Homosexuality: Morals and Ethics Catch-All Thread

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Now I ponder if 4000 years ago eating a prawn and man love were equivalent sins or abominations. And the bible does not change, nor does the will of god. Then why are we spending so much time stymieing two men or two women from loving eachother, and we are not in arms about McDonald's billions of burgers sold? As a scale of magnitude, it seems McDonalds has done way more sin.

Likely because most Christians find cheeseburgers tasty and gay sex icky.

I'm sure many of the Chick-fil-A crowd had the Deluxe Chicken Sandwich which completely violates the biblical ban on eating meat and dairy in the same meal. It just shows they are completely selective in their application of "god's laws" and that means there's something much deeper behind their over the top reaction to homosexuality. My money's on them personally finding gay sex icky and then using a handful of quotes from the bible to validate or justify their position.

Solution: cover gay people in cheese and bacon

I have a hard time explaining why, as a 42-year-old affluent white, heterosexual, married male, I am so incredibly pissed off by this debate. I mean, fire-spitting, furniture-breaking angry. I simply cannot conceive of how religious people can use the same justifications to ban same-sex marriage that were used in decades past to ban interracial marriage and not feel dirty. I mean, the same damn justifications. It's sickening and disgusting. People ignore the basic fact that marriage was historically a business arrangement for getting the woman out of the parents' house and to provide children/housekeeping, and had nothing to do with ideas of love; the whole concept of a woman having the ability to choose her mate is an outgrowth of the economic growth of the post-Industrial Revolution world, where women actually have enough economic power to be able to stand up for themselves. Women were baggage and were treated godawfully in the realm of marriage; this is absolutely and clearly what "traditional marriage" means. Pretending otherwise is a steaming, heaping load of crap. Add to that the fact that it's blatantly clear in every conceivable way that homosexuality is something people are born with, and I'm tired of having to pretend that these people are anything other than a bunch of delusional bigots.

Bigots. I'm tired of pretending otherwise. I'm tired of people equivocating and saying, "Well, I disagree with their stance on this, but they're Good Christians otherwise." The hell they are. They're bigots. They're using their supposed morality to oppress other people who they've decided just aren't as good as them. There is absolutely no difference between somebody standing up and saying "I want to prevent two men from being married" and somebody standing up and saying "I want to prevent a white man and a black woman from being married". None.

All I can say is I will begin to respect these supposed "Good Christians" the moment they stand up in the street and loudly proclaim they want to criminalize adultery and actually "defend" the marriages that currently exist. Last I checked it's not homosexuality that's breaking up millions of families each year, it's people (many of them "Good Christians") banging people they aren't married to.

Many of them firmly believe there's a gay agenda (they point to After the Ball as proof) and the work of Saul Alinski as further proof of some huge, secret conspiracy to force God fearing Christians to be embarrased of their bigotry beliefs and give "special privileges" to gays and lesbians.

I know some of you have posted that people like this exist, but my beautiful monkeysphere does a good job of keeping me ignorant of those of that ilk. Unfortunately, sometimes when FB changes their privacy settings, the spewdribble gets through.

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Now I ponder if 4000 years ago eating a prawn and man love were equivalent sins or abominations. And the bible does not change, nor does the will of god. Then why are we spending so much time stymieing two men or two women from loving eachother, and we are not in arms about McDonald's billions of burgers sold? As a scale of magnitude, it seems McDonalds has done way more sin.

Likely because most Christians find cheeseburgers tasty and gay sex icky.

I'm sure many of the Chick-fil-A crowd had the Deluxe Chicken Sandwich which completely violates the biblical ban on eating meat and dairy in the same meal. It just shows they are completely selective in their application of "god's laws" and that means there's something much deeper behind their over the top reaction to homosexuality. My money's on them personally finding gay sex icky and then using a handful of quotes from the bible to validate or justify their position.

You do have to understand that you can't throw all "Christians" in the same boat of course. Not all of us are ridiculous, hateful extremists who are just out to make peoples lives miserable. I have to constantly try to remind myself that not everyone is referring to all Christians, but a lot of the time it feels that way. I do however find it extremely ironic sometimes how the intolerant are preaching tolerance to the intolerant.

Perhaps someone can explain the morality and ethics of this letter written by a father to his gay son:

James,

This is a difficult but necessary letter to write.

I hope your telephone call was not to receive my blessing for the degrading of your lifestyle.

I have fond memories of our times together, but that is all in the past.

Don’t expect any further conversations with me. No communications at all. I will not come to visit, nor do I want you in my house.

You’ve made your choice though wrong it may be. God did not intend for this unnatural lifestyle.

If you choose not to attend my funeral, my friends and family will understand.

Have a good birthday and good life.

No present exchanges will be accepted.

Goodbye,

Dad

The Conformist wrote:

I do however find it extremely ironic sometimes how the intolerant are preaching tolerance to the intolerant.

I'm not sure what you're exactly referring to, but if I read it correctly you're implying that we should tolerate intolerance.

Tanglebones wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Now I ponder if 4000 years ago eating a prawn and man love were equivalent sins or abominations. And the bible does not change, nor does the will of god. Then why are we spending so much time stymieing two men or two women from loving eachother, and we are not in arms about McDonald's billions of burgers sold? As a scale of magnitude, it seems McDonalds has done way more sin.

Likely because most Christians find cheeseburgers tasty and gay sex icky.

I'm sure many of the Chick-fil-A crowd had the Deluxe Chicken Sandwich which completely violates the biblical ban on eating meat and dairy in the same meal. It just shows they are completely selective in their application of "god's laws" and that means there's something much deeper behind their over the top reaction to homosexuality. My money's on them personally finding gay sex icky and then using a handful of quotes from the bible to validate or justify their position.

Solution: cover gay people in cheese and bacon

I have the ickiest boner right now.

The Conformist wrote:

You do have to understand that you can't throw all "Christians" in the same boat of course. Not all of us are ridiculous, hateful extremists who are just out to make peoples lives miserable. I have to constantly try to remind myself that not everyone is referring to all Christians, but a lot of the time it feels that way. I do however find it extremely ironic sometimes how the intolerant are preaching tolerance to the intolerant.

No, not all Christians are hateful extremists, but neither are all Christians, well, Christian. As is being talked about in the conservative thread, what it means to be a Christian is increasingly being defined by those extremists.

And right now being a true Christian means disliking homosexuals enough that their rights as people have to be denied; forcing women to get invasive transvaginal ultrasounds or otherwise submitting to a series of humiliating acts before they can have an abortion; denying any science that conflicts with their interpretation of the bible; keeping teenagers criminally ignorant of their own bodies; crying about how oppressed they are, and more. It isn't pretty, but those are the Christian voices that are talking the loudest.

The Conformist wrote:

You do have to understand that you can't throw all "Christians" in the same boat of course. Not all of us are ridiculous, hateful extremists who are just out to make peoples lives miserable. I have to constantly try to remind myself that not everyone is referring to all Christians, but a lot of the time it feels that way. I do however find it extremely ironic sometimes how the intolerant are preaching tolerance to the intolerant.

I feel like I just said this, but... there's a difference between making a generalization about a large group of people and using that generalization to judge a single individual. As a group, there is a large amount of Christian opposition to gay marriage or gay anything, really. That's a fair statement. It's unfair when someone takes that then and assumes all Christians are like that. I usually believe - and through context am convinced - that when people say "Christians are against homosexuality" they mean by Christians, "The majority of this religious group, though there are undoubtedly exceptions." There's just no need to repeat that every single time.

And as far as the intolerant preaching tolerance... what are Intolerant Group A being intolerant of? That's a self-defeating logic. Anyone who preachers tolerance at all can be said to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Seth wrote:

Many of them firmly believe there's a gay agenda (they point to After the Ball as proof) and the work of Saul Alinski as further proof of some huge, secret conspiracy to force God fearing Christians to be embarrased of their bigotry beliefs and give "special privileges" to gays and lesbians.

I know some of you have posted that people like this exist, but my beautiful monkeysphere does a good job of keeping me ignorant of those of that ilk. Unfortunately, sometimes when FB changes their privacy settings, the spewdribble gets through.

Many of them also believe that things like mental retardation are part of God's plan and not due to some genetic mutation in the gestation process. (see also: AIDS is punishment for prurient behavior)

Bloo Driver wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

You do have to understand that you can't throw all "Christians" in the same boat of course. Not all of us are ridiculous, hateful extremists who are just out to make peoples lives miserable. I have to constantly try to remind myself that not everyone is referring to all Christians, but a lot of the time it feels that way. I do however find it extremely ironic sometimes how the intolerant are preaching tolerance to the intolerant.

I feel like I just said this, but... there's a difference between making a generalization about a large group of people and using that generalization to judge a single individual. As a group, there is a large amount of Christian opposition to gay marriage or gay anything, really. That's a fair statement. It's unfair when someone takes that then and assumes all Christians are like that. I usually believe - and through context am convinced - that when people say "Christians are against homosexuality" they mean by Christians, "The majority of this religious group, though there are undoubtedly exceptions." There's just no need to repeat that every single time.

And as far as the intolerant preaching tolerance... what are Intolerant Group A being intolerant of? That's a self-defeating logic. Anyone who preachers tolerance at all can be said to be intolerant of the intolerant.

It is....very unsettling and depressing to know that the one thing I pride myself in this life the name of being "Christian", being loving, caring, and understanding is being stained by those who sling hate filled words at people who are different. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I have NEVER (In fact lived with 2 homosexuals for a year almost, go figure) insulted one for how they choose to live their lives.

In terms of the whole tolerance thing, to me it defeats the purpose of fighting intolerance with intolerance, it's hate with hate. I've been verbally attacked just because I don't agree with homosexuality, I've done nothing wrong to homosexuals, nothing to warrant this attack, and yet it was intolerance being used against who they thought was intolerant. They didn't respect my views on homosexuality even though I was causing harm to no one.

The Conformist wrote:

In terms of the whole tolerance thing, to me it defeats the purpose of fighting intolerance with intolerance, it's hate with hate. I've been verbally attacked just because I don't agree with homosexuality, I've done nothing wrong to homosexuals, nothing to warrant this attack, and yet it was intolerance being used against who they thought was intolerant. They didn't respect my views on homosexuality even though I was causing harm to no one.

So you're saying that pro-gay forces, as a group, are doing intolerant things?

But it shouldn't be said that Christians, as a group, are doing intolerant things?

I mean, we seem to be going in a circle here, so let me help -

1) The broad truth is that Christianity, as an organized religion with several sub-sections, has worked against gay rights or even gay recognition in the USA and other countries.

2) Homosexuals and their supporters, as a group, have been trod upon by these folks so while hatred fighting hatred is not the best route ever, I am more than a little willing to be understanding that the attacked group has not unilaterally shown 100% peaceful and happy behavior.

3) Trying to label "stop being intolerant" as intolerance is pointless.

Your views cause harm. Whether you think so or not, it encourages an environment of disapproval, and validates others. You are causing harm. You say, "I don't agree with homosexuality," to a scared, closeted person and you've done that person harm by increasing fear and anxiety.

The Conformist wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

You do have to understand that you can't throw all "Christians" in the same boat of course. Not all of us are ridiculous, hateful extremists who are just out to make peoples lives miserable. I have to constantly try to remind myself that not everyone is referring to all Christians, but a lot of the time it feels that way. I do however find it extremely ironic sometimes how the intolerant are preaching tolerance to the intolerant.

I feel like I just said this, but... there's a difference between making a generalization about a large group of people and using that generalization to judge a single individual. As a group, there is a large amount of Christian opposition to gay marriage or gay anything, really. That's a fair statement. It's unfair when someone takes that then and assumes all Christians are like that. I usually believe - and through context am convinced - that when people say "Christians are against homosexuality" they mean by Christians, "The majority of this religious group, though there are undoubtedly exceptions." There's just no need to repeat that every single time.

And as far as the intolerant preaching tolerance... what are Intolerant Group A being intolerant of? That's a self-defeating logic. Anyone who preachers tolerance at all can be said to be intolerant of the intolerant.

It is....very unsettling and depressing to know that the one thing I pride myself in this life the name of being "Christian", being loving, caring, and understanding is being stained by those who sling hate filled words at people who are different. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I have NEVER (In fact lived with 2 homosexuals for a year almost, go figure) insulted one for how they choose to live their lives.

In terms of the whole tolerance thing, to me it defeats the purpose of fighting intolerance with intolerance, it's hate with hate. I've been verbally attacked just because I don't agree with homosexuality, I've done nothing wrong to homosexuals, nothing to warrant this attack, and yet it was intolerance being used against who they thought was intolerant. They didn't respect my views on homosexuality even though I was causing harm to no one.

I'm glad (genuinely glad - not being sarcastic) that you don't want to put your feelings into action. That's a big step ahead of *many* other people. But can you step outside yourself for just a second, and think about how it feels to be told that what you are (religion, sexuality, color) is evil? And how that is in fact harmful to people?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bigots. I'm tired of pretending otherwise. I'm tired of people equivocating and saying, "Well, I disagree with their stance on this, but they're Good Christians otherwise." The hell they are. They're bigots. They're using their supposed morality to oppress other people who they've decided just aren't as good as them.

The Conformist wrote:

You do have to understand that you can't throw all "Christians" in the same boat of course. Not all of us are ridiculous, hateful extremists who are just out to make peoples lives miserable.

You guys do realize that you're not speaking into a vacuum when you use strong language like this, right? It's clear that there are people on this messageboard who hold the beliefs that you dislike, for reasons they consider valid (i.e., a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible), and these are probably people with whom you've gotten along fine in other areas of the board. Saying things like this is likely to drive them away or in some other way negatively impact your relationship with these people.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm sure many of the Chick-fil-A crowd had the Deluxe Chicken Sandwich which completely violates the biblical ban on eating meat and dairy in the same meal. It just shows they are completely selective in their application of "god's laws" and that means there's something much deeper behind their over the top reaction to homosexuality.

You keep referring to those OT laws, but that's not effective when talking to conservative Christians because most believe that the particular laws you're mocking (unclean food, etc.) were no longer required after Christ's death, whereas the laws against homosexuality are part of moral prohibitions (including adultery, murder, etc.) that are eternal. Paul's attacks on homosexuality confirm, to them, that this behavior is still sinful. See this for a typical example of what they believe:

The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc.

Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance. But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God.

However, freedom from the Old Testament Law is not a license for Christians to relax their moral standards. The moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament.

Edit - Just to add, I know the arguments over the translation of those anti-gay Biblical passages, and I'm not intending to enter that debate. I just wanted to clarify how conservative Christians can hold anti-gay beliefs while not holding to the "unclean food" laws, etc.

IMAGE(http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/god-hates-figs1.jpg)

There is nothing about homosexuality to agree or disagree with. The notion that someone thinks they should is bigoted.

I think religion is a positive part of many people's lives. But I would suggest that those that feel that their faith is something to be proud of are part of the problem. Religion can inform your decisions, comfort you when stressed, and provide a community of people whom you can identify with. But pride in just being a member of the faith leads to the inevitable need to be the most religious.

I'm as sick as MilkanDanimal with having to put up with this idea that just thinking homosexuality is wrong is benign. It's a sick, negative vibe that is contagious and harms the lives of thousands upon thousands of good people that should not ever have to explain why being themselves is okay.

Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance. But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God.

Probably a derail, and may need its own thread, but if the Bible is the word of God, how can the New Testament be more perfect than the Old one? Either God has changed his mind on some things (which the bible explicitly states he doesn't do), or it's not perfect, and in fact written, translated and interpreted by very imperfect people.

Jayhawker wrote:

I'm as sick as MilkanDanimal with having to put up with this idea that just thinking homosexuality is wrong is benign. It's a sick, negative vibe that is contagious and harms the lives of thousands upon thousands of good people that should not ever have to explain why being themselves is okay.

I will say that it's a difficult nut to crack, because I've known a lot of folks that I would consider good people and good Christians who hold this view and very honestly don't see a problem with it. They're people who would never lift a finger to "do" anything against homosexuals and don't hate them as people, but see nothing wrong with the overall picture that they're condemned by God. So trying to show them how their attitude leads to a culture of intolerance is like trying to paint a teflon pan with oil.

Crispus wrote:

You keep referring to those OT laws, but that's not effective when talking to conservative Christians because most believe that the particular laws you're mocking (unclean food, etc.) were no longer required after Christ's death, whereas the laws against homosexuality are part of moral prohibitions (including adultery, murder, etc.) that are eternal. Paul's attacks on homosexuality confirm, to them, that this behavior is still sinful.

I've also talked about how there's not a ground swell of condemnation by Christians of all the "immoral" behaviors that are in the same lists where homosexuality is mentioned. I don't see Christians working to pass constitutional amendments banning adultery or greed or working to outlaw divorce. Again, they are being highly selective in which biblical laws they want followed.

Jayhawker wrote:

I'm as sick as MilkanDanimal with having to put up with this idea that just thinking homosexuality is wrong is benign. It's a sick, negative vibe that is contagious and harms the lives of thousands upon thousands of good people that should not ever have to explain why being themselves is okay.

I agree. If you have the right to judge a person, judge them on the merits of their character, not the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their beliefs etc etc.

But I have to point out, there is no way this forum is going to change many of the "Christians" who visit here from their beliefs. Everyone here can read the anger in the pro-gay posts and whether they are righteous in their anger or not, whether they are right or not, all it does is alienate those that have their religious views.

I have to ask... if someone comes in here and states they are Christian, what do you suppose this GWJ community should do? Shun them? Try and "convert" them? Make sure they realize that many here are pro-gay and that they should change their views to be a part of this community?

From what I can see, I see Christians here on GWJ saying "Hi, I'm Christian. I don't follow the anti-gay stuff in the bible. Want to play a game?" and not "Hi, I'm Christian... OMFG THERE ARE GAYS HERE!!!? FIRE, FLAME... GET THE PITCHFORKS!!!!".

The quote:

that should not ever have to explain why being themselves is okay

isnt happening here on GWJ from what I can see.

PAR

DanB wrote:

But I additionally think animals are a type of stakeholder in the system although I'm not making any claim that they should get equivalent rights to humans. Most of the animals humans regularly interact with are sapient to various degrees and their behaviours to indicates that they do not want to come to harm. Most such animals are also domesticated so they arepart of our social system. Between all those things we probably shouldn't needlessly harm the other higher animals we interact with who don't want to suffer. That said, I don't think animals are full moral agents so I do think that non-trivial human concerns (i.e. food, medicines) can override such a consideration. And we could probably stop there were it not for the fact that some people do needlessly harm animals. At this point, because the system should be fair to all stakeholders we should probably have additional laws that protect these "partial stakeholders".

Importantly I'm defining everything in terms or what given stakeholders desire for themselves (i.e. not wanting to be personally harmed). I'm not saying "pain is repugnant to me therefore ban pain". Of course when it comes to animals we can't literally know what it is they want but show me a dog or cat that chooses to drown itself and I'll concede the point that animals don't willingly stay away from harms.

I guess the thread has moved on into standard Christian-bashing territory, but I wanted you to know I agree with most of what you said and I appreciate you taking the time to express it.

Only issue I really have with your position is the utter incongruity when discussing animals as stakeholders - I guess it's required to dismiss my claim that those laws are as subjective and restrictive as any biblical laws, but the idea of discussing "rights" and "consent" around something that we buy and sell, kill and eat simply doesn't make sense. I'm all for animal rights laws, but I don't see a substantive difference between a gut-level "this is wrong" check and a "god says this is wrong" check. They're both based on subjective morality/ethics/whatever.

SocialChameleon wrote:

You could go simpler for this argument and not open it up to a counter-claim that you produce this scientific evidence. Violation of consent is certainly unethical, and if you expose your sexual acts to others who have not consented to see them, you've violated their consent and thus acted unethically.

Not sure I buy the fact that seeing someone's naughty bits flapping around is a "violation of consent".

The only way that works is if you assign some subjective shame or sacredness to the bits in question - which is clearly a biblical concept, right?

par wrote:

I have to ask... if someone comes in here and states they are Christian, what do you suppose this GWJ community should do? Shun them? Try and "convert" them? Make sure they realize that many here are pro-gay and that they should change their views to be a part of this community?

From what I can see, I see Christians here on GWJ saying "Hi, I'm Christian. I don't follow the anti-gay stuff in the bible. Want to play a game?" and not "Hi, I'm Christian... OMFG THERE ARE GAYS HERE!!!? FIRE, FLAME... GET THE PITCHFORKS!!!!".

You seem to be of the opinion that somehow, in a thread about homosexuality and the opinions on that topic, the discussion of someone's viewpoint on said topic is not up for discussion. People aren't going out of their way to track down, persecute, or harass folks who are not pro-gay in other threads and forums. But the topic does come up in threads like this because that's what the thread is about.

I mean this for people regardless of how they feel about it - if you don't want to have your opinion on homosexuality dissected and discussed, perhaps you should stay out of threads about it.

NSMike wrote:

Your views cause harm. Whether you think so or not, it encourages an environment of disapproval, and validates others. You are causing harm. You say, "I don't agree with homosexuality," to a scared, closeted person and you've done that person harm by increasing fear and anxiety.

It may or may not, like I said I lived with two homosexual males in their 20's for a good while. They KNEW I didn't agree with their lifestyle, but they respected the way I approached my opinion. I didn't treat them any different and in return they didn't treat me any different. We actually became really good friends, some of the nicest people I've known. There does (in my opinion) come a point in your life when you need broad shoulders, just because someone dissagrees with what you do doesn't mean you need to get all defensive or take in personally. I do and have done a lot of things in my life that people have not agreed with and it's only made me a better person.

Jayhawker wrote:

There is nothing about homosexuality to agree or disagree with. The notion that someone thinks they should is bigoted.

I think religion is a positive part of many people's lives. But I would suggest that those that feel that their faith is something to be proud of are part of the problem. Religion can inform your decisions, comfort you when stressed, and provide a community of people whom you can identify with. But pride in just being a member of the faith leads to the inevitable need to be the most religious.

I'm as sick as MilkanDanimal with having to put up with this idea that just thinking homosexuality is wrong is benign. It's a sick, negative vibe that is contagious and harms the lives of thousands upon thousands of good people that should not ever have to explain why being themselves is okay.

But don't you see how you're view can be considered just as much as a bigot? There is reason to me to disagree with homosexuality, It may not be a reason you understand or even like, but it's a reason, and my right as a human being to have that reason. I don't hate homosexuals, I think I am a good person who wants to be treated how I treat others, with respect. I've learned quite a bit over the past few years of my life and I would never belittle another human being because of there beliefs, there race, or their lifestyles. I do agree however that those who claim to be Christian and sling hatred are bigots, they are very hateful people who do nothing but try and bring everyone else down. I don't hate them for what they believe or do, but I do NOT agree with how they handle themselves. And it's crushing to know that they make good people like yourselves dislike Christians or the word Christian so much. I even couldn't sleep last night because I stayed up thinking how disappointed I am in humanity, how far we've fallen, to hate simply to hate, it's pretty awful when you think about it. But then I just have to remind myself that there is always good out there, and what happens will happen for good or bad, but there will always be good.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I'm as sick as MilkanDanimal with having to put up with this idea that just thinking homosexuality is wrong is benign. It's a sick, negative vibe that is contagious and harms the lives of thousands upon thousands of good people that should not ever have to explain why being themselves is okay.

I will say that it's a difficult nut to crack, because I've known a lot of folks that I would consider good people and good Christians who hold this view and very honestly don't see a problem with it. They're people who would never lift a finger to "do" anything against homosexuals and don't hate them as people, but see nothing wrong with the overall picture that they're condemned by God. So trying to show them how their attitude leads to a culture of intolerance is like trying to paint a teflon pan with oil.

I don't see it as teaching, I see it as shaming. One of the reasons the kinds of casual racism our grandparents' generation tossed about is no longer spoken outwardly is because there are massive social sanctions against being outwardly bigoted against race. It's just no longer acceptable to tell racist jokes or denigrate people based on their skin color; if somebody did that in my presence, people would be horrified and I firmly believe that's one of the reasons we now live in a more tolerant society. Openly expressing intolerance of that sort is simply not allowed by polite society.

Again, there is absolutely no difference in people's justifications for religious opposition to same-sex marriage as the formerly widely-accepted opposition to interracial marriage. "God made the races different". "Marriage has traditionally been between one white man and one white woman, and suggesting otherwise fundamentally changes what marriage means". Those are literally what people said in the past as religious justifications for open bigotry against non-whites. All that has changed now is we replace the word "interracial" with "same-sex".

And yes, this is the kind of thing that is likely to offend people who oppose same-sex marriage on supposedly moral grounds. People don't like being called bigots. Know what? The secret to not being called a bigot is NOT BE A BIGOT. That's it. I invite anyone who opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds to tell me how their point of view differs from the point of view held by those in opposition to same-sex marriage 50 years ago in some way other than "boy, that comparison sure makes me uncomfortable". Please, give me an explanation as to why I should look at these two things any differently.

Also, feel free to tell me how you can recognize that studies show attitudes towards same-sex marriage are very quickly shifting towards tolerance and acceptance, and how you can possibly believe that you have any chance of stopping the process of equal rights for gays and lesbians. It's utterly clear that this is a non-issue to a rapidly-increasing majority of young people, and then think about exactly how ashamed of you you want your children to be.

Bloo Driver wrote:

You seem to be of the opinion that somehow, in a thread about homosexuality and the opinions on that topic, the discussion of someone's viewpoint on said topic is not up for discussion. People aren't going out of their way to track down, persecute, or harass folks who are not pro-gay in other threads and forums. But the topic does come up in threads like this because that's what the thread is about.

I mean this for people regardless of how they feel about it - if you don't want to have your opinion on homosexuality dissected and discussed, perhaps you should stay out of threads about it.

I'm not of any opinion, I just asked a question. And I am pro-gay so I guess its ok for me to be here?

Also, if its "stay out of our threads" then maybe there should be a concerted effort to ask Certis to amend the COC to say such?

PAR

I don't think Christians are anti-gay. I think some people use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry. But why they feel comfortable in their bigotry is less important to me than promoting an atmosphere in which people are judged by their actions.

And every time some posts that they do not agree with homosexuality, or that homosexuality is immoral, how is that supposed to make the many gay posters we have a GWJ feel? And if we just let it pass because we aren't gay and people have their rights, how comfortable should gays feel in this community?

Jayhawker wrote:

I don't think Christians are anti-gay. I think some people use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry. But why they feel comfortable in their bigotry is less important to me than promoting an atmosphere in which people are judged by their actions.

And every time some posts that they do not agree with homosexuality, or that homosexuality is immoral, how is that supposed to make the many gay posters we have a GWJ feel? And if we just let it pass because we aren't gay and people have their rights, how comfortable should gays feel in this community?

Point taken and understood. I'm just bringing up why people think it comes down to a "christian bashing" theme

PAR

par wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

You seem to be of the opinion that somehow, in a thread about homosexuality and the opinions on that topic, the discussion of someone's viewpoint on said topic is not up for discussion. People aren't going out of their way to track down, persecute, or harass folks who are not pro-gay in other threads and forums. But the topic does come up in threads like this because that's what the thread is about.

I mean this for people regardless of how they feel about it - if you don't want to have your opinion on homosexuality dissected and discussed, perhaps you should stay out of threads about it.

I'm not of any opinion, I just asked a question. And I am pro-gay so I guess its ok for me to be here?

Also, if its "stay out of our threads" then maybe there should be a concerted effort to ask Certis to amend the COC to say such?

PAR

Well, that was a wild and willful complete misinterpretation of what I said.

Here is the quote I was responding to -

par wrote:

I have to ask... if someone comes in here and states they are Christian, what do you suppose this GWJ community should do? Shun them? Try and "convert" them? Make sure they realize that many here are pro-gay and that they should change their views to be a part of this community?
From what I can see, I see Christians here on GWJ saying "Hi, I'm Christian. I don't follow the anti-gay stuff in the bible. Want to play a game?" and not "Hi, I'm Christian... OMFG THERE ARE GAYS HERE!!!? FIRE, FLAME... GET THE PITCHFORKS!!!!".

I didn't say the threads "belonged" to anyone. I was saying that you can't enter into a discussion about opinions on homosexuality and then say "why is everyone talking about opinions on homosexuality here? I feel attacked!" I also said this applied to anyone who enters into the discussion.

You're trying to create a narrative that people who don't conform to the groupthink are being hunted down when, in fact, it's only being discussed in very certain threads.