Wow, ever the pessimist, eh CW? Seriously, lighten up, not everyone's out to get you.
:brokenheart:
:brokenheart:
They do the exact same thing to straight people, so why is it bad for homosexuals? If I am a Catholic and love a woman, I'm not supposed to do anything sexual with her unless we're married. Even after marriage, there are strict limitations on what we can do. All of this comes from the Church's philosophical framework on sexuality itself, which I've already described, albeit very briefly. This framework doesn't come (at least not strictly) from the Bible, which non-Catholics can't seem to comprehend.
If you read Aquinas, he'll tell you that many of the things you listed are actually worse than homosexual activity. The modern Church has sort of gotten away from trying to list a hierarchy of sins (e.g. rape is worse than incest) because there isn't really a point, IMO. They still have mortal and venial sins, but this isn't the same kind of hierarchy. I agree in principle that the Church should teach that sexual immorality is bad, period. However, I can also see why, given the present political climate, they feel the need to address homosexuality distinctly due to the prevalence of homosexual marriage debates. Since the Church considers the "State" as a moral agent, it is important for the Church to advise the State on matters of morality. Of course, the State is no longer a person like it used to be - now it's generally the people making the call, so things get pretty convoluted and the message is again potentially confusing when taken out of context. I don't think they would hold off making similar statements about fornication if there were political pressure to legalize/ban it right now, so I don't see that it is inconsistent.
There's one simple reason why Religions put homosexuality above all other sins: it's safe.
Give a sermon on greed and everyone in church squirms; everyone has been greedy. Everyone has been cruel. Everyone has been thoughtless, careless, what have you. But only gay people have been gay.
Preach about the evils of homosexuality and 90% of audience members can nod their heads with a feeling of righteous superiority, then drop their share in the bucket. And with that much peer pressure, generally the remaining 10% bend over backwards to prove they aren't sinners.
In II Corinthians 12:8, the 'apostle' Paul says Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee."
So homosexuality, and presumably all other moral issues are not a sin . Just call on Jesus three times!
Give a sermon on greed and everyone in church squirms; everyone has been greedy. Everyone has been cruel. Everyone has been thoughtless, careless, what have you. But only gay people have been gay.
Preach about the evils of homosexuality and 90% of audience members can nod their heads with a feeling of righteous superiority, then drop their share in the bucket. And with that much peer pressure, generally the remaining 10% bend over backwards to prove they aren't sinners.
In II Corinthians 12:8, the 'apostle' Paul says Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee."
So homosexuality, and presumably all other moral issues are not a sin . Just call on Jesus three times!
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
The primary purpose of marriage is for the creation and protection of children. Homosexuals cannot create children and any other sexual act between homosexuals would be a sin. So condoning marriage between homosexuals would be condoning sex between homosexuals which is a sin.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
They do the exact same thing to straight people, so why is it bad for homosexuals? If I am a Catholic and love a woman, I'm not supposed to do anything sexual with her unless we're married. Even after marriage, there are strict limitations on what we can do. All of this comes from the Church's philosophical framework on sexuality itself, which I've already described, albeit very briefly. This framework doesn't come (at least not strictly) from the Bible, which non-Catholics can't seem to comprehend.
After reading this a half dozen times I think we are having two different conversations. I will try to understand where you are coming from, so forgive me if I don't get it at first.
I understand the rules surrounding sex, and where the rules come from isn't exactly my point. My point is that a separate rule exists for homosexuals. And that if one were to factor love into the equation, then this rule regarding homosexuality (that homosexual sex is a sin) creates a contradiction. The evidence to support homosexuality occuring naturally in our world continues to grow. I find myself believing that homosexuality is natural, as is man's capacity to love. With that said, the rule wherein homosexual acts are sinful contradicts a person's ability to love, if that person happens to be homosexual.
I think it more likely to be that homosexual activity required a specific address because of the churches need to control such behavior in a time where religion governed society moreso than today. I think it is more likely an archaic rule.
It seems as though you are saying that the Church must address the ill-state of homosexuality now because of the hyper environment over the issue. And that if it were any other issue (ie fornication, or premarital sex) then the church would be speaking out over that issue just the same.
I can agree with that. But I believe the church has an opportunity to pave a way for the inclusion of the homosexual community. If Homosexual activity is sinful, then all that means to me is those homosexuals join the rest of us as sinners. The church doesn't condone these other sins (greed, promescuity, etc etc) either but you don't hear the Pope calling these things a blight on the world. IMHO Its a step in the wrong direction.
Here is an example I found of the argument that I THINK you are putting forth:
Bishop Soto:
?Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,? Bishop Soto said. ?For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression." link
What he is saying...well it is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! Homosexual activity is a sin!! it says so in the bible!!
BUT
he says nothing about homosexuals in love. But Homosexuals CAN and DO love, they find love just like the rest of us.
what about them? Its OK just don't engage in homo-sex?? OH really!?!? :roll:
Notice how the Bishop makes the distinction between "sexual relations" and "married love" The church sees two different things. THAT is the crux of the issue. The church feels that what homosexuals find isn't love, it is a mimicry of love. It is "Sexual Relations." Now aint that a bitch!?! I have a problem with that. I don't think anyone outside of one's own heart and mind can say what love is. I certainly can't tell you that the love you have with your wife is a mimicry of love, that you don't feel love.
And imho that is wrong. We are all created in the image of God, we all have the capacity to love, call it what ever the heck you want...but homosexuals can engage in "married love" just as much as heterosexuals can. And that makes their sexual activity the EXACT same thing as an act of LOVE...regardless of the church rules or how the church chooses to define what is love, and what is a mimicry of love. I really have a problem with the church defining such rules over sex and love. Talk about Big Brother coming into your bedroom, there is no bigger brother than Jesus Christ himself!!
Interesting discussion. Despite us both having a hard head in the beginning, I am enjoying your perspective. Thanks.
You don't reject the sin, you fool, you create it in your own mind. There is no sin. You are evil because you create it as a concept.
Hehe, you are quite hilarious because you are so blind. You refer, you will note, to the existence of arguments that are not theological, and tell people to google them up. I did and found more of the usual bullshit. Meanwhile, you hide behind the ancient fallacy of appeal to authority, as if I had to worship old philosophers or that they had anything real to say. You show your bigotry and snobbery here. Aquinas is full of shit. But I want you to make your own case instead of appealing to the thinking of others. Tell me why the church should oppose homosexual marriage. I don't want to hear that they should because they have a doctrine natural or otherwise, that homosexuality is bad, I want you to tell me why it is. I want you to tell me why it's OK for heterosexual lovers to have sex but not people with same sex attraction. I want to know why they should be deprived of satisfying this feeling, why one of the great joys of life they should not have. I want to know what gives you the arrogance to say they should not. I am telling you you can't any more than Aquinas could, because there is no reason that isn't pure bigotry.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Have you ever been to a church service?
The above strikes me as some kind of rationalization based upon sterotypes.
When I was in 6th grade I got in a lot of trouble in school, ended up being sent to Baptist school. We got preached to every day and had special guest preachers on Fridays.
My father also made us all go to (Presbertarian) church - Sunday school, then regular Sunday service, and again the Wednesday night service.
Contrary to your musings above, I don't recall any services about homosexuality, only common thoings such as greed, thoughtlesness etc that you seem to think are avoided (the Baptist did spend time on extolling the evils of achohol and premartial sex though, maybe because most of us were horny teenagers?). Seemed to me that preacher was always trying to make the sermon relevent to the crowd.
I haven't been to church in many years, but I doubt it's changed that much.
Since you don't know what bigotry is, the rest of your tripe can be neglected. Please, tell me what bigotry is and how it applies to this situation. Then I'll be happy to answer any of your questions and address your concerns.
A couple of points here:
1.) The notion that the purpose of marriage is to create and shelter children is as antiquated as the rest of the church's beliefs. Moreover, it's an opinion. Anyone could come along and claim that the purpose of marriage is to pair-bond two humans together for no higher purpose than love (as I just did), and assuming we all went away believing that, he or she would have just as much authority on the matter. Thus, one's opinion on the purpose of marriage, including the church's opinion on the matter, cannot form the rational or logical basis for anything, let alone an argument in favor of denying legal recognition to an entire class of people.
Christians seem to like to think they're above animals, but then proceed to boil down love, relationships and sex to their most animalistic basis. They say, "sex is for the creation of children, not for enjoyment." Which is ironic, given how they stress we are not animals, and yet is that not how animals treat sex? Purely for reproduction?
It's a quaint idea to marry in order to have children, and by all means, if that's your reason to get married, more power to you, but I suspect the majority of people marry for much different reasons.
2.) The church opposes gay marriage. Perhaps they didn't come out and say it specifically in this Christmas address by the pope, however that's their stated position. Opposing gay marriage = discriminating and witholding rights and/or legal recognition from a specific group of people = bigotry.
Bigotry isn't really that difficult to identify, understanding it is another matter . . .
1.) The notion that the purpose of marriage is to create and shelter children is as antiquated as the rest of the church's beliefs. Moreover, it's an opinion. Anyone could come along and claim that the purpose of marriage is to pair-bond two humans together for no higher purpose than love (as I just did), and assuming we all went away believing that, he or she would have just as much authority on the matter. Thus, one's opinion on the purpose of marriage, including the church's opinion on the matter, cannot form the rational or logical basis for anything, let alone an argument in favor of denying legal recognition to an entire class of people.
Christians seem to like to think they're above animals, but then proceed to boil down love, relationships and sex to their most animalistic basis. They say, "sex is for the creation of children, not for enjoyment." Which is ironic, given how they stress we are not animals, and yet is that not how animals treat sex? Purely for reproduction?
It's a quaint idea to marry in order to have children, and by all means, if that's your reason to get married, more power to you, but I suspect the majority of people marry for much different reasons.
2.) The church opposes gay marriage. Perhaps they didn't come out and say it specifically in this Christmas address by the pope, however that's their stated position. Opposing gay marriage = discriminating and witholding rights and/or legal recognition from a specific group of people = bigotry.
Bigotry isn't really that difficult to identify, understanding it is another matter . . .
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
I am not sure where you get your definition of bigot/bigotry from (looks like wikipedia). Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as:
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Marriage as it has evolved over the centuries is by far the best way to raise and protect children and ensure their continued safety in the event of the loss of a parent. And that is a man and women otherwise same sex marriages would have risen long ago. It is only in our more degenerate times that homosexuality is beginning to be seen as normal when it clearly is not.
Not having talked to any animals lately, I really have no idea how they view sex. If it was nothing but an onerous task with no inherent pleasure, I wonder if the species would survive.
I can only speak for myself, but I doubt few Christians view the homosexual person as bad/evil. But do view the sexual act as a sin. It is important to keep this a very clear distinction.
I've just given up on trying to convince the anti-gay marriage people. I think I may have said this before, but there's no point. Events now in motion make it extremely likely gay marriage will be legal in the US in the near future, with or without their understanding. In addition, it wasn't like the civil rights legislation of the 60's suddenly made all the racists in America less racist.
So basically:
1.) You can't convince these people.
2.) It doesn't matter if you do or not from a policy perspective.
So basically:
1.) You can't convince these people.
2.) It doesn't matter if you do or not from a policy perspective.
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
Originally posted by: OrByte
No point in trying to convince anyone. I simply enjoy showing people that the argument for gay marriage exists in the bible.
SHOCKER
Not hardly. Adn you need to read the entire text of Bishop Soto's address to understand what he is saying and it is quite at odds with your selective excerpts and misinterpretations.
It's a long read so take your time.
Bishop Soto Address
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
Actually, you can, just not accept as right what is clearly a sin.
And it is entirely possible the social norms will change and homosexual acts will be viewed as the same as heterosexual acts within the context of mariage. And you may probably be right since so many people today are equating love as sex and not as a means to spirituality.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
HA! you can't just say I misrepresented and not say how! cheater!!!Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: OrByte
No point in trying to convince anyone. I simply enjoy showing people that the argument for gay marriage exists in the bible.
SHOCKER
Not hardly. Adn you need to read the entire text of Bishop Soto's address to understand what he is saying and it is quite at odds with your selective excerpts and misinterpretations.
It's a long read so take your time.
Bishop Soto Address
I did not misrepresent his position. I only brought out his specifically addressing homosexual sin. It is his clear argument, and it is very simple. If I've misrepresented anything please point it out.
fyi I've read it. and it makes me cringe even moreso than before.
That's not why it will be overturned. I've mentioned this in other threads, but the USSC has declared marriage a fundamental right. The CSC has ruled that homosexuals are a 'protected class' in California. The entire purpose of 'fundamental rights' and 'protected classes' under the law are to prevent a simple majority from encroaching on the rights of minority groups. In order for the CSC to uphold Proposition 8, they will have to determine that the fundamental rights of protected classes can be removed by a simple majority vote. In effect, if that were true than California could pass "Proposition 99" to reinstate separate water fountains for white and black people by majority vote. That's pretty unlikely to happen.
Your opinion that homosexual sex is a sin is based upon your interpretation of a book you think was written/inspired/whatever by a make believe sky fairy. How can anyone possibly hope to argue with that? Your opinion is not based in what is rational, (as like it or not, religious faith is not rational, nor need it be.) therefore rational argument is unlikely to dent it.
Certainly but you will understand, I hope, that I will be looking at bigotry from the point of view of somebody who has understood his own from the inside out, and that my understanding of the subject, therefore, will be real understanding and not dictionary compliance or an appeal to some nonsense normative concoction. I will tell you what bigotry really is. As in everything, I figured this out for myself, without the help of experts, philosophers, linguists, and other folk who look at things more superficially, of course in my opinion based, as always on my enlightened understanding, the one you mock and make fun of, hehe. It seems I am as indifferent to your opinion as I am to the opinion of any other of the so called wise.
I set out some long time back, to prove there is absolute truth and that life has meaning. I was a bigot, because I assumed that such a truth existed and, of course, that it would supply such meaning. These ideas were everything I held sacred.
But, unfortunately for me, I have an irresistible desire to be honest and that ruined everything. I read everything I could find that purported to hold truth and found only lies, unproven assumptions at the heart of every belief or opinion. All the great thinkers were lying to themselves. Your Aquinas was among them. They all based their ideas on some assumption that has no grounding, always exactly what they start out to prove.
For example, Aquinas sets up the natural as something of value, then speaks as though homosexuality, deviating from the norm, isn't natural and according to the Spaghetti Monster's plan. Hehe, what a dunce. He assumes a god and he assumes that a less frequent sexual orientation isn't natural. We have no proof of the existence of God so that eliminates God's plan and less common is still totally natural. What is is what is natural. But when you have God, you naturally have good and evil. But neither of them exist. There can't be any evil since there is only God, you know. Well I guess you don't.
You create evil, I'll remind you, when you create the notion that it exists. Evil is memory associated with pain.
So you can take Western philosophy and Western religion and throw them in the garbage. They are all lies all figments of duality thinking, unless, of course, you actually know what it means to be forgiven, and I certainly don't mean know as with your mind, but fully in your own heart.
I was a bigot. I believed there is a truth and the disappointment my honesty brought me ended my life. I died of a broken heart. I know utter darkness and what it means to feel pain. I know what it means to give up utterly beaten, to lose everything you ever held dear. I know what it means to die to purpose and meaning, to have no hope.
But why oh why did I suffer. Its because I clung to meaning, I carried the assumption one needed it. Well for me, Zen helped fix that. In a deep state of meditation I woke up from a dream. In a meaningless world, meaning is meaningless too. There is only one absolute truth and it is the state of total being in the here and now. Everything you ever longed for has always been there. There is nothing to add to pure being joy.
So a bigot, my dear Sir, is somebody who hold unexamined assumptions, ideas and thoughts, dead memories of the past, some one who feels need, somebody who clings to ideas about the absolute, somebody who believes in good and evil. Where there is the feeling of need, there is the motivation to justify, to strive and do battle when everything is already absolutely perfect as it is.
Humanity is upside down to reality or inside out. And I know your upside down world like the back of my hand. Come on in, the water is just fine.
Jesus found God, of course, because he lost Him on the cross. If you suffer you will not suffer. To suffer is not to feel your suffering. To really suffer is to be.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter