Important notice: Understanding attacks on homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

That would actually be a matter of opinion. I think faith is much more like a nationality than a political opinion. It has quite a lot to do with the culture and circumstances in which you were born and raised. And while I personally believe sexual orientation is something you are born with, that isn't really set up as a fact; it is influenced by choices.

Gets more gray all the time, doesn't it?

Actually it was more than curiosity on my part. I was also interested for personal reasons, as I was raised the same way and would have liked to know how others dealt with this kind of influence as adults.

Ah, I had not picked up on that.

I lived as a bigot, racist, homophobe and/or whatever else well on into adulthood, but then my drinking came into the way of my continuing in life for much longer at all ... and of course, neither had I ever "dealt with that kind of influence as an adult". I had a few books and then some "sensitivity training" began coming onto the scene for me in the late '70s or so, but I still only saw need for much change in the lives of others. Ultimately, and with quite a bit of experience-founded guidance from a few fellow ex-sots, I ultimately came to see the lack of any need for anything that might automatically place any kind of barrier between me and anyone else. After all, most folks seem to already have plenty of that on-hand for guarding themselves against most of the rest of us few nice ones anyway, eh?!

Firstly is I have found in Dorris' words something I 100% agree with.

Secondly DW the being gay is not sinful but is you choose to either not be celibate or chose to have sex with people you are not sexually attracted to, that is wrong and sinful?
If someone put the same to me and said that I would be sinful if I chose to either not be celibate or chose to have sex with people you are not sexually attracted to, I would think that abhorrent. As would you.
Thankfully we are protected under your faith because of our sexuality, lucky us.

Thankfully I don't have to get deep into the issue because it isn't my issue, and I get to override everything by applying the "thou shall not judge" principle. So, while I summarized what I've been told is the official church position, it has no direct influence on my life or my interactions with individuals because the later occurs entirely on a "live and let live" basis with no background thoughts what-so-ever on what God may think about their lifestyle. I'm not supposed to worry about anyone's life but my own when it comes to the issue of salvation (well, with the exception of spreading friendly seeds, but that goes off topic). I threw it out there only because people were discussing what faith says on the issue. Long run, it's a pretty light position, because it doesn't allow a starting place for hate, as there is no permanent and irreversable sin just by existance. And, yes, totally irrlevent but I do support gay marriage: forming stable family units tends to be a good thing, and love is love and fun to witness in all variations (watching the couples that got to wed in the little short window here in CA was a blast - they were SOOO happy it was completely infectious).

I am bothered by the implication in this thread, however, that it is OK to attack someone's faith, because this isn't "who someone is." It IS who someone is. It isn't something that might change with the winds like political positions do. I am Catholic because I was born into the church, and it is like my family; I would need a compelling reason NOT to follow the faith, for that would be a betrayal. You and Dorris just tossed out the strength of that cultural tie on the wind, and you are WRONG. While arguing that people should not attack sexuality (which they should not), this thread has suggested faith is fair game. I strongly disagree. Generalizations are not, in my opinion, ever appropriate, and neither are attacks. It is just as wrong to say "all Catholics are judgemental" as it is to say "all gays are promiscuous." Neither statement is accurate or appropriate. And THAT would really be my point.

Sorry for all the spelling errors; this computer doesn't have my nice firefox redlines.

Of course generalising all Catholics (or Muslims, jews etc etc) is wrong. It would be wildly inaccurate and unfair. IMO It is ok to attack a person's faith however, as it is ok to attack a person's beliefs, whatever the subject, religion or otherwise.

I agree that religion is part of who someone is. Sexuality on the other hand, is part of what someone is, which is why it would be wrong to attack that in the same way it would be wrong to attack someone's sex, nationality or autism.

I expect to have my beliefs challenged and see no reason why those who are religious should be exempt from this merely by being religious

This is particularly the case where someone's religious beliefs extend to other people, for example viewing homosexuality as a perversion; I am not surprised if members who use their religion to justify their homophobia then find their beliefs attacked by others who find that abhorrent

My hope is that we can prevent both.

Me too MidLifeAspie.

DW I do want to make a point to you, which has been consistent to what I have said on other threads in the PPR.
As far as religion/faith goes, you can look at the bible and any other religious doctrine and find great merit and strength in them. You can also use such doctrines in negative and pointedly hurtful ways.
Here is an example. In Islamic faith the niqab (called the burka in Afghanistan) is a top to toe dressing women wear. It is mandatory and required. Further there is a requirement of wife's and husband's friends not to socialise and fratenise together with the spouse of the other gender. (ie if a wife's friend comes calling then the husband will remain absent or in a differnt part of the house and visa versa).

Now non-Muslims could look at this as improper and unnecessarily restricting of personal freedoms. Do they have a point? Yes and no. Why were these beliefs bought into play? To protect their society from improprieties. Namely rape and immoral thought and action.
Now is this necessary? Maybe and maybe not.
It could be used as a point to accuse people of that religion of misogyny. It could be used to condemn as a point of lack of respect to women, or lack of the community's trust of their own.
Further it could be the thin end of a wedge to base spurious attacks against someone's identity as a Muslim.

Does holding these beliefs or upholding the beliefs contained in the Qu'ran make them bad people? I know good people who are Muslim and some that I don't care for. Moreso I know people some of which believe in Islamic faith, as I know people of other religious faith and people without and my experience is they are all just people good and bad. I do not care to judge them one way or another. What is in the heart and mind is the important thing here.

I could find a hundred ways to attack the Christian faith too. But really why? It matters not what faith or religious affiliation one has. Their actions are what matters and what they choose to say or reflect in their behaviour. I have seen elderly relatives die and hold tremendous strength in the concept of having lived a decent life and the thought of a loving God taking care of them in their afterlife really bought them peace. I have here in this forum seen some Christian beliefs be used to condemn a people. Same doctrine different interpretations and different strengths and morality.

I do not attack Christians, I attack improper actions. I know you see gray area but I simply don't.

I certainly agree, but now let us look a bit more closely:

The religious folks report what they have read in Scripture about homosexual behaviour being an abomination, but then they are then presumed/held accountable/responsible for what someone else had said. Personally, and as has also possibly happened to you, I have often found myself in that very same dilemma of whether or not to even repeat something to anyone else at all lest it be perceived as having come directly from me!

.

The point is that they agree with it themselves.

Discussing what is said in Mein Kampf is not the same as using what is said in Mein Kampf to justify one's own beliefs

And who has decided that is a wrong thing to do?


Whoa. Too many thoughts is one sentence there.

Suppose I believe I should be allowed to drive at any speed of my own choosing and you tell me there are laws about that. In such a case, and for whatever personal reason of your own, you have done nothing more than to remind me of the law and it would be presumptuous of me ...

edit: ... to then simply assume you are in agreement with that law.

I think that if all a Christian can get out of the bible is gay people by their very being are perversions, then this reflects not on the faith nor the bible even. It reflects on them and they ought not be allowed to use their faith or the bible as justification.

If we were to say "Well who cares about the bible? Most of the stuff written was through long oral tradition likely changed and evolved through the countless generations of being told or was introduced about Jesus Christ long after he was dead and by people who did not know him." We could say "Who really cares? Much of the Spiritual festivities and holy days were amalgamations of other spiritual religions of the time (Constantinople's time) merging two other similar religions and therefore allowing it as a religion to survive in heady times."

If that is seriously all we can get out of what Christianity - one of the biggest religions in the world is and what the bible represents then we are missing the whole concept of what is decent about it.

It is not when the holy days originally were that counts but what they are about and why they are important
It is not what the people wrote about or what the oral traditional stories were before they evolved that is important, it is about the meaning figurative and analogous that one can derive to give a moral benchmark by which to conduct oneself.
These things are important and it IS meaningful.

If the bible gives you an understanding of moral decency and integrity and all you have managed is "Yeah...yeah but gay are perversions for being what they are" then you have selectively read and understood the handbook by which you conduct your life.

Ah, but it is not the Christians who say that. Rather, all of that typically goes something like this:

Christian: "Homosexual activity is an abomination!"
Homosexual: "So you are saying I am an abomination?"
Christian: "Oh no, I am only meaning to let you know your homosexual activities displease God."
Homosexual: "Ah, but you do not understand: God made me just as I am! Therefore, you have just also called me an abomination, you Homophobe."
Christian: "Well, you guys really should not be doing that kind of stuff with each other anyway. After all, it is just not 'natural' ..."

... and thus begin the flamings of each other and the throwings of rocks.

This thread has evolved into something that belongs in PPR now, and as such I am moving it there.

Please stay tuned to the other threads on the WP.net discussion forum for updates on the other issues presented.

I love how threads just seem to get banished here.

A wrong call, in my own personal opinion, but here is an example of one of the kinds of things we regular members would like to know more about from behind the curtain:

Was that a personal call of your own or a unanimous decision made by all mods, and what guidelines or other considerations were part of that?

After all, PPR was begun for heated discussions of politics, religion or philosophy, and the ambiance of this thread does not fit "heated" and its subject fits none of those.