*LOLROFLOMGOMG!!1111 HAHAHAHHEHEHEBWAHAHAHAH LOLOLOLOLOL*

[JWL]

And believing that homosexual acts are not morally wrong does not make someone a selfish hedonist who believes that sin is a good thing.

Right; it usually makes one a moral relativist who doesn't believe in sin in the first place.

[phyco126]

8th grade? Where did you get that? The article said that she was shown it in elementary school, and that she was 12, putting her in 6th grade now and when she was shown it likely 5th grade. 8th grade would put her at around 14.

Now if you excuse me, I'm gonna go convert to some religion so I can watch gay porn or something and sue the internet for "traumatizing me." XD

[Imperial Knight]

Right; it usually makes one a moral relativist who doesn't believe in sin in the first place.

Is it really that hard for you to believe that many moral people would, after carefully considering the issue, come to the conclusion that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexual relationships? It's easy to attribute lazy, selfish, amoral motives to anyone who disagrees with you. It's a lot harder to recognize that reasonable people with legitimate moral standards can disagree on important issues. And when you constantly complain about people attributing motives to you while constantly attributing motives to anyone who disagrees with you, it just comes across as hypocritical and self-righteous.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

JWL, apparently there are those who can't stand for you to believe the things you do. in this day and age tolerance isn't enough. you have to like it as well or you'll be considered a bigot.

[Imperial Knight]

Was that supposed to be a reference to me? If so, I'd like to point out that

1) I neither stated nor implied that JWL was a bigot.

2) I neither stated nor implied that JWL should abandon or change his moral beliefs.

3) My point is simply that reasonable people can disagree, and attributing nefarious motives to people who disagree with you is not a good thing to do.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

but how do you feel towards those who consider it immoral but don't insult them for it or look at them with a sense of superiority?

[Sonic#]

And believing that homosexual acts are not morally wrong does not make someone a selfish hedonist who believes that sin is a good thing.

Right; it usually makes one a moral relativist who doesn't believe in sin in the first place.

That's true for some. For others, it means that they don't see it as a sin in an objective frame. Though that provokes difficulty because that means only one of the views can be right, unless one in turn invokes either indeterminacy (an agreement on being unable to convince each other by argument or proof, and to maintain their respective beliefs) or... relativism (which is even more critical of both stances' claims of a comprehendable objective world, not allowing them to be as solid as they claim). Of course, that assumes that we want to justify ourselves to each other.

[JWL]

JWL, apparently there are those who can't stand for you to believe the things you do. in this day and age tolerance isn't enough. you have to like it as well or you'll be considered a bigot.

This is true with some folks. I don't think that's going on in this thread... yet.

We have, however reached a point in this brave new world in which some powerful individuals argue that the preaching of 2,000 year old Christian doctrine which was accepted by the entire Christian world up until the 20th century is "intolerant", "hateful", and "bigoted".

Right; it usually makes one a moral relativist who doesn't believe in sin in the first place.

That's true for some. For others, it means that they don't see it as a sin in an objective frame.

I am unaware of anyone who believes in objective morality yet at the same time does not accept that homosexual acts are sinful.

[Kizyr]

Right; it usually makes one a moral relativist who doesn't believe in sin in the first place.

That's true for some. For others, it means that they don't see it as a sin in an objective frame.

I am unaware of anyone who believes in objective morality yet at the same time does not accept that homosexual acts are sinful.

That's insufficient evidence, you should be aware of that. Anecdotal evidence (from just your point of view, I might add), doesn't support your claim. I've known gays who do have certain 'objective' notions of right and wrong; while those notions will diverge from mine, that doesn't mean that I can make the assumption that they're moral relativists and/or hedonists.

In all, it's way too much of a stretch to make the assumption that anyone who doesn't believe homosexual acts are sinful somehow doesn't believe in objective notions of right-and-wrong.

By extension, it'd be the same as if I cast judgment on everyone who consumes alcohol as being a hedonist who doesn't believe in objective morality. Consumption of intoxicating beverages is a sin--it doesn't matter if it's in "moderation" or not--but does that mean that I have sufficient evidence to say that everyone who disagrees with me on that one point is now a moral relativist and/or a hedonist?

You'd need to draw a distinction between disagreement on specific issues of morality, and disagreement with the overall idea of morality. One doesn't imply the other.

Was that supposed to be a reference to me? If so, I'd like to point out that
1) I neither stated nor implied that JWL was a bigot.
2) I neither stated nor implied that JWL should abandon or change his moral beliefs.
3) My point is simply that reasonable people can disagree, and attributing nefarious motives to people who disagree with you is not a good thing to do.

Your point #3 is what I was expounding upon above. And, I wouldn't worry about B_G's comments--if the situation were reversed (i.e., everyone was supporting JWL's point of view, while only one person was articulating against it) then he would've likewise reversed his comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_religion

This was a pretty good read, and mostly corroborates your view, JWL, at least with religion.

I just wanted to highlight this... That Wiki article was surprisingly on-point. It articulated my beliefs rather closely. KF

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

actually, i appreciated jwl's point of view and happened to have opinions on the subject. regardless of how it has seemed to you, i don't simply support the "underdog".

[Imperial Knight]

but how do you feel towards those who consider it immoral but don't insult them for it or look at them with a sense of superiority?

As I said, I believe that reasonable people can disagree. They may not hold the same beliefs that I do, but I see where they're coming from.

[Zophar]

Who shows R rated movies to middle schoolers? I mean if they sent out notes to the parents/guardians then it probably would have been mostly A-okay... minus the fact that there are some people out there in the world who'd get offended since think homosexuality is a disease/sin/immoral. And if they want to think that way then good for them, that's really none of my concern. But isn't 500,000 a bit... much?

[JWL]

That's insufficient evidence, you should be aware of that. Anecdotal evidence (from just your point of view, I might add), doesn't support your claim. I've known gays who do have certain 'objective' notions of right and wrong; while those notions will diverge from mine, that doesn't mean that I can make the assumption that they're moral relativists and/or hedonists.

Being "objective" means conforming to a standard instead of going by personal opinion. So by what standard are homosexual acts not sinful? That is the question.

By extension, it'd be the same as if I cast judgment on everyone who consumes alcohol as being a hedonist who doesn't believe in objective morality.

You could make that argument. A Mormon might agree. So according to what a Mormon believes is an objective standard, that is correct. So, by what objective standard are homosexual acts not sinful?

Consumption of intoxicating beverages is a sin--it doesn't matter if it's in "moderation" or not

Most Christian objective standards would disagree that it's sinful to consume Communion/Eucharist. So there's one objective standard to which that does not apply.

--but does that mean that I have sufficient evidence to say that everyone who disagrees with me on that one point is now a moral relativist and/or a hedonist?

Perhaps if I ever saw a non-hedonistic, non-relativistic argument in favor of homosexual acts I might be inclined to agree. I haven't. Please point me toward one.

[CatsWithMatches]

Here's an objective standard: Things that a person does that infringe upon the rights of others are wrong, and things that a person does that don't infringe upon the rights of others are acceptable. By this objective standard, just about all sexual acts between consenting adults are acceptable.

It's suprisingly similar to the golden rule. No delicious relativism required

[phyco126]

My views are that homosexuals are fine. It is neither immoral nor unethical. However, it is a sin according to the bible. Thankfully for me, I don't care very much for "sin" and have a relatively limited list of sins.

I've seen nut cases say that coffee is a sin. Psh, please. I've also seen an article by a pastor that was very well thought out and basically told everyone to STFU about what is sin and what isn't, because as humans we have absolutely no right to classify things as sin on our own, only God has that right. I loved that article. It's gone now, I wish now that I either took a screeny or printed it out, lamentated it, and threw it up on a bill board somewhere.

I have no problem another's religion, but when 50 christians tell me I'm a sinner and I must repent or burn in hell with that homosexual, then I start having a problem. I believe in God, I believe in the Bible, I worship God... sorta, but I refuse to be classified under ANY religion.

Besides, and unless there was another research project that disproved this (and there might have been I don't know,) there was a several studies that showed that some people are born as homosexuals. If that is indeed the case, then it might as well be a sin to be born paralyzed or sick.

[GhaleonOne]

If that is indeed the case, then it might as well be a sin to be born paralyzed or sick.

Keep in mind, that until more recent years, it was considered a sin. Or at the very least, a sin of your ancestry (generally your father or grandfather) that caused you to be born this way. Or if you developed leprosy, you might as well have been dead to the world (and this is how you were treated).

Sorry, that was totally random, just thought it was worth mentioning.

[phyco126]

If that is indeed the case, then it might as well be a sin to be born paralyzed or sick.

Keep in mind, that until more recent years, it was considered a sin. Or at the very least, a sin of your ancestry (generally your father or grandfather) that caused you to be born this way. Or if you developed leprosy, you might as well have been dead to the world (and this is how you were treated).

Sorry, that was totally random, just thought it was worth mentioning.

Yeah I know, it sickens me to be honest. Like in I think it was northern UK or ireland, nuns there that ran orphanages abused the children and used them as slaves, starved them, it was horrible, because the children where sinners because their parents left them.

[CatsWithMatches]

Actually, that's rather pertinent here. I stutter. In ancient times, people would have thought I had a demon in me making me talk the way I do.

I LOVE watching the world change as we learn new things.

[GhaleonOne]

Yeah I know, it sickens me to be honest. Like in I think it was northern UK or ireland, nuns there that ran orphanages abused the children and used them as slaves, starved them, it was horrible, because the children where sinners because their parents left them.

I think that's kind of an extreme example to be honest. Most nuns would know better than that. I don't doubt that it was probably true, but I wasn't really getting at current times. I was mainly talking about ancient times, as Tao mentioned. Like, during the time of Christ. Like I said, it was mainly a random comment.

[Alunissage]

I don't want to insult anyone here, so please don't take it that way; I'm just looking at the recent comments from Phyco and G1. Regarding an inborn tendency from birth -- who is to say that everything we're born with is necessarily good? What about, oh, kleptomania? What about a genetic predisposition toward depression that might make one try to commit suicide? (That was the case with a friend of mine; he didn't find out until after he was resuscitated from his suicide attempt and in recovery that there was a family history of depression.) What about OCD that results in scrubbing the skin off one's hands? These are strong, inborn desires and compulsions in the people who have these conditions, but that doesn't mean they should be exercising them. It's not an exact analogy, but I'm just trying to say that that it's inborn isn't necessarily a valid argument for it not being wrong.

Also, recall that we're imperfect humans, no longer the versions that God created. We've had millennia of inherited imperfection (look at the lifespans of Adam and his early descendants compared to what it is now) and are undoubtedly somewhat distant from the original.