Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice
I don't know why you keep illustrating sexual preference as synonymous with choice of race. A person may not be able to change the way they feel inside but, we always have a choice when it comes to our actions. What if you are talking about a man who keeps cheating on his wife. Would you say "oh well he can't help it, he didn't choose to be a heterosexual male."? Obviously not.
|
Morality of an action comes from the effect that action has on another. Cheating on your wife is immoral because it hurts your wife. Gay sex is moral because it's consensual and doesn't hurt anyone. I don't need the word of god to tell me what's moral and what's not... if that's what the Bible is supposed to be for, then it's extremely poorly written, as demonstrated by this very conversation. The golden rule of simply treating others the way you wish to be treated is all you really need in order to determine morality of an action, or more accurately, the golden rule should be "treat others the way
they wish to be treated". Outside of that, all the other rules and laws in the Bible are essentially detailed enumerations of actions stemming from the golden rule, or stuff tossed in there because it was common practice of the era and religion was the de facto mechanism for government/societal norms, so it got written down too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice
Yet you refer to homosexuality almost as if it is a condition inherited from birth.
|
I'm sorry if I sounded like I almost said that. Because it was my intent to
exactly say that. Sexuality/sexual preference is just something hardwired into you at birth, and it's not a cut and dry straight/gay... some people are way off to either side, some are somewhere in the middle... it is quite literally the same mechanism that results in all the variations in skin tone you see in the people all around you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice
Some people feel that they would prefer to have sex with children or animals. Our current society doesn't tolerate that so does it mean we are all imposing our beliefs upon those individuals?
|
It's the right of society to impose limits on behavior when said behavior harms those that can't protect themselves. Human society is our greatest achievement and the reason why we're the dominant animal on the planet... we have the ability to protect those that would otherwise fall to the anarchy that comes without morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice
When is a person even considered gay? When they say they are? When they hold hands with someone of the same sex, kiss them, have sex with them?
|
If a person says they're gay, that's good enough for me, after all who's in a better position to decide if someone's gay than the person themselves? Being gay isn't defined by action. It's an inherent trait of a person. At least that's what the science points to, and that's what gay people themselves say. And you can make the argument that rapists, molesters, etc. too are inherently what they are... but again the difference is their actions are harmful. Plus the science tends to show that people with those sorts of deviant behaviors have a history of abuse that made them into a person like that, whereas gay people come from all walks of life, all backgrounds, and appear to be about 10% of the population regardless of environment/society/background/race/etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby
Sperry...
You of course have the right to your opinion, and it was not that opinion that I had an issue with. I do however have a very dfferent viewpoint about the bible than you do. I do not judge the worth of the scriptures based on what ignorant people have done with them, or by how people have "interpreted" them over the years. Nor do I see any "contradictions" in the bible that cannot be reasoned through with some in-depth study. I have had lots of discussions with other people about the whole "contradiction" issue, and there are none. That can be seen if you are wiling to thoroughly study the bible with the idea in mind that it was not originally written in english.
I also was not trying to imply that, being the moderator, that you could not express your opinion...just that it could be done in a way that is more sensitive to other people's beliefs, especially on the subject of religion. I understand that the comment was not directed at me personally, but because it was an apparently unjust criticizm of the God that I believe in, and you holding the position within the club that you do, I found it a bit rude. You apparently intended it as a joke, but to me it didn't come off that way...and being sensitive to other beliefs, you might have realized that it would appear that way.
Lastly, IMO being gay is not something that you are born with, but it is a lifestyle choice based on giving in to a specific kind of temptation. Therefore, your replacing "homosexual" with "black" analogy won't work for me. I also do not consider there to be any difference between a "black" person and a "white" person (it's just skin pigment anyway)...being dark skinned isn't a sin, but homosexuality is a sin according to the bible that I believe in. I do believe that gays can stop being gay, just like a thief can stop stealing, and an adulterer can stop being unfaithful. I believe this based on what the scriptures teach about the nature of sin. Even though I am a Christian, I have never considered myself to be "morally superior" to anyone else. My life has had more than it's share of mistakes and bad decisions, so I am no different than anyone else out there. It is very unfortunate that many so-called Christians do feel that they are somehow better than others, because that is not what is taught in the bible. "Christians" who try to twist and misinterpret scripture to justify their hatred are not true Christians, nor are they actually following anything taught by either Jesus or God directly.
|
I guess all I can say is that I'd rather err on the side of allowing gay folks to live their lives as they choose, than to try to force a different morality on them, since they don't seem to think they're doing anything immoral and they're not hurting anyone with their lifestyle. Certainly I'm not going to change your mind on this, and there's nothing you can quote from the Bible that will change mine because, while I view the Bible as an interesting document from both a historical and moral point, I don't believe it's more relevant to determining the way anyone should live their lives than letting people determine for themselves what it means to be a good person.
Really if god wrote the Bible to instruct his people, why would he make it so hard to understand? Why would he only tell people in the middle east and then expect them to convert everyone else on the planet? Why would he stop talking directly to people 2000 years ago (or 3500 years ago if you're Jewish, or 1300 years ago if you're Muslim, or 180 years ago if you're Mormon)? I just don't see the evidence that the Bible is anything more than an assembled index of documents about morality inspired by god but written by man, some of which is timeless and guiding, and some of which is dated and useless as anything but historical reference. I'm not trying to dump on the Bible, I'm just pointing out that I think it's counterproductive to try to interpret the whole thing literally because you get lost in the act of trying to account for all the discrepancies rather than focus on the spirit of the document. One error in the Bible does not invalidate the whole thing, except to folks that buy into the idea that the Bible is supposedly the literal word of an infallible, omnipotent god.