Christianity and Homosexuality

[Farnhamia]

Believe it or not, there is an absolute Truth in this world,

Yeah, it's called physics.

and morality is not relative.

And you should be able to prove this claim. Sam Harris actually argues quite convincingly for moral realism, but you wouldn't like his morality. It is a form of consequentialism grounded in scientific reasoning.

but homosexuals have the exact same rights as me right now: they can get married to a woman or not at all, and I can do the same.

Only men have the right to marry women. Only women have the right to marry men. There's some gender inequality there.

Physics. Dang, UT, I forgot physics.

And yeah, a little gender inequality, y'think?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And yeah, a little gender inequality, y'think?

Honestly, I'm convinced that homophobia is really nothing more than a form of sexism.

[Nova Magna Germania]

It may surprise you, but there is not Absolute Truth in this world

Ahem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

You are wrong on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

[Rolling squid]

Believe it or not, there is an absolute Truth in this world, and morality is not relative. I haven't yet told someone that they will perish in the fires of torment because of their sins, but I do tell them they're wrong, using rational, secular evidence if they don't listen to religious evidence (which most, I'm sure, don't). I haven't voted yet (Too young, I will next election! Out with Harry Reid!), but homosexuals have the exact same rights as me right now: they can get married to a woman or not at all, and I can do the same.

If there really is an absolute truth, as you claim, you should have no problem proving it. Care to?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You are wrong on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

How am I? You are aware that quantum mechanics has rules, right?

[Farnhamia]

And yeah, a little gender inequality, y'think?

Honestly, I'm convinced that homophobia is really nothing more than a form of sexism.

How so?

[Farnhamia]

Believe it or not, there is an absolute Truth in this world, and morality is not relative. I haven't yet told someone that they will perish in the fires of torment because of their sins, but I do tell them they're wrong, using rational, secular evidence if they don't listen to religious evidence (which most, I'm sure, don't). I haven't voted yet (Too young, I will next election! Out with Harry Reid!), but homosexuals have the exact same rights as me right now: they can get married to a woman or not at all, and I can do the same.

If there really is an absolute truth, as you claim, you should have no problem proving it. Care to?

He has to answer me first. Then you.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If there really is an absolute truth, as you claim, you should have no problem proving it. Care to?

I can prove several. It's just that none of them have fuck-all to do with morality.

[Nova Magna Germania]

You are wrong on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

How am I? You are aware that quantum mechanics has rules, right?

Yes but the results of quantum pyhs is about possibilities, not exact numbers.

[Rolling squid]

If there really is an absolute truth, as you claim, you should have no problem proving it. Care to?

I can prove several. It's just that none of them have fuck-all to do with morality.

absolute truths, in their very nature, have a moral value inherent in them. What you have are called laws.

[Ashmoria]

And yeah, a little gender inequality, y'think?

Honestly, I'm convinced that homophobia is really nothing more than a form of sexism.

there is certainly a big element of sexism in it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

How so?

Gay men are hated because they aren't following their "roles." This could be their roles in the bedroom or their roles in society. (A lot of homophobes think that all gays are effeminate.)

It's really the same with you Les Bos. (South Park reference ftw)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yes but the results of quantum pyhs is about possibilities, not exact numbers.

There are several exact numbers, such as the fine structure constant, that are computed with quantum theory

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

absolute truths, in their very nature, have a moral value inherent in them. What you have are called laws.

I guess you and I have a different meaning for the word truth. I define truth as the set of all statements about reality and/or pure reason that are correct.

[Nova Magna Germania]

Yes but the results of quantum pyhs is about possibilities, not exact numbers.

There are several exact numbers, such as the fine structure constant, that are computed with quantum theory

Hmm, maybe physical constants, yes, but not entire physics.

[Nova Magna Germania]

.

[Dempublicents1]

you only are counting them if they are VOCAL about it and seek to ban it. yet you seem to have ignored my post that said Divorce is already in the law books, and hence why they are not fighting it as vocally as to warrant YOUR approval because they already LOST that battle. hence they do what they can. by not acknowledging it in the eyes of the Church.

Laws can change. Are you saying that, once same-sex marriage is legalized, all those opposed will shut up and just privately not approve? Because I don't really think that's the way it works.

I think the difference here is that Catholics, in general, are quite happy with being different from other religions and from the law in this matter and thus don't try to force it on others. For some reason, however, many are not content with personally disapproving of same-sex marriage. Instead, they have to try to encode that disapproval into law.

as some some say, some churches don't allow divorce.

Some churches don't recognize divorce. But the law does, and churches in general seem quite happy to let that stand.

Prostitution (a major source of 'infidelity') is illegal and 'those' Christians are fighting to keep it that way.

Do you honestly believe that the majority of affairs are with prostitutes? If not, I don't really see how prostitution is relevant.

going by the supposed viewpoints of UT's "Type of Christians".

......so you think that Christians who vocally oppose equal rights for homosexuals also believe that the vast majority of affairs are prostitution?

as societal problems, they are not equal.

Correct, divorce is a far worse social problem than any potential problems that could be caused by gay marriage.

in your opinion.

but

divorce is a lost battle, gay marriage is one that can still be won.

Ok, so divorce is already in the law, so churches that are opposed have all just decided to shut up about it. If that's the case, why haven't they stopped trying to make abortion illegal? If, once something becomes law, those opposed just throw up their hands and go "Oh well, battle lost," why do we fight some of the same legal battles more than once?

I don't buy this rationalization.

We do not leave the others alone (or ourselves)! The only one we don't bother fighting is the working on sunday thing, because we can't fight it anymore, and it hasn't really ever been a sin.

Working on the Sabbath was never a sin? What Bible are you reading?

Divorced and remarried people are adulterers. You don't think I try to fight their sins either. And I have yet to hate a sinner (except possibly Bin Laden), I only hate the sin, and let sinners know (appropriately, not angrily, no bible-thumping) that what they're doing is wrong (it would be my sin to let them on in ignorance!). Obviously, I'm not a perfect person either, but I try my best. If telling someone they're wrong is 'hating', then don't tell me I'm wrong.

......this has nothing to do with whether or not you are doing anything to make their actions illegal or to grant them less protection under the law.

Which, you know, is almost always the case, right? Divorce can send kids through years of therapy, if they're lucky, or twist them painfully if they aren't.

Or make their home-life much better. Divorce is hardly a universal evil.

Believe it or not, there is an absolute Truth in this world, and morality is not relative. I haven't yet told someone that they will perish in the fires of torment because of their sins, but I do tell them they're wrong, using rational, secular evidence if they don't listen to religious evidence (which most, I'm sure, don't). I haven't voted yet (Too young, I will next election! Out with Harry Reid!), but homosexuals have the exact same rights as me right now: they can get married to a woman or not at all, and I can do the same.

First of all, some homosexuals cannot marry a woman - since they are female.

Second of all, they don't have the exact same rights as you, even as it pertains to marriage. Your argument was tried in the civil rights era and has already been found lacking. Men who want to marry another man don't have the same rights as men who want to marry a woman any more than black men who wanted to marry white women had the same rights as white men who wanted to do so back in the anti-miscegenation days.

Finally, there are other rights homosexuals don't have. For instance, they can be fired simply for being gay in most of the country. Do you think you'll get fired just for being straight?

Call it what you like. Divorce still takes a toll on kids, as does, yes, married and fighting parents. Couples splitting up is a societal problem, is all.

THAT'S IT!!!

it's not that we're against Homosexuality... the reason why we don't want SSM is the fact that should they get Divorced... who will the courts Favor?!?! usually it's the female, but if both are male or female, the divorce Courts would have to actually weigh the facts! that's why so many are against SSM! they would have to look at the FACTS for Divorce cases and that might Taint Hetero Divorces!

I GET IT NOW!!! yes, I am joking here!

This post was in jest but it actually hides a good point. I do believe that a lot of the opposition to SSM comes from entrenched gender roles. All sorts of things about traditional roles have to be questioned in a same-sex relationship. Who (if either) should do the bulk of the housework and who should make more money? If they have kids, who should be the primary caretaker? What should they do with their surnames when they get married? And so on.....

Misogyny and patriarchy are both seriously challenged by the very idea of SSM.

[Tekania]

Okay, there's something I don't get. According to Christian philosophy, all sins are equal and everyone's a sinner, right? So why do the kind of Christians that hate on homosexuals leave divorced people, adulterers, liars, and people that work on the sabbath alone? It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

I believe you answered your own question...

And now, I am off!

[Rolling squid]

absolute truths, in their very nature, have a moral value inherent in them. What you have are called laws.

I guess you and I have a different meaning for the word truth. I define truth as the set of all statements about reality and/or pure reason that are correct.

The laws of physics are certainly truths, but not Absolute Truths (TM), which were all revealed either thousands of years ago to people living in deserts, or to that weird dude on the sidewalk, and tell you if you're going to hell or not.

[Roten]

Believe it or not, there is an absolute Truth in this world, and morality is not relative. I haven't yet told someone that they will perish in the fires of torment because of their sins, but I do tell them they're wrong, using rational, secular evidence if they don't listen to religious evidence (which most, I'm sure, don't). I haven't voted yet (Too young, I will next election! Out with Harry Reid!), but homosexuals have the exact same rights as me right now: they can get married to a woman or not at all, and I can do the same.

It may surprise you, but there is not Absolute Truth in this world and Morality is extremely relative. When you're older you'll find this out.

Of course, you would have no way of knowing, but I, as a female homosexual, do not have thr right to marry a woman, just like you. So, please explain to me, using rational, secular evidence, why I am wrong in loving and being sexually attracted to another woman. I'll wait right here.

Well,since you're female, you have the same right, only in the reverse. Sorry that I assume almost everyone on a forum is male until proved otherwise (I've also assumed that you are caucasian, over 30, and on pacific time in the USA, correct me if I'm wrong).

You are absolutely not wrong in being attracted, you are only wrong in acting on it. Just like I may be attracted to a woman whom I am not married to, which is not wrong, but if I start doing 'it' with her, then I am in sin.

Anyhow, first off, Man (or woman) is not made for him(her)self. It is obvious from our basic physiology that we cannot be only for ourselves.

What is the purpose of sex? It is to make a child, right? That's the whole point, and if that cannot be a possible outcome (as with contracetives), then it is not good or useful or productive in any logical manner.

There is no genetic tendency towards homosexuality (http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html). If there was, then it would be out pretty quick according to natural selection. Homosexuals don't tend to have many natural children, right?

That being said, the tendency is an urge that is not hardwired, and like heterosexual lust must be controlled and conquered, which is a difficult task, but everything worthwhile is difficult.

there could be more evidence brought to bear, just my time is limited.

[Ashmoria]

Ok, so divorce is already in the law, so churches that are opposed have all just decided to shut up about it. If that's the case, why haven't they stopped trying to make abortion illegal? If, once something becomes law, those opposed just throw up their hands and go "Oh well, battle lost," why do we fight some of the same legal battles more than once?

I don't buy this rationalization.

because they dont see the abortion battle as lost.

im pretty sure that, for example, the catholic church is still fighting legal divorce in ireland where that fight is only somewhat lost.

the insistance that there is something extra-special wrong with christians because they dont conform to some outsiders theory of how they should behave is ridiculous. people are people no matter what religious beliefs they hold. we are not particularly consistent or logical in our behavior no matter what we believe.

[Bramborska]

absolute truths, in their very nature, have a moral value inherent in them. What you have are called laws.

I guess you and I have a different meaning for the word truth. I define truth as the set of all statements about reality and/or pure reason that are correct.

The laws of physics are certainly truths, but not Absolute Truths (TM), which were all revealed either thousands of years ago to people living in deserts, or to that weird dude on the sidewalk, and tell you if you're going to hell or not.

Ironically, to believe everything you perceive, even 'physics,' is the absolute truth requires more faith than anyone who believes in God would ever require.

[Nova Magna Germania]

Believe it or not, there is an absolute Truth in this world, and morality is not relative. I haven't yet told someone that they will perish in the fires of torment because of their sins, but I do tell them they're wrong, using rational, secular evidence if they don't listen to religious evidence (which most, I'm sure, don't). I haven't voted yet (Too young, I will next election! Out with Harry Reid!), but homosexuals have the exact same rights as me right now: they can get married to a woman or not at all, and I can do the same.

It may surprise you, but there is not Absolute Truth in this world and Morality is extremely relative. When you're older you'll find this out.

Of course, you would have no way of knowing, but I, as a female homosexual, do not have thr right to marry a woman, just like you. So, please explain to me, using rational, secular evidence, why I am wrong in loving and being sexually attracted to another woman. I'll wait right here.

Well,since you're female, you have the same right, only in the reverse. Sorry that I assume almost everyone on a forum is male until proved otherwise (I've also assumed that you are caucasian, over 30, and on pacific time in the USA, correct me if I'm wrong).

You are absolutely not wrong in being attracted, you are only wrong in acting on it. Just like I may be attracted to a woman whom I am not married to, which is not wrong, but if I start doing 'it' with her, then I am in sin.

Anyhow, first off, Man (or woman) is not made for him(her)self. It is obvious from our basic physiology that we cannot be only for ourselves.

What is the purpose of sex? It is to make a child, right? That's the whole point, and if that cannot be a possible outcome (as with contracetives), then it is not good or useful or productive in any logical manner.

There is no genetic tendency towards homosexuality (http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html). If there was, then it would be out pretty quick according to natural selection. Homosexuals don't tend to have many natural children, right?

That being said, the tendency is an urge that is not hardwired, and like heterosexual lust must be controlled and conquered, which is a difficult task, but everything worthwhile is difficult.

there could be more evidence brought to bear, just my time is limited.

So you're over 30? 14 year old kids prolly have a better idea about "reliable sources" than you. I mean NARTH? Seriously? It's like quoting Stormfront on racial matters.

Oh and Gays and Lesbians do have natural kids. I mean, seriously. Are you really over 30?

[Britta Almighty]

Bear in mind that they find all sins are actually not equal, and some actions which are considered sins in the old testament are revised in the new testament.
I.E. In the old testament it was considered a sin for a woman to sit for even a moment during the entire course of her menstruation... There's no nutjob in the tampon isle holding up a sign about eternal damnation.

[New Kereptica]

Well,since you're female, you have the same right, only in the reverse. Sorry that I assume almost everyone on a forum is male until proved otherwise (I've also assumed that you are caucasian, over 30, and on pacific time in the USA, correct me if I'm wrong).

You are absolutely not wrong in being attracted, you are only wrong in acting on it. Just like I may be attracted to a woman whom I am not married to, which is not wrong, but if I start doing 'it' with her, then I am in sin.

Anyhow, first off, Man (or woman) is not made for him(her)self. It is obvious from our basic physiology that we cannot be only for ourselves.

What is the purpose of sex? It is to make a child, right? That's the whole point, and if that cannot be a possible outcome (as with contracetives), then it is not good or useful or productive in any logical manner.

There is no genetic tendency towards homosexuality (http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html). If there was, then it would be out pretty quick according to natural selection. Homosexuals don't tend to have many natural children, right?

That being said, the tendency is an urge that is not hardwired, and like heterosexual lust must be controlled and conquered, which is a difficult task, but everything worthwhile is difficult.

there could be more evidence brought to bear, just my time is limited.

That source look pretty biased. And it's rather contradicted by this one.