The Gay Brain - Updated

Yes but is being left-handed immoral, like torturing puppies or molesting children? Or vice versa? Note, I'm not comparing being left-handed to molesting puppies, I'm just using the two examples in the same sentence together.
 
Creed,
You don't hear people talking about left handedness being right or wrong, because you have no special revelation that deals with the issue or calls it 'sin' or wrong.

Admiral, Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality. He didn't talk about all or most types of sexual sin, but rather he defined the proper use of human sexuality to be within the bounds of a marriage between one man and one woman. By doing so, Jesus condemned pre marital sex, post marital sex (as in after divorce or being widowed), extramarital sex, and polygamy. This is the issue of sexuality as Jesus defined it.

Also, NAIU, I surely don't condemn you for being 'gay' or for being attracted to other men even. What I condemn, including in myself, is any person who views another person who is not their spouse as a sexual object. I don't know a single person over the age of about 12 who is not guilty of this.
 
So Brisketexan is Bob Stoops?
shocked.gif
 
THEU, I know that religious dogma is the answer to my question. I also know that most of us would agree that "special revelation" is not an appropriate basis for legislation. I'm glad you admit the real reason that people oppose gay marriage; it simply isn't a proper justification for making laws.
 
THEU,

I can appreciate your viewpoint from a religious standpoint. However, I also know of many religous scholars that disagree with your opinion. But that really isn't the point. The laws of our country are not based on interpreations of the Bible. Of course, there may be many instances where the two correspond (i.e. murder). As an example of where they don't correspond, if we followed the Bible, I would say Adultry would be against the law.

If you could talk to Jesus, do you really think he would say that gay people must either be celibate or live a lie as a straight person? Do you really think a loving Jesus would say that? He might say that gay people need to search for a life partner just like straight people...I don't know. I just don't believe Jesus would subject gay people to a life of torture.
 
Oh jeez..I missed so much.

You honestly think your toe stepping 'example' is related to this issue? Eh...

When i step on somebody's toe it hurts them..thus I am doing something that actually has an affect on someone else. Deciding to marry another man doesn't affect anyone else...completely idiotic example.

But..I'll help you out.

hmmm...some people think hunting is wrong. Some people don't. The two groups don't always get along and there are a lot of heated debates, but hunters are still allowed to hunt.

You keep bringing up "examples" that have a clear victim that is being hurt by someone else. Pedophiles, toe-steppers, etc. etc....someone is causing harm to another.

So once more -- besides you having to go to bed at night knowing that two male strangers you have absolutely nothing to do with might be living happily together minding their own business -- who is hurt when two men get married?
 
I'll digress from the topic at hand including Maduro's interesting post.

I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with homosexuality. I don't have a good reason, but am not troubled about developing one. But although I'm not totally comfortable with it I find the obsession of some about it annoying.

Let's say they conclude it's immoral. (I don't think it's immoral; I just have some illdefined lack of comfort.) Fine. Here's my problem with their position: Their sense of priority is out of whack.

Immorality of some kind is everywhere, in everybody. Also, the Christian case for treating homosexuality as immoral isn't real strong. It didn't make the top ten list, which includes things like honoring your father and mother, not coveting and not bearing false witness against your neighbor. The Bible's case against homosexuality rates down with the case against eating pork, jerking off, wearing lipstick and stuff like that. In my community of three hundred thousand there is some scary immorality. Murder and rape and such. Even after the scary stuff I wish there was a little less focus on the prostitutes, topless dancers, pot smokers, nude sunbathers, homosexuals and so on and a little more on the car dealer in the front pew who cheats his customers and the guy in the third row who beats his kids. I grew up with folks who worried about things like lipstick and dancing. If lipstick and dancing are on your list I think you worry only about yourself and family. There has to be some sense of priority in this sort of thing or you'll go tilt. I am befuddled how somebody gets excited about lipstick and not about a lying car dealer, even if that car dealer's wife doesn't wear lipstick and the car dealer puts a few C-notes in the collection plate every Sunday.

We don't have enough resources to police the bad stuff properly. When something is #462 on your bad list and not on somebody else's bad list at all I think you just have to treat it with the priority it deserves. It's on my list but it's below littering and butting in line at the movies. It is, however, above fat girls wearing spandex and old men wearing pants up around their chest.
 
OH GOODNESS!! I've never been more mis-characterized.

My examples were INTENTIONALLY SINFUL. I was never making a case why homosexuality is wrong. Not once!!! I was making a case why the standards given were BAD STANDARDS.

People say x can't be wrong because its consensual. I say that's a bad standard because I can give you example y. People say x can't be wrong because its genetic or people can't help it. I say that's a bad standard because of y. I NEVER MADE A COMPARISON TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

The only one i finally gave was to two teens or 20-somethings having premarital sex. That's not a perfect analogy either... but my options are limited because it has a sexual element to it.

I believe it is a universal struggle. Something we all are imperfect and have to fight with. Again, just because we were born that way, (left-hand right-hand example) is a bad standard as well.

What is it that makes being left-handed ok and someone else cussing under their breath wrong?

Creed, I wasn't saying that the government should get involved. The purpose of that example was that IF everyone has their own moral code,(I reject that idea) any legislation is going to offend someone. Regardless of whether it harms them. (more on this later)

Again, I haven't made a positive case why I believe homosexuality is wrong. I have just dismantled all the standards given for why it or any other moral issue must be right. Maybe a better standard can be found, but you haven't shown it yet.

The standard ya'll repeatedly give is that "Its not hurting anyone."

Let me give some examples why that standard is wrong... (Not comparing) Sometimes we tell a lie to protect someone. Lying is still wrong. (nobody is hurt, but in principle a lie is a lie) A man watching pornography. Nobody is hurt, is it wrong? A man fantasizes about a 3way with women not his wife. Is it wrong? I believe they are... and "no one is getting hurt". Again, not the best standard.

And ya'll are making a big assumption that no one is getting hurt with homosexuality. Even if I grant that is true, the above examples show that its a bad standard.

I'm working on a new thread to discuss morality issues...
 
OC,

I still have problems with your posts and examples. Maybe we just think differently, but I just don't understand what you are trying to say. OK, I do understand some of it....I get the idea that just because you are born a certain way (the pedophile example) does not make it right. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Yes, someone did post that consensual sex between adults is moral and you countered that adultry proves the point wrong. But you know as well as I do that approving of adultry was not the point of that post. The point was that consensual sex between two non-married adults of the same sex is moral. You are free to disagree about the morality of sex outside of marriage....but those standards must be applied to both gays and straight people.

I think the left handed example was perfect and you reject it. It is perfect because it is genetic, affects a small percentage of people, is not harmful to anyone, and was considered immoral at times in history. I realize that this example is not sexual in nature, but the criteria given match exactly what people on this thread have been trying to say about being gay.

I think your current example of pornography is totally wrong. Liking pornography is not genetic other than the fact we all have sexual desires. A discussion of whether porn is moral or immoral would be a great topic. However, it has nothing to do with the morality or "rightness" of homosexuality. The difference is being born with a sexual orientation versus making a choice to watch porn.
 
Chipper, you're failing to make a distinction which is CRUCIAL to this discussion. You are talking about personal evaluations about morality. Everyone has to make their own. I don't find pornography or cursing wrong, but apparently you do. That's all well and good.

No one is proposing these standards as a way to make you believe that homosexuality is moral. That's a religious issue for some people and they aren't going to change. What these standards are designed to do is argue that there is no basis for legislating against something. Take cursing, for example. Lots of people think that's wrong, but no one is proposing anti-profanity laws. You can think homosexuality is wrong (as clearly you do), and yet these standards can all be valid ways to determine what is an appropriate standard for government intervention.

I think the "does it hurt someone else" standard is particularly important in this light. No, of course that doesn't make it moral by your standards. However, it might make it something that should be off-limits to government intrusion.

Does this distinction at least partially resolve why you think you've been mis-characterized? You can think "does it hurt someone" is a bad standard for personal moral evaluation, but it is an appropriate standard for legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top