Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality

wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 5:44:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I respect most religious beliefs, mostly because I have a deep respect for the grounds they stand on. Those are very sacred grounds, with roots in history, culture, and philosophy. And these beautiful things are nothing to sneer at. People forget sometimes that this is where religion comes from, that we are religion as much as we are history.
I will always fight for a person's right to practice and believe in anything that feels right to them in their soul, so long as in practicing that religion, they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. In my time, both on internet and off of it, I have advocated for the rights of Christians, Muslims and Jews to practice without persecution from anyone else.
But while I will fight for your right to believe it, and I will try to understand it, that does not mean I have to agree with it. And often, I don't. For example, I don't agree with people who are against homosexuality, for any reason, even religious ones. I can understand and respect their reasoning for this position, but I can still think it's wrong from my own personal moral perspective.
That being said, disliking homosexuality, believing it to be a sin and preaching these beliefs, do not infringe on anyone else's rights to believe and act as they please. Christians who advocate against homosexuality and gay marriage are free to do so. If not for freedom of religion, then for freedom of speech. This should be and is protected by our Constitution.
But the important thing to remember is that while we are free to do just about everything in this country, we do not have the right, and therefore we do not have the freedom to infringe on other people's rights. Simply preaching against homosexuality does not do this, as people in the end are still allowed to make up their own mind about whether they agree or disagree and why. However, legislating against gay marriage,does.
If gay marriage were legal, it would not suddenly silence the people who believed it to be a sin, nor would it force those people to change their minds about it if they didn't want to do so. It would not threaten straight marriages, and it would not mandate 100% acceptance and love of homosexuality. I also don't believe it should make any church marry a gay couple, if such a religious ceremony would go against that church's values. Churches, after all, have the right to self-governance free of the mandate of the state. Isn't that what separation of Church and State was about in the first place? To protect the church from government meddling?
Gay marriage is no threat to the anti-gay philosophy. Odds are, it won't even directly affect the lives of most who are against homosexuality. They would have the right to preach and advocate for, as they see it, the salvation of souls, and that is their right.
However, by outlawing gay marriage, those against homosexuality are infringing on the beliefs of those who are not. After all, freedom of expression is a two way street, and they also have every right to preach and believe what they want. Just as heterosexual fiances have the right to a traditional wedding in the faith of their choice, people who don't believe homosexuality is wrong have that same right.
Basically, there are two philosophies in this country. One philosophy argues that homosexuality is wrong, and they have many different reasons and arguments for this claim. The other philosophy argues that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and they also have many different reasons and arguments for this claim. But both sides are equal in their passion and determination that they hold the correct philosophy. Each philosophy is, as far as I'm concerned, equal to each other. And each philosophy has the right to preach, advocate and practice as they see fit. For the second philosophy, that means being allowed to get married.
Look - I know those against homosexuality are dedicated to their beliefs, and I respect that. But no one is trying to take your beliefs away from you. But don't you see that you are trying to take their beliefs away from them?
We have all sorts of things that many consider morally reprehensible that are legal, among them, gambling, adultery,alcohol, and strip clubs. But they are legal because human beings have the freedom of choice. If these things are as wrong as homosexuality, then preach against them, by all means, try and help them, but don't legislate against their right to make those choices.
After all, if the only choice we have is to do good, what will doing good really mean? If someone forces you to make the"right" choice, did you even make a choice at all?
Burls
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:23:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2013 5:44:25 AM, wordy wrote:
I will always fight for a person's right to practice and believe in anything that feels right to them in their soul, so long as in practicing that religion, they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. In my time, both on internet and off of it, I have advocated for the rights of Christians, Muslims and Jews to practice without persecution from anyone else.

I think it is common knowledge that America's indigenous tribes enjoyed warfare in one form or another. Extrapolation provides religion and governments the rights to infringe upon each other and whatever gets in their way.

But while I will fight for your right to believe it, and I will try to understand it, that does not mean I have to agree with it. And often, I don't. For example, I don't agree with people who are against homosexuality, for any reason, even religious ones. I can understand and respect their reasoning for this position, but I can still think it's wrong from my own personal moral perspective.

Yeah, we all have preferences that change over time.

That being said, disliking homosexuality, believing it to be a sin and preaching these beliefs, do not infringe on anyone else's rights to believe and act as they please.

Like the woodpecker doesn't infringe on your concentration while you study.

Christians who advocate against homosexuality and gay marriage are free to do so. If not for freedom of religion, then for freedom of speech. This should be and is protected by our Constitution.
But the important thing to remember is that while we are free to do just about everything in this country, we do not have the right, and therefore we do not have the freedom to infringe on other people's rights. Simply preaching against homosexuality does not do this, as people in the end are still allowed to make up their own mind about whether they agree or disagree and why. However, legislating against gay marriage,does.
If gay marriage were legal, it would not suddenly silence the people who believed it to be a sin, nor would it force those people to change their minds about it if they didn't want to do so. It would not threaten straight marriages, and it would not mandate 100% acceptance and love of homosexuality. I also don't believe it should make any church marry a gay couple, if such a religious ceremony would go against that church's values. Churches, after all, have the right to self-governance free of the mandate of the state. Isn't that what separation of Church and State was about in the first place? To protect the church from government meddling?

The institution of marriage is sanctioned by both church and state to control the environment that might disregard them, and money is at the root of marriage.

Gay marriage is no threat to the anti-gay philosophy. Odds are, it won't even directly affect the lives of most who are against homosexuality. They would have the right to preach and advocate for, as they see it, the salvation of souls, and that is their right.
However, by outlawing gay marriage, those against homosexuality are infringing on the beliefs of those who are not. After all, freedom of expression is a two way street, and they also have every right to preach and believe what they want. Just as heterosexual fiances have the right to a traditional wedding in the faith of their choice, people who don't believe homosexuality is wrong have that same right.
Basically, there are two philosophies in this country. One philosophy argues that homosexuality is wrong, and they have many different reasons and arguments for this claim. The other philosophy argues that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and they also have many different reasons and arguments for this claim. But both sides are equal in their passion and determination that they hold the correct philosophy. Each philosophy is, as far as I'm concerned, equal to each other. And each philosophy has the right to preach, advocate and practice as they see fit. For the second philosophy, that means being allowed to get married.
Look - I know those against homosexuality are dedicated to their beliefs, and I respect that. But no one is trying to take your beliefs away from you. But don't you see that you are trying to take their beliefs away from them?

It's unrealistic to expect the woodpecker to stop pecking, short of a gun.

We have all sorts of things that many consider morally reprehensible that are legal, among them, gambling, adultery,alcohol, and strip clubs. But they are legal because human beings have the freedom of choice. If these things are as wrong as homosexuality, then preach against them, by all means, try and help them, but don't legislate against their right to make those choices.
After all, if the only choice we have is to do good, what will doing good really mean? If someone forces you to make the"right" choice, did you even make a choice at all?

The dilemma we face is the apparent overwhelming odds of customary behavior. When we believe in something long enough, whether it be Church or State and the resolutions between them, it becomes second nature and anything else is foreign and reprehensible. we sure have come a long way in resolving our differences over the centuries but some things remain the same as do the choice of resolution, again whether it be following a respected authority or using one's own intuition.