Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers homosexuality to be immoral

At the time the Bible was written, and a millenium or so afterwards, the answer to this question was probably yes.

 

Yeah, it's kind of funny that a person trying to chastise supposedly narrow-minded people is being extremely narrow-minded himself. Well no, that happens a lot actually. It's not that funny.

I'm a Christian and couldn't care less what gay people do. My parents are much more Catholic than I am, they even ran the CCD/Sunday School of the church in my hometown, and I've never once heard them say anything about homosexuality. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned in mass.

Do I agree with everything in Catholicism? No, there are some things that will probably change over time when the Vatican moves in a more progressive direction (likely after this current Pope is gone). But still, no one from the Church is sending me monthly quizzes to examine if I am following a doctrine, word for word. As for Christianity in general (which has more to do with faith than "religion"), I don't know why anyone would expect people to have a specific set of instructions to follow. Faith is unique, for each person.

It's like people need you to believe something (some misconception they've formed on their own) in order to tell you how wrong you are.

 

Too true. I don't believe in any of this stuff, myself, but what you said is perfectly obvious.



D&D. Obvious or Oblivious!

 

As gay people have become more prevalent and vocal in media, pop culture, politics and local communities, this has changed and will continue to change in the Christian community; in the same way that the Klan and Jim Crow laws really didn't exist until after the Civil War and end of slavery (sorry for the unfortunate analogy).

 

The anaolgy is not unfortunate, it just doesn't make sense. I really have no idea of what you are trying to say.

 

The only way the analogy would have worked is if I had said, "Yeah, we used to totally bash and condemn gay people, now we just pretend they don't exist." Because I guess that is a lesser offense (like going from slavery to discrimination...I guess??).

I still really have no idea what you were trying, but that's not what I meant. I have gay friends (more like acquaintances now), and I'm pretty sure my parents do, as well. I meant wondering whether homosexuality is a sin or not has never been something my churches felt the need to discuss. It' s never been a big deal. I've never been informed of what "my" opinion on the matter should be. (I personally don't think anything you are born with, and is out of your control, can be a sin.)

 

Sorry for the typos and stuff... I am watching/listening to the Xavier game as I type.

 

As gay people become more "public," they will become more influential and empowered in contrast to non-gay Christians. As a counterbalance, Christian leaders will be expected to respond in kind by "speaking out" on the "gay issue," which would, in time, allow for more and more personal experiences contradictory to yours of having never heard it discussed in mass. The "anti-gay" sentiment probably exists most churches, but, as per your experience, hasn't had a catalyst, until now, to make itself known.

In the same way that alot of the political and social antagonism towards blacks and black assimilation, in the form of the Klan, Jim Crow laws and race-baiting politicians, didn't really come into being until after blacks were freed from slavery and in the initial years afterwards, became better integrated, more prominent and more "threatening" in what was considered at the time white society.

The two contrasts I was trying paint were both that between your experiences in mass and the extent to which that might change is-a-vis the discussion of homsexuality; and the differences between you and your parents ambivalence towards gays and a pastor, evangelist or minister's increasing obligation, as a "defender" of the faith, think, fell or say otherwise.

 

From firsthand experience, there is significant anger within large portions of gay community directed generally at ‘Christians’ whom they view as their persecutors. This is obviously not your fault, but the reality nonetheless, and not without cause. From what I understand, there used to occasionally be Christians who would set up out side Mary's and the the gay clubs and bars who would tell everybody going in or out that they were evil and were going to hell in a very confrontational way. Because of this, I think you should expect to encounter this sort of reaction from time to time.

 

Since I'm not sending this message to the future, before the AIDS epidemic, civil unions, adoption rights, etc., I would say that there have been quite a few possible "catalysts."

You would be assuming a lot for your analogy to work. It is also kind of condescending to assume that because an "anti-gay" sentiment has not been seen, it is really just one particular sermon away from rearin' its ugly head. That would either make Christians inherently anti-gay or too dumb to disagree with the priest/pastor. The latter would be wrong, particularly from a Catholic's point of view, just by looking at the issue of birth control in the Church.

 

I think you're overanalyzing a bit here. Remember, we're talking about the beleif that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of murder; the beleif that an all-knowing being abhors homosexuality. These beleifs have very strong implications that cannot be ignored. Regardless of whether or not MadMax or rhester would commit an act of violence against someone who is gay, it is exactly their line of thinking that breeds that type of behavior in other folks.

Thinking homosexuality is OK absolutely is not a prejudice. It is absence of prejudice. Thinking homosexuality is wrong, however, is a prejudice because it amounts to making a normative judgement on somebody based entirely on their sexual orientation.

Ah, but this is such a tenuous balance. And a disingenuous one too. Neither MM or rhester has responded to my challenge that they justify their beleifs.

Everybody has their flaws. All I'm trying to do in this thread is get people to examine their own biases and try to learn myself why people think the way they do. Unfortunately, people get very defensive when their core beleifs are challenged, which further reinforces their sometimes irrational stance on whatever issue.

Maybe my approach is less than ideal, but maybe rhester and MadMax's minds are less than open. Maybe both.

 

I may have zero understanding of Christianity, but that is only because nobody has been able to explain it to me. Sorry, but I don't have time to read every theological paper on Christianity. I've asked you numerous times to explain, in your words, what your beleifs are, but you have ignored my request every time.

Tell me exactly why the old law is no longer applicable. Is that so hard? It shouldn't be, seeing as you seem so sure of yourself.

Oh, and tell me why you beleive Jesus is the Messiah. I know enough about the Old Testament to have a strong beleif that he cannot be. Why do you beleive in God?

As I said before, you must answer these questions first before you can say you are compelled to beleive that homosexuality is immoral because God says it is.

 

OK, so you are not a Biblical literalist, then. This discussion is entirely moot if you don't think homosexuality is immoral.

 

How am I being narrow-minded? I'm asking people to back up their beleifs. If they can't do that, it's their problem.

The only judgement I made is that if you think homosexuality is immoral, then I think you are a bigot. Does that make me narrow-minded?

What if I said: if you think being black is immoral, then I think you are a bigot? Is there any difference in the two judgements that I am making?

 

Nice contribution.

Deckard. Smart or Smartass?

 

You generalize an entire faith and assume that anyone who is a Christian follows one particular set of rules and beliefs.

 

I think you are hyperbolizing their arguments and adding motives and emotions that don't exist. Nobody has said anything close to 'death sentence for f**s' or anything like that.

Reading the posts again from where I jumped in, I begin to suspect that your opposition is being prejudiced by your disdain for religion as opposed to anything actually being said or advocated here. Again, nobody at all has talked about sending gay people to the gas chambers or locking them up.

I also don't think you really understand what tolerance really is. I genuinely see you as much more of an intolerant person than any of the religious people in this thread. Of course you can deny it and I will understand and even expect that you would. I will also understand that my saying so might upset you, but it is my genuine and true belief and it is not one that I come to without a reasonable amount of thought. I only say it in hope that you might think about it. I have no doubts that you are well intentioned and not a bad person, but I think your general stance in this instance is lacking. You are a righteous defender of your beliefs and truths, the same as any medieval crusader or jihadist. Keep in mind, such people all believe in their cause and think that they are fighting the good fight.

 

You're right. I was over the line in my first post, and I already admitted that.

What I should have said is using Christianity as a pretext to say homosexuality is wrong is disingenuous and hypocritical. I stand by that, and nobody has contested my argument directly.

 

I understand that I came across as narrow-minded.

The problem is, you aren't even adressing my stance at all. My beliefs on this are in no way analogous to crusaders or jihadists. I honestly have no idea where you got that from.

Answer my arguments, please.