*LOLROFLOMGOMG!!1111 HAHAHAHHEHEHEBWAHAHAHAH LOLOLOLOLOL*

[JWL]

Whoa! Slow down with the jumping-to-conclusions. I never once said, or implied, hedonism, nor said I didn't believe in sin.

Right; what you did was describe hedonism. I then proceeded to inform you that Hedonists don't believe in sin. Whether or not you're a Hedonist is your business; I didn't say you were or you weren't.

No, they don't. They fall in love with who they fall in love with, regardless of gender.

So if I fall in love with a married woman, by your objective standard our potential consentual fornication and adultery would be A-OK, and I have every right to not be criticized for such behavior. Indeed, anyone who would criticize me for fornication and adultery would be a hateful person who is against the Golden Rule!

Get real. The homosexual argument is that they do not find members of the opposite sex attractive, so they must find someone of the same sex to fall in love with. Before you said that homosexuals would never choose to be homosexual with all the persecution they face; that argument obviously doesn't work with bisexuals, so you invent a new ridiculous excuse.

POP! You just had to open that can of worms, didn't you. I am married. If two guys (or gals) get married, how on earth does that affect MY marriage?

First of all, I had to "open that can of worms" because that is the main reason why so many Christians are speaking out against homosexuals in general, and regrettably, the rhetoric coming from the Christian side - my side - is often over the top and hateful. Of course the rhetoric from the other side is often just as hateful, but that's no excuse.

Second, like most people who defend hedonism and secularism (and I'm not calling you a Hedonist secularist by the way! Just pointing out that you're a defender of such ideas, which is obvious to anyone reading this thread), you have no concept of "society". We are not a bunch of individual people in a society, but rather we are interdependent upon each other in countless ways. With homosexual marriage, we aren't talking about ambivalence and tolerance toward sinful acts; we're talking about the sanctification of sinful acts complete with a government seal of approval. Most Christians I know do not want the government to promote sin.

Honest secularists like Ozone seem to think that the government must never promote anything decent but most promote everything indecent, or else we're violating the "separation of church and state". That's just silly.

jwl, you asked me if it is christian to sit back as others live sinful lives when i mentioned leaving gays alone. i'm beginning to wonder if you've ever had an orgasm.

Non sequitur of the century!

there is no sense in bugging them about their behavior. i've heard some christians disagree with oral sex. i can assure you that nobody will ever have a debate that'd result in it no longer being a part of my life.

You heard of SOME Christians that disagree with oral sex, meaning you've heard of some that support it?! Well... yes, that's right. That's an important point, too. You take an obvious sin like oral sex and pretend it's not a sin. It's the same idea with homosexual acts.

I've heard way too much about this in the past four years, if you're against gay marriage, shut up and don't get one

If you're against slavery, shut up and don't own slaves.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

the POINT is that trying to talk someone out of partaking in a sexual act that they enjoy is wasting your breath.

[GhaleonOne]

the POINT is that trying to talk someone out of partaking in a sexual act that they enjoy is wasting your breath.

And looking back through the posts, I don't recall JWL actually trying to talk someone out of some sexual act. He's merely stated what he considers to be sinful, or what the Catholic and/or Christian faith considers sinful.

Just wanted to add that this is a really good quote from Alunissage:

For that matter, who are we to judge anyone? It's not our role. It makes me so angry to see people say that so-and-so is going to wherever. It is God's place to judge what happens to whom, and he has data we don't: the ability to see into hearts and minds. And I for one literally thank Him that it's not my job.

And this is a pretty good quote from meg...

religion is not a magical cure. it does not automatically make everyone ok. or all the same. getting right with god only works if you also get right with yourself.

Mainly in that, so many of the current Christian trends from many of the big name Christian authors out there seem to try and push that if you "get saved" your life will automatically be successful and all your problems will melt away. If that were true, there wouldn't be any martyrs. I really dislike this push, because it's really setting people up for a fall if they convert. I've noticed it a lot lately, and you really find out who "converted" for honest reasons when "religion" didn't get them the sucess in their earthly lives that they thought it would. It's also probably one of the reasons so many people in our society get gungho about God only to fall away shortly thereafter when all their earthly success didn't start piling on like the big name preacher told them it would.

[JWL]

the POINT is that trying to talk someone out of partaking in a sexual act that they enjoy is wasting your breath.

Well, this discussion has gone some distance, hasn't it? We started out with it being anti-Christian for Christians to inform homosexuals that they're going to Hell. Certainly; that would be very inappropriate indeed. When I clarified that homosexuality is not a sin, but homosexual acts are sins which may or may not result in somebody going to Hell when God judges his soul (if you believe what, you know, that guy Jesus said), the discussion came to be about how you just can't talk somebody out of taking part in a sin which they enjoy. It is thus officially pointless to continue in this direction.

Just one more thing before I'm done with this thread - of course according to the Gospels only God can judge the state of a person's soul. Yet it is not judging someone to tell them what is a sin and what isn't a sin. If sin results in death (again, according to Jesus), then I would say that Christians should probably know what sin is. So this is the very last thing I will say in this thread:

If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

[CatsWithMatches]

But the point is, not everybody agrees on what is a sin and what isn't. Like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society. To me, the only truly ecumenical way to form laws regarding what is or isn't moral is to draw the line at what infinges upon the rights of others. Two guys that want to get married have just as much right not to listen to people who want to tell them they're going to hell, because, they're not hurting anybody else (unlike owning slaves).

Oh, and my question of how my marriage would be affected was never actually answered... (not that I'm expecting one)

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

so gays and men who enjoy oral sex should castrate themselves?

[Alunissage]

"There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example," said Oats.

"And what do they think? Against it, are they?" said Granny Weatherwax.

"It’s not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."

"Nope."

"Pardon?"

"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is."

"It’s a lot more complicated than that –"

"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."

"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes –"

"But they starts with thinking about people as things …"

Now, my more concrete definitions of sin come from elsewhere as part of my religion. But I've found that just about any human behavior or interaction that I find repugnant is related to this, the dehumanizing of one person by another. An obvious example is sexism, of course; the thread that began "any girls who have dated..." was riddled with this viewpoint of people-as-things. Using labels and generalizing qualifies. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

And this discussion hardly needs examples of specific sexual behaviors. Recall that this is a PG-13 board. You are, however, more than welcome to castrate yourself.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

stop being rude. thanks.

[CatsWithMatches]

"But they starts with thinking about people as things …"

Brilliant. (As Pratchett usually is). Simple.

That's my favorite book of his, too.

[phyco126]

Well, there are several points in the Bible that tells us not to have butt sex, so it certainly wasn't something someone made up a few hundred years ago. Just thought I would throw that out there for the people who don't understand how we got that it is a sin.

Note: I don't care, I'm not religionistic.

[GhaleonOne]

so gays and men who enjoy oral sex should castrate themselves?

Dude, seriously. Stop being so antagonistic all the time. All these comments you continue to make about sexuality are starting to annoy me. You keep bring up the same thing, and it's becoming apparent you're just trying to bait people into arguments with you. Stop. Now.

And for the record, Jesus was giving an extreme example when he said that. He wasn't advocating self-mutilation, he was saying, whatever causes you to stumble and sin, stay away from it for your own good.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

debates. not arguments. to me, arguments include name-calling. those are childish. i really enjoy it when i get a good and well thought response as opposed to an angered response.

i really enjoy debating about these things i chime in on. it definitely CAN be humorous when someone gets a bit TOO passionate about a subject but i don't thrive on it. if i simply felt like arguing, i'd hit IRC and say ff4 is better than ff6.

also, there are many examples of extreme behavior in the bible so it isn't astoundingly obvious.

i'd prefer that my posts are met with a good, intelligent counter-argument with enriching points of view as opposed to being chastized. if you think i'm wrong then show me how. i'd appreciate it.

[meg]

BG's comments are relevant. homosexuality comes down to basic physical and emotional lusts, just like heterosexuality. he's just being quite blunt about it--and practical.

let's disregard homosexuality for a moment. there's a reason that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. when people want something enough, they'll find a way to justify taking it. when they NEED something enough, they won't even bother trying to justify it. when they need something, and don't want to need it, all kinds of new problems are born. when they need something, don't want to need it, and have society bearing down on them too--that's when the situation becomes "farked." this applies to gays, yes. it also once as strongly applied to unwed mothers, mixed race or cross-class couples, being non-white in general, and women overstepping their "place."

society's punishments have traditionally been violent and soul crushing.

now, here is why this argument cannot be resolved. one side believes that being right means having the right to enforce rightness in others.

the other holds that stance to be ultimately unethical.

count me among the second.

[Kizyr]

Ok, there are two conversations I wanted to step in on in this thread. One is responding to what JWL said earlier, and one is some of the miscellaneous comments on the side.

--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.

Ok, I think this is a pretty good summary of the main issue that I have with your arguments thus far, which is that you're making the claim that not believing homosexual acts are sinful means that someone is a hedonist, or a moral relativist who doesn't believe in sin, or both--in all cases. Is that correct?

If so, the only way that would be possible is if, for some reason, homosexual acts were incompatible with every standard of moral objectivism. Now, it's very much possible to prove that the most prevalent objective standards do not condone homosexual acts, but that's a far cry from saying that every objective standard doesn't.

The problem is, if the above is, in fact, the claim that you were trying to make, then it'd be easy to defeat the entire argument by pointing out just one counterexample, where homosexual acts would either be permissible, or simply not an issue.

So, say, certain Christian denominations, Reform Judaism (to some extent), Ancient Greek Paganism, Ancient Roman Paganism, Feudal Japanese Buddhism, etc., contain or contained some permission of homosexual activities.

Now, as someone who does believe in objective right-and-wrong, I figure it's perfectly logical to make a claim that certain things that are permissible in other moral codes are still wrong, which includes homosexual acts. (In my case, this more often applies to things that are prevalent and permissible in this society, such as alcohol consumption, gambling, smoking, premarital sex, etc.) But to make the claim that homosexual acts are incompatible with any moral objective standards requires either (a) intimate knowledge of every moral code in history, or (b) a fundamental incompatibility between homosexual acts and moral objectivism.

Now on the suicide note, the ONLY permissable situation where that could be done without going to hell is if the person was severely mentally retarded or did not know anything for themselves, if they were NEVER introduced to right and wrong, god, love or any of it. They should not be persecuted for what they do not knwo and do not understand.

You're hitting on a major problem that I have with anyone trying to make the claim that such-and-such person is going to heaven, going to hell, or anything.

The fact is, belief in God--at least in the sense that the main monotheistic religions believe--is incompatible with the ability of human beings to judge what will happen to others (or themselves) in the afterlife.

Let's put it this way. In the case of a suicide, it's never as simple as the way you're putting it (and I believe you'd realize this already if you ever knew anyone personally who did commit suicide). There are other factors at play--such as depression, which can be extreme enough to be a serious mental illness that affects your physical health. In those cases, someone may have very little control over what he or she does (the same way someone who is obsessive-compulsive may have little control over his or her habits).

The only way to make a judgment is to know everything that's going on inside of someone's head, everything that came before, and the level of control someone has over his or her actions. There's only one being who has that kind of omniscience... you should know where I'm going with this by now.

Now, my more concrete definitions of sin come from elsewhere as part of my religion. But I've found that just about any human behavior or interaction that I find repugnant is related to this, the dehumanizing of one person by another. An obvious example is sexism, of course; the thread that began "any girls who have dated..." was riddled with this viewpoint of people-as-things. Using labels and generalizing qualifies. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

It sounds a lot like Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative (the second formulation). That is, treating human beings never as a means in itself, but always as an end.

I'm a bit ambivalent when it comes to Kant. I like the effort he put into trying to come up with a more universal standard for morality--also because there's a huge focus on man's free will. The only thing I don't like is that, while I used to do debate during high school, people would constantly use Kant ad nauseum, half the time without understanding what they're doing.

My favorite was one match where the opponent said, verbatim, "Kant said that capital punishment is immoral." Me and one of the judges both looked up and had a "WTF?" moment. That turned out to be a fun cross-examination period.

jwl, you asked me if it is christian to sit back as others live sinful lives when i mentioned leaving gays alone. i'm beginning to wonder if you've ever had an orgasm.

Non sequitur of the century!

It's certainly the most ridiculous one thus far on this board. KF

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

what the hell ever. the more than obvious point is that sexual pleasure that somebody enjoys WILL end up at least feeling somewhat justified in the end. if people want to feel alright with what they do, they'll manage. ignore the validity of anything i say as much as you like. you know the truth.

[Ozone]

I've heard way too much about this in the past four years, if you're against gay marriage, shut up and don't get one

If you're against slavery, shut up and don't own slaves.

Kid, grow up. They're not even on the same level, slavery was a disgrace to this nation because it treated humans beings like possessions, brought them down to a sub-human level (among many, many other horrible things) and deprived them of their free choice..... kind of like depriving gay people of the freedom/ability to be legally bound to the man or woman that they love! How about that for a coinkidink?

PS - My African-American friend would like to slap you after he took a look at that comment.

[ilovemyguitar]

When this topic took a sharp left turn into the discussion of the morality of homosexuality, I decided I wasn't going to participate in it, but I really, really have to say something. This is me you people are talking about. It's my life. And there have been so many hateful things said about homosexuality in this thread, even if most of it is unintentional, that I absolutely have to speak up.

I could sit here and pick apart all the different things said on here that I take offense at, but it would take several hours and I'd have a post that would go on forever. I'm just going to address one that's been repeated here by several people, and is horribly offensive and hateful, and nobody seems to understand just how offensive and hateful it is.

I'm talking about the idea that homosexual acts, in particular, are sinful. Especially if you're saying (sometimes in the same sentence) that homosexuality in and of itself is alright.

Think about this. You're saying that for me to live a "sin-free" life would mean that if I am in love with someone, I shouldn't willfully express it, ever. You're essentially wishing me a life where I'm unable to consummate a relationship. Frankly, this is a hateful thing to say to anyone, even if you don't intend it in such a way.

Like I said, I could go on and on about the other things in this thread that I disagree with (ridiculously misinformed definitions of hedonism, the strange demonization of relativism, revisionist history lessons on Christianity's treatment of homosexuality, etc.), but this is something that I really needed to chime in on, because of the truly offensive nature the topic was starting to take on.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

so should someone lay down a nice carpet made of egg shells?
this is a matter that MANY are passionate about. truly or simply perceived "toe stepping" will generally occur. it almost feels like you want people to hide how they feel. someone gay should REALLY understand the problem with that.

[Alunissage]

I was wondering if you would weigh in. Thanks for doing so and reminding everyone that it is not some faceless "them" under discussion.

I have to ask: I also consider sex outside of marriage to be sinful -- does this seem hateful to you? A concomitant of that, which should be pretty obvious, is that had I not met someone I could and did marry, I would still be the purity race winner here. (When I met my husband, who incidentally does not share my religious views, he was firmly convinced that he would die a virgin -- and he was fine with that.) My point is that under such a viewpoint celibacy would be expected of anyone who did not marry, not just homosexuals. Someone who fell in love with a married person would also not be able to consummate that, as adultery is also a sin.

But consider why you find it "hateful". Is the concept of ANY sin "hateful", or is it just that this one is personal to you? Kizyr considers alcohol consumption sinful and I occasionally put a bit of Kahlua in my cocoa; should I find his viewpoint hateful? Yes, obviously I don't feel nearly as strongly about that issue as you do about yours; I don't even like the taste of alcohol and it would hardly be a hardship to give it up. I'm just trying to pin down why you use that particular word. It seems that you are attributing it to the existence of the viewpoint, not any emotion actually attached to it.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

i'd like to point out that I didn't have you in mind in particular when i've posted in this thread.