A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[HYHYBT]

That assumes that the condition you are assuming is fixable actually IS though.

Again, I was trying to explain how the general principle works, used correctly. Sin is fixable, at least in principle, and certainly everyone can do better than they do. The primary problem comes in when someone believes something to be a sin when it isn't. It may still be an act of love on their part, but it's more harmful than open hate.

And of course the other problem is those who do, in fact, hate the "sinner" while claiming not to.

[Kheldarson]

Because of assumptions. Like the ones you're making, neeva.

What HY's trying to point out is that some of us are taught to love the person. Period. Frankly I've had agnostic, atheist, pagan, gay, bi, hetero, and even the occassional Christian friend. And I'm an admitted and proud Catholic. Our interests have run from Scouting to anime to books to academic theory.

Did our opinions differ? Yes. Did I hate them for it? Only when they weren't listening to what I was saying and were instead shoving their ideas down my throat because they felt my opinion was a simple bias.

Did we talk about the Church's stance on homosexuality? Yes. But only when somebody asked. And I would explain exactly what I have in this thread about the Church's beliefs on human sexuality and marriage. It wasn't brought up otherwise.

Why not? Because it wasn't relevant. I loved them in their own way. There were other things that made them my friends and it wasn't singularly their sexuality, creed, or color. Do I believe any of them are going to hell? No. They could be, of course. But then again, so could I. I'm not the one to judge. I know what the Church teaches and that's what I try to follow. And sure, I'll share my faith because I think it's the right one based off what I've learned and studied. But that doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, has all the right answers.

That doesn't mean I can ever say "you're wrong, I'm right" in a debate about beliefs and know that I'm 100% correct. I know I can be wrong.

But that's what I know. And everybody comes to this debate with similar in mind. They have their assumptions. They have their beliefs. And they have their care and concern. And if the assumption is that "everybody who doesn't belief like me is going to hell", then yes, you're going to get some big-hearted, hard-headed individuals who just want to ensure the safety of your soul.

But Love goes all ways. Just as they try to show thier love that way, you have to show love back. And love in this case might be to just ignore them and explain that you hate to hurt them, but your path to Truth might be slightly different from theirs as yours has given you a turn that theirs doesn't.

[ladyneeva]

That assumes that the condition you are assuming is fixable actually IS though. And that is a huge leap in a lot of cases that a lot of people assume are just as easy to fix as a broken light bulb.

There is only so much well meaning bullshit you can have shoved in your face before eventually you come to hate yourself for failing to live up to their standards. After all they LOVE you, they're only doing this out of LOVE, what kind of self absorbed piece of shit would just ignore someone who LOVES them that much?

[HYHYBT]

I know, I know, but the denomination had at one time been talking about it, and mostly-ignoring the issue wouldn't sit well with this bunch. The official reason is that they were going to be put on a circuit, and figured out that if they left the denomination they could keep the money they'd been sending it and use it to keep their full-time pastor. None of which is really relevant, of course...

Love is supposed to be unconditional so applying a condition of "I love you but you need to change everything about yourself that I object to" is not love.

And it's also not the same thing, though it looks similar. Perhaps I'm explaining badly, though I'm running out of ways to try. Are you really trying to say that if you want someone you love to stop hurting himself then that means you don't love him? Unconditional love means you love somebody no matter what; it does *not* mean there is nothing wrong with them, nor that you should want them to remain in the condition they're in.

[smileyeagle1021]

when it looked like the Methodists might allow gay clergy .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*gasp*
*wheeze*
Methodist church accepting?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
*gasp*
OK, I think I'm OK again...
Anyway, back onto your previously scheduled thread.



(for those who aren't familiar, the Methodist church operates under a don't ask don't tell policy, basically, we're fine with you being gay as long as you aren't gay).

[ladyneeva]

Love is supposed to be unconditional so applying a condition of "I love you but you need to change everything about yourself that I object to" is not love. You don't love the person, you love who you think they could be if they changed everything about themselves to conform solely to your desires.

It is bad enough when people apply that thought process to people they know, but it is even worse when they apply it to people they not only do not know but will probably never meet.

[HYHYBT]

Alcoholism is also not a character trait though. Nobody is BORN an alcoholic. Try something inborn, like race or gender. "I hate women but I love my mom in spite of it" for example. Sexual orientation is no more mutable than race or gender, and no more a choice than either. I certainly didn't wake up one day and be all "hmm, after careful consideration and with absolutely no preference one way or the other, I think I will choose to be heterosexual because it offers the most benefits".

I'm just attracted to men. Even if some of their factory default equipment is pretty funny looking at times.

Believe me, I understand VERY well. I was explaining the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner" IN GENERAL. I was not attempting to show that homosexuality is in fact sinful (which I don't believe it to be), nor that, even if it were, most people who claim to HTSLTS are actually practicing love (which they're plainly not). All right, skip the examples: if you love someone or something, then you want not necessarily what they want, but what is best for them. And so long as the object of your love is imperfect, you're supposed to want it improved. So, if I believe that homosexuality is a sinful choice (which I EMPHATICALLY don't, on both counts, as evidenced elsewhere in this thread and many others), and that if you continue in it you will go to Hell (that's "believe you will go," NOT "want you to go:" wanting you to go to Hell would indeed be hateful), and I love you (again, meaning I want what's best for you) then naturally I would try to get you to switch, or at least be celibate.

Is that any better? I was trying, in bringing Mom and alcoholics into it, to use the idea of sinful desires as a disease of the soul, but it didn't seem to stick.

And if I get a bit short-tempered today (think I've avoided it so far) it's from going to church with Dad and Stepmom today, and am glad I was in the middle of a full pew and without my own car because I'd have walked out otherwise. It's actually the first time i've ever heard homosexuality directly mentioned as sin in church, ever, though it was as an example rather than the point of the sermon. THAT I can deal with; it's hardly a surprising view from a small, rural Georgia church that renounced its Methodist affiliation right at the time, a few years ago, when it looked like the Methodists might allow gay clergy (though that wasn't the official reason). But following that with the blatant lie that, thanks to the new hate crimes law, he could get in legal trouble just for saying so, is inexcusable (though it got an "amen" from the back row). And I apologize for mentioning this here, because it really doesn't have much to do with anything, but I needed to say it and this seemed the best place.

[Nyoibo]

I'm just attracted to men. Even if some of their factory default equipment is pretty funny looking at times.

only at times?

[ladyneeva]

Except they wouldn't be the same. I'm talking about marriage having no legal benefits. All the legal benefits would be associated with civil unions. Going back to the first point, if marriage had no legal power, only religious significance, then offering a discount to "married people" and meaning strictly that, not civil unions, would be like offering a discount to "baptized people" or to "people who take communion."

Even if you call it by a different name, the couples will still be harassed. If it will not SAVE trouble, or prevent problems, or in any way other than salving the pride of a bunch of religious zealots... why do it? You might maybe convince a few people over to your side, but only because the issue doesn't affect them. The instant you add in a separation clause between marriage and unions that indicates married couples will lose rights unless they also go get a civil union, you will not only lose those few converts but a HUGE segment of the married couples in the country who already are on your side.

Perhaps my analogy would have worked better if I had relatives who were drunks or something.

Alcoholism is also not a character trait though. Nobody is BORN an alcoholic. Try something inborn, like race or gender. "I hate women but I love my mom in spite of it" for example. Sexual orientation is no more mutable than race or gender, and no more a choice than either. I certainly didn't wake up one day and be all "hmm, after careful consideration and with absolutely no preference one way or the other, I think I will choose to be heterosexual because it offers the most benefits".

I'm just attracted to men. Even if some of their factory default equipment is pretty funny looking at times.

[HYHYBT]

There is a difference between loving your mother, who happens to have a disease and hating a disease, but loving your mother in spite of it...But fine, you can love someone while sincerely believing they deserve to be tormented for all eternity because of one tiny part of their personality.

Ah, but the idea is that *everybody* deserves that. Used properly, which I admit it rarely is, it's *not* a way of saying someone is worse than anyone else. Perhaps my analogy would have worked better if I had relatives who were drunks or something.

the key to getting measures protecting gay rights passed will be getting those who believe that it's a threat to their beliefs to let it pass.

The few who *really* are upset merely over the name already don't go for the distinction between a civil marriage and a religious one; they certainly wouldn't go for having to take, for themselves, something called by any name other than 'marriage' to get the legal rights. And of course most of the ones claiming that it's just the name were shown to be liars in the 'everything but marriage' campaign last year in Washington. Shorter version: the distinction of "civil marriage" is already made, explained, and then ignored, so that term won't help. And changing it completely to something like "civil union" only makes language more cumbersome without any benefit.

..."tell them that he's your nephew, the hospital won't check records to find out if that is true...

That's what I've been wondering about, because I've visited relatives in the hospital lots of times, different relatives, different hospitals, and was never asked to prove a relation. Logically, I don't see why they don't allow anyone the patient doesn't object to to visit, so long as it's not too many at once or at a bad time. Again, punishing people for being honest.... though 'nephew' is a good choice; even if for some reason they check your ID, you don't expect a nephew to have your same name and address, or even a strong family resemblance.

The thing is, marriage is a lot like Christmas. It has a civil side, and a religious/spiritual side. Many elements overlap between sides, and any individual element can be important or not (or for some elements missing entirely) to any individual/couple practicing/celebrating it. It makes sense to separate the sides of marriage for the purpose of discussing who is allowed legal rights versus who a church recognizes, but putting it in such a way as to force everyone to split their own marriage (current, multilayered meaning) into pieces isn't going to fly for a second.

if marriage had no legal power, only religious significance, then offering a discount to "married people" and meaning strictly that, not civil unions, would be like offering a discount to "baptized people" or to "people who take communion."

Many restaurants offer a discount if you bring in a church bulletin.

[KabeRinnaul]

Changing the words used will just allow for more discrimination though. For instance, say there was a discount offered to married couples. Well, that business would be perfectly free to say that that is for MARRIED couples, not ones with civil unions.

Or take hospital visitation... and this already happens... of course you can visit your married partner... to bad you only have a civil union.

How do you prove whether you've had a wedding ceremony or not? If the term "Married" (and again, I only change the wording to focus the debate, without really caring what word wins out) just describes having gone through a religious/spiritual/whatever ceremony, the only proof you'd have would be your rings, and maybe some wedding photos. Why should the government keep track of religious ceremonies?

Besides, you could always explain that you are married. But you had a Pagan/Unitarian/(other religion allowing gay marriage) ceremony, and it's allowed there. That business has just opened the door to religious persecution claims.

So in addition to someone having to go through billions of lines of legal code to find every instance of the word married and replace it with "civil unioned" or whatever someone else would need to draft new laws and do all the crap thats required to get them even made available for voting much less passed, simply to say "oh you can't discriminate against married couples and civilly unioned couples".

Or just put a statement in the law saying a civil union is legally equivalent to a marriage and all references to the latter should be assumed to also apply to the former. Or just use the original wording in the actual paperwork. So long as laws were passed granting those rights, I'm not particularly worried about the terms used.

If something is exactly the same as something else, then call it by the same name. A rose is a rose and all that. Creating a false separation will just lead to more discrimination.

Except they wouldn't be the same. I'm talking about marriage having no legal benefits. All the legal benefits would be associated with civil unions. Going back to the first point, if marriage had no legal power, only religious significance, then offering a discount to "married people" and meaning strictly that, not civil unions, would be like offering a discount to "baptized people" or to "people who take communion."

Besides, Germany's legal system doesn't seem to be collapsing under this distinction.

[smileyeagle1021]

Or take hospital visitation... and this already happens... of course you can visit your married partner... to bad you only have a civil union.

I know the truth in that... my mom had a surgery recently, she asked the surgeon if there would be any problem with me and my boyfriend coming to visit her in the hospital. The surgeon's response was "tell them that he's your nephew, the hospital won't check records to find out if that is true, especially if you the patient say it... a son's boyfriend though would be solely at the discretion of the admittance nurse, and the person normally scheduled that day is an evangelical so she probably wouldn't let him in."
Of course, we have no way of knowing what said admittance nurse would say to an unmarried girlfriend, but as it is that there is no way to change the status from unmarried to married, we will eternally be at her religious discretion.

[ladyneeva]

Changing the words used will just allow for more discrimination though. For instance, say there was a discount offered to married couples. Well, that business would be perfectly free to say that that is for MARRIED couples, not ones with civil unions.

Or take hospital visitation... and this already happens... of course you can visit your married partner... to bad you only have a civil union.

So in addition to someone having to go through billions of lines of legal code to find every instance of the word married and replace it with "civil unioned" or whatever someone else would need to draft new laws and do all the crap thats required to get them even made available for voting much less passed, simply to say "oh you can't discriminate against married couples and civilly unioned couples".

If something is exactly the same as something else, then call it by the same name. A rose is a rose and all that. Creating a false separation will just lead to more discrimination.

[KabeRinnaul]

In short, there was nothing of religion because religion or lack there of does not and SHOULD not dictate what is and is not considered a marriage.

No, it shouldn't. But I'm not saying that people should only be allowed marriage if they're the right religion and orientation. I'm arguing for a terminology change that I hope would get the conservative anti-gay-marriage set to back off and let laws guaranteeing equal rights pass. After that, I don't care what anyone calls anything. You can go through the big Christian ceremony and say you're married. Or you can just get the courthouse version and say you're married.

What words people use don't really matter to me. All that does matter is equal rights for everyone. I'm only talking about the words because if playing with semantics will lead to equal rights, then yes, I'll play with semantics.

Yep, I can totally see how a man and a woman falling in love, going to the courthouse, signing a piece of paper and suddenly being the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal rights and protections is totally different in every conceivable way from two men or two women falling in love, going to the courthouse, signing a piece of paper and suddenly being the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal rights and protections.

This is more what I'm saying:
Marriage (Or "Religious Marriage" or "Ceremonial Marriage", like I said, I personally don't care about the word used) Two people (or more, why not?), be they a man and a woman, two men, or two women, fall in love and have themselves a nice ceremony which means they are spiritually joined according to their beliefs. Or just joined regardless because they felt like it, and maybe think marriage ceremonies are silly to begin with but their mothers insisted. They are granted no rights beyond what they had prior to this event.

Civil Union (Or "Legal Marriage" or "Civil Marriage", still don't care about words) Two people, be they a man and a woman, two men, or two women, fall in love and go to the courthouse, sign a piece of paper, and are suddenly the beneficiaries of hundreds of legal right and protections.

My one and only reason in making this distinction is to let the religious conservatives who would vote down any pro-gay marriage legislation believe that their beliefs are not being challenged. People put too much weight on the word "marriage" and the ideas they associate with it, which derails the entire argument.

That should not even be a concern, at all, because the laws in our country should not be based on what some religion believes or what gets it's followers panties in a wad. This is a secular representative democracy, not a religious theocracy.

It shouldn't be a concern but it is, because the key to getting measures protecting gay rights passed will be getting those who believe that it's a threat to their beliefs to let it pass. This is because, unfortunately, those people are a large portion of the voting populace. So long as they're protesting the idea of equal marriage rights on the grounds of defending their beliefs, they will be enough to block nearly any protective measures.

The prejudices of the majority should never be used to decide the rights of a minority.

They shouldn't be. But right now, they are. And if I can't separate the people from their prejudices, then maybe I can separate the issue from the prejudices and argue on those grounds.

When the only reason those rights are being denied is because of the words in some religion's holy book, it is impossible to debate the ethics of denying them rights without religion coming into it.

Which is why I use the words I do. I want to paint it like a solely legal/ethical argument, and remove the religious aspects. When they can't fall back on the holy book, they'll have to argue the point on it's own merits. And I've seen people mind's changed on the issue with this tactic.

[ladyneeva]

There was supposed to be the word even in that sentence heh... I tend to edit/change/delete/rewrite things before I post them, sometimes a dozen+ times. It should have said "something they couldn't change even if they wanted to". The even kind of conveys to me a sense of "but I can't see why they would want to" sort of.

There is a difference between loving your mother, who happens to have a disease and hating a disease, but loving your mother in spite of it.

For that matter, hate the sin love the sinner always comes with a 'but' attached... I love you BUT you are going to burn in hell for eternity. I love you BUT you disgust me. I love you BUT only if you stop being a sick baby raping pervert and give yourself to Jesus.

But fine, you can love someone while sincerely believing they deserve to be tormented for all eternity because of one tiny part of their personality.