JCOSTER
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
DISCRIMINATION IS NOT IN MY USE OF LANGUAGE.
LET ME STATE AGAIN IT IS THE ACTUAL ACT WHICH IS THE SIN!
JUST THE SAME FOR AN UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE!
HomoSexuality
- Thread starter Justin24
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
DISCRIMINATION IS NOT IN MY USE OF LANGUAGE.
LET ME STATE AGAIN IT IS THE ACTUAL ACT WHICH IS THE SIN!
JUST THE SAME FOR AN UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
JCOSTER said:
well, then hopefully you support full marriage rights for homosexuals so they can get married and have god-approved "actual acts."
it seems silly to condemn people for sinning when society denies them they very tools that would enable them not to sin.
This is my view ok I am not a homophob or a bigot. But Homosexuals should be allowed to be married by civil union. When it comes to the church, well take it up with them. God will judge the actions of the indiviuals getting married and the church, etc..
JCOSTER
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
I don't condem or punish anyone...thats not my job its someone elses...
Judah
War Child
Justin24 said:
Justin, just wondering: do you care whether these civil unions are called "marriage" or not?
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I am a liberal Roman Catholic, and I support the Gay Pride movement in my Church. Hell will freeze over before an American Catholic Cardinal is elected Pope, trust me.
Justin24 said:
Because the Vatican does not volunteer information, only American bishops have been given the blame, due to our rather vigorous investigations here. But, rest assured, it likely happens all over the world.
Melon
Justin24 said:
What tends to bother me about talk like this is that, somehow, we're supposed to placate the most conservative of religious belief systems in this country, while ignoring the fact that some religious denominations do believe in gay marriage.
Even then, it also ignores the fact that many people carry religious beliefs independent of institutional groupthink.
What I would prefer most of all is consistency. France has de-facto civil unions for heterosexuals, while maintaining the name "marriage." That is, for the state to recognize ANY marriage, a ceremony must be held in front of a civil justice of the peace. If you want a religious ceremony, then go ahead...go to your church. But it does not, under any circumstances, have legal authority. As such, those religiously-minded French have two "marriage ceremonies."
However, if Americans refuse to acknowledge that "marriage" has both a religious and civil aspect, then I want the name, "civil union," to be used for ALL state recognition of any couples, heterosexual or homosexual. And, like France, if a couple wants legal recognition, they should have to have two ceremonies: a legally binding one with a civil justice of the peace and a ceremonial one with the religious authority of your choice. The Catholic Church already has an attitude like this. If a Catholic couple does not have a ceremony approved by a Catholic priest, then, in the eyes of the church, you're not married. Sure, you might have a legal marriage, but, in the eyes of the Catholic church, you're still unmarried.
Of course, this isn't about fairness or consistency. It's about a bunch of religious nuts wanting control, asserting "heterosexual supremacism."
Melon
JCOSTER said:
Somehow, this is supposed to be better? Please.
And people wonder why I have such low opinions of Christianity today. I had 13 valuable years of Catholic education, and I appreciate every amount of in-depth religious education I received. But hell...after reading all this nonsense after a while, I really start wishing that the Bible was just as lost and forgotten as the Zoroastrian "Avesta."
It's hard for me to stomach a lot of evangelical Protestant theology after a while, mainly because most of its logic trail is completely foreign to me, and I often received education to the complete contrary. That enough should be proof that government should be secular, because there is not even consistency with what constitutes "Christian beliefs," let alone trying to reconcile non-Christian beliefs into America.
Since we're going to talk about sin, if you've ever masturbated or had oral sex with your spouse, if you've used birth control of any kind, you're going to rot in hell, according to the Catholic Church. After all, sex is only for making babies, right?
And to complicate things further for me, Catholicism's teachings against homosexuality are not Biblically based--those in the highest of echelons in the Vatican have even admitted at times that there is no Biblical basis for modern homosexuality--but, instead, their beliefs are based on medieval tradition in "natural law."
So for those of us who do not treat the Bible literally (as the Catholic Church teaches) and similarly question the validity of church tradition (as I and many others do), I guess we're plain out of luck after a while?
So fucking much for "religious freedom." Religion just makes me sick after a while.
Melon
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
JCOSTER said:
but you feel perfectly fine telling other people that they are going to be condemned and judged according to your understanding of a highly contested text.
what's the difference?
I have no problem with you judging the hate groups. I despise them. My grandpa fought against the Nazis in WW2. But they as humans have a right to there own views to even if we do not agree with them. I have said in other posts that Islam is backwards and needs to start living in the 21st century and treat woman, and everyone with respect and humanity. This goes with China also and N.Korea.
Justin24 said:
The United States has had a long tradition of liberal attitudes towards hate speech. I'm not advocating changing the status quo to making it illegal, mainly because it has worked well for the U.S., thus far. By keeping the hate groups out in the open, we kept aware of what's brewing out there and can deal with them appropriately if they cross the line into illegal terrorist activity.
At the same time, while neo-Nazis and the KKK are allowed to believe whatever the hell they like, we also do not give their twisted, bigoted ideology the time of day. That is not the same with homophobia. That twisted, bigoted ideology actually gets legislation and amendments voted on at the state and federal levels, and their pseudoscience is actually used as "testimony" in support. Now just imagine if some state legislature used KKK-derived pseudoscience to support legislation targeted against blacks, because of "scientific studies" that prove them to be genetically dumber and prone to crime? We'd rightfully shout them down. But when it comes to sponsoring homophobic legislation, pseudoscience comes out of the woodwork and nobody does anything to stop it.
That's the difference.
Melon
Justin24 said:
I should not have to move to San Francisco to have full civil rights and protections under the law. If I want to live in fucking Alabama, I should not have to be a second-class citizen under the law, just because the majority thinks that way.
Melon
whoa whoa calm down. Most Americans accept Homosexuality. Things are changing. Not as fast but they are. And Homosexuals do have civil rights in this country. Many insurance companies allow there "partners" on insurance. Jobs cannot discrimminate.
Last edited:
Justin24 said:
Most states are passing "Defense of Marriage" amendments that seek to invalidate those rights, and jobs CAN discriminate, unless there are state laws that specifically protect against that discrimination.
There is progress, but there are also a lot of reactionary forces in America that believe that any rights for homosexuals are evil.
Melon
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
Hey, you're welcome to come here to Alabama and help us keep Roy Moore out of the statehouse. He's promising to make life even more hellish for our gay citizens.
Justin24 said:
As interpreted by those currently in power, sexual orientation is not covered under that law. As such, it would be perfectly legal to fire someone based on perceived sexual orientation. I should underline "perceived," because there are heterosexuals who have been discriminated against, due to some bigoted authority figure who thought he/she was gay.
Melon
Justin24 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Here you go. He's best known as the "Ten Commandments" judge, who was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to enforce a court ruling that the Alabama Ten Commandments monument that he erected was unconstitutional.
Without a doubt, he probably has plenty of other paleoconservative attitudes.
Melon
Justin24 said:
I would venture to say, without a doubt, that someone who believes that the Ten Commandments are the basis for all law in the U.S. (a contention I highly disagree with), and believes that the "Judeo-Christian God" has sovereignity over the state and church, he would never in a million years support gay rights.
Melon
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ I can only speak to what Moses and Noah would have said which would be...nope. "Gay rights"--and for that matter, "heterosexuality"--as we understand it today entails a whole array of uniquely modern concepts like individualism, romantic love, personal fulfillment, sexual orientation, and moral autonomy which would have been completely foreign to these men's way of understanding the world.
Regarding the influence of Thomism on Catholic tradition, I also have always found this to be a contradiction in some ways, on the other hand it also does establish a precedent for human interpretation of Scripture that clearly and honestly acknowledges the role of secular thought in informing said interpretations. After reading Aquinas myself (one of the sharpest philosophical minds in human history, IMO), I could not help but find it ironic that the legacy of this man--who had to get his doctorate under armed guard because so many sought to assassinate him for daring to suggest Christian thought could benefit from systematic application of the rigorous logical system of (pagan) Greek philosophy--has come to be associated with intellectual stagnation and resistance to engagement of other perspectives.
There is nothing unloving about standing up for fairness and equality before the law--on the contrary it is one of the most loving things you could possibly do, and to oppose it one of the least.Justin24 said:
I agree that analogizing premarital (hetero)sex to gay sex, period, doesn't hold water. Premarital sex can be readily enough avoided by simply waiting until you're married to have sex. Avoiding gay sex would require a lifetime of celibacy if you're gay. It is not right or just for heterosexuals to have their cake and eat it too where love and personal fulfillment are concerned--if we really want to uphold marriage as it was understood in Biblical times, then let's go back to mandatory marriage for all to a partner of your parents' choosing in early teenagehood, with mandatory bearing of as many children as you can conceive shortly to follow.
Regarding the influence of Thomism on Catholic tradition, I also have always found this to be a contradiction in some ways, on the other hand it also does establish a precedent for human interpretation of Scripture that clearly and honestly acknowledges the role of secular thought in informing said interpretations. After reading Aquinas myself (one of the sharpest philosophical minds in human history, IMO), I could not help but find it ironic that the legacy of this man--who had to get his doctorate under armed guard because so many sought to assassinate him for daring to suggest Christian thought could benefit from systematic application of the rigorous logical system of (pagan) Greek philosophy--has come to be associated with intellectual stagnation and resistance to engagement of other perspectives.
Yes, certainly they are manageable challenges, though I would prefer to avoid the few generations and few hundred years part if possible. These are not necessarily challenges for me personally but for the rabbis, they are. The combined sweep of legal literature pertaining to marriage in the Bible, Talmud and responsa is staggeringly vast and detailed and took many centuries to be worked out. Some of it would be readily applicable to any form of marriage, once sanctioned in principle; but much of it is not. Much would effectively have to be created from scratch and while such projects are certainly not unprecedented, the scope of this particular one would be vast. I just think it is interesting and important to consider the question of, Once fundamental acceptance of the moral viability of homosexuality is achieved...what comes next?
- Status
Similar threads
