Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[demi-conservative]

Surprise, carped is full-blown prog.

[carpedm9587]

No, there was actual physical harm to many blacks. Never mind Jim Crow laws and voting rights. The inconvenience of not getting your cake decorated, when you could simply go around the corner and get it done, is not anything like what african americans went through.

And gay children are being beaten in schools, and executed by being dragged behind trucks. Never mind loss of ability to tap benefits any other couple can tap, and visit a dying spouse or adopt a child. And children are being taught to mock someone they don't like by calling them "gay." The suicide rate among gay adolescents is the highest of any adolescent group. And those black people COULD have just gone around the corner to a different restaurant. After all - it was just their feelings that were being hurt (in that case).

Seer, wrong is wrong. When we mark a group as "other" and classify them as "immoral" simply because of who they are, we are acting immorally. It is no different than taking a stand against the black man or woman. The person showing prejudice never likes being told they are showing prejudice. They always have a reason, and they always feel justified. They always feel someone else is "sticking their nose into their business." The position against homosexuality is prejudice - pure and simple. Letting go of prejudice is always hard. Some never manage it - and pass on their prejudice to their own descendants. So today we have a resurgence of white supremacy and neo-nazism. 50-60 years from now we will still have groups preaching "gay = evil." Hopefully, as with white supremacists, they will be the minority. Hopefully, you and others like you, who are otherwise good people, will come to see the incredible harm you do when you label and disparage homosexuals as "degenerate sodomites."

This old world of ours needs more love, not less. To label two mature, consenting adults in such terms because they have the audacity to love one another, and they happen to be of the same sex, is simply a tragedy. It needs to change.

[carpedm9587]

Surprise, carped is full-blown prog.

On this subject, absolutely. Way out, far left, liberal.

[mossrose]

And gay children are being beaten in schools, and executed by being dragged behind trucks. Never mind loss of ability to tap benefits any other couple can tap, and visit a dying spouse or adopt a child. And children are being taught to mock someone they don't like by calling them "gay." The suicide rate among gay adolescents is the highest of any adolescent group. And those black people COULD have just gone around the corner to a different restaurant. After all - it was just their feelings that were being hurt (in that case).

Seer, wrong is wrong. When we mark a group as "other" and classify them as "immoral" simply because of who they are, we are acting immorally. It is no different than taking a stand against the black man or woman. The person showing prejudice never likes being told they are showing prejudice. They always have a reason, and they always feel justified. They always feel someone else is "sticking their nose into their business." The position against homosexuality is prejudice - pure and simple. Letting go of prejudice is always hard. Some never manage it - and pass on their prejudice to their own descendants. So today we have a resurgence of white supremacy and neo-nazism. 50-60 years from now we will still have groups preaching "gay = evil." Hopefully, as with white supremacists, they will be the minority. Hopefully, you and others like you, who are otherwise good people, will come to see the incredible harm you do when you label and disparage homosexuals as "degenerate sodomites."

This old world of ours needs more love, not less. To label two mature, consenting adults in such terms because they have the audacity to love one another, and they happen to be of the same sex, is simply a tragedy. It needs to change.

And Christians are being slaughtered around the world for their beliefs. Probably in numbers far exceeding young men who were dragged behind pickup trucks.

Do you care about them?

[carpedm9587]

And Christians are being slaughtered around the world for their beliefs. Probably in numbers far exceeding young men who were dragged behind pickup trucks.

Do you care about them?

Setting aside that this is a "what about" sidetrack....

My answer is: absolutely. No one (or group) should be the target of violence. But being the recipient of violence does not give a group the right to foster a climate of violence on others. This is what happens when we identify an entire group as "other" and paint them a "less." Today, the LGBTQ community tops the list of groups that are the victims of hate crimes in the U.S.

Look, I am aware I am not going to change minds here. The people espousing these hateful views believe they are following the "word of god," which is what makes the problem so pernicious. Some Christian sects have found their way past all of that and seen the harm they are doing. Others are going to take longer, and some never will. It's unfortunate, but that is the way it is. Which means we are at one recourse: contention. Those of us who see this attitude and action as prejudiced and harmful need to continue the work of changing our laws and pushing out a message of acceptance. Ultimately, love usually wins. I may be an optimist, but I believe that is true. If we can reach the point where expressing such views is widely viewed to be as unacceptable as expressing white supremacy views, then we will have made significant progress.

[mossrose]

Setting aside that this is a "what about" sidetrack....

What is "what about" about it?

My answer is: absolutely. No one (or group) should be the target of violence. But being the recipient of violence does not give a group the right to foster a climate of violence on others. This is what happens when we identify an entire group as "other" and paint them a "less." Today, the LGBTQ community tops the list of groups that are the victims of hate crimes in the U.S.

What makes you think that Christians being recipients of violence causes them to foster a climate of violence on others? That is a non sequitur besides the fact that it isn't true.

[carpedm9587]

What is "what about" about it?

There is a tendency, from the right (possibly from the left, but I have not noticed it as much), to respond to any criticism by pointing to something else and saying, "what about X?" So if someone says, "Trump lies," the response is "what about Obama?" It's a deflection. It doesn't deal with the fact that Trump lies - it just sidetracks the discussion to something else. As I have noted many times, if a defendant accused of stealing was to respond with "but what about my neighbor - he steals too," I doubt it would get them any leniency.

So when the discussion is about the harm being done to the LGBTQ community, and someone says, "what about Christians," it's pretty much the same thing. The two have nothing to do with each other. No matter how much Christians are being harmed, it does not justify the harm being done to the LGBTQ community. That does not mean Christians should not be harmed - it just means the topic is a sidetrack to the discussion at hand.

What makes you think that Christians being recipients of violence causes them to foster a climate of violence on others? That is a non sequitur besides the fact that it isn't true.

I did not intend to imply a causal relationship. My point was "because harm is done to X doesn't mean harm being done to Y is justified." In other words, you introduced a non sequitur to the discussion. It doesn't justify (or even relate to) what is happening to the LGBTQ community.

[seer]

Seer, wrong is wrong. When we mark a group as "other" and classify them as "immoral" simply because of who they are, we are acting immorally. It is no different than taking a stand against the black man or woman. The person showing prejudice never likes being told they are showing prejudice. They always have a reason, and they always feel justified. They always feel someone else is "sticking their nose into their business." The position against homosexuality is prejudice - pure and simple. Letting go of prejudice is always hard. Some never manage it - and pass on their prejudice to their own descendants. So today we have a resurgence of white supremacy and neo-nazism. 50-60 years from now we will still have groups preaching "gay = evil." Hopefully, as with white supremacists, they will be the minority. Hopefully, you and others like you, who are otherwise good people, will come to see the incredible harm you do when you label and disparage homosexuals as "degenerate sodomites."

Well first, I do not seek to harm gays. And we are speaking of two different things. One is race or gender, the other is behavior. It is not about who they are as much as it is about what they do. And that is immoral, and even recently - illegal.

This old world of ours needs more love, not less. To label two mature, consenting adults in such terms because they have the audacity to love one another, and they happen to be of the same sex, is simply a tragedy. It needs to change.

Right, more love except for Christians who act on conscious... Spare me you meaningless platitudes.

[oxmixmudd]

At no point did I say it was going to be easy, Jim, nor did I mean to dismiss the difficulty for some people. However, it is hard for me to believe that a bakery has to close if they stop making one thing. If they can make wedding cakes, they can make other cakes as well.

But even if it means the business has to close, you cannot justify maintaining an immoral (and possibly illegal) position on the basis of "it would be hard." Staying true to our moral code often places significant challenges. We've all been there in one way or another.

The biblical morality is that homosexual actions are wrong. With over a billion christians in the world, it will be a while before you can make the claim same sex marriage is in fact a moral high ground without contradicting the deeply held convictions of billions of people . To arrive at the conclusions you have and hold to the Christian faith is a circuitous route that is not at all sure. This is millenia of moral teaching here. And it is in fact foolish to with so little regard for what wisdom may drive those moral standards dismiss them. The cold hard fact is that following the sexual moral standards of the bible would have made the aids epidemic impossible, it would eliminated untold millions of children living in poverty dur to unwed pregnancy or broken marriages, not to mentire the suffering associated with other venereal disease. There is no question the biblical sexual morality is a high ground morally and that our civilization would be far better of if all its people adhered to it.

So it is both foolish and arrogant to treat those who attempt to live up to its standards with contempt as you do on this issue.

There is in fact a good chance your moral high road is in fact in the end a moral low road.

Our biology is not same sex. Same sex is not the same as hetero sexual. It is in fact a great experiment this buisiness of treating them as the same. And I would then think some caution is in order.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Well first, I do not seek to harm gays. And we are speaking of two different things. One is race or gender, the other is behavior. It is not about who they are as much as it is about what they do. And that is immoral, and even recently - illegal.

The bolded part is the crux of the disagreement. If homosexuality was simply about behavior, then my objection to the moral position of the right would be significantly more muted. That you ignore the body of evidence that shows that homosexuality is not just about behavior, but is also a state of being that is part nature and part nurture, is what makes the position of the right equivalent to the anti-black rhetoric of white supremacists.

It is also why I don't think people like you are intentionally doing evil. As I said, I understand the roots of the position, and I understand the basis of the disagreement. But there is only so far the rejection of the facts excuses prejudice and bigotry. Eventually, when someone is rejecting facts to support a previous held bias, they cross from "innocent mistake" to "deliberately obstinate." When that line is crossed - then "unintentional prejudice" becomes outright bigotry.

I have no way of knowing who has crossed that line, so I extend the benefit of the doubt.

Right, more love except for Christians who act on conscious... Spare me you meaningless platitudes.

Presumably, you meant "conscience." If a conscience is ill-informed - it needs to be changed. If the person refuses to inform themselves, and refuses to alter that conscience as a consequence, they are responsible for the results.

[carpedm9587]

The biblical morality is that homosexual actions are wrong.

I believe I've acknowledged the difficulty of the biblical passages.

With over a billion christians in the world, it will be a while before you can make the claim same sex marriage is in fact a moral high ground without contradicting the deeply held convictions of billions of people.

Well - that change is underway. Even in the world of white, evangelical protestants, only 58% oppose gay marriage. The other 32% are either in support, or are undecided. So there are even evangelicals who are rejecting the anti-LGBTQ language. When you move outside of evangelicals to the broader Christian community, the majority already have accepted the LGBTQ community and same-sex marriage. That tends to be more true in developed countries than developing countries, where there is still not only religious opposition, but a great deal of cultural opposition.

To arrive at the conclusions you have and hold to the Christian faith is a circuitous route that is not at all sure. This is millenia of moral teaching here. And it is in fact foolish to with so little regard for what wisdom may drive those moral standards dismiss them. The cold hard fact is that following the sexual moral standards of the bible would have made the aids epidemic impossible, it would eliminated untold millions of children living in poverty dur to unwed pregnancy or broken marriages, not to mentire the suffering associated with other venereal disease. There is no question the biblical sexual morality is a high ground morally and that our civilization would be far better of if all its people adhered to it.

There is an enormous amount of speculation here. It is a fact that AIDS entered the human species via the gay community. It is by no means a known fact that it could not have entered in any other way. Indeed, heterosexuals are as prone to AIDS as homosexuals. Had AIDS actually entered via heterosexual encounters, the damage might have been amazingly broader before the source of the problem was identified. The rest of your claims are also high speculative. I don't find that kind of speculation useful. And, as I have said before, "we've always done it that way" is not a very strong argument, IMO.

So it is both foolish and arrogant to treat those who attempt to live up to its standards with contempt as you do on this issue.

This may come as a surprise, but I do not hold anyone here "in contempt." Indeed, I have been very clear that I think this is a group of fundamentally good people, but that even good people can be wrong and do immoral things. I don't think anyone here intends harm. That does not change the fact that harm is being done. I don't think anyone here is looking to be or act immorally. That doesn't mean an immoral position is not being taken. It is very hard to say to someone, "you position is prejudicial and harmful - it really needs your attention," without making them angry. No one likes being told they are acting or speaking immorally. But the fact is I have contempt for no one here.

There is in fact a good chance your moral high road is in fact in the end a moral low road.

That is of course, the point of dispute. I understand that you see my position as the immoral one. That is why we are in contention. I also understand I have little hope of changing any minds here. Morality obligates me to try. In the end, I suspect this will be fought out in the courts and in the cultural arena. These posts are my contribution to the latter. Even if no one in this exchange is moved to re-evaluate their position, perhaps some reader in the days or weeks or months to come will read and begin to reassess their position. Even one person shifting their stance on this is a plus.

Of course, there is always the risk that someone will read and be convinced by your words or Seer's words instead. However, the vast majority of people who come here share your views, and those who share mine are not likely to shift them. Many people I know have gone from anti-LGBTQ rhetoric to support. I don't know anyone who has done the reverse. In my experience, it's harder to go from acceptance to rejection than rejection to acceptance. Hopefully that is true for the wider world as well.

Our biology is not same sex. Same sex is not the same as hetero sexual. It is in fact a great experiment this buisiness of treating them as the same. And I would then think some caution is in order.

Jim

I am not sure what you are saying here. The first sentence is not linguistically sound (AFAICT). The second seems self-evident. As a result, I don't know what to do with the last two sentences. Perhaps you could explain?

Michel

[seer]

The bolded part is the crux of the disagreement. If homosexuality was simply about behavior, then my objection to the moral position of the right would be significantly more muted. That you ignore the body of evidence that shows that homosexuality is not just about behavior, but is also a state of being that is part nature and part nurture, is what makes the position of the right equivalent to the anti-black rhetoric of white supremacists.

Nonsense Carp, homosexuality is no more than an inclination or desire, and if you act on it, it becomes a behavior. Being black is not a desire or inclination. And we all have desires and inclinations, some innate, some not. Like I said the desire to rape is most likely innate, as are some criminal behaviors. So the fact that some inclinations may be innate does not tell us whether said inclinations are moral or not.

[mossrose]

Nonsense Carp, homosexuality is no more than an inclination or desire, and if you act on it, it becomes a behavior. Being black is not a desire or inclination. And we all have desires and inclinations, some innate, some not. Like I said the desire to rape is most likely innate, as are some criminal behaviors. So the fact that some inclinations may be innate does not tell us whether said inclinations are moral or not.

I love how he tells me I am bringing in a non sequitur by mentioning Christians being slaughtered around the world, but he keeps comparing homosexuality to being black.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, homosexuality is no more than an inclination or desire, and if you act on it, it becomes a behavior. Being black is not a desire or inclination. And we all have desires and inclinations, some innate, some not. Like I said the desire to rape is most likely innate, as are some criminal behaviors. So the fact that some inclinations may be innate does not tell us whether said inclinations are moral or not.

The science, both genetic and psychological, says otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

I love how he tells me I am bringing in a non sequitur by mentioning Christians being slaughtered around the world, but he keeps comparing homosexuality to being black.

Since both are "states of being," so the comparison is apt. Being black has a genetic component, and there are behaviors and cultural norms that are closely associated with being black. Being homosexual has a genetic component, and there are behaviors and cultural norms that are closely associated with being gay. Being Christian has no genetic component, it is 100% behavioral. That is why Christianity was a non sequitur, and black is not.