[My Profile] [My Settings] [Exit]  

Home Blog My Games Reviews Friends Exit
draqq_zyxx The meaning of life is to be aware.
The breath of life is to remember.

Title: Through The "Issue" of Homosexuality
Posted: April 18, 2006 (05:23 PM)
I would understand hatred of homosexualism if it was evil, and unfortunately, many religions and social culture deem it evil, or at least unnatural and therefore evil. What escapes most is that homosexuals are human beings and should be viewed with humanity. Hating homosexualism is the same as hating blacks, Asians, whites, Indians, the obese, the poor, the rich, the intelligent, the dumb, and if homosexualism is truly a preference, than hating homosexualism is the equivalent to hating someone that likes pistachio ice cream. Many hate pistachio ice cream but that doesn't mean that you should hate people that like pistachio ice cream. Unforunately, the "pistachio ice cream" isn't evil at all. In fact, it's harmless. Homosexuality, in turn, doesn't harm anyone. So to hate homosexuality is a matter of taste but not a matter of morality. But many attach hatred in taste to hatred in morality and there in lies the problem with not only the "issue" of homosexuality but of all issues of discrimination.

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title: A longer response than you probably care for
Posted: April 18, 2006 (07:38 PM)
The difference between homosexuality and a love of pistachio pudding is that the Bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a sin, whereas no such label is placed on pistachio pudding (though one could make a reasonable argument that the apostles would have found problems with it, if it had existed at the time the Bible was written).

Most Christians who hate homosexuality do so because the Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned to death. If homosexuality is a sin as the Bible says it is, and if it is a choice, then it makes sense on one level that Christians would hate homosexuals.

Of course, hating homosexuals is a problem in and of itself. Jesus had no fondness for prostitution and extortion, yet He spent much of His ministry associating with individuals guilty of those very offenses without looking down His nose at them for even a second. Many Christians tend to forget that, as they are caught up in the fervor handed to them on a platter by their minister or parents (who often grew up in a time where American society as a whole hated homosexuality).

The Bible suggests that we should hate the sin, not the sinner. If homosexuality is a willful sin (and I'm not convinced it is), then the most a Christian should hate is the act, not the person who is a homosexual. With this and any other issue, the obvious problem is that Christians are people, too. While it's easy to be proud of our righteousness and to think that others should be more like ourselves, this is in and of itself a sin. Two verses spring readily to mind:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Those two verses speak volumes that Christians often forget. I doubt you want a philosophical debate, so I'll leave it at this: no matter what a person's position is in life, he understands much less of the opposing viewpoint (and the possible validity of said viewpoints) than he ever imagines, and much less than would justify standing on any sort of soapbox.

HalonUser: Halon
Posted: April 18, 2006 (08:06 PM)
I don't want to give my opinion on whether I support gay rights or not so I'll do my best to explain this from a neutral perspective.

There's a difference between racism and hating gays (I'm using the word gay instead of homosexual because gay implies that a person is open about it, and that's the controversy is about). The reason why many people don't like gays is because it is something that was generally considered disgusting and unnatural until around 40 years ago. Marriage was always something between a man and woman, and a change in something that has been around since the begining of mankind will definitely stir up controversy. Obviously more and more people are supporting them now than in the past, but it's a lifestyle opposed to a race.

I don't feel like giving my opinion on the issue, but about a week ago I was speaking to my friend (a religious Catholic) about why gays are hated by the Catholic church. He said it isn't that they're rejected and hated by the church. The church welcomes them, but it doesn't make sense for someone to join something that's against their lifestyle. So they do believe that gays are humans and not something evil, they just don't support their lifestyle.

You might be right about the matter of taste. Most people are opposed to homosexuality, yet around half of the United States support gay marriage and other gay rights (I'm just guessing on that, I don't have the exact statistic). Some people find them harmless and don't care what they do as long as it doesn't involve them, and others think it's disgusting and shouldn't be encouraged nor supported. However morals probably does play a part in your "taste".

I'm sorry if this jumps all over the place, I just shat this out and didn't proofread or anything.

GenjUser: Genj
Posted: April 18, 2006 (08:42 PM)
I read the Biblical passages that supposedly say that homosexual is a sin and they're really vague. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah and this is interpretted as for the citizens having sex with men or "unnatural flesh" or something. However, in the actual text they have sex with angels, which aren't even considered human in Christian mythology (angels aren't even supposed to have sex organs). There are also references to the cities being full of sin beforehand. My conclusion: Catholicism is stupid. People shouldn't blindly follow the interpretation of a really fucking old book.

A lot of people also seem to hate homosexuals because they're afraid of them. I knew people in High School who were legimately thought gays would try to rape them if they met one. People also seem to be afraid of being labeled as gay as if just one person calling them a fag will ban their penis from every vagina in America. My conclusion: people that hate gays are stupid.

Personally I don't think of homosexuals in any different way than heterosexuals. We all just want sex. I don't give a fuck where other people get it from.

Note - Sorry if I offend anyone with my writing of gay and fag but homosexual is a long word to type out for such a lazy person as myself.

HalonUser: Halon
Posted: April 18, 2006 (09:44 PM)
I (and probably Venter) wasn't trying to pimp Catholicism. I was just trying to say that unlike what most people think Christians (especially Catholics, since they're the ones that have the balls to speak up on these issues) don't think gays are evil and should burn in hell. They're against the act of homosexuality, NOT homosexuals themselves.

I haven't read the bible in ages, but I'm pretty sure that it says several times that homosexuality is a sin, both in the old and new testaments. I'm not saying whether or not we should listen to that, but there's more than one vague passage.

m0zartUser: m0zart
Title: An objectivist's view...
Posted: April 18, 2006 (09:53 PM)
As an objectivist, I have a different view of it than that. I think in some ways we are mixing issues here.

Homosexuality is "unnatural", at least to the extent that it doesn't produce any fruitful union, and is riddled with health issues. On the other hand, it could also be considered "natural" in the sense that, as a possible genetic aberration which prevents species improvement, it naturally prevents the aberration from being propogated through reproduction. Still, proper ethics is only secondarily concerned with such matters.

First, let's get the subset ethical issue of what is bannable vs. what is allowable within society out of the way. Within a society that operates under the principles of self-ownership and objective rights, as long as the sexual act in question is both fully consensual, and those involved are capable of meaningful consent (neither children nor those mentally handicapped to a point where meaningful consent is impossible), there is no reason whatsoever that the activity can be considered bannable. Attempts to ban are no more than acts of aggression against innocents.

In terms of greater ethics, however, the issue becomes something else altogether. The only goal of any proper objective system of ethics is the pursuit of your own self-interest, i.e. your happiness. If the health risks associated with oral sexual encounters and sodomy are outweighed by the need to express your love to a male partner that you have more than purely sexual animalistic feelings for, then that expression serves the ultimate ethical purpose in your life -- one that goes beyond mere survival.

I have issues with the term "gay rights", primarily because it attempts to camp-divide the issue of rights, which I hold is entirely a human feature. I can't and won't ever support a special treatment program for any race, color, gender, or sexual orientation. I will only ever be able to support the same objective rights arising from self-ownership and self-determination for all human beings, without exception to anything other than their willing participation in violating the rights of others. In many cases, I see organizations that want to end legal matters for sexual orientation simultaneously willing to violate the basic human right to associate or disassociate with anyone any given individual chooses. In that sense, I find myself completely opposed to the gay rights movement as a whole. I also find myself unable to associate with the extreme socialist bend that most gay rights groups hold prominently in their platforms and their rhetoric. I only bring this up because the term was used in somewhere in either your words or in one of the responses. Ultimately, any view of gay rights that is limited to recognizing the same human rights as any other individual has my full support. Anything that goes one step beyond that, and of course any view that would propose violating these rights on the basis of the individual being gay, will lose my support entirely.

m0zartUser: m0zart
Title: In response...
Posted: April 18, 2006 (10:09 PM)
I read the Biblical passages that supposedly say that homosexual is a sin and they're really vague. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah and this is interpretted as for the citizens having sex with men or "unnatural flesh" or something. However, in the actual text they have sex with angels, which aren't even considered human in Christian mythology (angels aren't even supposed to have sex organs). There are also references to the cities being full of sin beforehand. My conclusion: Catholicism is stupid. People shouldn't blindly follow the interpretation of a really fucking old book.

One thing I want to bring up about this issue in terms of scripture is that while the men visiting Lot and his family in Sodom were angels, they were not in appearance as angels. The angels were purposefully in the form of men to hide their identity and observe the township anonymously. Not even Lot knew they were angels.

The judgement on Sodom in particular is very vague. It coudl have something to do with homosexuality (as the townspeople were crying out to rape the men); however, rape itself could have been the sin and not specifically homosexual rape. Additionally, it seems likely, given the cultural mores of bedouins at that time and even today, that the real issue at heart was the treatment of strangers within the gates of a city. Within scripture, there are numerous admonishments to be very kind to strangers. There is even the term used that by doing so you might be entertaining angels unaware. That was precisely the case in this instance in Sodom -- and was definitely at least one of the sins they were being judged for.

Remember that right before these men arrived at Lot's house in Sodom, they stopped off with Abraham. Abraham showed incredible hospitality to these strangers even before he realized that they were God and two angels in the flesh. This is heavily contrasted with the treatment that the two angels received in Sodom -- where the only comfort they received was from Lot's family, and were later demanded from the townspeople for sexual purposes.

This is actually backed up by a few other scriptural references in the New Testament. For instance, when Jesus references Sodom, he does so as an example of inhospitable circumstances: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (Matthew 10:14-15) Additionally, in the Old Testament, Isaiah specifically calls out Sodom and Gomorrah for its treatment of strangers and the needy: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

While the reasons for the judgement on Sodom are arguably not tied specifically to homosexuality, there are other less vague scriptures on that subject. The Torah specifically states that any man who lies with a man as he would with a woman should be stoned to death. Additionally, in one of the Pauline epistles, it is specifically stated that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

NOTE: My purpose in this is neither to condemn nor promote scripture as a deciding factor in this discussion. From my POV, the position of scripture is irrelevant anyway, especially to the issue of whether homosexuality should be bannable (I definitely hold that it should not be). I only bring this up to clear up some issues in respect to the supposed scriptural position that was previously referenced.

eXTReMe Tracker
2005-2012 HonestGamers
Opinions expressed in this blog represent the opinions of those expressing them and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of site staff, users and/or sponsors. Unless otherwise stated, content above belongs to its copyright holders and may not be reproduced without express written permission.