What Would it Take to Change your mind on ...

[Stosh]

Equating homosexual behavior with criminal behavior???? Criminal behavior is defined by society, not morality.

 

While some societies prized their slaves, others kept them for their manual labor. Is slavery a sin? Nope, because when one country conquered another there was only two choices from which to deal with the vanquished. Make them slaves or kill them.

 

Some countries who no longer allow slavery, don't seem to have much problem dealing with that choice no longer there. Hmmm, let me see.... Cambodia, Rowanda, Eastern Europe..... Nope, no slavery there any more.

 

In other cultures homosexuality is a criminal act because their society doesn't distinguish. Simply changing the definition doesn't change the situation. Drinking isn't against the law... oh, for a while it was.... Oh, then it was again. Morality cannot be legislated.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle]

Gern beat me to it.

The problem with this question is that it assumes we all agree on what 'natural' means or that it even exists, as opposed to 'unnatural'.

Applied the way many people do, 'natural' means part of nature that has been unaltered or untouched by man, in essence that part that lies outside the human influence. In that case, ANYTHING people do would be unnatural. By definition.

[Beavah]

Yah, Gern, quoting random bits of da Bible out of context is like climate change denier quoting random bits of da IPCC report out of context and without understanding of the underlying issues. All it does is mark you as being either prejudicial or ignorant. Yeh made a specific smear about Catholics, eh? I'm not a Catholic, mind. I think they're a bit odd. But I don't much care for smears. For your penance, yeh have to look up what da actual position of da Catholic church is on da role of women. They seem to do nothing but write stuff, I'm sure they've got whole treatises on it.

 

Packsaddle, aren't you on an island somewhere? I think "natural" is one of those vague terms, here, and yeh aren't using it in da same context as it was written. I think those making a "not natural" argument are arguing from a position of natural law, which is a long, deep, rich philosphical and ethical tradition that underpins much of western thought and jurisprudence, both religious and secular. It's definitely not the "natural" in da context of "non-manufactured" or "untrammeled by man" which you imply.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle]

I hate it when someone hijacks a thread, then again I am no stranger to self-loathing as a Roman Catholic and I think we have established that no information will be enough to make us change our minds so its bible quoting time

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9,11-12

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man..... In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

 

Seems like men and women are equals,

 

Galatians 3:8

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Equals again

 

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[This is a profound mystery but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband

 

My wife often reminds me, while she must submit to me, I have to love her, there is only a biblical directive for a husband to love his wife, the wife only has to submit and respect, love? Well thats an option a husband does not have

 

 

 

 

 

[DanKroh]

"Da notion that those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle must be living on some desert island is just an attack on da character of a person because of their viewpoint."

 

Or, there could be a documented correlation that people who have negative viewpoints of homosexuality are more likely NOT to have close relationships with openly homosexual people. There are people who study the demographics of prejudicial attitudes.

 

[GernBlansten]

OGE,

I don't think its a hijack at all.

We have a group of people using biblical passages to support their position against homosexuals. That's fair and a good basis for their discrimination.

 

Not many years ago, that same bible was used to keep women subservient to men. Remember, women could not vote, enter a contract or hold land at one time. Attitudes on the role of women in our society has evolved and the passages that those used to support discrimination against women were re-interpreted, viewed differently or completely ignored like most passages in Leviticus. However, some of those interpretations are still in practice and I used the Catholic church as an example. It was no smear, just observation. Women cannot hold a role of power within the church. That is discriminatory. Not a smear.

 

So for those who hold firm that biblical doctrine supports discrimination of gays should also hold to the biblical doctrine supporting discrimination of women.

[Eagledad]

Definition of misogyny (several different sources)- "the hatred of women"

 

That's not a hijack?

 

Even your examples taken out of context don't suggest misogyny.

 

Barry

[OldGreyEagle]

Gern, you say "discrimination" like thats a bad thing?

[Beavah]

Or, there could be a documented correlation that people who have negative viewpoints of homosexuality are more likely NOT to have close relationships with openly homosexual people. There are people who study the demographics of prejudicial attitudes.

 

Nah, Dan, yeh really didn't just claim that it's OK to dismiss an individual's viewpoint because the demographic group they're part of tends toward certain beliefs or practices, did you?

 

However, some of those interpretations are still in practice and I used the Catholic church as an example. It was no smear, just observation....So for those who hold firm that biblical doctrine supports discrimination of gays should also hold to the biblical doctrine supporting discrimination of women.

 

Et tu, Gern?

 

So now yeh need to tell religious people what you feel they should believe, so that you can denigrate them for believing it? I think we have found da real definition of "Straw Man", eh?

 

Gern, you've got me defending da papists, of all things. But seriously, before you go tearing them down for misogyny, don't you feel you should actually learn or read what they really believe about the role of women? Isn't that preferable to making stuff up about them?

 

Honestly, gents, yeh usually approach things fairly rationally, albeit from your own point of view/prejudice. This has not been your best day.

 

Beavah

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Gee Beavah, you say papist like its a bad thing

[DanKroh]

"Nah, Dan, yeh really didn't just claim that it's OK to dismiss an individual's viewpoint because the demographic group they're part of tends toward certain beliefs or practices, did you? "

 

No, actually, I didn't. I just pointed out that rather than being an attack on a person's character, such a stereotype actually has a basis in fact, and it not something that just gets pulled out of the blue.

 

So I see, dismissing a viewpoint of an individual because of their demographic is bad, but mocking an entire profession (or at least, a professional organization) because the conclusion of one researcher has been distorted by the press is okey dokey. All righty then.

[Stosh]

discriminate

   /v. dɪˈskrɪməˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Show Spelled [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA verb, -nated, -nating, adjective

verb (used without object)

1.

to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

2.

to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

verb (used with object)

3.

to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.

4.

to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.

adjective

5.

marked by discrimination; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.

 

To judge as being separate/distinctions is not a bad thing. Which of the 5 definitions are being used in this thread?

 

To segregate, the act of separation are two entirely different subjects.

 

A synonym for the word discriminate is to distinguish, i.e. judge differences.

 

I discriminate/distinguish all the time, everyone does.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Beavah]

I just pointed out that rather than being an attack on a person's character, such a stereotype actually has a basis in fact

 

Yah, do yeh really want to go there? Justifying arguments based on stereotypes because they have a correlational basis?

 

I reckon you're only going to get me to make fun of da professional competence of psychologists again.

 

Beavah

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Not saying discrimination is bad, just calling a spade a spade.

 

Misogyny is a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male-dominated societies. The motivation to the prejudice is sometimes hatred, but I think the term applies when hatred is not the motivator to the prejudice.

 

And Beavah, not saying what people should believe, just saying those who do believe it, should at least be consistant in their beliefs.

[Scoutfish]

I think this was a great post.

 

Why? Because, even though I am openly non discriminatory towards people of different cultures, races, and sexual habits. I can't always find the right words to convey my thougfhts..or as Beavah put it : I'm not a wordsmith.

 

But both Beavah and perdidochas brought up two great points;

 

Beavah: Regardless of what other think or feel, we still owe them respect as people.

 

Perdidochas: While I may respect them, and not care what they do behind closed doors, I do not have to accept it as okay.

 

So, shouldn't that be enough? Technically, I am an Episcopalian. Can't say I particularly practice it. Oh, I do believe in God, and I am strong in my faith, it's just that I think mankind has skewered most religions into political machines and have also weakened the true meaning with what society accepts during different eras of time.

 

So, while most religions get along with each other on a single person basis ( Roman Catholic and Methodist neighbors for example), why can't we?

 

Anyways, the point being: If you think being gay is not normal...FINE! If you think it's a bad moral choice...fine. That's your right.

 

BUT.... As humans, scouters and as ( if you believe) God's children, we are still bound to give gays equal respect.