Stand to Reason has an interesting post on the liberal canard of “imposing your views.” Much legislation is moral/ethical in nature, and as with all moral issues, I think we have a classic black/white/gray problem.
Some legislation may be purely based on an ethic of not harming others – hence, do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. Even though these are all religious commandments, in civil govt discourse, we may consider them on their ethicality alone.
On the opposite extreme are religious morals that are purely religious, and probably should not be legislated – keep the sabbath, don’t eat pork, whatever.
But there is a gray zone where we have difficulty. Is adultery wrong because the bible says so? Does it really harm people? Maybe it harms the person who needs an extramarital affair to criminalize their adultery. That may sound crazy, but proponents of open, group, and polygamous marriage argue that. Does homosexuality harm people? How about teaching our children that homosexuality is ok? What about sexual exploration among teens? What about teens sexually experimenting with adults?
In the gray zone, you are going to have to do two things. One, you may have to develop a more complex ethic, but it may not be adequate or convincing in the public arena. The other choice is that you can fall back on traditional (time-tested, in many cases) morality.
We will always have public arguments about legislating in the moral gray zone.
But I think that we must (1) preach morality first, rather than merely legislate, (2) educate minds about immorality and its cost, and finally, (3) legislate to a point, but in general, allow people freedom in the gray areas without giving them government sanction.
For example, homosexuality. Now, I believe it is sinful and a maladaptation. But I don’t want to criminalize it. However, because it is a gray zone, I don’t want to legitimize it either via legislation like allowing gays to be officially married. They can be gay, but they can’t foist their view on the rest of us by having it legitimized and taught to children if there is a chance that they are wrong and I am right. And we will never really know, so we might as well live with the compromise rather than endlessly going back and forth on it.
"Foist our views?"
Give me a break, Seeker. In the realm of legislation, the only people doing any "foisting" are Christians trying to maintain their ancient, Biblical proscriptions against gays by having them codified into public law.
There have always been homosexuals. There will always be homosexuals. And homosexuals will always want to spend their lives together and be treated equally under the law. It's only the "foisting" of crumbling religious dogma that prevents gays from having that basic ability.
I'm not even sure what kind of absurd "compromise" it is that you're suggesting. The only compromise I can see in your text is "don't allow gays to legalize their equality with straights", which — honestly — sounds like the exact opposite of compromise. It sounds like you'd be getting exactly what you want, and gays would merely get the 'right' to be gay. As if being allowed to act freely in a free country was some kind of gift.
"Oh, thank you, Christians! You've allowed me to merely exist! Out of grattitude, I'll never ask for anything ever again. I don't deserve any measures of protection or equality, or even the right to raise children, and I will allow your people to slander me in public and around their own children. Thank you so much!"
As usual Seeker, your blind hatred of gays continues. In a country founded on the idea of freedom – on the idea that people should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness – you'd argue that gays should be legally kept from the same freedoms that you enjoy, simply because "tradition" would be threatened by any sort of change.
I am so sick and tired of the victimhood of Christianity. You have every major politician in your back pocket, doing your stupid bidding, and yet you claim to be victimized by gays who simply want to be recognized as human beings who deserve human rights. The only victims in this scenario are the ones being oppressed by people holding hypocritical Biblical views, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they like and don't like. In other words, while your precious Ten Commandments demands no adultery, you focus your hatred toward gays.
I don't even understand why you'd want to live in this country Seeker – you obviously have deeply held problems with notions of freedom.
Sorry about the italics. My bad
There have always been all types of people, both moral and immoral. Homosexuals, adulterers, and the like have always been with us. But to grant them legal status is to legitimize their sin.
What I am saying is that there are limits to legislation. Some gray area items may be legislated, but many should be left to the individual conscience.
Whereas you see gays as victims of "Christian hate", I find the xian position reasonable. Most modern xians don't back anti-sodomy laws, don't support the killing of gays (like Islamists) – most think that they should have the right to practice their perversions in the privacy of their own homes without fear of punishment. That is more than fair.
I see gays as beneficiaries of freedom. I think they should fall on their faces before God and be grateful that their sin is NOT punishable by state law.
However, rather than be thankful that the judgement for their rebellion against the truth is postponed, they go even further by pushing for legal approval of their sin. It's offensive that they are foisting THEIR morality (or lack of it) on society. They are not needing more human rights, they've got more than they could hope for. What they need is repentance, healing, and transformation – in a word, salvation from their sin, like the rest of us.
As the apostle Paul said so well in Romans 1:32
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I wonder if other xians will back me up here. We'll see.
I think it's ridiculous that Christians – who, by the way, CHOSE to be Christians – won't give up their religion for the good of society. Obviously, it would be best for everybody involved if Christians simply no longer believed. Then we wouldn't have these ridiculous debates. Of course, asking such a thing is tantamount to craziness.
Whereas, asking gays – who most certainly DID NOT choose their sexual orientation – to be grateful for not being killed seems, quite possibly, to be the most absurd and offensive thing that you've ever written Seeker.
I don't know though – I'd have to check the archives.
You're actually suggesting that I be grateful for the fact that you and your Christian cohorts are allowing the "judgement" for my "rebellion" to be "postponed". And on top of that you've quoted a verse from the very Bible (which has no more meaning to me than the Illiad) which implies that I deserve to be killed. Oh yeah, and then you claimed that I'm guilty of "perversions", though whatever that's actually supposed to mean is beyond me.
Seeker, why are you so specifically outraged about homosexuality? It doesn't harm anyone and is only a "crime" because your crusty old book says it is. What's your problem? You don't argue about the horrors and perversions of divorce, pre-marital sex, lying, or any number of other "gray" topics which your Bible is not gray about at all, yet you're practically a crusader against gays. It's very curious to me, apart from being insulting and mean as well.
1. Postponed Judgement, Worthy of Death
You misunderstand – it is God's judgment that is postponed upon all sinners so that they have time to repent. And it was Paul the apostle who said, based on his understanding of Jewish and Natural Law, that those who reject the truth and practice habitual sexual sin and defend it are worthy of death – not necessarily by civil govt, but certainly, they are spiritually dead and dead to God, having rejected the truth.
From Romans 1:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them…24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another….Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
2. The Xian Position on Legislation is Balanced
Christians, as well as other moral people who see sexual promiscuity, adultery, and homosexuality as sinful, are doing the right thing by allowing people freedom of conscience by not criminalizing such activities. Rather, they have chosen a tolerance when it comes to legislation.
However, to go the next step and validate any of these legally (by teaching that they are ok, by redifining marriage) is an offense to all observant, moral people who know that these things are harmful behaviors, as are the attitudes that accept them.
3. Homosexuality as natrual and not a choice
All that is natural is not normal – inborn disease is still disease.
As to gays choosing their orientation, I have previously argued that this is a non-point. I agree that perhaps people have not consciously chosen their gender attraction, but that does not excuse them. They most likely did so out of a malformed gender identity – i.e. it was an automatic, unconscious developemental reaction to their environment. Just like children who are not disciplined properly don't really choose to act out, they just do so naturally as a response to improper boundaries, so children whose gender identity formation is warped by circumstance act out homosexually.
Repeat – it does not matter if one consciously chooses his maladaptation – one must still choose to do the inward work of fixing it rather than justifying it by saying "I have always felt this way, and didn't choose it."
Imagine an adulterer saying "I have always wanted to have sex with multiple partners, as long as I can remember – I didn't choose it, so it's natural, and therefore, OK."
And the enemy is not Xianity, it is the sinfulness of man, and his willingness to defend it against the truth.
HAHAHA! This is really funny. You have just made a very strong argument for opposing christianism with all our might. It's clearly a medieval and backwards ideology which is and always has been the vicious enemy of gay people (and, incidentally, thinking people of every stripe). It's irrelevant, really, what you and your fellow fanatics think – believe whatever fairy tale you want. Where I oppose you, and where I will fight you and your ilk to my dying breath, is when you choose to enact your fairy tale into law.
As a proud and out queer, I see you and your religion as a direct threat. It's a matter of opposing the imposition of a dangerous lie on the rest of us. When you base your analysis on baseless beliefs – "sin," "God," "repentence," "morality" etc – I can only think that you are dangerous.
What really amazes me is that there are still gays who are christian! Sort of like jew nazis, I think.
You are right that xianity does not approve of sin, including homosexuality. That won't change, except in liberal congregations that become spiritually irrelevant social clubs as they leave truth behind – they have little transformative power, as little as those that abandon love but keep truth (Pharisaical).
Jesus was the best example, who said "neither do i condemn you, GO AND SIN NO MORE." In another place, He said "sin no more, lest something worse come upon you." Judgement for sin always comes if we do not repent.
There are two types of gay christians – those who are deceived by liberals into thinking that God and Christianity approve of their sin, and those who have yet to deal with this sin, but eventually overcome it through healing and maturity.
Extremists who want to criminalize or legitimize homosexuality and other gray areas of morality may come and go from power, but the best solution for such things is the middle road – the more leftists push to legitimize their sins, the more they incense the right to resist them.
What, by the way, do you find "midieval" about what was said above? That homosexuality is a maladaptation? That is is a sexual deviance? That it can be healed through therapy? Heck, even Jung believed such. Was he midieval and backwards?
What do you find "vicious"? Calling it a sin and perversion? Speak to the bible about that. The bible calls many things sin, so don't feel especially singled out. Murder, lying, stealing, adultery, sex outside of marriage, greed, homosexuality – all sins, many perversions.
You can resist "my type" all your life, but eventually, you'll have to stop resisting God, who says to us all
Unless you repent, you will likewise perish.
1. Hey Seeker, God also said don't eat shellfish, but I don't you see bursting a blood vessel about that one. Why? Because you're a total hypocrite about God's laws. I don't follow them, so I don't care which ones I accidentally do and don't follow. But you – you're acting as if you're the arbiter of all that's right and wrong, yet you don't follow all of the Biblical rules. Until you do, you're a big hypocrite.
2. If homosexuality is natural, then YOUR god created it. Stop trying to have it both ways.
Regarding Jewish law, I previously answered your impressive shellfish argument in the comments on this post:
The whole question of which of the OT laws are binding on Christians, not to mention which we should attempt to legislate, has long since been aswered in xian theology. There are two types of OT law – ceremonial (which include the dietary laws) and moral (e.g. the 10 commandments). The former are not binding, the latter are, on all humanity. See here for a decent summary. This article is not that great, but has a nice table separating the moral and ceremonial scriptures.
Now, we may have a discussion about why the Jewish punishments for sin aren't recommended by xians (like capital punishment for homosexuality), but there are good theological reasons for this stance as well.
But by your poor attitude, I suspect you are not in a mood to employ reason or to understand any position other than the one you currently espouse.
Regarding homosexuality being genetic, I doubt again that you have even understood the evangelical argument on this, since you keep bringing up the same objections as if no one has ever said a thing to you.
1. Just because something is genetic does not make it natural, or intended by God. Some things are natural, some are disease. The "if it's genetic or seen in nature it must be good" reasoning is overly simplistic – it's like those who say "we see homosexuality in nature, so there!" – the response to this simplistic argument is "we see parents eating their young in the wild also."
We've had years of sin and environmental toxins and viruses to pollute our genetic code – it started out perfect, but scripture reports that sin and death came in via mankind.
Your theology may say that if something is genetic, then it was intended by God – but xian theology does not.
2. Every malady or condition has both genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors. Some conditions are more of one than the other. Determining the relative proportion of the individual contributions does not help us determine if they are natural or not – it only teaches us how to treat them.
In the case of homosexuality, I suspect that both are contributing factors, though my bias is towards a larger contribution from the environment. At the very least, there is a growing amount of data regarding the reversal of same sex attractions. To date, there is not a shred of good science supporting a gay gene. But again, even if there is some genetic contribution, this does not mean that homosexuality is ok any more than genetic aggression or promiscuity is ok. It just means we need to treat it with virtue, therapy AND medication if necessary.
"Most modern xians don't back anti-sodomy laws, don't support the killing of gays (like Islamists) – most think that they should have the right to practice their perversions in the privacy of their own homes without fear of punishment. That is more than fair."
"It just means we need to treat it with virtue, therapy AND medication if necessary."
<sigh> I really don't know why I bother to talk to christers. It's always the same, no matter what arguments or rhetoric is used: judgement & condescension, mixed with a subtle attitude of threat. Even when you tout your "liberal" attitude of "compromise" you cannot help but stick in the put-down. And, I have to wonder about this therapy you seek: sort of reminds me of how the old Soviet Union "treated" dissidents by sending them to mental hospitals and dousing them with psychotropic drugs. Oh, wait! That's exactly what Amerika did to gays pre-Stonewall: forced hospitalization, forced drugging, electroshock therapy, etc. The good old days, according to you. You'd only add prayer (probably worse that the others combined). What you christers really want is to push us back into the closet: that's why you oppose any public acknowledgment of equality. No wonder I abandoned your false and deceitful religion.
Why continue this? I think I'll go talk to a brick wall – more responsive (and reasonable)!
btw: It's "medieval."
Whatever.
I'm sorry that I use a bit of sarcasm, but Sam has been anything but civil. I know I shouldn't stoop to such tactics, but I get pissed.
In common conversation with both gays and straights, I am much kinder and believe it or not, not really judgemental in my disagreement on moral issues. We are all entitlted to our opinions.
However, in writing, I tend to be more willing to use words like "perversion", which are perhaps theologically correct, but have a stronger negative connotation. Also, when I feel like people are raising the same canned objections that have been answered before, I allow myself to get irritated. Perhaps I should just ignore such rantings.
So God creates the world, but he didn't create homosexuality? Or, if he did, it was by accident, and gays should know so? Or, if he didn't, and gays were polluted, they have an obligation to seek medication and therapy?
Oh, the twisted web we weave…and Seeker, you're right, I'm not in the mood. Here you are, claiming to be posting the decent thoughts of a decent Christian, when, if anything, you're posting viciously anti-American bile that offends not only a great number of my gay friends, but me. You argue that you're "just putting it out there," but given even half the chance, you'd codify your position into law.
And for the record, I continue to know that my stance is better, that allowing people to be as they are without judgement – as long as nobody is a victim – makes far more sense that restricting ourselves by ancient Christian laws that shouldn't be used to govern those of us who have no interest in them. I mean, for goodness sake Seeker, reread some of the ideas you've posted. You've swung hard-right(er) from your previously socially conservative positions.
Xian theology says god created the world perfect, but we, with our free will, corrupted it and ourselves. Homosexuality is just another sin that we want to blame on our genes.
My positions are moderate right, imo. As I said, hard righters want to criminalize homosexuality, teach only abstinence and not contraception (I am for the ABC program used with great success in Uganda), and for banning all abortion (I am for banning it after the first 6 weeks, rather than starting at conception.)
I never claimed to be a decent xian postint decent thoughts. I think of myself as a rational, reasonable christian who is able to listen and debate. The fact that I hold the aforementioned, "nuanced" positions shows that I am not just following the herd. The fact that I disagree with you does not make my reasoning twisted, anti-american, vicious, or archaic.
Calling homosexuality sin is not vicous, any more than calling adultery sin.
"In common conversation with both gays and straights, I am much kinder and believe it or not, not really judgemental in my disagreement on moral issues."
And you are showing your true colors here?
Would that you would show us some of that kindness.
On second thought: better the ugly reality than the hypocritical kindness you evidently wear to mask it in person.
As I like to say, tolerance of the faults of others in personal relationships is a virtue, but tolerance of faulty reasoning and moral terpitude in the public arena is cowardice masquerading as virtue.
This is a public arena, so my concern here is for accuracy and reason, not the bland, impish tolerance that is more concerned for the feelings of others than helping us all by trying to get to the truth. Not that we should be insensitive in the public arena, but a little less sensitivity and a little more strong verbiage is appropriate.
I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks and slights like the words "hypocrite, nazi" or whatever – but I do enjoy using the word "perversion" a little too much, since I know it is pejorative and irritating. I excuse myself because it is biblical, but maybe that's not a good enough excuse. I can scale back on the use of that word.