Anti-Discrimination, Oppression and Over-Legalism

Remove all ads!

Let me start by saying I agree with chevalier (yes, you can skip the rest of the post and flame me if you wish), and I find it blatantly obvious that a child is harmed if it is forced to comply with an unnatural image of the family. I shudder to think how a young boy would feel in a "family" of lesbians, or a young girl among two homosexuals (sorry, I won't use the word "gay" - from the diseases chev mentioned, I don't see anything gay about such relationships, rather grevious).

Aside from that, why is it that children brought up in a "tolerant" environment are forced to comply with a set of rules which are not natural to them? Why are their mouths shut if they ridicule a same-sex couple? They find it unnatural even if the question has never arised in their family and have never been "coerced" (as homosexual minorities would like to call it) to hating homosexuals. What is this censorship doing in a tolerant society? Let me also reiterate this question: How is it that a supposedly tolerant society has to censor anyone? I fail to grasp (it's probably because I'm a simpleton) how censorship is deemed necessary in a supposedly tolerant society. Could anyone explain that to me?

It is loudly clear to me that Good is always able to defend itself and will always show. Evil needs to hide behind thousands of regulations and needs other people as vessels for itself. It cannot protect itself, thus needs to censor good.
Otherwise, why would critics of homosexuality need to be censored? If this "orientation" is good, it would easily defend itself from attacks (overt or otherwise), and if it were natural, nobody sane would attack it. But it seems to require a lot of effort and promotion, or it would otherwise fall.

Referring to the original post - why would a homosexualism critic need to be arrested and face criminal charges? Wouldn't it be enough to say to the people: see and judge for yourself?

 

Easy with homosexualism in Roman armies. Undoubtedly, it did happen, although it wasn't part of the culture so much as in (parts of) the ancient Greek world. As for the British nautical "rum, sodomy and the lash" traditions... well, those guys couldn't get girls on the ships, could they? They chose young girly boys instead, gettint around to grown masculine men as a last resort.

[disclaimer]Below I'm not throwing the Bible at non-believers. Just dealing with a view that homosexual conduct and approval thereof is compatible with Christianity.[/disclaimer]

As for Christian traditions of love and tolerance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

That is about persons, homosexuals. Now about homosexual acts:

See? Hate the sin, love the sinner. This is the Christian love and forgiveness. OK, I know RCC isn't the whole Christianity, but most churches share this view.

Interesting that you brought up virtue. Virtue for a Christian surely isn't compatible with condoning something that God hates. Now, is it?

 

Bion, are you actually sure of what you are talking about?
Have you actually consider for whom were the letters of Paul written? Do you have any idea what life in ancient Greece was like? Did you know it was found natural by them for a philosopher to have a boy pupil aged 12 and sodomised??? Would you find it natural in any way today? Not to mention orgies (both in Rome and in Greece), held in worship to the various gods (and not necessarily to Aphrodite/Venus or Dionysus/Bacchus - any deity was good enough if it allowed them to party during their feast).
This is what Paul condemns and what was found unacceptable in Christian communities - that Greeks and Romans who joined them, wanted also to carry their customs and understanding of love with them. It is very clearly differentiated in the New Testament with two Greek words translated as "love" in all modern languages:
AΓAΠH (gr. - agape) / Caritas (lat.) / Charity (eng.) - love whose motivation did not dictate seeking own gain (e.g. satisfying own passions), all the time Christ mentions love in the Gospels, it equals agape - as in "love your brother," "love your neighbour," "love your enemy." The motivation is not internal, but integrative
EPOΣ (gr. - eros) / Amor (lat.) / Love (eng.) - love whose motivation comes from egoism and satisfying own needs, passions, etc. This is what Paul condemns.
There are, of course, other kinds of love mentioned, such as ΣTEPΓΩ (gr. - stergo) - familial love, usually translated as "bounds," and ΦIΛION (gr. - filion) - friendship, and usually translated as such.

Keeping this in mind, bear attention to Christ's words: "thus a man will leave his mother and father [after wedding] and live with his wife so they will become one flesh" - this is a passage commenting natural law, which also includes wedding of a sort (as ordained by community). So not only does Christ condemn homosexuality, but extramarital relations as well (mind you, this does not imply in any sense that Christ condemned homosexuals!).
So, love (agapas) the sinner, hate the sin.

Oh, and why would Paul say weddings are ok only if to keep passions at bay, if in another epistle he says "Husbands, cherish and love your wives as Christ loves His Church. Wives, be obedient to your husbands, as we are obedient to Christ who is the Head." Yeah, so now it means that Paul contradicts himself? No way. These are letters addressed to two different communities, who faced different problems. As such, it would be wise before reading the letters to know what problems did the respective community face.

For whom did Paul recommend staying in marriage if they cannot contain their passions? And for those who can, why advocate celibacy?
If you read previous verses, you will learn that he refers to and addresses only marriages in which only one of the spouses has become christened. Ergo - it would be preferrable to leave their spouse since otherwise it could have a detrimental effect on the person's faith.

Do try to know what is there in the entire Bible, and how it refers to the passage considered, before trying to discuss its significance, will you?

[ December 12, 2004, 18:22: Message edited by: toughluck ]

 

@toughluck: that's a pretty confused set of arguments to support the contention that I'm not "actually sure of what I'm talking about." Yes, I know that there are many different words used for love in the New Testament, but I don't get how Paul's distinction between agape and eros bears on my argument at all. Nor do I get how pointing out that Paul's letters various letters had a historical context has anything to do with my argument. And if you want to nitpick, no, "thus a man will leave his mother and father [after wedding] and live with his wife so they will become one flesh" are not Christ's words, they're Paul's, and in addition, they're a citation from Genesis that Paul uses not to talk about marriage per se, but in order to compare the relationship between Christ and the Church to one of marriage. And if you want to play the "who knows more about the Bible game," I would ask: have you ever looked at the synoptic gospels? Do you even know what they are? And what can you tell us about early church history, about the various meetings where the various early church documents were discussed, with some becoming canonical, and others being rejected?

And in any case, I could say that it's *you* who are totally missing the context here: throughout the gospels, Jesus continually turns his followers' attention away from earthly matters and towards the kingdom of God. This is even the case with Paul, who uses the bride/bridegroom story only as a metaphor for the church. Neither Christ nor Paul see the love between a husband and a wife as the highest form of love. In fact, to quote Jesus on the matter (Luke 20:34-5):

In fact, there's abundant evidence that Jesus saw much of earthly morality as just that: earthly, and so also a barrier to the kingdon of God. Again, Jesus (Luke 14:26):

In the Kingdom of God, there is no "traditional family": we are no longer brothers and daughters and fathers and grandmothers; these earthly relationships no longer hold. In fact, in the Kingdom of God, not only will there be no homosexuality, but there will be no heterosexuality as well.

Granted, the New Testament does weigh against lust, as it does against selfishness, self-indulgence, pride, and the like. But even in what you've said above, can you find any evidence in the New Testament that homosexual sex is any worse than any other lustful relationships, say heterosexual sex outside marriage? Or is this just a cultural bias that you're trying to wrap in the flag (as it were) of religion?

Finally, if there is one group that Jesus *does* condemn harshly, it's the Pharisees. This should always serve as a caution to those who claim to speak for the absolute truth, and to judge others in a fallen world (Luke 11:52):

 

Bah, are you people still going on about homosexuality? For me, homosexuality is a bit like, say, synchronised swimming in that:

1) I don't do it
2) I'd prefer it if my family didn't do it (but I won't disown them if they do)
3) I think it would be a waste of time to teach it in school
4) If done unhygienically, it can cause disease
5) I don't want to watch it on TV or read about
6) But I don't really mind if anybody else does it
7) I could easily be friends with somebody who did it
8) I don't expect synchronised swimmers to march up and down the streets in the swimming gear saying "Look at me".
9) And finally, I don't think it's a big enough deal for people to debate and debate and debate and debate and debate on and on and on and on........

 

@Chev: Your source had no reference to sexual behaviour of heterosexuals. So we cannot compare. I'm sorry, but it is worthless.

 

Bion, I'll start from the end.
I take it that you would also say that Jesus condemned Nicodemus, as well as Joses of Arimathaea, am I correct? After all, you stated:

There was never a person, nor a particularly addressed group of people to be condemned by Jesus. Love the sinner, hate the sin, remember?

Since you are so versed in the Bible, you are aware of the passage in which Paul states all the grievances people are guilty of?

This was in response to Saducees (who didn't believe in resurrection) asking about which one's of the seven brothers' wife shall the woman be in the Kingdom of God. Ball in your court.

If Jesus actually (by your account) meant for his disciples to not think of earthly matters and turn their thoughts to eternal life, why would the Gospels comprise so much advise on how to live this earthly life? In fact, there is not a single passage which explains how eternal life will be achieved which would not also consider earthly matters. There is no "to cross the tunnel, go straight, then turn left." Every parable has its use here on earth. The earthly matters that should be left aside are whatever mundane task would keep them from minding eternity instead of glorifying their life and living as a disciple of Christ should.

Synoptic gospels - the first three of them. Written around the same time, they were aimed to present the euangelion to the people that didn't know Christ and the events that transpired first-hand. Gospel of St. John is not considered as such because of many differences. First of all, it has been written long afterwards, so John was aware of their existence and did not want to repeat what was already written, and his intended audience were people already converted to Christianity.

As for synods - I'm perfectly aware of them, and you needn't to brag what you know about them.

"Many different words?" No, just the two major ones, and the two other which are used only a few times.

They invalidate your statement:

by pointing out for whom they were intended. What do you have to say now?

As for your:

You are wrong. It's as simple as that. Here is the quote from Matthew 19:4-6:

These are words of Christ. Speaking for the Creator (His Father), these are His words as well, and he upholds them. This way, Jesus glorifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Notice that it is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. People have been created as men and women, not men or women.

Congratulations, Bion, you have proven your ignorance of the Bible. I'm wondering where you got your post from. Next time, double check your sources and make sure they are not more ignorant than you are.

@Fabius - the Catechismus (I will use the acronym CCC) does have reference to sexual behaviour of heterosexuals. Here you are:

Questions? Or are you another clueless person without any idea of what you're talking about and just chimed in for the sake of argument?

[ December 12, 2004, 21:37: Message edited by: toughluck ]

 

I would say that suffices for a reply for now.

As it is, I would have to say concerning the ORIGINAL topic is that if you open your mouth, you better take responsibility for what you say. That goes both ways... heck, crosswise and doubling back as well, I would say.

And yes, it is a fabulously generalized comment.

 

The figures are so high that they immediately strike as, well, promiscuous. It is obvious that such behaviour isn't normal in the society. The number of sexual partners usually comes close to 10 for both genders when heterosexuals are concerned, but I don't have it written on any site. I'll look for something and paste the link if I find anything. It stands a fact, from casual observation of surrounding reality, that 55% of heterosexuals don't have at least one STD.

The survey results also say the following:

While heterosexual promiscuity is not overly uncommon these days, relationship approach prevails over encounters approach.

I'm sure that the same cannot be said about heterosexuals. Well, just ask your friends or whomever, or even make a poll on a discussion board.

And I think this is the crux of the problem. Absence of social forces that encourage monogamy, contrary to how things are with heterosexual relationships.

Well, and now an interesting bit from a country where same-sex marriage is legal:

[ December 12, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Man, I could not agree more. But, these are the live-wire issues right now, like it or not. And, since this thread is so far off topic anyway, I just wanted to add this:

Gay marriage: Oh, yes, I lay awake at night, like all the rest of the homophobes, worrying that gays are taking over the world. And I agree with Arnold, "gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Abortion: Let's not kill any more babies, except those babies and children in Iraq, which are being blown-up for the "march of freedom."

Stem-cell research: As if the gays taking over the world wasn't horror enough, scientists are now busy creating a new race of Frankensteins from the babies they are killing.

See, all that Kerry had to do was gather the townsfolk with torches, thump on his Bible hard enough, hire Arnold as a spokesperson, and he would be Prez today. Isn't that reassuring? We should all be able to sleep at night much better now.

[ December 12, 2004, 23:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Ahh these topics really take on a life of their own, no?

Some basic logic: does it follow from noting that Jesus repeatedly condemned Pharasees in the gospels that Jesus damned each every single Pharasee to Hell?

The point was that Jesus never lays into those committing any sins of the flesh with nearly the venom he reserves for the self- or tradition-appointed bearers of religious truth, those who call themselves holy by following religious law to the letter, those who smugly proclaim their own faith as a kind of pride, and as a way of condemning all those who they feel have fallen short. Recognize anything here?

And since you like boiling down Christianity to slogans like "love the sinner, hate the sin," perhaps you should also remember, as you compile your rankings of which sins you think are worse and should hate more, to "judge not lest ye be judged." And the best ones to remember would be that "all fall short of the glory of God," and that "salvation is by grace, not by works alone."

Exactly how is the ball in my court here? Again, your supposed refutation fails to address my point: even married or familial love falls short of the love of God.

Eh? Eh? Well, since you ask, here is what I have to say: so aren't you dodging Paul's advocasy of the celibate life by claiming cultural relativism here? Are you saying that "Celibacy was good for the Ephesians, but it's not so important for us today, because we're in a totally different culture?" Well, if you want to walk the cultural relativism road, gee, why stop there?

The synoptic gospels question was more a question about method than trivia; the synoptic gospels are also published as a volume comparing the gospels verse by verse, showing the differences in tone and content between the gospels in the many cases of overlap, so you can see which events were recorded in which gospel. Commentary is included. One of those things you look at in a Theology 101 class.

Well, there's Ephesians 2:8

or Romans 3:23 and 28:

But these are all well-known...now I feel silly getting into a Bible quoting contest on BoM.

Well, I guess everyone has to be wrong sometimes. But the original quote was in Paul, as stated. And your quote from Matthew or Mark was also in the context of condemning divorce, except in the case of infidelity.

I don't doubt that the New Testament privileges heterosexual marriage as the prefered expression of human sexuality. What I've been saying, however, is that 1) the New Testament still views celibacy as the higher calling; and 2) there seems something self-serving to me in interpreting one's faith in such a way that it highlights the condemnation of behaviors, such as homosexuality, that one may find personally abhorant, while downplaying the condemnation of behaviors, such as judgmentalism, or rampant materialism, that are either closer to home or more widespread in society.

 

Bion, I'll have to think about it. I'm wondering whether we aren't talking about (essentially) the same thing, just from different angles. I agree about judgmentalism and materialism. I've limited myself to views on homosexuality only because of the topic of this discussion.

As for God's Love above everything else - "God IS Love," first and foremost and after all is said and done. This mystery has its mirror here on Earth, in love of the spouses, love of God towards the Church, etc. And yes, neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, so I agree that Bible is essentially about reaching eternal life. However, this should not denounce the importance of virtuous life here on Earth. (Oh dear, now I speak like a superior...)

An apology: I'm not dodging Paul's comment on celibacy. It is one of callings (vocations), but I also recognise that it is neither superior nor inferior to calling to marital life. It is just different. However, bear in mind the cultural context, it does play an important role. If marriage was only intended as a way to contain passions in a recognised relationship, where would there be room for actual marital love? How would Love between Christ and Ecclesia be similar to spousal love? That the relationship is only to "contain passions?" Certainly not.

 

toughluck, no worries, it's all in good fun here in the AoDA.

 

*appalauds Bion*

That is something we should all rememeber....

 

I believe it was Chev that had the comment I should have come up with. Simply to love the sinner but hate the sin. I don't hate those who call themselves homosexuals, but I cannot condone what they do. The practice of homosexual relations is a grevious sin according to the doctorine of my faith. The temptation for some must be unbearable, but to give in is morally wrong.

Heterosexual relations outside the bonds of legal and lawful marriage is also a grevious sin too. Do I hate those who do it? No. Even I face that temptation, but abstain because I CHOOSE to do what I believe is right.

What the issue boils down to is one minority trying to force their lifestyle out in public view and to make it illegal for anyone to tell them that they are wrong.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this assesment. I am sure I can agree that making speaking out against homosexuality illegal is, well, wrong.

 

I asked in another thread (or was it this one), what goodness requires that mouths must be shut and not attack it? Goodness will always cry out for itself. Evil will need a curtain of regulations to protect itself. Not really proof of its credibility, is it?

 

Boy, you sure amuse me.

You mean that this is why Gnarfflinger needs a "doctrine of faith" as a curtain of regulations to protect him, whereas the homosexuals crying out for themselves and showing their lifestyle are the Goodness? How right you are!

Look, it's like this: we (the good people with, well, haemorrhoids but glowing eyes ) think that homosexuality is something like the colour of skin or the length of feet. For us, it just won't do to criticize it, even more so because of the lousy arguments like "it's unnatural", "it's natural", "it's against my faith", "it's wrong, pure and simple". Hence, we dislike someone speaking out against homosexuality like someone speaking out against Asians. This is not "censorship". Censorship is done by a state, not by its people.

You, however, (the bad people with, well, burning faith and, ha, burning brains ) think that homosexuality is something like kleptomania or flatulence. Something you don't have to be proud of and have to hide from the public. Something you have to overcome. Therefore, you feel like being oppressed when the resonance of your "well-meant" statements concerning homosexuality are not taken as positively as you expected.

That may be as it is. We can't meet in the middle here, it's either being THEM or being US. I can understand, why many people on these boards are bored with the topic and all the ever repeating arguments.

What I can't understand is the following: Why the hell, if you really love the sinner but hate the sin, do you have to drag this stinking corpse out of its grave every couple of weeks? Do you think there are sinners among us who need to be saved by you? Or is it just that you can't stand the thought of anyone committing a sin anywhere that drives you? Interesting...

 

What do you call regulations that prohibit any criticism of homosexuality, then?
And it is not like the colour of skin or length of feet. Homosexualism is a choice and not something innate. Oh, argue if you want, but many psychologists agree on something else than you might believe in.

If you actually follow this thread, it is not about abusing homosexuals and/or their rights as human beings, but about homosexuality as a notion.

It is not that thought. If it is their choice and they have been presented with a conflicting view and rejected it - so be it - it's their choice. It is the fact that they fight for it to be recognised as normal and natural which "drives us," as you so kindly put it.

 

"...but many psychologists agree on something else than you might believe in."

Like they agree on condoms being permeable to sperm and HIV? Sorry, toughluck, your history for backing up your statements with researchable facts leaves much to be desired, I'm afraid.

But let's stop here.

"And it is not like the colour of skin or length of feet." This is exactly what I said in the post above yours, I'll repeat it one more time. You believe the world to be different from what we (we as in: pro-homosexuals) perceive. We'll never find common ground. Do the worst in raising your children, we will do the same.