Bigotry -DWYP Safe-

[KishPrime]

You preach a doctrine of loving the sinner and hating the sin - however it is at this point that you begin to hate love itself, even if it is a different kind of love that you have been cultivated to. You cannot hate and love at the same time. It is that bitter and sweet water that should not flow from the same fountain that James 3:10 talks about. You may say you love someone but your actions are the bitter or sweet water (blessing and cursing) that prove your words.

Pointing the finger at another person and saying you hate what they are doing is never neutralized by saying, `but I luv' ya.' Give me a break. G-d is love, not condemnation. Life has to be reflected off that love to be effective.

If you really love someone, you don't make a big deal about what they are doing. Homosexuals are the most hated and feared group of people on earth.

On this last point, again I cannot disagree more. That's the philosophy that too many parents have with their children. When you love someone, you correct in love. Numerous times in the Bible, instructions are given for how to correct your neighbor. It is also clear that you should discipline your children. Correction is not a curse, it is a blessing! If you love someone, you will always push them closer to God.

The current grounds on which you are trying to define love is completely outside the scope of biblical love, and I would argue even human-defined love. Nowhere in the bible will you find anything resembling the phrase, "if you love someone, let them do as they wish." Exactly the contrary!

We hate sin because it is the corruption of God's perfection. We cannot afford to do anything else. The price for one man's sin, in the Christian religion, was the death of Jesus Christ. Sin has no power to improve a person, but only to destroy. Now, if you wish to argue that God actually encourages homosexuality rather than forbids it, I think you could make a better case, though I obviously feel otherwise.

God loves us exactly for the reasons you stated, and you are correct in that nothing ever removes that love. The love is so great that he even gives us the choice to follow Him, and the ability to reject Him. It's not that He put us on Earth and said, now do whatever you want to do. He is the designer and perfecter, and knows how humans will be happiest, which is why He gave rules. We may not always be right about our interpretations of His laws, but we have to at least have the discussion on it and try to discern those laws.

By the way, I love that you honor your Jewish heritage with the way you type G-d. I have a great respect for many of the Jewish traditions.

EDIT: Didn't read hatters post before I started this, and no time to respond tonight. I will say that a statement of "I understand" still accomplishes nothing in terms of pushing people towards excelling in all areas in life. It is an excuse to avoid the debate. I'm not saying that open-mindedness is bad, just that it is not a worthy enough goal, realistic or not.

Additionally, I know the stabbing yourself mentality is not a perfect fit, but I think it still makes my point. If you're asking me if I would force people to give up sin if I could, then I would. Free will is still at stake.

 

[Digital Watches]

Just because you say it's logic, doesn't mean it is. on the contrary, it's the opposite.
~Tera253~

Feel free to point out anything derived from basic unadultered logic made by you at any point in this debate.

Forgive me for not quoting the rest of the responses, but they're incredibly long.

First off: Kishprime, I have to say that of all the perspectives from a religious standpoint I've seen in this debate, I respect yours the most.

But to get to the whole gay marriage thing, which seems to be the main focus of this thread: I think it can be agreed that the law is and is intended to be a secular entity. I recall a debate I had with Delphiki on the role of government not too long ago, and hopefully, the point we agreed on the most can be agreed on by everyone in this dialogue: Laws should only be made in order to benefit society. In the context of a nation that is comprised of a variety of religious beliefs, including the lack thereof, the beliefs of any one of those groups as pertains to religion or morality should be considered irrelevant to the population as a whole. Therefore, while I don't contend that there are no non-religious arguments that can be made against the practice of gay marriage (for example), I argue that no religious conviction should become law without a secular and pragmatic reason for it.

But this isn't quite the gay marriage thread yet (I can feel a merge coming on), so I'll stop debating legality for now. Contrary to DoH, I would say that to deny KP the "love the sinner" mentality is kind of overdoing it. I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin, but if KP believes it, asking him to give up his religious convictions isn't right either. Not imposing said convictions on others is enough.

 

[Tera253]

Aye.
If anyone wants some insane beliefs/bigotry (I did forget the [/sarcasm] tag over there), go to the DWYP Gay marriage topic.
~Tera253~

 

[DoH]

On this last point, again I cannot disagree more. That's the philosophy that too many parents have with their children. When you love someone, you correct in love. Numerous times in the Bible, instructions are given for how to correct your neighbor. It is also clear that you should discipline your children. Correction is not a curse, it is a blessing! If you love someone, you will always push them closer to God.

It's that very kind of logic that really alienates a lot of Christians from myself. You posit yourselves as some kind of moral authority - in your analogy as the parent, the one who does the fixing: but guess what - no matter how much you feel scripturally ordained to correct the ills of the world, you're still not our parents, or our shepards, and we're not your kids or your flock. When your entire advocacy is a performative contradiction, you give up your position as a moral authority. You're asking us to compromise our entire identity to fit your mold of what is "good." You're asking us to change our natural inclinations because a book written ages ago - the same book that condones really ridiculous things, such as slavery, not playing football, and subordination of women.

The current grounds on which you are trying to define love is completely outside the scope of biblical love, and I would argue even human-defined love. Nowhere in the bible will you find anything resembling the phrase, "if you love someone, let them do as they wish." Exactly the contrary!

So you're going to deny me the capacity to love another man? That's in no way condescending.

Let's look at Biblical definitions of love for a second. I'll take an excerpt from 1 Corinthians, because it's probably the most famous biblical quote about love.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres".

If gay love really was a sin then it would be the antithesis of all these things - it would be a delight in evil unto itself. But gay love is the same as hetero love. You might not understand that, and that's OK. I'm not asking you to understand, or even for your condonement - I'm asking you to stop proselytizing us. You say so yourself that G-d gives us free will to follow him or not - so let us make that choice. It's not your responsibility to try and fix us. Under my interpretation of my faith, what I'm doing is ok. I'm not harming anyone; there are far more important moral issues at hand, such as crime and poverty.

Now you may say that it's not up to me to define what the Word says, but Christians have been doing it since their inception. Jesus said to preach to the Jews but his disciples preach to the Gentiles. Christians ignore the laws of the Torah when Jesus himself said I am not here to change the Laws. This is one of our respective faith's strongest points - they're fluid, and G-d is personally definable. It may be a modern interpretation, and it may not have any basis in scripture, but at the point where the Bible is a swirling mass of contradictions (because of its different authors, timeframes, etc) I don't feel that we're to be held accountable to the letter of every law. Also, if men are inherently flawed, men also wrote the Bible...there's bound to be some mistakes in there somewhere.

We hate sin because it is the corruption of God's perfection. We cannot afford to do anything else. The price for one man's sin, in the Christian religion, was the death of Jesus Christ. Sin has no power to improve a person, but only to destroy. Now, if you wish to argue that God actually encourages homosexuality rather than forbids it, I think you could make a better case, though I obviously feel otherwise.

God loves us exactly for the reasons you stated, and you are correct in that nothing ever removes that love. The love is so great that he even gives us the choice to follow Him, and the ability to reject Him. It's not that He put us on Earth and said, now do whatever you want to do. He is the designer and perfecter, and knows how humans will be happiest, which is why He gave rules. We may not always be right about our interpretations of His laws, but we have to at least have the discussion on it and try to discern those laws.

So under your framework, sin can do no good. I'll agree to that. But love is never a sin, and it does wonders. What you're asking my people to do is live a life without human love. Sure we have spiritual love, but everyone has that because as we agree, G-d loves us all, in an unconditional way. I know you've probably never experienced anything outside hetero love, and that gay love is probably a little weird in principle to you, but just because it's different in its outside nature doesn't mean that it's wrong.

You say that G-d knows exactly what would make humans happiest; but going into the closet, suberting what makes me me, and marrying some girl...I know that's not where happiness is for me. It's not natural to me. Additionally, living in the closet is a terrible existence that you will never know. It's living in fear of yourself and your difference. It's full of self-hatred and lies, which are the antithesis of love. It's surrendering yourself to the easy way out, one where you don't have to fight for your existence. Just because you park your bike in a garage does not make it a car.

What you're asking us to do (under the guise of moral authority) is to give up not only our identity, but love itself. You're asking us to cut out our hearts because they don't match up with yours. "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not mean "Love your neighbor into yourself." If G-d wanted us to all be the same he would have made us that way; instead we are all different and all bring a unique perspective and contribution to his creation.

What I'm getting at is that if we are all created in the image of G-d, then we're all supposedly in accordance with his plan, right? What if G-d has a purpose in making me gay? That's something neither of us can answer, but I think it's a definite possibility. Love rejoices in truth, remember? Why would G-d want me to live a lie if he loves me?

If you really did love us as you say you do, then you'd treat us with the same respect that you do yourself, rather than coming in from a position of moral superiority.

If you're asking me if I would force people to give up sin if I could, then I would. Free will is still at stake.

This doesn't really make sense. You would compromise everyone's free will in order for them to conform to your interpretation of what is sinless, but then advocate that free will is still an issue?

 

[Digital Watches]

Hm... As much as I think DoH sometimes goes a bit far, I'd have to agree with him on one point, contrary to my previous perspective.

Ostensibly, inasmuch as your belief dictates that you should consider homosexuality to be a sin, it is just as unfair to ask you to recind this belief as it is to ask those you seek to "correct" to give up theirs. However, it is entirely unreasonable to assume yourself to be in a position to rectify percieved iniquities as defined by your morality in any way other than to point them out. Taking action to correct someone should only be seen as an option when their actions fall outside of the law or, more importantly, will harm someone (Including, as in the self-mutilation analogy, horridly flawed as it may have been, themselves).

And to say that something will harm someone spiritually does not justify action, as regardless of the strength of one's convictions, to impose them on someone else is, as I've already said, tantamount to denying them the right to believe what they choose, a freedom you surely enjoy. So I don't discourage you from attempting to pesuade others to adhere to your beliefs, and if they are inclined to agree, all the better for the both of you.

DoH is correct in that you are not a parent, or a shepherd, to people of varying faiths (or lack thereof). I agree with Hatter in that it's naive to assume that society can function on love, and if we ever hope for equity, it is impossible for us to achieve it without considering our peers to be just that: Peers - equal in their ability to make decisions for themselves. To think otherwise fits both the dictionary and the colloquial definition of bigotry.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

What you're asking us to do (under the guise of moral authority) is to give up not only our identity, but love itself. You're asking us to cut out our hearts because they don't match up with yours. "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not mean "Love your neighbor into yourself." If G-d wanted us to all be the same he would have made us that way; instead we are all different and all bring a unique perspective and contribution to his creation.

DoH, I just want you to know that I am for gay marriage, but I think you take yourself a little to seriously. You really have outdone yourself here. I wish you would actually have this conversation with someone in real life, using that argument. They would think you were reciting lines from a Shakespearian play. No one, not even Tera253 is asking you or "your people" to "give up not only our identity, but love itselt, You're asking us to cut out our hearts..."

Asking you not to get married because it goes agianst someone's religious, or secular beliefs does not go this far. It is absurd to think that anyone in their right mind would wish for this type of thing. Like in one of your earlier statements when you said that "gays are the most feared and hated group on earth."

I really agree with you, but sometimes I just have to laugh because you take this as a "life or death" situation. If you really talk like that in real life, maybe you should become a writer, and write some amazing drama. This kinda stuff just makes you sound a little... pompous.

 

[McCloud]

Sargent I don't really know why you're asking him to dumb down his writing style...

It's the way anyone acts/writes when they have an academic debate.

Anyway, back on topic:

I'd like to bring up the issue of marriages that were around and present before the religious perspective of marriage came into play.

Discuss.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

MCCloud, I'm not asking DoH to "dumb" down his writing style, I'm asking him to be a little more realistic about the topic at hand. Gay marriage is not life and death. It doesn't even hinder gay's actual love for each other. It does however, infringe on their rights as Americans and Human Beings.

You obviously did not understand what I was trying to say. If it is unclear, I apologize.

DoH, I also feel that I have been attacking you, do not take it personally, and some of it may be unwarranted. For that I also apologize.

I am, however all for the "sounds so smart" I can barely understand what your saying style. It makes me look up words I've never heard, and helps my vocabulary.

 

[McCloud]

Well, maybe it seems like it's a matter of life and death to him. Or maybe you're taking his words to have that connotation.

I wish you would actually have this conversation with someone in real life, using that argument. They would think you were reciting lines from a Shakespearian play

It's a rhetorical device used for dramatic effect, and used well. *shrugs*

Gay marriage is not life and death. It doesn't even hinder gay's actual love for each other. It does however, infringe on their rights as Americans and Human Beings.

Yeap. But since we are indeed debating the issue of gay marriage, it holds the utmost importance in being addressed.

You obviously did not understand what I was trying to say. If it is unclear, I apologize.

It's cool, I got what you were saying for the most part but it just kinda felt like you wanted him to change the way he wrote. Mutual apologies.

Back to the topic at hand, however, as we once again stray away from bigotry and all that neat stuff..

DoH is correct in that you are not a parent, or a shepherd, to people of varying faiths (or lack thereof). I agree with Hatter in that it's naive to assume that society can function on love, and if we ever hope for equity, it is impossible for us to achieve it without considering our peers to be just that: Peers - equal in their ability to make decisions for themselves.

Indeed. Society has shown that it is quite incapable of functioning on the inherent (hah) goodness of man.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Since we will both be at Innsomnia V, and we have had some "differences," why don't we settle them with mm. I would love to play your fox my peach, for say $10. What do you think?

 

[Tera253]

No one, not even Tera253 is asking you or "your people" to "give up not only our identity, but love itself...

wow. that's the first thing I agree with you on. I don't care if gays tell us what they do, I'm just against legal marriage, that's all.

Oh, and DaRkNeSsOfHeArT, in your post yesterday, you failed to mention the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's feelings on that.
[/mischeif]

Fox>Peach>PS3
~Tera253~

 

[KishPrime]

I will post again at some point...might just be a few days. ^_^

This was my sole objection to getting involved in debate hall debates, my own weird schedule.

 

[DoH]

wow. that's the first thing I agree with you on. I don't care if gays tell us what they do, I'm just against legal marriage, that's all.

Oh, and DaRkNeSsOfHeArT, in your post yesterday, you failed to mention the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's feelings on that.
[/mischeif]

Fox>Peach>PS3
~Tera253~

Sodom and Gomorrah eh?

Note, for all those who have problems with literacy, this is satirical.

The activist group God Hates ****, like many Christian "family-values" organizations, promotes the opinion that God abominates homosexuality. But does God really hate ****? Let's find out by reading the most taken-out-of-context, allegedly "antigay" chapter from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible (the Torah if you're Jewish): Genesis 19. Here's where we find the famous tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. While the conventional interpretation of this chapter supposedly affirms God's detestation of homosexuality, when read literally--that is, stripped of its dogmatic context--the chapter reveals quite the opposite: God, in fact, hates straights.

Don't believe me, read for yourself. Here's how the story unfolds, literally: Two angels come to the gate of Sodom, where they are met by Lot. Lot is favored by the Lord Yahweh because he is, unlike the rest of Sodom's population, virtuous. They have come to warn Lot that Yahweh intends to destroy Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah, but that He will allow Lot and his family to flee the city providing they don't look back while doing so.

Kindly old Lot invites the angels into his home for a repast. While they have gathered inside, the men of Sodom congregate outside, horny as hell. They shout for Lot to hand over the angels, so that the men may get to "know" (i.e., have intercourse with) them. They are adamant in their desire to gratify their craven appetites.

At that moment, kindly old Lot comes out and addresses the men. He announces that he'll happily throw them his two young daughters--"which have not yet known man"--so long as they leave the two angels unmolested: "Let me, I pray you, bring my daughters unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes," he pleads. But the men rebuke Lot.

Let's stop here for a moment. For centuries, Church dogma has encouraged Christians to conveniently overlook Lot's astounding lack of paternal concern for or, for that matter, love of his own little girls. By pointing the finger again and again at the perceived homosexuality of these "Sodomites," Christians have lost sight of this chapter's depiction of the vilest sin imaginable--a father's offering of his own children to be gang-banged by an entire city of men--even though it is written in plain text on the sacred page in front of them.

Because the men want to "know" the angels, the logic goes, they are homosexuals. But what kind of logic is that? The only way these Sodomites can get to "know" these celestial beings, homosexually, is by, well, "sodomizing" them. But why would God create angels with rectums? Surely no one ****s in heaven.

The story continues: The next morning Lot, his wife, and his two daughters fled the condemned city. As they made their way into the surrounding mountains, "the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone out of heaven." Lot's wife, very understandably, looked back at the inferno engulfing her home. For this act of disobedience she was turned immediately into a pillar of salt, leaving Lot a widower. So much for the sanctity of that marriage!

So Lot shacks up with his two daughters who are, as he had proudly announced to the sex-starved Sodomites, virgins. They live in a cave in the mountains of Zoar. It is here where heterosexuality rears its ugly head. The girls, now young women, start to bemoan their barren wombs. Beset by the pangs of maternal instinct, they conspire to get their father drunk and have sex with him--in order to propagate.

So the eldest gave him wine, "and lay with her father; and he perceived not that she lay down, nor when she arose." The next night the youngest did the same thing and, again, "he perceived not when she lay down, and when she arose." The two daughters, no longer virgins, got what they wanted: pregnant with boys. The eldest bore a son named Moab, who begat the Moabite tribe. The youngest bore a son named Ben-ammi, who begat the Ammonites.

Now, let's interpret these passages literally: God destroys Lot's legitimate marriage over a minor infraction, then allows incest--yes, incest--to replace it! Hmm. Father-daughter incest, the most repugnant manifestation of heterosexual lust, is how Lot is rewarded by God for his "virtue"? And, seeing as the Moabites and Ammonites were doomed to destruction, the poor old guy was even robbed of a legacy of which he could be proud. Does this make sense? And what's all this crap about Lot not "perceiving" his daughters having sex with him? The guy's old, stone-cold drunk, living 3000 years before the introduction of Viagra, but he's still able to get a good enough woody going to deflower and impregnate--via orgasm--both his daughters!

Chapter 19 of the book of Genesis is a savage portrayal of the Lord Yahweh's contempt for people who lead typical, married, family-oriented heterosexual lifestyles. The Bible is clear on this point. From the moment Adam ate of the fruit offered to him by Eve, heterosexuality has been a plague upon humankind and a boon for the Devil. Clearly, it would have been better for Lot and his family to perish in the flames alongside those ravenous men who, despite all their faults, were virtuous enough to refuse to gang **** two innocent little girls. That the Lord Yahweh "saved" Lot only to condemn him to a life as an alcoholic widower conceiving offspring with his own flesh and blood points to something much more detestable in His eyes than the assumed homosexuality of the occupants of Sodom. Only those blinded by religious dogma and a desire to point judgmental fingers at others can deny the irrefutably literal truth of Genesis 19: God hates straights.
---

Sargent Peach - One of my few talents (apart from usage of the Stitchface) is debate. It has exposed me to various different views, types of argumentation, and strategies in which to win. Through my readings of philosophy and politics, I have found that language and discourse dictates and shapes our own reality - you see it everywhere, particularly in our own media which has often served to manufacture consent among the general public. That's why my language is so specific - I recognize the power of words, and use them to my full advantage.

And actually, KishPrime did say that if he were able, he would remove all sin from the world, meaning he would either eliminate gay people or turn us into Christ fearing heterosexuals. Not only is this a comprimise of free will, but this would either obliterate my people or our identity. He advocates that I (as well as your sister) could enter the 'Kingdom of Heaven' - if only we deny and abandon our self-agency and inherent dispositions. He and many others would rather us put up a facade and deny our true identities, essentially living a lie, rather than be what G-d built in us. We cannot pursue a union of love under a heterosexual mandate - therefore under KishPrime's advocacy, he ultimately denies us access to love.

Why is it a such a dire issue? Because as of now, I am a second-class citizen. I am currently denied the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. I am unequal to all of you in the eyes of the law for something I can't control. I'm also Jewish, so I know what can happen when rights are stripped and when people become so otherized that they are alienated from the general public. It creates conditions conducive to genocide. Now I'm not saying that state-sponsored extermination will happen, but I am asking for you to not take that chance. For me, being a member of such an otherized minority is incredibly terrifying. Once we are placed outside the law, any type of violence can be justified against us - it is the principle of the Roman law known as homo sacre; one who is outside the law that anyone can kill him, but he is unworthy for human sacrifice. Though one has natural life, your political rights are meaningless. But that is all in biopolitics and slightly off topic, so I digress.

And, I'm in politics and law, not English.

 

[KishPrime]

Hmmm...well here we go.

It's that very kind of logic that really alienates a lot of Christians from myself. You posit yourselves as some kind of moral authority - in your analogy as the parent, the one who does the fixing: but guess what - no matter how much you feel scripturally ordained to correct the ills of the world, you're still not our parents, or our shepards, and we're not your kids or your flock. When your entire advocacy is a performative contradiction, you give up your position as a moral authority. You're asking us to compromise our entire identity to fit your mold of what is "good." You're asking us to change our natural inclinations because a book written ages ago - the same book that condones really ridiculous things, such as slavery, not playing football, and subordination of women.

So you're going to deny me the capacity to love another man? That's in no way condescending.

First let me say that you were going overboard here somewhat. I'm not denying you anything, I'm attempting to interpret divine scriptures to determine what God would have you do while full knowing that such attempts can be incorrect. I'm not claiming to be on par with God, nor always right, that's a baseless attack that much of your defense is based on. However, we are called to have the discussion on whether or not it is sin, as homosexuality is certainly suspect considering the bible verses available! We cannot simply ignore the passages in question.

If gay love really was a sin then it would be the antithesis of all these things - it would be a delight in evil unto itself. But gay love is the same as hetero love. You might not understand that, and that's OK. I'm not asking you to understand, or even for your condonement - I'm asking you to stop proselytizing us. You say so yourself that G-d gives us free will to follow him or not - so let us make that choice. It's not your responsibility to try and fix us. Under my interpretation of my faith, what I'm doing is ok. I'm not harming anyone; there are far more important moral issues at hand, such as crime and poverty.

Actually sin is just a perversion or twisting of good things, which does not always an obvious evil. I forget the verse, but I'm pretty sure of the quotation "Satan appears as an angel of light." You cannot dismiss what simply appears to be good on the surface, a deeper analysis is required. Also, I'm not big on rating sins. In my view, my own heterosexual lust is just as bad as your homosexual lust. Sin is simply sin, which is that which separates us from God's perfection.

Again, I'm not telling you to change. I'm merely having the discussion over whether or not this is, in fact, sin. Your decisions after that are up to you.

Now you may say that it's not up to me to define what the Word says, but Christians have been doing it since their inception. Jesus said to preach to the Jews but his disciples preach to the Gentiles. Christians ignore the laws of the Torah when Jesus himself said I am not here to change the Laws. This is one of our respective faith's strongest points - they're fluid, and G-d is personally definable. It may be a modern interpretation, and it may not have any basis in scripture, but at the point where the Bible is a swirling mass of contradictions (because of its different authors, timeframes, etc) I don't feel that we're to be held accountable to the letter of every law. Also, if men are inherently flawed, men also wrote the Bible...there's bound to be some mistakes in there somewhere.

Shrug. There's different interpretations on the Bible. It comes down to what your faith tells you about the book, and I think that God speaks to each heart about the matters he is concerned with. However I don't understand what you mean by God being personally definable. God is certainly not defined by man, though we attempt to explain Him in human terms. He is the only unchanging, eternal force in the universe, being that He created time.

So under your framework, sin can do no good. I'll agree to that. But love is never a sin, and it does wonders. What you're asking my people to do is live a life without human love.

I'll insert here "romantic love," and God makes it clear in the bible that he does have a single life planned for some people, which is considered even more blessed than a married life. And no, I'm not asking your people to do anything, so long as they continue to believe that it is not a sin.

You say that G-d knows exactly what would make humans happiest; but going into the closet, suberting what makes me me, and marrying some girl...I know that's not where happiness is for me. It's not natural to me. Additionally, living in the closet is a terrible existence that you will never know. It's living in fear of yourself and your difference. It's full of self-hatred and lies, which are the antithesis of love. It's surrendering yourself to the easy way out, one where you don't have to fight for your existence. Just because you park your bike in a garage does not make it a car.

What you're asking us to do (under the guise of moral authority) is to give up not only our identity, but love itself. You're asking us to cut out our hearts because they don't match up with yours. "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not mean "Love your neighbor into yourself." If G-d wanted us to all be the same he would have made us that way; instead we are all different and all bring a unique perspective and contribution to his creation.

What I'm getting at is that if we are all created in the image of G-d, then we're all supposedly in accordance with his plan, right? What if G-d has a purpose in making me gay? That's something neither of us can answer, but I think it's a definite possibility. Love rejoices in truth, remember? Why would G-d want me to live a lie if he loves me?

This paragraph does nothing to expound on whether or not homosexuality is a sin, but rather explores whether or not it will make you happy, which is in itself a separate debate. I actually find this section quite fascinating for a lot of reasons.

From my perspective, homosexuality is a sin, just like any other, including my own heterosexual lust. By your own agreement, nothing good results from sin. So, on that basis, I have to completely ignore all of your arguments that make this out to be a good thing. Again, from my perspective, you are attempting to separate this sin from others, which cannot be done.

Now, exploring it on the secular level, this section raises all kinds of questions about self-worth, value, the importance of romantic love to happiness, etc. Even from a neutral theological view you ask some very deep questions. Unfortunately I have not the time to answer them all at the moment. We could spend weeks on this paragraph alone, but to keep the debate focused, I'ma have to stick with my paragraph above. I'm actually disappointed about that.

If you really did love us as you say you do, then you'd treat us with the same respect that you do yourself, rather than coming in from a position of moral superiority.

I think you're using a generic brush on me, and I'm somewhat disappointed. I don't see how anything I've said comes from a so-called position of moral superiority. We are allowed to have opinions and interpretations of God's will, after all, are we not?

This doesn't really make sense. You would compromise everyone's free will in order for them to conform to your interpretation of what is sinless, but then advocate that free will is still an issue?

And actually, KishPrime did say that if he were able, he would remove all sin from the world, meaning he would either eliminate gay people or turn us into Christ fearing heterosexuals. Not only is this a comprimise of free will, but this would either obliterate my people or our identity. He advocates that I (as well as your sister) could enter the 'Kingdom of Heaven' - if only we deny and abandon our self-agency and inherent dispositions. He and many others would rather us put up a facade and deny our true identities, essentially living a lie, rather than be what G-d built in us. We cannot pursue a union of love under a heterosexual mandate - therefore under KishPrime's advocacy, he ultimately denies us access to love.

This is not really what I was saying at all, and that line was misinterpreted much. What I meant was what you would ultimately agree with, that the world would be better off without sin. I never claimed to KNOW what sin was, but I wished to make merely that point alone. Free will is at stake, and I do not deny anyone that (short of injury to others). God gave us the gift, so use it.

As for living a lie, is the murderer allowed to claim that he was just living God's plan for him with his hormonal imbalances? Is the adulterer allowed to claim that God made him with lust for his neighbor's wife? Is the deceiver allowed to claim that God made him with the abilities to get what he wants? All of these people could claim they were "living a lie" by shutting down their own desires, but none of it is true.

The essence of the debate is clear. Is it a sin, or isn't it? That's the basis on which everything hinges, and really comes down to a matter of faith.

 

[Tera253]

Sodom and Gomorrah eh?

Note, for all those who have problems with literacy, this is satirical.

The activist group God Hates ****, like many Christian "family-values" organizations, promotes the opinion that God abominates homosexuality. But does God really hate ****? Let's find out by reading the most taken-out-of-context, allegedly "antigay" chapter from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible (the Torah if you're Jewish): Genesis 19. Here's where we find the famous tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. While the conventional interpretation of this chapter supposedly affirms God's detestation of homosexuality, when read literally--that is, stripped of its dogmatic context--the chapter reveals quite the opposite: God, in fact, hates straights.

Don't believe me, read for yourself. Here's how the story unfolds, literally: Two angels come to the gate of Sodom, where they are met by Lot. Lot is favored by the Lord Yahweh because he is, unlike the rest of Sodom's population, virtuous. They have come to warn Lot that Yahweh intends to destroy Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah, but that He will allow Lot and his family to flee the city providing they don't look back while doing so.

Kindly old Lot invites the angels into his home for a repast. While they have gathered inside, the men of Sodom congregate outside, horny as hell. They shout for Lot to hand over the angels, so that the men may get to "know" (i.e., have intercourse with) them. They are adamant in their desire to gratify their craven appetites.

At that moment, kindly old Lot comes out and addresses the men. He announces that he'll happily throw them his two young daughters--"which have not yet known man"--so long as they leave the two angels unmolested: "Let me, I pray you, bring my daughters unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes," he pleads. But the men rebuke Lot.

Let's stop here for a moment. For centuries, Church dogma has encouraged Christians to conveniently overlook Lot's astounding lack of paternal concern for or, for that matter, love of his own little girls. By pointing the finger again and again at the perceived homosexuality of these "Sodomites," Christians have lost sight of this chapter's depiction of the vilest sin imaginable--a father's offering of his own children to be gang-banged by an entire city of men--even though it is written in plain text on the sacred page in front of them.

Because the men want to "know" the angels, the logic goes, they are homosexuals. But what kind of logic is that? The only way these Sodomites can get to "know" these celestial beings, homosexually, is by, well, "sodomizing" them. But why would God create angels with rectums? Surely no one ****s in heaven.

The story continues: The next morning Lot, his wife, and his two daughters fled the condemned city. As they made their way into the surrounding mountains, "the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone out of heaven." Lot's wife, very understandably, looked back at the inferno engulfing her home. For this act of disobedience she was turned immediately into a pillar of salt, leaving Lot a widower. So much for the sanctity of that marriage!

So Lot shacks up with his two daughters who are, as he had proudly announced to the sex-starved Sodomites, virgins. They live in a cave in the mountains of Zoar. It is here where heterosexuality rears its ugly head. The girls, now young women, start to bemoan their barren wombs. Beset by the pangs of maternal instinct, they conspire to get their father drunk and have sex with him--in order to propagate.

So the eldest gave him wine, "and lay with her father; and he perceived not that she lay down, nor when she arose." The next night the youngest did the same thing and, again, "he perceived not when she lay down, and when she arose." The two daughters, no longer virgins, got what they wanted: pregnant with boys. The eldest bore a son named Moab, who begat the Moabite tribe. The youngest bore a son named Ben-ammi, who begat the Ammonites.

Now, let's interpret these passages literally: God destroys Lot's legitimate marriage over a minor infraction, then allows incest--yes, incest--to replace it! Hmm. Father-daughter incest, the most repugnant manifestation of heterosexual lust, is how Lot is rewarded by God for his "virtue"? And, seeing as the Moabites and Ammonites were doomed to destruction, the poor old guy was even robbed of a legacy of which he could be proud. Does this make sense? And what's all this crap about Lot not "perceiving" his daughters having sex with him? The guy's old, stone-cold drunk, living 3000 years before the introduction of Viagra, but he's still able to get a good enough woody going to deflower and impregnate--via orgasm--both his daughters!

Chapter 19 of the book of Genesis is a savage portrayal of the Lord Yahweh's contempt for people who lead typical, married, family-oriented heterosexual lifestyles. The Bible is clear on this point. From the moment Adam ate of the fruit offered to him by Eve, heterosexuality has been a plague upon humankind and a boon for the Devil. Clearly, it would have been better for Lot and his family to perish in the flames alongside those ravenous men who, despite all their faults, were virtuous enough to refuse to gang **** two innocent little girls. That the Lord Yahweh "saved" Lot only to condemn him to a life as an alcoholic widower conceiving offspring with his own flesh and blood points to something much more detestable in His eyes than the assumed homosexuality of the occupants of Sodom. Only those blinded by religious dogma and a desire to point judgmental fingers at others can deny the irrefutably literal truth of Genesis 19: God hates straights.
---

Sargent Peach - One of my few talents (apart from usage of the Stitchface) is debate. It has exposed me to various different views, types of argumentation, and strategies in which to win. Through my readings of philosophy and politics, I have found that language and discourse dictates and shapes our own reality - you see it everywhere, particularly in our own media which has often served to manufacture consent among the general public. That's why my language is so specific - I recognize the power of words, and use them to my full advantage.

And actually, KishPrime did say that if he were able, he would remove all sin from the world, meaning he would either eliminate gay people or turn us into Christ fearing heterosexuals. Not only is this a comprimise of free will, but this would either obliterate my people or our identity. He advocates that I (as well as your sister) could enter the 'Kingdom of Heaven' - if only we deny and abandon our self-agency and inherent dispositions. He and many others would rather us put up a facade and deny our true identities, essentially living a lie, rather than be what G-d built in us. We cannot pursue a union of love under a heterosexual mandate - therefore under KishPrime's advocacy, he ultimately denies us access to love.

Why is it a such a dire issue? Because as of now, I am a second-class citizen. I am currently denied the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. I am unequal to all of you in the eyes of the law for something I can't control. I'm also Jewish, so I know what can happen when rights are stripped and when people become so otherized that they are alienated from the general public. It creates conditions conducive to genocide. Now I'm not saying that state-sponsored extermination will happen, but I am asking for you to not take that chance. For me, being a member of such an otherized minority is incredibly terrifying. Once we are placed outside the law, any type of violence can be justified against us - it is the principle of the Roman law known as homo sacre; one who is outside the law that anyone can kill him, but he is unworthy for human sacrifice. Though one has natural life, your political rights are meaningless. But that is all in biopolitics and slightly off topic, so I digress.

And, I'm in politics and law, not English.

So to you, god hates straights just because he punished lot by making his daughters lay with him? in that case, God hates people who keep his commandments and live righteously, otherwise he wouldn't have punished Job the way he did. and, you failed to mention that all your precious people were destroyed in S&G.

oh, and, go KishPrime.

the majority of the world seems happy with things the way they are, so, who needs change?
~Tera253~

 

[Digital Watches]

I'd have to say that KishPrime makes an extremely good point.

To merely believe that homosexuality is a sin is not, in fact, a bigoted perspective.

In fact, in this argument, I'd call DoH's overgeneralization regarding this mindset more exclusionary than Kishprime's belief.

To use an analogy that Tera might understand, let's compare this to the mormon belief that the consumption of Alcoholic beverages is a sin. Surely you wouldn't say that to merely believe this is to dislike everyone who drinks, nor would discussion of this with their drinking friends be considered bigoted. To begin to exclude people who enjoy alcohol, or to try to stop them from doing so without a good reason, (clearly the analogy is strained in that there is a clear harm that can come from overuse of alcohol, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that this is not the case) either by legislation or by other means, is, on the other hand, the definition of bigotry.

I believe that this is the position Kishprime is claiming on the issue of homosexuality.

Also, for those confused by DoH's "interpretation":

sat·ire /ˈsætaɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sat-ahyuhr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
[Origin: 1500–10; < L satira, var. of satura medley, perh. fem. deriv. of satur sated (see saturate)]

 

[KishPrime]

My disappointment from the whole homosexuality debate stems from the misuse of the word, "bigot." Any research that is done that might suggest a homosexual lifestyle is harmful is labeled hateful and bigoted. I can't speak to the reasearch as I have not done it myself, but I did see one study like five years ago where this exact situation happened. I believe it was a linking of homosexuals to emotional or sexual abuse, or a strained relationship with the father. (again, not claiming credibility to it as I never saw it)

I'd like to see more impartial research into homosexuality as a whole, from causes to effects. However, it seems that the majority of the homosexual movement object to this type of research on the grounds that we merely accept them as they are. The problem with this statement is that the two are not contradictory. You can be accepting of a homosexual while still seeking to learn the psychological and physical causes and effects.

 

[Digital Watches]

My disappointment from the whole homosexuality debate stems from the misuse of the word, "bigot." Any research that is done that might suggest a homosexual lifestyle is harmful is labeled hateful and bigoted. I can't speak to the reasearch as I have not done it myself, but I did see one study like five years ago where this exact situation happened. I believe it was a linking of homosexuals to emotional or sexual abuse, or a strained relationship with the father. (again, not claiming credibility to it as I never saw it)

I'd like to see more impartial research into homosexuality as a whole, from causes to effects. However, it seems that the majority of the homosexual movement object to this type of research on the grounds that we merely accept them as they are. The problem with this statement is that the two are not contradictory. You can be accepting of a homosexual while still seeking to learn the psychological and physical causes and effects.

Again I must point out the use of "bigot" as a buzzword by any cause associated with the social political left.

It's almost as unavoidable as the "support our troops" mantra from the right, and really, the only way any meaningful research on a heated issue can be carried out is, in my opinion, to resolve the issue, and give it time to cool down. If we legalize gay marriage, for example, it may create a belief among many members of the homosexual community that they are no longer being oppressed, possibly yielding a less tenuous relationship with those who only wish to conduct impartial research, for example.

But even after the actual issue of oppression is for the most part resolved, I'm still cynical as to whether the cry of "bigotry" or "homophobia" will cease to rear its ugly head. Just look at other similar situations. Racism and Sexism are claimed far more often than they occur (which is not to say that they don't occur frequently) and cultural biases have started to lean towards special treatment for anyone from a formerly oppressed group.

So while I'd love for people to stop using stupid buzzwords where they're not appropriate, I highly doubt it will stop no matter what we do.

 

[Tera253]

I'd have to say that KishPrime makes an extremely good point.

To merely believe that homosexuality is a sin is not, in fact, a bigoted perspective.

In fact, in this argument, I'd call DoH's overgeneralization regarding this mindset more exclusionary than Kishprime's belief.

To use an analogy that Tera might understand, let's compare this to the mormon belief that the consumption of Alcoholic beverages is a sin. Surely you wouldn't say that to merely believe this is to dislike everyone who drinks, nor would discussion of this with their drinking friends be considered bigoted. To begin to exclude people who enjoy alcohol, or to try to stop them from doing so without a good reason, (clearly the analogy is strained in that there is a clear harm that can come from overuse of alcohol, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that this is not the case) either by legislation or by other means, is, on the other hand, the definition of bigotry.

I believe that this is the position Kishprime is claiming on the issue of homosexuality.

Also, for those confused by DoH's "interpretation":

that's exactly it. I believe it's been said by me before, but I SO do not hate everyone who's not a Mormon. I fully believe that there are millions, (billion/s?) of great people out there who aren't Mormon. I have non-mormon friends, and do I keep ranting on about them going to hell for not joiningmy church? NO! I just make sure that they get no false conceptions of the LDS (easier and shorter way to say Mormon) beliefs. If people smoke, I avoid them only so i don't have to deal with their smell, the same with people who drink. provided I don't have to drive with them, (and that they don't reek of alcohol) I'm fine with being around them. provided that homosexuals don't openly express their beliefs to me (in other words, act normal*) I'm fine with being around them.
On the gay marriage issue, I just say that I don't think we need to change things the way they are.

*When I say 'normal' I mean normal as in not acting it out to others. I don't act all Molly Mormon to people I hang with, (unless they ask me about it, then it's simply a Q&A) so why should they?


the wording is pretty bad here, so I might come around and edit this.
~Tera253~