for what others do. I have a problem when we live in a society where an opinion can't be raised simply because it might offend someone.

As a result, publicly stated opposition to homosexuality is a different kettle of fish to publicly stated opposition to rape. Because it is a negative statement towards a minority group who has had a history of suffering from very serious discrimination and prejudice. So we need to be more thoughtful and loving in the language directed towards them, than we need be about language directed purely towards abstract ideas.

I have not said a single thing hateful about homosexuals. Not a single thing. What I have seen is you have pretty much told me to say "Shut up" all the while saying we need to watch our words. Let me know when you stop being a hypocrite. Okay?

If you're being asked to shut up, then you're not being asked to lie, because you can't lie if you're not talking. So I think you're being disingenuous here.

Actually, I am. I'm being asked to live as if I have no problem with homosexual behavior. Not going to happen.

Like a few Christian apologists I've encountered, you willfully misunderstand the ideas behind 'tolerance' in order to twist them into being both self-contradictory when you want to attack them, and also to use them as a shield for yourself when you're being critiqued.

The idea of tolerance, as a liberal social idea, is that each person should be allowed to live their own life as they please so long as it doesn't harm others. So I should therefore tolerate you going to church on sundays, because that doesn't impact me. You should tolerate someone else getting married, because that doesn't impact you, etc. Tolerance says it's fine for you to make up a rule for yourself like "I won't marry a man, because I believe God doesn't want me to." But the moment you start sticking your nose into other people's business and saying "You shouldn't marry a man, because I say so." you've broken the social contract of tolerance.

No. Tolerance is the system that says we disagree on matters of serious impact, but while our ideas differ, our beliefs in personhood do not. I can disagree with the homosexual and he can disagree with me and we can be friends to each other and still share our viewpoints.

You're the ones who are doing the harm in a scientifically measurable way. Health organizations around the world have testified in court about the harms caused to gay people as a result of social stigma and public prejudice and discrimination.

What discrimination? The White House has been decorated in the rainbow flag and now I know many ministers who are frightened of losing their livelihood and many government employees who are scared of losing their jobs. I suppose you won't have tolerance for them.

If and when you can show me scientific proof that Christians are suffering measurable medical harm due to social discrimination, such that it is stripping years off their life expectancies. Then I will start to take seriously the notion that you might be the victim in all of this. At the moment it's like the school bully who has beaten a kid black and blue, wailing when the teacher tells him that he's not allowed to throw another punch. Telling the bully to stop beating the other kids up isn't victimizing the bully.

You can look at all the Christian businesses that have been sued and forced to close their doors. You can look at the parents in the U.K. who weren't allowed to adopt even though they'd adopted numerous other children because they disagreed with homosexuality.

"Lose everything", LOL. I suspect their fear doesn't hold a candle to the bonfire of LGBT kids in America who are terrified their parents will kick them out of home and onto the street. Being kicked out of home by Christian parents is currently a major cause of homelessness for gay young people in America.

Once again, who cares what the Christians have to lose at all!

No dude. You're not tolerant. Not one bit.