Homosexuality: Morals and Ethics Catch-All Thread

Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

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.

So the litmus test of your "more tolerant society" is that people should be slut-shamed into not expressing religious beliefs that you personally don't agree with? Sounds like a brave new world to me, best of luck.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Oh right, I meant to comment on the inappropriate use of that phrase as well.

The level of Doublespeak going on here is truly astounding. Why, Norman, are you so intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

So the litmus test of your "more tolerant society" is that people should be slut-shamed into not expressing religious beliefs that you personally don't agree with? Sounds like a brave new world to me, best of luck.

The difference is the content. "Slut shaming" is wrong because the implication is that there is something wrong with a woman having sex. "Bigot shaming" is about criticizing the idea that some people are somehow "inferior" and "wrong" because of who they are.

Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with criticizing religious beliefs. Just like there's nothing wrong with criticizing political beliefs.

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

Someone explain to me how Christians can completely condemn this today (but not 200 years ago), and yet they still don't get that the way that they look at gay people is exactly the same, and for the same reasons. Or that, yes, Christianity has changed repeatedly and massively over the years. Until we stop regarding a 2500 year old collection of tribal beliefs as an authoritative guide to life, it will continue to lead people into this kind of misanthropic stubbornness.

And if this were the 1850's, we'd be having this discussion about slavery, with some Christians against it and many others for it - all based on the Bible. The more things change... But it's worth it for a Christian to go over in his mind the *Biblical* reasons that slavery is evil, and then see if those arguments don't apply to the persecution of gay people. Because the Bible was wrong about slavery, and it's wrong about this too.

Let me be clear: I wasn't looking for sympathy. I'm largely over most of what I suffered growing up. There are new challenges to face, such as living in a world where many people feel they have to stand up and tell me that I am less of a person than them because I am attracted emotionally and sexually to my own gender. This includes my parents whom have expressed disapproval of me having a boyfriend or acting on these feelings. I'm afraid that the difficulty in understanding your position on homosexuality is rather unimportant in my life when I have to deliver an ultimatum to my parents, stating that I am not going to be celibate, and that while I am not going to bring anyone home for them to meet just yet, the day that I want to and am told that I can't is the day I don't come back. My parents love me and want me around. But their position and yours, as stated, regardless of the reasons, are no less harmful.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

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.

So the litmus test of your "more tolerant society" is that people should be slut-shamed into not expressing religious beliefs that you personally don't agree with? Sounds like a brave new world to me, best of luck.

Nope. This has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I'm one of those really religion-positive atheists; my father retired as a minister last fall after 44 years, and I take immense pride in the families he counseled, the lives he touched, and all the good he did. Religion does all sorts of positive things. This has nothing to do with "religion". This has to do with bigotry and intolerance that some people choose to justify with their particular take on religion.

If somebody came up to you and loudly proclaimed that God created people with darker skin inferior to whites and that it was the white man's sacred mission to own those lesser people and put them to work in cotton fields because that was their God-given mission, would you just shrug and say "Well, their religion says that's how they view the world, and I won't slut-shame them into silence"? Does the fact that somebody pastes a "RELIGION" badge on a viewpoint suddenly mean I have to treat it differently? The South's view of slavery being a God-given mission prior to the Civil War was Biblically justified, so I have to not "slut-shame"?

This has nothing to do with "religion" at all. It has to do with people who climb up on a moral plank and use their religion as a bludgeon and scream "OPPRESSION" every time somebody objects to being clubbed. Saying "God is on my side" gives people opposed to homosexual rights no more moral currency than it gave people in the past who used that phrase to justify racism, slavery, anti-semitism, opposition to women's rights, or any number of other issues.

Edit: And Robear and I are inspired at the same time.

I used the term very deliberately.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I used the term very deliberately.

Awesome. Now tell me how it couldn't be used in the same way for people expressing support for racism, slavery, anti-semitism, or all sorts of other things they can claim the Bible tells them to do.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I used the term very deliberately.

Awesome. Now tell me how it couldn't be used in the same way for people expressing support for racism, slavery, anti-semitism, or all sorts of other things they can claim the Bible tells them to do.

Also will you respond to any of the other criticisms of your post or just that one?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

So the litmus test of your "more tolerant society" is that people should be slut-shamed into not expressing religious beliefs that you personally don't agree with? Sounds like a brave new world to me, best of luck.

It would be a world of improvement if Christians simply voiced their religiously inspired dislike of gays and not continually tried to codify that dislike into law.

goman wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
goman wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I see it quite simply; if you don't like being called a bigot, don't be a bigot.

That, or, again, please explain to me how you justify your opposition to same-sex marriage in any way different than those who had (or have) opposition to interracial marriage. I see utterly no difference between the two.

I rarely use the word bigot for anything because I find it unproductive. But his stance is bigoted to the core. He won't even discuss why he believes what he believes. It is not only bigoted but ignorant and immoral.

I don't discuss why I believe what I believe because of well, look at everything. I'm being called a bigot before you even know why I stand for what I stand for. What incentive does that give me? Mocking someone for something you just simply don't get isn't exactly the way people should handle things.

You refuse to even discuss it. You say that you are "loving, respectful, and understanding" yet you shrug NSMike's experience as oh well whatever. That is not a loving or understanding posture.

Do you not have the time to put your feeling into words or do you not want to feel ridiculed? Why won't you explain yourself?

Well It's very difficult to post anything truly lengthy here at work. I apologize for coming across as "Well oh well" to NS's experiences. I only have just little "pockets" of time to sit down and actually think, well truly think of what I write. Not to mention sympathy has always been hard for me to portray in text. My beliefs and life stem from a religious point point of view, and the reason why I choose not to get into it, is because it never goes over well for most people because they never seem to understand my beliefs.

I also believe that you don't understand the meaning of "bigot"

"big·ot
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

"in·tol·er·ant
adjective
1.
not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted."

I am not intolerant of anything that a homosexual does. To be intolerant would be to tell them in a disrespectful manner that I do not tolerate their lifestyle, when in fact I do. I do not disrespect their lifestyle, nor do I their opinions on their lifestyle. I do not hate, ridicule, treat differently, or physically abuse anyone who is a homosexual. Even the very definition of the word proves this. Can you say the same with how you've been responding to me?

Sorry, I'm missing the part where your cherry-picked definitions say "and they act on it."

I am goddamned proud of the GWJ community right now. This was the first time in a LONG time that our generally accepted beliefs - that our LGBT members among us are absolutely equal to everyone else - were challenged, and I think the defenders have done a beautiful job in the face of such a challenge.

Bloodriver, SpacePPoliceman, Robear, Rubb Ed, NSMike, and SixteenBlue, specifically, thank you for your posts.

I'm sure many people who opposed to interracial marriage could easily say "Well, I'm not utterly intolerant of those people, I just don't think black and white people should marry". By your convenient definition, they're totally not bigots, so I guess their views are OK.

Yes, the old "you're intolerant of intolerance" canard. I will readily admit that I feel it's clear that society should not tolerate racism, anti-semitism, denigrating comments to women, or other forms of things that are widely considered to be bigoted. This does not make me "intolerant". I means "I do not accept intolerance". Being "tolerant" does not mean "accept everything".

Seth wrote:

I am goddamned proud of the GWJ community right now. This was the first time in a LONG time that our generally accepted beliefs - that our LGBT members among us are absolutely equal to everyone else - were challenged, and I think the defenders have done a beautiful job in the face of such a challenge.

Bloodriver, SpacePPoliceman, Robear, Rubb Ed, NSMike, and SixteenBlue, specifically, thank you for your posts.

How were they challenged though? They are the majority lol?

OG_slinger wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

So the litmus test of your "more tolerant society" is that people should be slut-shamed into not expressing religious beliefs that you personally don't agree with? Sounds like a brave new world to me, best of luck.

It would be a world of improvement if Christians simply voiced their religiously inspired dislike of gays and not continually tried to codify that dislike into law.

If that were the context of this discussion, I wouldn't take exception.

The Conformist never expressed support for those laws, and in fact he says he treats everyone with equal kindness. The group's response is a giant pile-on and firing up the "bigot" brand. Your response is that his belief in lieu of concrete action is harmful and he should feel ashamed. The words "bigot" and "slut" at pretty much interchangable here - he holds a different moral belief, you don't like it, so punish him, even though his actual actions have done nothing to harm you personally.

The idea that the first step in a more tolerant society is to squash expressions of ideas you personally don't agree with is simply juvenile. Tolerance means taking the bad ideas with the good.

The Conformist wrote:
Seth wrote:

I am goddamned proud of the GWJ community right now. This was the first time in a LONG time that our generally accepted beliefs - that our LGBT members among us are absolutely equal to everyone else - were challenged, and I think the defenders have done a beautiful job in the face of such a challenge.

Bloodriver, SpacePPoliceman, Robear, Rubb Ed, NSMike, and SixteenBlue, specifically, thank you for your posts.

How were they challenged though? They are the majority lol?

Believe it not, I respect everyone on here enough to consider opposing points of views. Any opposing point of view challenges mine. I came to my beliefs through critical thought.

On a related note, I would still like an answer from you on why your beliefs are ingrained and can not change.

The Conformist wrote:

I am not intolerant of anything that a homosexual does. To be intolerant would be to tell them in a disrespectful manner that I do not tolerate their lifestyle, when in fact I do. I do not disrespect their lifestyle, nor do I their opinions on their lifestyle. I do not hate, ridicule, treat differently, or physically abuse anyone who is a homosexual. Even the very definition of the word proves this. Can you say the same with how you've been responding to me?

I'm not understanding how saying that homosexuality is wrong (presumably this means morally wrong, since what else could it mean?) is not disrespecting or intolerant of homosexuals?

It is also not a shock to learn that your views stem from a religious point of view. The real question is what religious justification do you use? I hope it's not biblical law, because that usually doesn't end well as a justification given what it does and does not not tolerate.

goman wrote:

You refuse to even discuss it. You say that you are "loving, respectful, and understanding" yet you shrug NSMike's experience as oh well whatever. That is not a loving or understanding posture.

Do you not have the time to put your feeling into words or do you not want to feel ridiculed? Why won't you explain yourself?

I assume the reason is probably simple: an inerrant, holy Bible trumps everything else. If the Bible says something's a sin, then it's a sin. That's why I said at the beginning of this thread that it's pretty difficult to have a discussion on this topic, because beliefs like that aren't compromisable. Anecdotal evidence that these beliefs cause harm is all well and good, but if a person firmly believes that the Bible is the last word, then anecdotes change nothing.

The importance of the Bible is why so many Christians now interpret the Biblical account of creation so that "days" actually symbolize "millenia", allowing them to reconcile their belief in the Bible with the scientific evidence of evolution. And this is one reason why some Christians, correctly or not, are starting to interpret Biblical condemnations of homosexuality to be referring to sexual encounters outside of committed relationships. Keeping the Bible, with different interpretations, is preferable to abandoning it.

It's hard to argue with a person who holds these beliefs if you don't understand how important the Bible is to conservative Christians, or can't fathom the Bible's teachings being more important than people.

Conformist. You are not making sense. You are tolerant of what a homosexual does in their own sheets but not of homosexuals?

Why not just say your tolerant and leave it at that. Because with your actions with living with two homosexuals and saying what you just said now, you are tolerant. Maybe we are misunderstanding you because you misunderstand yourself?

The Conformist wrote:
Seth wrote:

I am goddamned proud of the GWJ community right now. This was the first time in a LONG time that our generally accepted beliefs - that our LGBT members among us are absolutely equal to everyone else - were challenged, and I think the defenders have done a beautiful job in the face of such a challenge.

Bloodriver, SpacePPoliceman, Robear, Rubb Ed, NSMike, and SixteenBlue, specifically, thank you for your posts.

How were they challenged though? They are the majority lol?

Maybe asking why it is justifiable for a group to deny civil rights to people based on their personal, religiously-motivated "morals" in our secular nation, especially when considering the striking absence of any measurable or theoretical harm to anyone else by granting said rights?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The idea that the first step in a more tolerant society is to squash expressions of ideas you personally don't agree with is simply juvenile. Tolerance means taking the bad ideas with the good.

Except we don't do that, and never have. If somebody walked down the street proclaiming that slavery should start up again because God wanted black people to serve white people, we wouldn't tolerate it. We'd all band together and talk about how disgusting those views are and how that sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. We, as a culture, do this with all sorts of ideas that the great majority of us find completely offensive. What we are saying in this thread is that the "Homosexuality is wrong" idea is just as offensive, and belongs in the same class of things that we as a society need to not accept.

Seth wrote:

I am goddamned proud of the GWJ community right now. This was the first time in a LONG time that our generally accepted beliefs - that our LGBT members among us are absolutely equal to everyone else - were challenged, and I think the defenders have done a beautiful job in the face of such a challenge

Someone in this tread was crusading against gay marriage/gay rights?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Seth wrote:

I am goddamned proud of the GWJ community right now. This was the first time in a LONG time that our generally accepted beliefs - that our LGBT members among us are absolutely equal to everyone else - were challenged, and I think the defenders have done a beautiful job in the face of such a challenge

Someone in this tread was crusading against gay marriage/gay rights?

When will you respond to all of the posts directed at you?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The Conformist never expressed support for those laws, and in fact he says he treats everyone with equal kindness.

I know some racists that treat ethnic minorities with equal kindness, but still think they're inferior. Should that opinion be held with equal regard?

The group's response is a giant pile-on and firing up the "bigot" brand. Your response is that his belief in lieu of concrete action is harmful and he should feel ashamed. The words "bigot" and "slut" at pretty much interchangable here - he holds a different moral belief, you don't like it, so punish him, even though his actual actions have done nothing to harm you personally.

I see you ignored the reasons why "slut" and "bigot" are not equivalent here. "Slut" is a term made up to express disapproval of women engaging in casual sex. "Bigot" is a term used to define someone who considers another person to be inferior (morally wrong, if you will).

The idea that the first step in a more tolerant society is to squash expressions of ideas you personally don't agree with is simply juvenile. Tolerance means taking the bad ideas with the good.

Are we to Tolerate everything? The opinion that, say, Jews might be nice people and deserving of all the rights that everyone else has, but they're still morally wrong for being Jewish? There is a reason that sort of thought should be discouraged.

I'm intolerant of intolerance. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm also not in denial. Are there any other stupid word games we can get out of the way now?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The words "bigot" and "slut" at pretty much interchangable here - he holds a different moral belief, you don't like it, so punish him, even though his actual actions have done nothing to harm you personally.

You do not understand what slut-shaming means. Slut-shaming is a method of controlling women, and specifically their sexuality and what they do with their bodies.

Rather like expressing disapproval for what homosexuals do with their sexuality and bodies.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

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.

So the litmus test of your "more tolerant society" is that people should be slut-shamed into not expressing religious beliefs that you personally don't agree with? Sounds like a brave new world to me, best of luck.

Why use this term? It completely derails... everything.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

The level of Doublespeak going on here is truly astounding. Why, Norman, are you so intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance?

There you go again! Being intolerant of his intolerance of your intolerance of his intolerance.

I feel like this should be so simple. You are absolutely free to feel how you do and say whatever you want on issues like this. However, you're not entitled to saying things that hurt other people and not having those ideas challenged, sometimes vociferously. That goes for all ideas. It's communication. You speak and you should be prepared to have that communication challenged, rejected or ignored. It's part of life as a human being.

Demyx wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

The words "bigot" and "slut" at pretty much interchangable here - he holds a different moral belief, you don't like it, so punish him, even though his actual actions have done nothing to harm you personally.

You do not understand what slut-shaming means. Slut-shaming is a method of controlling women, and specifically their sexuality and what they do with their bodies.

Rather like expressing disapproval for what homosexuals do with their sexuality and bodies.

It's hard not to believe that the continual misuse of this term is bitterness from when the term was used in previous threads like the "Conservative War on Women" thread. Specifically the way Malor used it. It just feels like some people are really bitter about that term and how it was used. It makes no sense in the context of a thread like this.