gay anti gay?
- Started
- Last post
- 159 Responses
- Meeklo0
see the mens boots thread please:
http://www.qbn.com/topics/595407…
- lukus_W0
@gramme;
I thought I should add something of more substance to help explain the thinking behind my notes on the previous page.
First of all, from many of the comments and ideas you've posted on QBN, I can honestly say that I respect you - and much of what you seem to stand for. I didn't mean to label you or be rude .. but I was annoyed by the way you chose to moralise re. homosexuality.
The last note I made was a little on the harsh side - and I didn't mean to belittle your faith; however, I do feel that by trying to intellectualise a homophobic response, you are in turn, belittling a great many people yourself.
I don't think it's fair it invalidate a relationship between two people who love each other. There is so much in the world that is _not_ ok - it saddens me that people would choose to berate people who love each other.
When it comes to many Christian's views of homosexuality, it seems to me - in a manner of speaking - that the 'tail is wagging the dog'. I.e. the rationalisation, is a required after thought - rather than something which is justifiable in it's own right.
If I believed that there is a loving God who wishes to guide us towards good choices, and I was also aware that homosexuality was assigned as a sin, I too would be unable to accept the that homosexuality is anything but a choice.
After all, what kind of loving God, would allow someone to be _born_ as homosexual - when that same God would also judge that person negatively for being a homosexual? If this were true, God would quite possibly be a cruel god.
So, as I see it, the whole concept of a loving, nurturing God is at odds with the idea that homosexuality is an innate part of the what some people are.
I believe that dogma requires Christians to believe that homosexuality is a choice - because otherwise, the dissonance that developed would make it very difficult to accept other (positive) parts of their faith.
All of this doesn't change the fact that the great majority of people who consider themselves to be homosexual, also feel that they were born that way. It's just unfortunate the fact is inconvenient to many branches of Christianity.
- <--- what he saidKnuckleberry
- gah.. *it=to, *Christian's=Christi... *it's=its,lukus_W
- JazX0
Uhmmmmmmmmm, the majority of homosexuals define themselves as liberals. if you think otherwise, you're crazy. Now, those that are being called out in the political realm, fine, I'm not supporting their gay-bashing when they're homo's themselves, HYPOCRITES TO THE HILT, but come on...
- GeorgesII0
Lukus, you are totally right and I can't agree more with you and what you said.
Those people who say they are christian and point the finger forgot the old saying,
do not do to others what you wouldn't like done unto you.
- johanito0
is ok if youre gay 000000
- lol, it was my old nick before getting Janned!!GeorgesII
- HAHAHAduckofrubber
- gramme0
Lukus, thanks for the clarifications and apology. For the record, my original posts were written a while back, and since then I've reflected from time to time on what I think about these issues.
First of all, I maintain that homosexuality is a choice for reasons I've already covered and don't need to repeat. I've not seen scientific proof which points to genetic disposition. I realize that's an extremely unpopular position to take, but frankly I don't care about following any sort of general consensus—be it secular or religious. I prefer to come to my own conclusions about important matters in life based on what I read in the Bible (vs. what is fed unfiltered to me by someone else), what I see in the world, and what I learn from experience. The ultimate anchor for me though is still the infallible word of God, which is of course the point of departure for you and me.
Having said the above, it REALLY doesn't matter one way or another, from a moral standpoint, whether someone is born gay or whether it's a choice. I believe that everyone is born with a sinful nature. By that I mean that we are prone to do wrong to one another and to ourselves. And when I say "everyone" I mean every. single. person who ever lived, with the sole exception of Christ.
We all have the choice to do good or to do wrong. While we are all born imperfect and naturally selfish, we are also each born with a conscience which tells us on some level when something we do is right or wrong. This is what the Bible refers to when it says in multiple places that man is made in the image of God. Man not only reasons, but he has a soul and a conscience. He can discern good from evil, although a conscience can be sharpened or dulled by our decisions. It's surprisingly easy for us to numb ourselves to the difference between right and wrong.
So again, if we're all born with a common predilection to make bad decisions, that doesn't mean we're without recourse. Everyone has certain weaknesses, certain errors of judgment they're more likely to make than others. But we all have our fair share. I can think of multiple occasions where my own pride, insecurities, and obsession with career have been displayed here in all their ugliness.
Like I said, we can go against our selfish, proud grain and choose to be selfless. But this decision doesn't come naturally; it requires us to step outside of ourselves and consider our fellow man, which is often uncomfortable since we are programmed for self-preservation at all costs. Furthermore, I believe the only way to do anything truly good is to do it for a higher authority (as opposed to getting a personal high from helping another person, gaining popularity, etc.)—namely, to do every good act out of an ultimate desire to please God. Because if it isn't done for God's glory, then we're still serving our own selfish aims, even if we are champion philanthropists. As Bob Dylan once said, everybody gotta serve somebody.
Therefore, I think your idea about a required rationalization is incorrect and unnecessary. As I said above, the discussion about genetics versus choice or product of experience is moot at the end of it all, given the sinful nature we all have.
You and Georges are mistaken when you say that I am pointing the finger at gay people or any other group in society. BELIEVING a lifestyle choice to be wrong, and SHUNNING such persons are two very different things. The degree of confusion between those two distinct things is alarming and saddens me. It's 100% feasible to disagree with someone's decisions, and still accept—even love them—on a personal level. Furthermore, I believe that because everyone is made in the image of God, we are all worthy of respect and good will. That does not mean, however, that we must always agree with one another. And for whatever it's worth to you, I don't see homosexuality as worse than any one of my own myriad weaknesses. It just happens to be the topic of this thread.
In regards to whether a loving God could let someone be born into such a state, the fact is that we are not helpless in our shortcomings. In fact God loved us so much that He who preceded time came to live on earth, among us, in poverty, warts and all. Christ experienced every form of human frailty except sin. This included loneliness; doubt: hunger; cold; sickness; and even severe torture. There were so many times when he could have asked for a legion of angels to wipe out his opponents, but he never did that. He knew he had to experience every nuance and struggle of human existence. On top of all that, he suffered a cruel, unwarranted death in the form of Roman crucifixion, which wore on for hours before he finally died. But then he who was humiliated was glorified when he rose from the dead.
Whether you buy it or not, it's an amazing story.
Jesus did not cast a stone at Mary when she was accused of promiscuity and prostitution, because she knew her faults, believed in Christ, and accepted his forgiveness. But neither was Christ afraid to condemn things like lying, divorce, lust, or greed.
It's unfortunate that so many people gloss over Christ's more controversial proclamations and focus on his statements that are generally agreed with in society. As I mentioned before, people don't like real or perceived infringements on their idea of freedom. What we don't realize is that a perceived freedom to determine our own moral standards makes us slaves to our own whims and desires. I would rather set my standards on something less faulty and limited than myself.
- kona0
*grabs doritos
- lukus_W0
@gramme;
Well, I can see your points - but, as I'm sure we've all learnt throughout our lives - discussion and argument re. religion is often fruitless.
I find it difficult because whenever I'm in this dynamic - while I'd like to think of myself as open to changing my mind - most of the religious people I've entered in discussion with, can't ever submit to the same possibility. Perhaps faith, by its very nature, is irrefutable.
I won't try to convince you otherwise, but I would ask you to consider a 'what if ...'
Imagine that a proclivity for homosexuality is such a profoundly innate attribute, that (whether through nature or nurture, or a mixture of both) a person who is homosexual has no other choice. They are as sure of their desire for a partner of the same sex, as a heterosexual man would be towards his wife.
Apart from being homosexual, this is a good person. They suffer from bouts of jealousy, and sometimes take out their frustration in inappropriate ways, just like most people. They're not perfect (they're sinful) just like anyone else.
The only difference is, they are attracted to people of the same sex.
So, what should this person do?
Should they deny themselves a relationship with someone of their own sex? Should they lie to themselves, to try to act 'heterosexual'? Should they pray and ask God to make them straight?
All of these possibilities and more are faced by homosexual people who aren't able to accept themselves for what they are.
The fact is, that (while you may not be willing to believe it), someone who is homosexual _IS_ homosexual. In no way is it a life-style choice. If you accept this point, it's very difficult to maintain the view you describe whilst remaining compassionate.
Homophobia, in my mind - doesn't necessarily manifest itself as a fear, just as racism doesn't necessarily show itself as a fear of black people.
Homophobia (at its root) is the idea that people who are homosexual are less equal, and should therefore be treated differently (disadvantaged) to people who are heterosexual.
I think there are a lot of good things about Christianity - but I also think that there are many principles that are now very anachronistic.
There are basic truths that I believe all should try to live by, loving another should never be seen as sinful.
- It's a good question, and one I intend to answer. Must attend to deadlines for now.gramme
- previous0
in my opinion people maintain that being gay is a choice because it's the only way to justify their brand of christian dogma
- locustsloth0
While i honestly admire your relatively even-handed approach to this, and many other issues where you differ in your opinion from non-believers, this made me chuckle a bit:
"I've not seen scientific proof which points to genetic disposition."A man of faith disbelieving something, based heavily on the fact that there is no SCIENTIFIC proof of it.
- Clarification: Why is it any different for someone to "know" they are gay than it is for you to "know" there is a god?locustsloth
- \wow, great point!Josev
- I see no reason why logic, science, and faith can be varyingly used to arrive at conclusions.gramme
- *can't be usedgramme
- —i.e., it depends on the subject at hand... such as divine existence or genetically-driven concernsgramme
- when it's convenient to switch from logic to fictionscarabin
- Absolutely not. The method suits the subject. The subject shouldn't be an excuse for a method.gramme
- gramme0
locustsloth, you're talking about the difference between [what God claims to be] divine revelation in Scripture, and a personal point of view. I don't think it's possible for me to know myself as well as the one who made me.
More later... must run.
- scarabin0
this thread has less science in it than the bum snakes thread
- locustsloth0
it's your personal point of view that god exists in the first place. Before you can even to call it (or say he calls it) "divine revelation", there is a choice you are making (and clearly, it is a choice, as countless others have made the opposite choice) to believe in god.
The correlation i guess i'm trying to make is that you saying that homosexuality is wrong (as you are saying by classifying it as a sin), is the same as someone saying that your faith is wrong.
In this way, Christians are in sort of the same boat as homosexuals, with something they know as fact, as sure as they know that they live, to be right, is considered, by a large group of people, patently false.- +10,000,000,000scarabin
- x1,000,000,000monospaced
- to the power of 1,000,000,000iCanHasQBN
- lukus_W0
I think the two are different, because Christianity is a life-style choice.
- six0
oh not again...
- DrBombay0
Anyone who thinks being gay is a choice makes the choice to not be gay everyday. Even though they would like to get all gay, presumably.
- Josev0
I guess gay people have two options, to spend their life without ever being in a relationship, or to be in one with someone you're not attracted to physically or emotionally.
- It's kind of sad for the spouse, if a gay person chooses to stay in the closet and enter into a straight relationship.Josev
- There's a third option that nobody here will like. I've seen it happen.gramme
- i.e. people are changed, not by peer pressure but by God.gramme
- You'll balk, yell, throw stuff, but it happens.gramme
- gramme0
But who writes truth? Us or God? If God has the final say, rather than every man for himself, then there's nothing incongruent, illogical, homophobic, or hateful about what I've said to date.
If God isn't the ultimate author of truth, then I'm misled—probably gullible, possibly stupid, likely a mix of both. Certainly not an independent thinker who considers things deeply. I imagine most people on here will call me misled and/or gullible. Then again, I've been called an idiot before so who knows. But I digress.
I think we can agree on at least one point locustsloth: there is a decision of belief that is made no matter which direction one is coming from. And while belief is not necessarily illogical, it often can't be borne out by physical evidence. We've all seen people believe in something despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. (This is where you say "aha, gramme! You're exhibit A.")
To which I'll preemptively reply: 42.
- And around the forest we go—though I do enjoy the hunt.gramme
- There is no physical evidence, or ANY evidence of God. Yet, there is biology to backup the reality of homosexuality.monospaced
- Where is this biology you speak of? Got a link?gramme
- But like I said before, it doesn't *really* matter that much whether it's a choice or a condition,gramme
- Per what I said above.gramme
