Homosexuality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I love the straw man; it has won me many a wager (albeit these primary occurred in establishments of inebriation, so you could imagine the quality of debate.)

---

I used to fall for it like a bowling pin. You'd read these articles in psychology, and the first half would seem to be trying to convince you that your behavioural traits are primarily dependant on your parents. About halfway through the article you're thinking "Wow, that's so true! It's all about the parents! I am in full agreement with this article!" Then WAM!!! They hit you with the second half of the article, where they go through each point in the first half one at a time and tear them apart one by one, giving you a dose of deconstructive logic and that heady sense of disillusionment. Of course! It's not about the parents at all! I feel so enlightened!

Oh, and someday I might tell you about the fun we had with false memory implants. Jerk psychology professors, brains aren't gameboys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Nice white hat, sucker. I can't believe you swallow the sentence "oh please respect my right to disagree with the gay lifestyle?" because she used the words "please" and "respect" and wraped it all up in sophistry. What an easy mark, you are.

She didn't answer a single thing that wasn't about her. I asked three questions repeatedly, in various ways, and made them as simple as possible.

1. What does "sin" portend?
2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed?
3. How do you justify that?

If you can find an answer to any of those questions in her posts, or any reference to suicide at all, I'll give you a sweet tart (spoiler: you can't - this thread is dead because we've not only gone off topic, we've avoided it like the bubonic plague). That's why I'm frustrated, because this has all been a waste of time, for weeks. It's not her opinion, I grew up with people who hate "fags" and "niggers" and all, but at least they're straight about it and don't drive me up the wall dancing around the issue (mixed metaphor? *sigh*).

---

The thread was actually quite interesting until it became "let's all gang up on Shea."

And I didn't swallow anything. I've stated several times in this thread that I think her belief is a backwards one, but I still believe she has the right to think whatever she wants, and, yes, I do respect that. I've come to think there's something to be said for having civil, respectful conversation. Just look at your first post in this thread--you're combative and rude from the very start when no one else was. She's not beholden to you to answer every question you come up with, no matter how much you try to bully her into doing so. And, frankly, why should she?

And, incidentally, I question if you truly know what a straw man is. It's simply a misrepresentation of one's position in order to tear it down. If anyone is committing that fallacy, it's you. Shea says she believes homosexuality is a sin, but keeps that thought internal, not openly condemning anyone, not even voting on the issue. Note we have no reason to not believe her. From her statements, you accuse her of contributing to the murder and suicide of homosexuals. Yeah, no misrepresentation there. :rolleyes:

Tony, I promise I will answer your questions. Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to ask them. But I want to take a little more time, when I'm not surrounded by my family or very late into to the night, to formulate a proper answer. I have thought about it and respect the gravity of such a situation.

The following was easier and quicker respond to however:

This is the definition of a Straw man, as listed on the site I suggested for you, Juniper. The page is a resource provided by Glen Whitman who was the coach of the New York University Debaters' Union, and a Trustee of the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA):

Quote:

---

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.

---

Look specifically at the first paragraph and you’ll notice how your argument is exactly as described. You claim that I incite hate by calling homosexual acts a sin. You put words in my mouth. I’ve never been hateful in my stance on this issue. Unless you include the fact that I despise the attitudes of the hypocritical gay-bashers.

Quote:

---

She didn't answer a single thing that wasn't about her. I asked three questions repeatedly, in various ways, and made them as simple as possible.

1. What does "sin" portend?
2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed?
3. How do you justify that?

---

Yes, I did answer these questions, but as Mutatis pointed out, I probably didn’t give you the “right” answer, so instead you’ve chosen to ignore my valid statements. Hmmm, you also admitted that you pick and choose "acceptable" Bible verses too. What gives you that authority? What makes you the expert on which verses are “more correct” than others?

Quote:

---

thread is dead because we've not only gone off topic, we've avoided it like the bubonic plague

---

Seriously?!

Quote:

---

How do you guys feel about homosexuality and gay marriage?

---

Just because you can’t seem to understand how I feel on this issue doesn’t mean it’s off topic. So rest assured that your precious time has only been wasted in Argumentum ad hominem.

What this thread is lacking is, actually, an opposing side. Bien had it right - it is very one-sided - Shea included. You (Shea) are not actually arguing the opposing view to Juniper (or anyone) which is why it has created this silly back and forth.

I looked over the thread quickly, and I have to side with Juniper on avoiding questions - not for any malicious reasons, but once again, because you have no intention on taking up the debate.

When I questioned your use of the word "sin", your response:

Quote:

---

The minute I say that I believe it's a sin, I'm suddenly lumped in with bigots, which is why I posted here in the first place. I actually have to disagree with your explaination of "sin". You're describing what a right-wing preacher would do. Jesus ate and kept company with "tax-collectors and sinners". He didn't behave in the way you're suggesting.

---

I am still unclear on your definition of sin.....unimportant as this may seem to some.

When Juniper questioned about the harm of homophobic acts you replied with (paraphrase) "it doesn't apply to me"

This is where some of the frustration is coming from.......but, for my part at least, it's not a matter of your position, it's the way this "debate" has turned: in which there is no real question here being debated because no one has picked up on the other side.

This is also why it has devolved into rhetoric criticisms and arbitrary slinging of Latin phrases.

I think (unless I have a need to defend myself) this will be my final two-cents (with a load of inflation) on the thread.

Quote:

---

When Juniper questioned about the harm of homophobic acts you replied with (paraphrase) "it doesn't apply to me" ~ Charles

---

What else can she reply if it happens to be true?

Let's get this straight - believing something is a sin does not involve hatred for the sinner.

Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not mean the believer is homophobic. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily equate the two. Since when did merely disapproving of something (for whatever reason) automatically make you into a member of a hate group?

Quote:

---

2. Do you know that saying homosexuality is a sin gets people killed? ~ Juniper

---

This is where I completely disagree with you, and what made me jump into this debate. And you've never explained the process by which silent disapproval contributes to the killing and suicide of others.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Merely waving your Bible at your gay friend (just giving an imaginary example here) and telling her that her lifestyle is sinful doesn't involve denying her humanity, dignity and personhood.

Reply by Juniper ~
Um, yes it does, when the passage you're waving at them is "law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." That's anti-homosexual, I can't understand how you can say otherwise. Also, I doubt he'd be your "gay friend" for much longer...

---

Of course the passage you quoted is anti homosexual as it clearly implies that a homosexual person is not a righteous person (I might as well add here that I totally disagree with such a point of view), but in what way does a belief in this deny the homosexual person their humanity, dignity and personhood?

By the way, I'm only agreeing that the passage is 'anti homosexual', and in the sense that it's disapproving of homosexuality. I do not agree that it is homophobic in any way.

Charles, because you’re unfortunately now sounding much like Juniper (I know, I should ignore her, but its people like her that compelled me to join this conversation), it may help to think of it this way:

This is not a two-sided issue.

Not for me. I’m not pro-gay, but I’m not (in the popular sense) anti-gay either. I vehemently disagree with the attitudes and tactics of the anti-gay haters, so when I say that I believe that homosexual acts are a sin, I appreciate not being put into that group. As Mona pointed out,

Quote:

---

Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not mean the believer is homophobic. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily equate the two. Since when did merely disapproving of something (for whatever reason) automatically make you into a member of a hate group?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I am still unclear on your definition of sin.....unimportant as this may seem to some.

---

Dictionary.com says:

1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

To put it simply, if God (through the Bible) says don't do it, well then, don't do it.

I think this needs to be cut up a bit. And for a start, we need to figure out what we think is the effect of calling something 'a sin'.

If you think something's a sin, you're saying, actually, that you think it's ethically or morally 'wrong'. Not 'wrong' in the sense of 'mistaken' ("...I believe the Earth is flat...") or wrong in the sense of 'outside the generally-accepted convention' ("...I drink soup from the bowl...") but wrong in the sense of 'contrary to the laws of God or nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'.

Juniper believes that homosexuality isn't at all wrong in that sense, so it's not as if she and Shea are ever going to agree. But Juniper also believes that even to express the view that homosexuality is a sin is a contributory factor in the persecution of gay people. I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.

I, for instance, think that Catholicism is 'contrary to the laws of God and nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'. And I don't say that because I'm an atheist - but because I think that the precepts of Catholicism are intrinsically messed up. What's more, I'm prepared to express that view at the drop of a wafer. However, I don't think that my expressing it is a contributory factor to the persecution of Catholics. Dammit, I'm married to one - so it would appear I can separate the sin of Catholicism from the sinner who's alongside me bringing up the kids.

On the other hand, if I lived in a society in which Catholics had been hounded, prosecuted and outcast for centuries, and in which the rights of Catholics to be openly Catholic had been hard-won and established pretty recently, an expression that I thought Catholicism was intrinsically wrong might be a little more, umm, inflammatory, and could well be taken as contributory to toxic practices that society as a whole was doing its best to eradicate.

Could it be taken that way by any reasonable person? Well - yeah. Juniper is a reasonable person, and she's taken it exactly that way.

So the effect of the expression of that belief is a) contextual to the time and place (what isn't?) and b) dependent upon the listener (what isn't?).

It's difficult to see a way out of that. Shea obviously has a right to say what she sincerely believes. And Juniper obviously has a right to say she's sincerely outraged by it.

But I do think it's a bit disingenuous of Shea to suggest that her expression of the idea that homosexuality is sin is not part of a continuum of religiously-derived anti-gay viewpoints that have often been expressed rather more forcibly than by posting on internet forums. It's absolutely part of that continuum, and it cites the same authority.

But I also think that it's a bit unrealistic of Juniper to suggest that the mere expression of such a view is in practice a contribution to anti-gay hate crime. It's not - no more than my distaste for Catholicism is a contribution to the murder of missionary nuns in Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

Dictionary.com says:

1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

To put it simply, if God (through the Bible) says don't do it, well then, don't do it.

---

Hi Shea can I ask you something and this is nothing against you or your beliefs which I believe you are entitled to and respect.

If God had not been there and the Bible had did not existed, this is only because there is always an IF, would you feel the same way?

Good balanced post, MarkBastable! I hope it clears things up a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But Juniper also believes that even to express the view that homosexuality is a sin is a contributory factor in the persecution of gay people. I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.

---

I do want to touch on this one point because it is what drew me into the conversation in the first place.

If we take the definitions that Shea provided, we can say see that a sin is a divine law....which seems to be abstract unless you are in the realm of "divinity" or under the rule of a religious establishment. Fine. However....

A good many countries in our world have it in their legal system that gay marriage is illegal. The only basis for this law seem to come from the religious history of that particular land. In this case, a sin has transformed into a law whose only design is to persecute a group of people.

So yes, the fact that homosexuality is labeled a sin has a real affect on people, and their persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I do want to touch on this one point because it is what drew me into the conversation in the first place.

If we take the definitions that Shea provided, we can say see that a sin is a divine law....which seems to be abstract unless you are in the realm of "divinity" or under the rule of a religious establishment. Fine. However....

A good many countries in our world have it in their legal system that gay marriage is illegal. The only basis for this law seem to come from the religious history of that particular land. In this case, a sin has transformed into a law whose only design is to persecute a group of people.

So yes, the fact that homosexuality is labeled a sin has a real affect on people, and their persecution.

---

Hence 'necessarily'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I think this needs to be cut up a bit. And for a start, we need to figure out what we think is the effect of calling something 'a sin'.

If you think something's a sin, you're saying, actually, that you think it's ethically or morally 'wrong'. Not 'wrong' in the sense of 'mistaken' ("...I believe the Earth is flat...") or wrong in the sense of 'outside the generally-accepted convention' ("...I drink soup from the bowl...") but wrong in the sense of 'contrary to the laws of God or nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'.

Juniper believes that homosexuality isn't at all wrong in that sense, so it's not as if she and Shea are ever going to agree. But Juniper also believes that even to express the view that homosexuality is a sin is a contributory factor in the persecution of gay people. I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.

I, for instance, think that Catholicism is 'contrary to the laws of God and nature or whatever objective set of rules govern these things'. And I don't say that because I'm an atheist - but because I think that the precepts of Catholicism are intrinsically messed up. What's more, I'm prepared to express that view at the drop of a wafer. However, I don't think that my expressing it is a contributory factor to the persecution of Catholics. Dammit, I'm married to one - so it would appear I can separate the sin of Catholicism from the sinner who's alongside me bringing up the kids.

On the other hand, if I lived in a society in which Catholics had been hounded, prosecuted and outcast for centuries, and in which the rights of Catholics to be openly Catholic had been hard-won and established pretty recently, an expression that I thought Catholicism was intrinsically wrong might be a little more, umm, inflammatory, and could well be taken as contributory to toxic practices that society as a whole was doing its best to eradicate.

Could it be taken that way by any reasonable person? Well - yeah. Juniper is a reasonable person, and she's taken it exactly that way.

So the effect of the expression of that belief is a) contextual to the time and place (what isn't?) and b) dependent upon the listener (what isn't?).

It's difficult to see a way out of that. Shea obviously has a right to say what she sincerely believes. And Juniper obviously has a right to say she's sincerely outraged by it.

But I do think it's a bit disingenuous of Shea to suggest that her expression of the idea that homosexuality is sin is not part of a continuum of religiously-derived anti-gay viewpoints that have often been expressed rather more forcibly than by posting on internet forums. It's absolutely part of that continuum, and it cites the same authority.

But I also think that it's a bit unrealistic of Juniper to suggest that the mere expression of such a view is in practice a contribution to anti-gay hate crime. It's not - no more than my distaste for Catholicism is a contribution to the murder of missionary nuns in Africa.

---

I agree with pretty much all of this. Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

I would ask Shea what she would do if one of her kids was gay - besides praying real hard? Hhhm, I would say there would be a bit more finesse of The Situation -a bit more pro-active effort.

- Would you send the child to the minister so the minister could calmly and nicely explain the wonders of being staight and God's design etc...on and on?

- Would you discourage the gay feelings? (I just want to squash that standard new Christian argument that you "can have these feelings, but dont act on them". Sheeeeet, we all act on our sexual feelings as hard as we can, it's the most powerful drive beyond hunger and water. Hell, I would go without Shelter for a good $()@&:aureola:

- When they begin dating same sex people(and they would) - will you accept them in your home? If not, the estrangement will be pronounced and painful for all.

My feeling is that you wouldn't go as far as trying to "convert" them to be heterosexual through direct measures-like those gay conversion people. I think you understand the damage of such actions.

So - what would you do besides the 'power of prayer'?

---

First off in answering these questions, I’m doing it without having discussed it with my husband, which I would have preferred to do to provide a better answer on how we would handle our children. If such a situation ever arose, I most definitely would discuss it with him. But at the moment he is feeling burned out at work, and doesn’t have much patience for discussing this topic anymore. He supports my stance, but would have given up on Juniper a long time ago.

I can also give a generalized “scene” of how it might play out, but nothing in life happens exactly the way we think it would, so I can’t say everything would be as I describe if it ever happens. Not to mention that this is only my input, when there would be several people involved. But for the sake of the topic at hand…

First of all if one of my sons were to come to me and say that he was gay, I would not blow up and say “You can’t live like that! It’s unnatural and wrong!” I would instead ask him what his personal feelings were on why he says that he’s gay. I feel that it would be crucial for him to be able to express what he is going through. The rest of the scenario would really depend upon the answers he provides.

But in general, we probably would have a family meeting along with the elders of our congregation to discuss how to effectively handle the situation. I can’t put words into their mouths, but I’d imagine that we would all do some Bible study together on the topic, to make absolutely certain that he understands God’s view on the matter. It would incur a lot more than “pray the gay away” though prayer would definitely play a part.

I do understand that there is significant damage done by some of the “gay conversion” people, but I don’t know how they went about their methods, so how am I to know they weren’t as bad as the gay-bashers? Honestly, we would probably look into it, but I doubt we’d try it.

It would really come down to my son’s personal choice to sin or not. If he understands the gravity of sin and makes his own conscious decision to request help for suppressing the feelings, then of course I would support him and help in any way he is comfortable with. If he decides the sin doesn’t matter, as sad as that would make me personally, I would still respect his choice, and not push the issue. He and even his partner would always be welcome in our family, but not our worship service.

Incidentally, the above scenario would also apply if he were straight and decided he wanted to live with his girlfriend and not be/get married. But both situations are at the moment relatively moot points as our oldest son is only 4. :p

Mark, I agree and/or accept pretty much all of what you said. But I do have a little issue with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But I do think it's a bit disingenuous of Shea to suggest that her expression of the idea that homosexuality is sin is not part of a continuum of religiously-derived anti-gay viewpoints that have often been expressed rather more forcibly than by posting on internet forums. It's absolutely part of that continuum, and it cites the same authority.

---

I have before articulated that I think it’s horrible how the anti-gay viewpoints have been expressed by the haters and I have not expressed any of the hate that they have, though we “cite the same authority.” I believe that the Bible states it as a sin for the purpose of providing a warning, not for providing ammunition as a weapon. Something as benign as a ballpoint pen can be used as a weapon. As much as I would love to, how am I to control how they present the facts? I can’t very well deny that it’s a sin if that’s what I believe, just because they say similar things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

If God had not been there and the Bible had did not existed, this is only because there is always an IF, would you feel the same way?

---

No, I would not. Though it goes against everything inside me to think of a world without God, if we were in some kind of alternate reality, and there really was no God, then I wouldn’t have a problem with homosexuality. Socially speaking, it doesn’t hurt anyone. Though I may find it a bit odd only because it’s not an effective way of procreating.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

If we take the definitions that Shea provided, we can say see that a sin is a divine law....which seems to be abstract unless you are in the realm of "divinity" or under the rule of a religious establishment.

---

May I remind you, it’s a divine law that I subject myself to. Unlike the haters, I don’t expect others to subject themselves if they are not willing to do so. This is why I don’t base my voting on my religious beliefs. I wouldn’t want a law passed that says every church is required to provide instrumental music because there are quite a number of churches in this country who's members in fact believe that instruments are neccessary to their worship services. We’d have to meet secretly in our homes for fear of being thrown in jail.

This falls under the same premise as the bigotry issue. Just because I believe it’s a sin doesn’t make me a hater. By the same token, just because I’m religious, doesn’t mean that I desire to set up religion inspired laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

I have before articulated that I think it’s horrible how the anti-gay viewpoints have been expressed by the haters and I have not expressed any of the hate that they have, though we “cite the same authority.” I believe that the Bible states it as a sin for the purpose of providing a warning, not for providing ammunition as a weapon. Something as benign as a ballpoint pen can be used as a weapon. As much as I would love to, how am I to control how they present the facts? I can’t very well deny that it’s a sin if that’s what I believe, just because they say similar things.

---

Indeed. I agree there's nothing you can do about what those people say or how they act. I was simply saying that what you believe about homosexuality is what they believe about homosexuality, because you all believe it for the same reason. So you are absolutely part of the same belief system as the gay-bashers, although you're not part of their activist approach.

It's not your fault, and I - unlike Juniper - don't think that makes you an accomplice to their crimes. But, however much you and God might disapprove, the violent or legislative or even just vocal anti-gay extremists would say you were on their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But, however much you and God might disapprove, the violent or legislative or even just vocal anti-gay extremists would say you were on their side.

---

Thank you for the clarification. And as far as this ^ statement goes, I would sadly agree with you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

First of all if one of my sons were to come to me and say that he was gay, I would not blow up and say “You can’t live like that! It’s unnatural and wrong!” I would instead ask him what his personal feelings were on why he says that he’s gay. I feel that it would be crucial for him to be able to express what he is going through. The rest of the scenario would really depend upon the answers he provides.

But in general, we probably would have a family meeting along with the elders of our congregation to discuss how to effectively handle the situation. I can’t put words into their mouths, but I’d imagine that we would all do some Bible study together on the topic, to make absolutely certain that he understands God’s view on the matter. It would incur a lot more than “pray the gay away” though prayer would definitely play a part.

I do understand that there is significant damage done by some of the “gay conversion” people, but I don’t know how they went about their methods, so how am I to know they weren’t as bad as the gay-bashers? Honestly, we would probably look into it, but I doubt we’d try it.

It would really come down to my son’s personal choice to sin or not. If he understands the gravity of sin and makes his own conscious decision to request help for suppressing the feelings, then of course I would support him and help in any way he is comfortable with. If he decides the sin doesn’t matter, as sad as that would make me personally, I would still respect his choice, and not push the issue. He and even his partner would always be welcome in our family, but not our worship service.

Incidentally, the above scenario would also apply if he were straight and decided he wanted to live with his girlfriend and not be/get married. But both situations are at the moment relatively moot points as our oldest son is only 4. :p

---

Okay, seriously, this is just for a laugh because of this part ^ of my post today:

Tonight, when I curled up next to my 4-year-old to read him a bedtime story (and I was literally trying to curl up because my belly still hurts from my last "glutening"), I didn't realize that the neckline to my shirt fell open and my cleavage was showing. My son pointed at my breasts and said, "I like those, Mommy. They're beautiful." :smilielol5: