• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thje need for authenticity

CriticalThought said:
My views are evolving on this as well. Many of the countries that have legalized same sex marriage are predominately Christian. Some even have state religion.

Christianity has a wide spectrum, spanning from the most vocal opponents of gay rights to the most ardent supporters. It's too easy to end up blaming one side for the denigrating and dehumanizing deeds of the other.
Click to expand...

The issue, as with most things, is to not get sucked into extremism and to make yourself responsible for your own beliefs... not anyone else.
 
Goshin said:
I don't fear homosexuals. I am religiously obligated to view their lifestyle as sinful. I am religously obligated to not support gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Goshin;

These types of statements are why arguments degenerate in the first place. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, and they want what any heterosexual wants out of a relationship. They want to have a job without getting fired for the sexual lifestyle, serve their country without discrimination, and eat leftovers on the couch while watching reruns of American Idol with their partner. And they want to do these things without being labelled as 'sinful', which to you religious folks is synonymous with 'wrong'. Basically, you are calling a group of individuals wrong simply based on their sexual preference. When you make the excuse that your religion obligates you to do so, it changes nothing. You are still calling the lifestyle 'wrong'. Is it any wonder that folks get pissed off when you do that and start retaliating? You've just insulted them, after all.

You are welcome to practice whatever religion you want, but you guys have got to chill with the whole 'homosexuality is wrong' stuff, because it's inflammatory. I'm sorry that your religion obligates you to view an act so wrongfully when there is absolutely nothing wrong with it on a more secular level, but that's something that your religion has to either deal with or overcome. When you guys start bringing that type of bias into the public, where plenty of people do not see it that way, then these kind of problems erupt.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, so if my post is the least bit insulting towards you, please accept my apology. However, I am trying to explain why such threads begin to degenerate from my point of view, and maybe give you a window into how those of us who support such positions look at it.


Goshin said:
I wonder how many threads that are started with "Gay" as the topic, are started by anti-SSM's as opposed to those started by pro-SSMs? I'd be willing to bet real money that pro-SSM's start these thread more.... like say, almost always. Offhand I've rarely seen an anti-SSM poster start a thread about this topic.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see who begins insulting first. Most of the times, the threads begin degenerating when someone starts in with how homosexuality is sinful, wrong, whatever. Rarely have I seen pro-SSM folks start blasting the other side first. The insults usually begin when inflammatory remarks are made about how homosexuality is 'wrong'.
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
Goshin;

These types of statements are why arguments degenerate in the first place. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, and they want what any heterosexual wants out of a relationship. They want to have a job without getting fired for the sexual lifestyle, serve their country without discrimination, and eat leftovers on the couch while watching reruns of American Idol with their partner. And they want to do these things without being labelled as 'sinful', which to you religious folks is synonymous with 'wrong'. Basically, you are calling a group of individuals wrong simply based on their sexual preference. When you make the excuse that your religion obligates you to do so, it changes nothing. You are still calling the lifestyle 'wrong'. Is it any wonder that folks get pissed off when you do that and start retaliating? You've just insulted them, after all.

You are welcome to practice whatever religion you want, but you guys have got to chill with the whole 'homosexuality is wrong' stuff, because it's inflammatory. I'm sorry that your religion obligates you to view an act so wrongfully when there is absolutely nothing wrong with it on a more secular level, but that's something that your religion has to either deal with or overcome. When you guys start bringing that type of bias into the public, where plenty of people do not see it that way, then these kind of problems erupt.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, so if my post is the least bit insulting towards you, please accept my apology. However, I am trying to explain why such threads begin to degenerate from my point of view, and maybe give you a window into how those of us who support such positions look at it.




I'd be curious to see who begins insulting first. Most of the times, the threads begin degenerating when someone starts in with how homosexuality is sinful, wrong, whatever. Rarely have I seen pro-SSM folks start blasting the other side first. The insults usually begin when inflammatory remarks are made about how homosexuality is 'wrong'.
Click to expand...


Look, Sing, one thing nobody is guaranteed in America is the approval of all their neighbors for their lifestyle. This is true whether you're gay, straight, left, right, Presbyterian or Hindu. Whatever you are, you'll never find a shortage of people who don't like it for some reason.

There are people on DP who not only disapprove of my lifestyle (conservative Christianity), they seize every opportunity to ridicule and bash it they can find.

Well, that's life. You can't please everybody. Gays and pro-SSMs need to realize that you're not going to get everbody to accept homosexuality as Fine and SSM as Normal, and you're never going to shut them up entirely either.... it's called freedom of speech.

I believe what I believe. Sorry. Not gonna change a fundamental belief just because some are uncomfortable about it. I don't normally go around getting in people's face about it, but if you ask me or the topic comes up, I'm not going to lie and say it is OK when I don't believe it is.

See, this is where we run into problems. It's a free country: do yo' thang. As long as you stay outta my face with it, I don't really care much. But some people can't seem to do that, some are determined to get in your face about it and stay there until you "accept" them and tell them they're OK.

It doesn't work that way. You can't force acceptance, and you'll never get everyone to accept SSM as being ok normal fine healthy equal and all that other jazz. Not going to happen.
 
Goshin said:
Look, Sing, one thing nobody is guaranteed in America is the approval of all their neighbors for their lifestyle. This is true whether you're gay, straight, left, right, Presbyterian or Hindu. Whatever you are, you'll never find a shortage of people who don't like it for some reason.

There are people on DP who not only disapprove of my lifestyle (conservative Christianity), they seize every opportunity to ridicule and bash it they can find.

Well, that's life. You can't please everybody. Gays and pro-SSMs need to realize that you're not going to get everbody to accept homosexuality as Fine and SSM as Normal, and you're never going to shut them up entirely either.... it's called freedom of speech.

I believe what I believe. Sorry. Not gonna change a fundamental belief just because some are uncomfortable about it. I don't normally go around getting in people's face about it, but if you ask me or the topic comes up, I'm not going to lie and say it is OK when I don't believe it is.

See, this is where we run into problems. It's a free country: do yo' thang. As long as you stay outta my face with it, I don't really care much. But some people can't seem to do that, some are determined to get in your face about it and stay there until you "accept" them and tell them they're OK.

It doesn't work that way. You can't force acceptance, and you'll never get everyone to accept SSM as being ok normal fine healthy equal and all that other jazz. Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

See... again, this I have no problem with. A difference of opinion, based on core personal beliefs. I'm not going to attack you because this is where you stand. There is no degradation in your post. The only thing I ask is that you not attack me because of my beliefs. Seems to me that you agree with this.
 
Singularity said:
Goshin;

These types of statements are why arguments degenerate in the first place. ... You are still calling the lifestyle 'wrong'. Is it any wonder that folks get pissed off when you do that and start retaliating? You've just insulted them, after all.

You are welcome to practice whatever religion you want, but you guys have got to chill with the whole 'homosexuality is wrong' stuff, because it's inflammatory. ... Rarely have I seen pro-SSM folks start blasting the other side first. The insults usually begin when inflammatory remarks are made about how homosexuality is 'wrong'.
Click to expand...


See, this is where I have a huge problem. You're basically telling me not to talk about my beliefs, even if a relevant topic comes up.

In essence you're saying "If you don't agree with me, then just be quiet."

You're saying that if someone asks me what I think about SSM, or if the topic is under discussion in my presence, that simply stating my beliefs is somehow wrong because some find it inflammatory.

That isn't tolerance. That's an attempt to simply make those who disagree with you be silent.

As I've said, I don't go around talking about this subject very often, except here. I wouldn't talk about it much HERE if it wasn't brought up by others so often. But if you bring the topic up, I just might feel that I have to say something, and if I speak I'm going to speak honestly; I'm not going to lie just to spare someone's feelings. I have to be true to myself... or as the OP says, I have to be "genuine".
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Look, Sing, one thing nobody is guaranteed in America is the approval of all their neighbors for their lifestyle. This is true whether you're gay, straight, left, right, Presbyterian or Hindu. Whatever you are, you'll never find a shortage of people who don't like it for some reason.

There are people on DP who not only disapprove of my lifestyle (conservative Christianity), they seize every opportunity to ridicule and bash it they can find.

Well, that's life. You can't please everybody. Gays and pro-SSMs need to realize that you're not going to get everbody to accept homosexuality as Fine and SSM as Normal, and you're never going to shut them up entirely either.... it's called freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. But arguments are going to degenerate as long as you engage in the whole 'homosexuality is wrong' diatribe, because that's one point of view, and one that many people find insulting. It's because of this that you can reasonably expect someone to get pissed off about it and respond in turn whenever you say those kind of things. It's not a mystery, brother. It's just human nature. If you are going to insult someone by equating their lifestyle with something 'wrong', invariably they are going to get pissed off, and words are gonna fly.

Goshin said:
See, this is where I have a huge problem. You're basically telling me not to talk about my beliefs, even if a relevant topic comes up.

In essence you're saying "If you don't agree with me, then just be quiet."

You're saying that if someone asks me what I think about SSM, or if the topic is under discussion in my presence, that simply stating my beliefs is somehow wrong because some find it inflammatory.

That isn't tolerance. That's an attempt to simply make those who disagree with you be silent.
Click to expand...

No, I explained why your words were insulting. Nowhere in my reply to you did I say not to talk about anything, I said you and those who think like you need to chill on the insults if you get tired of these kinds of conversations degenerating into name calling. If you want to keep on talking about homosexuality being wrong, a sin, or whatever, it's your right to do so. But please don't act like it's a big mystery when folks get upset and reply in kind. I'm telling you the other point of view - nothing more, nothing less. Don't misconstrue that into a whole 'freedom of speech' issue.
 
I support efforts to fortify evidence that homosexuality is a normal part of human activity, but ultimately I think it's irrelevant. If you deconstruct homosexuality as an expression of human sexuality as a whole, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is no less logical or rational than people who have ingrained hatred to homosexuality. In the absence of homophobic teachings and notions of "lifestyle", people tend to ignore homosexual behaviours and it becomes a non-issue.

Even though I think it is normal, I see no further need to justify it along the lines of normalcy because it continues to play into the neurotic attachments of those who wish to convince themselves that there is something wrong with it. It's their unhealthy attachment and I am not responsible for it. I support people pursuing happiness and fulfillment as long as it does not harm others, and homosexuality as a theme meets those criteria. All other details are incidental or products of (often willful) ignorance.
 
The issue I have is when people try to use their religious views to deny me to enter a secular contract. Yes marriage from the government is a secular contract. I can already have a religious marriage, and there is no reason in my mind to deny me a secular marriage.
 
The secular definition of marriage is still restrictive between a man and a woman though. Marriage has the gender specific roles of a man and a woman being a husband and wife. I support the right to secular civil unions, but not changing the definition of what marriage is to incorporate homosexual unions.
 
digsbe said:
The secular definition of marriage is still restrictive between a man and a woman though. Marriage has the gender specific roles of a man and a woman being a husband and wife. I support the right to secular civil unions, but not changing the definition of what marriage is to incorporate homosexual unions.
Click to expand...

And I say restricting the secular contract of marriage by gender is wrong. Having a secular civil union for one set of people, and a secular marriage for another set of people is "separate but equal", and unconstitutional, plain and simple.
 
digsbe said:
The secular definition of marriage is still restrictive between a man and a woman though. Marriage has the gender specific roles of a man and a woman being a husband and wife.
Click to expand...

This would be incorrect. There are currently a number of countries who view marriage to be not only between one man and one woman, but between two women, or two men. In the United States, five states and one district recognize marriage equality as well. The number of countries recognizing same sex marriage will eventually increase, as will the number of states here in the US. While the argument can be made that most countries and states have not legalized SSM, the fact remains that the restrictive definition is not universal, nor is it secular, as the only real bastion against such unions reside within a religious - not secular - defense.
 
Hmmm... I did some research on both the etiology and history of marriage. Interesting stuff. I learned that marriage has only been a religious institution since the 16th Century; before that, it was nothing more than a social contract, usually between families. Though, traditionally, the word "marriage" has always been between a man and a woman, the social contract issue seems to predate... and therefore from a definition standpoint, negate the church's moral hold on the word. If we use the word as it was originally intended, as a contract between two parties, we know that in the US, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation is discrimination. Now this creates a conundrum in a number of ways. First, for me, I have always argued on the side of pro-SSM, but NEVER from a discriminatory standpoint. I always felt it was a far weaker position than the angle I would take (the benefit to society position). Based on what I learned about the definition of marriage, I must rethink this, as the discrimination position, now, seems much stronger. Secondly, I don't think anti-SSM folks can argue this issue from a definitive standpoint... at least not as strongly as before. Yes, marriage, even as a contract has always been between a man and a woman, even if it originally had no religious connotation. However, it now does seem to indicate that racial issues CAN apply in these cases. In the past, it was not legal for blacks to enter into certain contracts with whites. If we look at this from a purely contractual standpoint, as society recognized the discriminatory practice of racism, these restrictions changed... as they should be based on a practice of non-discrimination. The same concept can be used in the SSM case. If we look at this from a purely definitive standpoint, marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a legal one. Now, if one wants to attribute the concept of marriage to the moral/religious position, one MUST admit that though the definition remains intact, the area from where it originates is NOT accurate.

One also has to look at the religious connotations of homosexuality. From what I know, the bible forbids the ACT of homosexuality. It does not speak of the contract of marriage. Now, the NT is not my book, so I don't know what that says, but that's what I think the OT says. Behavior not contracts.

I have consistently argued from a "all secular unions, OS and SS should be civil unions and allow religions to decide what kinds of unions they will sanction." Based on the definitions that I read and how I am now placing that in context, I must rethink my position.
 
digsbe said:
The secular definition of marriage is still restrictive between a man and a woman though. Marriage has the gender specific roles of a man and a woman being a husband and wife. I support the right to secular civil unions, but not changing the definition of what marriage is to incorporate homosexual unions.
Click to expand...

Social contracts are defined by those who make them, not society. Society determines social norms, not social contracts. The latter remains among the purview of the parties involved. In other words, if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, then you are free to form contracts according to your values. Once you tell two gay people that they cannot form the same contract, then you are stepping beyond the bounds of your own freedoms and privileges and are trying to infringe upon the rights of others. It is impossible to call it anything else, regardless of your social values.

Your beef seems to be with the word "marriage". I believe in state-sanctioned marriage because it serves a purpose and the state should still hold a valid interest in defining the appropriateness of certain marriages. However, I only consent to the abilities of the state in a legal capacity. In terms of social contracts and social values, that should be up to the parties involved, and not for the state to determine. In other words, the state should issue licenses with neutral terminology, and then the parties entering into the contract/license can call it whatever they want: union, marriage, partnership, etc. The ancillary wording is really quite a minor issue compared to the legal licensing process.

The same goes for churches. They should never be held liable to uphold social contracts that are against their values, which is why the state has no business telling churches what kind of ceremonies they can perform for union and who they must marry. The state should only concern itself with the legal minutiae. The other details are left to personal customs, family traditions, etc.

So, I actually respect your view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as that is your tradition. Where my respect for you wavers is in you telling me what my tradition should be and using the state as an enforcement tool for your belief. That is not respecting the boundaries of the rights of others.
 
Singularity said:
And that's fine. But arguments are going to degenerate as long as you engage in the whole 'homosexuality is wrong' diatribe, because that's one point of view, and one that many people find insulting. It's because of this that you can reasonably expect someone to get pissed off about it and respond in turn whenever you say those kind of things. It's not a mystery, brother. It's just human nature. If you are going to insult someone by equating their lifestyle with something 'wrong', invariably they are going to get pissed off, and words are gonna fly.
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree. It comes down to why they say it is wrong. Christians believe homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it is. There is no rational behind their belief other than that, and I really do wish there was, but that is all they need to justify believing that it is wrong.

As such, they have a religious obligation to believe it is not as God intended, which is fine, and they can choose not to support same sex marriage because that is also not as God intended, but where they cross the line is when they begin to denigrate and/or dehumanize gays and lesbians.

I believe Conservative Christianity is wrong, and I have stated my rational for why I believe it is wrong many times, but I have no more right to belittle or denigrate those individuals. The gloves are off once some of them do something that does harm someone else, such as those Evangelicals who had a hand in the Gay Death Bill in Uganda but until someone does something horrible like that, it is none of my business. I'm free to believe they are wrong, I will tell them so if they ask me, and I won't politically support their agenda.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What makes you think that it is only gays who start gay threads? You sound like you are doing precisely what you and others become annoyed with when others do it.

Also, you have control of your behaviors. If those threads annoy you, don't participate.
Click to expand...

once again..I am not the one who started the thread bitching about it. really ****ing funny, come down on me for participating in threads instead of coming down on the ones who start the thread. rich...and typical. :2bigcry:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
One also has to look at the religious connotations of homosexuality. From what I know, the bible forbids the ACT of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Rather than just referring to "the bible" as if any of the words contained are indistinguishable from one another as to source, I think people should take a little more time to study context. As far as the N.T. is concerned, Jesus never said anything about Homosexuality, for instance, only Paul did, and so instead of "the bible" saying this or that when it comes to the N.T., one can only say that Paul said this or that or that Jesus said this or that.

When Christians say it was Jesus who provided the New covenant, it would follow logically that HIS words are the ones to follow. Many Christians do not follow Jesus words, however (on the nature of Prayer among other things), as they are not making any distinctions between Jesus and the religion Paul did so much to create, and so when they say "the bible", they aren't really referring to Jesus, but Paul instead. They are following Paul, which makes a certain sense because Paul was the one so instrumental in creating the dogma of Christianity.

The arguments regarding Homosexuality among many Christians invariable involve an admixture of O.T. and N.T. strains, the Paulean strain grafted on to the older source, but no attention is paid to the genesis of the attitudes in such a way that they discern between social mores that arose in ancient times, and the moral lessons Jesus taught. There is no inquiry into WHY homosexuality may have been a taboo (the need to procreate being chief among these), nor into the specifics as to the situations in which the subject arose (the misinterpretation of the story of S & G, for instance), as the taboo is simply accepted as gospel and then the arguments against are created from the predetermined position that it is wrong. It is wrong because it is written that it is wrong, and because it is written as wrong, it is wrong.

People can take several approaches to the notion of morality, one of them being that morality is a recipe. "The bible" is a cook book with precise measurements to follow that do not need to be understood in order to bake the cake. A different approach to morality would be more tantamount to learning how to cook, especially by forming an understanding of the processes involved, to the point it is so internalized that it is almost instinctive. People know right from wrong, not simply because they are following a rewards/punishment set of rules, but because they understand WHY something is moral or immoral, understand the social constructs involved, and are able to reject that which is arbitrary.

The real question isn't really whether or not it is "in the bible", but whether people approach the subject dogmatically or with discernment. If homosexuality was as important as so many Christians make it, Jesus would have been all over it. He would have railed against it just as surely as he did the Pharisees of his day, but the fact He didn't seems completely unimportant to many Christians who HAVE elevated its importance well beyond that which is mentioned in the bible.

I dunno. There is a lot of great stuff in the sermon on the Mount, and if Christians wish to rail about something, I wish more would rail against hypocrisy and greed and doing things for show, or any of a number of things that Jesus actually DID talk about, instead of making what he didn't talk about so central to their agenda.
 
We non-Christians do not seek your approval, only legal equality in a country that is founded on every person being free to live according to whatever their own beliefs are. I don't care if you like me or not, or if you like who I do or do not want to have sex with. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant. What is relevant is your attempt to prevent me from having the same rights you do. That's discrimination, it's un-American, and it's unconstitutional.

Legal protection for something you don't agree with does not alter your morality. It means you value freedom and equality more. Don't you? I know I do. I don't go around trying to outlaw your beliefs. I don't try to push a law saying "marriages performed in churches shouldn't be valid," or "private religious schools shouldn't be allowed to exist." I don't agree with your choices, or your belief. I really, in fact, hate them with a strong passion. But I still won't infringe on your rights. Why do you think it's okay for you to turn around and infringe on mine?
 
I find just as disturbing posters who see anti-gay bigotry simply because one is right of center. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Use your imagination. :shrug:
Click to expand...

as my pappy used to say..."the bit dog always hollers"

IOW, those with a guilty conscience will alway assume comments are directed at them.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Easy folks... getting a bit heated. Talk about the issue, not each other, please.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I find just as disturbing posters who see anti-gay bigotry simply because one is right of center. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Heck, I could care less what a person's political positoin is or even if they feel that homosexuality is wrong due to their religion, as long as they are not denigrating, persecuting, or dehumanizing gays and lesbians, it's all good.

Now if you are someone who supports a politician who openly engages in that kind of behavior, it's a bit of a gray area for me whether or not you are anti gay, especially if you do nothing to disagree with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom