The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 15

ferris209 said:

I haven't read the thread, but here's my take. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Honestly, I absolutely do not agree with homosexuality. I do not understand it and I do not condone it. Despite that, I do understand that a person can have a sexual motivation that they do not understand. For example, I am into slightly fluffy fully curved older women in lingerie, why? I dunno, I just am. Therefor, I sin regularly when I lust after these women even though I am married to a perfectly curved, but younger, woman. So, I arbor no hatred or contempt for those who are into homosexual acts as I feel my sin is as equal as theirs. I do not approve of their choice, but it is not of my concern for they will have to answer to GOD.

On the other hand, people chastise folks like me because I am certainly against gay marriage. How can a person who believes in "it is not his concern" have this view? Because marriage is a religious and societal concern. You are taking a personal act in the bedroom and trying to force it upon a society who may or may not be ready to accept it and it is, in my opinion, absolutely against our Constitution to force gay marriage upon people and states that have voted and/or passed laws and amendments forbidding such. Gay marriage and straight marriage are NOT Constitutional rights! I've read the Constitution, studied Madison's notes, and read the federalist and anti-federalist papers among other things; I do not recall any mention a right to marriage, either straight or gay.

Therefor, in accordance with our founding fathers wishes as per the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, this is simply a decision for the states and the people, respectively, to decide. Which is why is disconcerting to people like me when a single judge, or merely 5 justices, can overrule the decision of the people with one single swift motion, kind of like a tyranny. I am tolerant of homosexuality, but intolerant of the continued forceful effort to inject it into my everyday life, whether it be through a tv program, laws, culture, etc.

I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not support it, and I would move against it. However, should the people of my state vote for it, or my legislature approve it. I am left with no other option but to continue to fight it and urge against it, as those are my religious beliefs. I do not hate those who disagree with me, I merely disagree. Honestly, I do not care what they do in that other state, that is their Constitutional right to do and decide has they please.

Additionally, I certainly do think there is a slippery slope. This idea is mocked and downplayed, but it is reality. If "gay marriage" is permitted, why restrict polygamy, why restrict marriage between a man and animal, why restrict marriage between the living and the dead, why restrict marrying an inanimate object, so on and so forth. These are debates that are currently happening, and will continue should there be no single simple definition that is understood and agreed upon. Such as marriage is a legal, lawful, and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

Too many believe that disagreeing with homosexuality is hateful in and of itself, this is completely and utterly wrong. It is possible, and common I believe, to be tolerant, yet disagreeable. I love all of my gay brothers and sisters, I pray they can find salvation, but I feel they regularly perform sinful acts. I feel as equally about them as I do my brother and sisters who drink to excess, commit adultery, have lust in their hearts, or have sex prior to marriage. I myself am a sinner on the level of homosexuals as I did have sex prior to marriage, I regularly drink to excess, and I have a strong lust in my heart for other women. So why would I hate someone who, I believe, sins as much as I?

I have gay relatives, gay co-workers, and gay friends; all of whom I love. However, I simply do not condone their bedroom decisions anymore than I condone the bedroom decisions of the adulterer relatives, co-workers, and friends I have. Furthermore, as much I may love these folks, I just don't want their adulterer lifestyles flaunted and forced upon me and my family. I also know several relatives, co-workers, and friends who regularly lust after women who are not their wives or spouses. I do not want them flaunting, displaying, or having laws put in place to enforce or justify their sin of lust of which I'd have to explain to my 5 year old daughter sooner than I'd certainly intended.

But somehow, certain parts of society feel that I am wrong and that my 5 year old should be fully exposed to sexuality, homosexuality, adultery, and lust right now; not at my own or her own timeline. Some feel that if I should explain to her my belief these are sins, then I am a bigot. Some force upon us that if I do not capitulate, then I am an active bigot.

To these, I say damned you. Every person should keep their sexual desires and sins private and should allow me the right to teach my children how I please and when I please about those who have different beliefs than us, rather than some judge or five justices forcing me by fiat to have to explain these things sooner than I intended.

 I'd respond to this,  but I think you know how I feel about gay marriage.  You should remember all my posts about it in the political thread.   In short, while I believe it to be a sin, I have no problem giving it legal recognition.   You don't want it forced on you, yet you have no problem forcing the opposite on homosexuals.  This I just can not understand.  I could see the definition of marriage expanding past gay marriage, but not to the extent that you do.  I can't see it expanding past it being between consenting adults.   Animals can't consent, nor can dead bodies nor can inanimate objects.  I'll leave it there.  I've repeated myself too much already.

ferris209 said:

MrBrown said:

ferris209 said:

...

I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not support it, and I would move against it. However, should the people of my state vote for it, or my legislature approve it. I am left with no other option but to continue to fight it and urge against it, as those are my religious beliefs. I do not hate those who disagree with me, I merely disagree. Honestly, I do not care what they do in that other state, that is their Constitutional right to do and decide has they please.

Additionally, I certainly do think there is a slippery slope. This idea is mocked and downplayed, but it is reality. If "gay marriage" is permitted, why restrict polygamy, why restrict marriage between a man and animal, why restrict marriage between the living and the dead, why restrict marrying an inanimate object, so on and so forth. These are debates that are currentlyhappening, and will continue should there be no single simple definition that is understood and agreed upon. Such as marriage is a legal, lawful, and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

...

 So the easiest way to cut down any non-heterosexual-marriage discussions would be, if all additional rights, like visits in a hospital, or (I don't know if its as in USA as in Germany) the amount of taxes (in Germany marriaged couples have better tax rates then unmarriaged persons) and so on, also get deleted. So instead of giving different gender couples the rights of same gender couples, do it vice versa. This would kill all marriage discussions.

First, visitations within a hospital are not "rights", they are the decision of the hospital.

who usually defers to the patient or to the next of kin the patient is unable to communicate or make their own decisions. 

ferris209 said:

As a matter of FACT, the myth of partners being denied visits in the hospital is negligible, at least here in the United States. Seriously, it is a red herring argument, but nothing based on actual fact. There are extremely very few, denied access to their sexual partner.

but it does happen and it is a concern.   The fact is, many people do not accept their family member's gay partner.   It seems perfectly predictable to me that such people much trying to keep the gay partner from visiting in the hospital when the sick person is able to speak for themselves. 

ferris209 said:

Additionally, the fact of taxes. Under a truly good government nobody would be taxed over a rate of 15%, no matter their sexual preference, choice, marriage, or selection.

Isn't it funny how non-biased capitalism and conservatism can be?

 that may be how it should be, but isn't like that right now and it is a fact that married people get tax benefits that singles do not. 

Ryan McAvoy said:

...

I notice alot of people like the "Hate the sin but love the sinner" quote when it comes to homosexuality. Personally I think it's because it's a nice way to tell themselves that they aren't really prejudiced against gays.

But let me give an example of "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and see if anybody thinks it sounds right? If somebody were to say...

"I don't hate Jews, infact I love Jews.. it's just people who speak Hebrew, pray in Synagogues and who celebrate Hanukkah that I really hate".

Sorry but that ^ would be totally unexceptable and makes no sense whatsover! So why is it exceptable in respect to homosexuality?

 In your example that's hating both the sin and the sinner.

To phrase it better "I don't hate Jews...it's just that I think it's wrong to pray in synagogues and celebrate Hanukkah." That would be more analogous of that attitude, or at least the attitude which I hold and which Catholics, if not all Christians, should hold. Not "I don't hate homosexuals but I hate homosexuals who have sex with each other," but "I don't hate homosexuals, but I believe it is very wrong for them to have sex with each other." Maybe you don't see the difference, but it is a huge and very important one.

Before the porn discussion escalates, I am going to make a request:

Please, no pictures. :P

RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

...

I notice alot of people like the "Hate the sin but love the sinner" quote when it comes to homosexuality. Personally I think it's because it's a nice way to tell themselves that they aren't really prejudiced against gays.

But let me give an example of "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and see if anybody thinks it sounds right? If somebody were to say...

"I don't hate Jews, infact I love Jews.. it's just people who speak Hebrew, pray in Synagogues and who celebrate Hanukkah that I really hate".

Sorry but that ^ would be totally unexceptable and makes no sense whatsover! So why is it exceptable in respect to homosexuality?

 In your example that's hating both the sin and the sinner.

To phrase it better "I don't hate Jews...it's just that I think it's wrong to pray in synagogues and celebrate Hanukkah." That would be more analogous of that attitude, or at least the attitude which I hold and which Catholics, if not all Christians, should hold. Not "I don't hate homosexuals but I hate homosexuals who have sex with each other," but "I don't hate homosexuals, but I believe it is very wrong for them to have sex with each other." Maybe you don't see the difference, but it is a huge and very important one.

It's a sin to celebrate Hanukkah? 

keep in mind, for Muslims and Jews, it is probably a sin to celebrate Christmas.

Which is why the religious concept of sin is silly, and just one of the reasons non-religious folk like myself don't like most religions.

In regards to celebrating or observing Hanukkah and other non-Christian feasts/celebrations, I think it depends how they are observed. For example, if I were a Jew and I celebrated Christmas, I could (a) celebrate it in a small way, such as getting together with family on Christmas day and having dinner, (b) give people gifts and accept gifts from others, and I could have lights on the outside of my house and maybe even have a Christmas tree, or (c) celebrate Jesus' birth as well as the secular Christmas (or even instead of) setting up a crèche in my home and possibly even going to church.

If the same degrees of celebration were applied to other religious festivals/feasts/fasts, then (a) would probably be okay in most instances (for instance I could fast during Ramadan, but not with the same intentions as a Muslim would, rather I would fast with the same disposition as I would during Lent, and thus would not truly be observing the Ramadan fast), (b) would depend on the feast, but in many cases would probably be a venial (minor) sin, while (c) would be a venial sin at the least, depending once again on the festival and the celebrations involved, but fully engaging in the celebrations could quite likely be a mortal (serious) sin. The degree of seriousness for (b) and (c) would likely depend on the religion (for instance, I could celebrate the feast day of an Orthodox saint, which might not even be an offense at all and a Jewish festival that involved worship would be to the same god and would thus not be as big a deal as some cult festival that involved human sacrifice--to use an extreme example to demonstrate my point). It would also depend on the character of the celebrations and the disposition of the person celebrating. With the degree of celebration in (a), a venial sin could be committed, once again depending on the celebration.

In regards to Hanukkah specifically, (a) would not be a sin, (b) would be a venial sin, depending on the knowledge and disposition of the person involved, and (c) would be a more serious venial sin, once again depending on the person's knowledge and disposition. In this particular instance, it would only be a mortal sin if the person involved believed it was seriously wrong and celebrated it anyway.

^In addition to the above, I don't believe Jews sin when they celebrate Hanukkah, or Muslims sin when they observe the Ramadan fast and they might in fact sin by celebrating a Christian feast if their religion teaches it is wrong to do so.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

keep in mind, for Muslims and Jews, it is probably a sin to celebrate Christmas.

 I've never met any that don't celebrate Christmas (The spirit, the traditions and the fun anyway).

 I have met several. It is quite common for them to completely abstain from Christmas celebrations, including gift-giving, decorating, dinners, et al.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

keep in mind, for Muslims and Jews, it is probably a sin to celebrate Christmas.

 I've never met any that don't celebrate Christmas (The spirit, the traditions and the fun anyway).

 I bet they don't celebrate the religious part of Christmas.

Yes, it is more appropriate for that thread, but a misunderstanding of my correction of Ryan's analogy led to my explanation and other further conversation. I propose that we go back on topic and ask any further questions in my thread or begin a discussion in the religious thread.

RicOlie_2 said:

^In addition to the above, I don't believe Jews sin when they celebrate Hanukkah, or Muslims sin when they observe the Ramadan fast and they might in fact sin by celebrating a Christian feast if their religion teaches it is wrong to do so.

 Then why is it wrong to "practice homosexuality?"  What if your religion says you should?

Ryan McAvoy said:

^ 'Polish National Catholic' that sounds serious! Some beautiful churches in Poland (Krakow anyway) btw.

I notice alot of people like the "Hate the sin but love the sinner" quote when it comes to homosexuality. Personally I think it's because it's a nice way to tell themselves that they aren't really prejudiced against gays.

But let me give an example of "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and see if anybody thinks it sounds right? If somebody were to say...

"I don't hate Jews, infact I love Jews.. it's just people who speak Hebrew, pray in Synagogues and who celebrate Hanukkah that I really hate".

Sorry but that ^ would be totally unexceptable and makes no sense whatsover! So why is it exceptable in respect to homosexuality?

Crazy I know, but true.  Now toss in the Christian Science and they ended up with an agnostic child, go figure.  I'm not even sure if agnostic would be the right description because my main belief is just that I am a part of something much larger than myself.  I cannot put a name or face representation to it as most religions do in regards to their own faith.  I just know that I don't hate people.  I personally may not like how they do some things compared to how I may do them but I don't use that as a way to judge myself being better than them.  We are only human. 

TV's Frink said:

 Then why is it wrong to "practice homosexuality?"  What if your religion says you should?

If homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality then why does one need to practice being one or the other?

;)