Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intolerance

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:07:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

The majority of religious people are very tolerant towards these types of people. Tolerating something implies that they have a problem with it, otherwise they wouldn't be tolerating it.

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

No, they are to be tolerated. There is plenty of reason to believe that the type of people who typically identify with these labels take pride in behaviors that lead to the degradation of society as a whole. They are very mislead people.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

You are not supposed to judge those outside of your faith as if they are in the faith. IF you are in the faith, identifying with homosexuality is a sign of idolatry, because this is not the true nature.

4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?

Tolerating something does not imply that you like it or even think that it is beneficial to society. It just means that you are putting up with something.

People who identify with these things are very mislead, and they don't understand their true selves. They are deluded. That said, tolerating them is the most loving way to handle them. Nothing else is really any more effective.

5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?

Scripture isn't arbitrary. These things were written down for reason.

The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law brings life. This is one of the main points of The New Testament.

6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

I believe that tolerating those who are perceived to be intolerant is an integral part of the whole thing.

Silencing someone is akin to killing them. To kill in the name of tolerance is one of the great evils in this world.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:50:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

From what I know of Christianity, there are fairly strong words and stories which are interpreted to be against homosexuals (Sodom and Gomorrah).

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From a secular viewpoint - no. Their burdens may differ from ours (heterosexuals), but they are human (just like us) nonetheless and deserve our empathy as much as any other human.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if the same intolerance is applied to all "sins". However, I have never seen any believer deem their preferred vices as worse than the vices of others - so religious intolerance toward homosexuality is reflective of a double standard, at least as I see it.

*My answer overlooks our inability to prove a god exists (much less provide objective or corroborating evidence for a god) and linking such a god to a revealed religion.*

4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?

Yes, by definition, but I don't feel it is productive to point that out so bluntly.

5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?

I don't see how this question differs from #3.

6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Reject the intolerance.

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Abrahamic religions are taught to hate gays because of Judaism's rivalry with Greece for the ancient world's literary and philosophical attention. Judah couldn't match the superior literature, philosophy and science of Greece, so they attacked what they could of Greek identity: homosexuality. And from Judah's bigotry, both Pauline Christianity and Muhammad learned to hate gay people. So it's all religious politics at base and has nothing to do with either God or human behavior but of controlling society through intimidation and terror of outsiders to mainstream beliefs.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:02:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 10:54:38 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Abrahamic religions are taught to hate gays because of Judaism's rivalry with Greece for the ancient world's literary and philosophical attention. Judah couldn't match the superior literature, philosophy and science of Greece, so they attacked what they could of Greek identity: homosexuality. And from Judah's bigotry, both Pauline Christianity and Muhammad learned to hate gay people. So it's all religious politics at base and has nothing to do with either God or human behavior but of controlling society through intimidation and terror of outsiders to mainstream beliefs.

Sexual preoccupation is considered a form of idolatry.

Identify yourself with a sexual lust is just a symptom of sexual preoccupation.

These things get in the way of proper discernment. They get in the way of loving God and loving others, or Sincerity of Faith concerning The Truth and being charitable towards others.

This is the biblical reason, and it is true, it has nothing to do with politics.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

I think that the reason that many religious people (not all) tend to be less accepting of these groups is because their respective religious texts have a history of oppressing these people. This history of oppresion, coupled with human's natural inclination to hate what is not like is what I beleive makes religious people more likely to be intolerant.

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From what I have seen, there is no basis for intolerance against these people.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

No intolerance is justified by using religion as a source. Killing people in the name of religion is not justified, so intolerance in the name of religion is not justified.

4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?

Having a dissenting opinion does not make one a bigot in my book. The way I see it, and individual becomes a bigot when they try to take away opportunities, or harm those who are not like them for the sole reason that they are not like them.

5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?

I have only done a lot of research on the Bible, so I will only answer from that perspective. I would say that there is a lot of stuff in the Bible that opposes gay people, but I have yet to have found anything that opposes transsexuals.

6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

We should disapprove of this intolerance by explaining to those who are intolerant why they are in the wrong.


Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

I hope that my answers helped.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Abrahamic religions are taught to hate gays because of Judaism's... Pauline Christianity and Muhammad learned to hate gay people

Interesting take I'd be interested in any background sources for it. One problem I have with it is that there isn't all that much anti-gay stuff in the NT. Paul seems to have found even heterosexual sex distasteful - Cor 1:7 "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

It seems quite likely that in Christianty (at least in the Pauline version we have) part of the problem is that 'sex for pleasure' is ruled out. Paul begrudgingly allows sex for procreation, but obviously homosexual sex is not for procreation.

I think Paul's sexual hang-up may have affected attitudes to sex (hetero and homo) ever since. Prudishness is a very "Christian" thing.

I also want to point out that there are many homophobes who are not at all religious. Some people seem to have an innate disgust for the idea of homosexuality. I don't say that excuses homophobia, but it would be a mistake to assume it all stems from religion. After all, there must be a reason why some religions are homophobic in the first place.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 10:19:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:

I just want to ask a couple of questions:

OK

1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

Are you sure of this? I think most people, both religious and non, over the ages and in most places have been intolerant of homosexuality.

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

Depends on what you mean by "intolerance". Do you mean "hatred"? Or do you mean non-approval"? For the former the answer is no, for the latter the answer is yes.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Again, it depends on what you mean by "intolerance".

4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?

According to the current pc zietgist, yes. In reality, not necessarily.

5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?

It can. But many non-religious people seem to have no difficulty in having biases/ intolerance for homosexuals and transgenders. The fact that homosexuality is abhorred in virtually every culture on Earth makes one wonder if religion is really the foundational reason for the intolerance.

6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Again, it depends on what you mean by "intolerance".

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.

Then I use "intolerance" in the same sense I as when I say I do not "tolerate" lying, cheating, or adultery. If defined that way, the correct answers to your questions are Yes for questions 2, 3, 5, and No for question 4.

I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

I would have had questions for you if your questions had not so clearly displayed your position on the subject.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:07:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Your entire premise is wrong with respect to Christianity. It is not people with same sex attraction, but rather acting on that attraction and attempting to normalize it that Christians have a problem with.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:33:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 10:50:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

From what I know of Christianity, there are fairly strong words and stories which are interpreted to be against homosexuals (Sodom and Gomorrah).

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From a secular viewpoint - no. Their burdens may differ from ours (heterosexuals), but they are human (just like us) nonetheless and deserve our empathy as much as any other human.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if the same intolerance is applied to all "sins". However, I have never seen any believer deem their preferred vices as worse than the vices of others - so religious intolerance toward homosexuality is reflective of a double standard, at least as I see it.

I haven't found this to be the case at all.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:33:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2015 10:50:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

From what I know of Christianity, there are fairly strong words and stories which are interpreted to be against homosexuals (Sodom and Gomorrah).

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From a secular viewpoint - no. Their burdens may differ from ours (heterosexuals), but they are human (just like us) nonetheless and deserve our empathy as much as any other human.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if the same intolerance is applied to all "sins". However, I have never seen any believer deem their preferred vices as worse than the vices of others - so religious intolerance toward homosexuality is reflective of a double standard, at least as I see it.

I haven't found this to be the case at all.

Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:55:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Does tolerance necessarily imply condoning an action?

Maybe you should look the word up. I can consider certain actions objectionable while still being tolerant of the people.

Do you think disagreement means bigotry?

If I disagree with your actions why should I be forced to celebrate them? I should you bigotted piss ant.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:56:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:07:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Your entire premise is wrong with respect to Christianity. It is not people with same sex attraction, but rather acting on that attraction and attempting to normalize it that Christians have a problem with.

I think that's a rather pointless distinction. That position is still based on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It may be a slightly more tolerant position, but its still unjustifiable.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 12:12:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:56:28 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:07:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Your entire premise is wrong with respect to Christianity. It is not people with same sex attraction, but rather acting on that attraction and attempting to normalize it that Christians have a problem with.

I think that's a rather pointless distinction. That position is still based on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It may be a slightly more tolerant position, but its still unjustifiable.

It is an incredibly relevant distinction. According to Christian doctrine, we are all sinners - Period (assuming you're an adult, etc...). So I do not hate all liars, but I don't defend society making lying something to be celebrated.

There is a distinction between sin and sinner.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 12:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.

You are overlooking the already normalized adultery that happens every time a Christian re-marries when their divorces had nothing to do with infidelity.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 12:35:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 12:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.

You are overlooking the already normalized adultery that happens every time a Christian re-marries when their divorces had nothing to do with infidelity.

I am completely against it as is my faith. The fact that we are already suffering from the plague doesn't mean we should add AIDS to it.
PGA
Posts: 4,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 12:45:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

It depends in what context you use the word because some things we should not tolerate because they are wrong, but how does one determine right from wrong? What is true?

I would like to briefly address this subject from two perspectives:

1) When you use the word "Intolerance" you are making a value judgment. You are saying that many "religious people" view gay marriage or the gay lifestyle as wrong.

The question to me becomes can you justify right and wrong outside the scope of an absolute, universal, objective standard or measure because that is what Christians are claiming they use in determining whether an issue is right or wrong.

Outside of God who gets to determine this and why? Why is what you believe right, or is it?

2) Whoever makes a judgment is being tolerant (supporting) of one particular view and intolerant of another, its opposite. To say that Christians are intolerant of gay marriage can also be viewed as the person who is making the judgment of Christians as also being intolerant of the Christian view because they see the Christian as being wrong.

Again, just because someone is intolerant of something does not make that wrong in and of itself. There has to be sufficient reason to say something is wrong and thus be intolerant of it. I don't believe that an unbeliever can sufficiently justify his view of right and wrong without borrowing from the Christian belief that there is an objective, absolute, universal measure - God. It boils down to authority and what subjective authority makes this decision once you discount God? Why do they get to be god in such matters?

Your second point, 2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
raises an important question. As mentioned above, it depends where that perspective comes from. If its all subjective opinion then who cares - whoever is in control sets the standard, and you live with them or try to impose your own, but don't call it right or wrong without God, just call it preference.

As Christians we believe that each and every person is made in the image and likeness of God, thus is worthy of dignity and respect, yet there are matters in which we need to raise our voice and question the moral climate around us as to where a person or cultures ideas of right and wrong come from.


Matthew 5:14-16New International Version (NIV)

14 "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.


Mark 4:21
[ A Lamp on a Stand ] He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don"t you put it on its stand?

Luke 8:16
[ A Lamp on a Stand ] "No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light.

Luke 11:33
[ The Lamp of the Body ] "No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light.

Luke 11:34
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness.


We regard God's word as a lamp that shines into the darkness and gives understanding so that we may see what is true.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if it follows an objective, absolute, universal standard, God.

4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?

It depends on the reason for the believe, the motive for speaking up. Every one of us is biased towards a particular stance, the question is whether that stance reflects on what is real, what is true, and how do you know?

5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?

To say something is wrong and be opposed to it only matters if there is such a thing as right and wrong and you can establish that what you believe conforms to that standard. Can you?

6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

It depends on whether the issue of gay marriage is right or wrong. How do you establish it? What is the best or ideal you use to determine your position?

Peter
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 1:34:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 12:12:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:56:28 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:07:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Your entire premise is wrong with respect to Christianity. It is not people with same sex attraction, but rather acting on that attraction and attempting to normalize it that Christians have a problem with.

I think that's a rather pointless distinction. That position is still based on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It may be a slightly more tolerant position, but its still unjustifiable.

It is an incredibly relevant distinction. According to Christian doctrine, we are all sinners - Period (assuming you're an adult, etc...). So I do not hate all liars, but I don't defend society making lying something to be celebrated.

There is a distinction between sin and sinner.

Yes but they don't think homosexuality is wrong in any moral way. To them with this point of view, it is a rather pointless distinction. Of course, when you ask them on what moral code do they base their moral judgement of homosexuality, they can only say "my own". Yet when you judge the same act on YOUR moral code, they condemn you as intolerant!
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 1:41:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:33:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2015 10:50:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

From what I know of Christianity, there are fairly strong words and stories which are interpreted to be against homosexuals (Sodom and Gomorrah).

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From a secular viewpoint - no. Their burdens may differ from ours (heterosexuals), but they are human (just like us) nonetheless and deserve our empathy as much as any other human.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if the same intolerance is applied to all "sins". However, I have never seen any believer deem their preferred vices as worse than the vices of others - so religious intolerance toward homosexuality is reflective of a double standard, at least as I see it.

I haven't found this to be the case at all.

Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

Such folks as you describe are not permitted to lead a prayer, teach a class, or do anything else of a public nature. Of course, they can show up for worship services. Nobody can deny them that right. The same is true of practicing homosexuals.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 1:48:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 12:12:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:56:28 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:07:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Your entire premise is wrong with respect to Christianity. It is not people with same sex attraction, but rather acting on that attraction and attempting to normalize it that Christians have a problem with.

I think that's a rather pointless distinction. That position is still based on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It may be a slightly more tolerant position, but its still unjustifiable.

It is an incredibly relevant distinction. According to Christian doctrine, we are all sinners - Period (assuming you're an adult, etc...). So I do not hate all liars, but I don't defend society making lying something to be celebrated.

There is a distinction between sin and sinner.

I reject the entire idea of sin. Sin is not a morality based concept. Sinning is breaking an arbitrary rule that a god supposedly created. Homosexual acts are considered a sin. But why? There is no reason. There are a few half-cracked justifications that Christians try to make, but there is no valid justification for it. Its an arbitrary rule made by an arbitrary god. Its not a morality based rule.

I accept that there is a distinction. The two positions are different. But neither is justifiable. Both rely on the idea of sin which I would argue is not a valid substitute for morality.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:07:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 12:35:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.

You are overlooking the already normalized adultery that happens every time a Christian re-marries when their divorces had nothing to do with infidelity.

I am completely against it as is my faith. The fact that we are already suffering from the plague doesn't mean we should add AIDS to it.

They are two completely different issues which rely on the same justification, yet one is adamantly condemned and the other is perpetuated by the church.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:07:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 1:48:23 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:12:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:56:28 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:07:58 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).
2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?
3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?
4.) Is one a "bigot" if they don't like/ are intolerant of gays and transgenders?
5.) Does religion just offer justification for the biases/ intolerance that people hold against homosexuals and transgenders?
6.) Should "we" disapprove of intolerance against gays and transgenders, or leave the discussion open under the context of pluralism?

Feel free to offer your own context for words such as "intolerance", "good", "bigot", etc.
I hope we can start a productive conversation here, and please feel free to answer the questions YOU want to, and not feel entitled to answer them all. Or add other questions that you feel should be on here.

Your entire premise is wrong with respect to Christianity. It is not people with same sex attraction, but rather acting on that attraction and attempting to normalize it that Christians have a problem with.

I think that's a rather pointless distinction. That position is still based on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It may be a slightly more tolerant position, but its still unjustifiable.

It is an incredibly relevant distinction. According to Christian doctrine, we are all sinners - Period (assuming you're an adult, etc...). So I do not hate all liars, but I don't defend society making lying something to be celebrated.

There is a distinction between sin and sinner.

I reject the entire idea of sin. Sin is not a morality based concept.

Every society has sins. These are breaches of acceptable behaviour. Society will either base these sins on objective truths as laid out in a philosophical concept or it will make them up willy-nilly based on some form of common logic that they adopt.

Sinning is breaking an arbitrary rule that a god supposedly created. Homosexual acts are considered a sin. But why? There is no reason. There are a few half-cracked justifications that Christians try to make, but there is no valid justification for it. Its an arbitrary rule made by an arbitrary god. Its not a morality based rule.

Actually in this case it can be argued fully from Natural Law, which ultimately requires God as an underpinning, but is fully logical and reasoned.

If you argue an arbitrary rule by an arbitrary God, then you must accept that every rule we make is an arbitrary rule by arbitrary people. You refute your own incredulity.

I accept that there is a distinction. The two positions are different. But neither is justifiable. Both rely on the idea of sin which I would argue is not a valid substitute for morality.

I would argue that morality is generally based on Natural Law, which is most soundly anchored in the concept of God. Morality ultimately requires God as an underpinning.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 2:07:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:35:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.

You are overlooking the already normalized adultery that happens every time a Christian re-marries when their divorces had nothing to do with infidelity.

I am completely against it as is my faith. The fact that we are already suffering from the plague doesn't mean we should add AIDS to it.

They are two completely different issues which rely on the same justification, yet one is adamantly condemned and the other is perpetuated by the church.

Proof please.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:24:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 1:41:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:33:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2015 10:50:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

From what I know of Christianity, there are fairly strong words and stories which are interpreted to be against homosexuals (Sodom and Gomorrah).

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From a secular viewpoint - no. Their burdens may differ from ours (heterosexuals), but they are human (just like us) nonetheless and deserve our empathy as much as any other human.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if the same intolerance is applied to all "sins". However, I have never seen any believer deem their preferred vices as worse than the vices of others - so religious intolerance toward homosexuality is reflective of a double standard, at least as I see it.

I haven't found this to be the case at all.

Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

Such folks as you describe are not permitted to lead a prayer, teach a class, or do anything else of a public nature. Of course, they can show up for worship services. Nobody can deny them that right. The same is true of practicing homosexuals.

Except the church will participate in a remarriage but not (generally) same-sex marriage.

You can be remarried by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church or the United Reformed Church and other small denominations. I would think that covers a majority of Christian churches. Gays can not be married in the church in principle.

I could accept a consistent intolerance from Christians toward sin. However, this is an example of how one sin is put in front of the god as though he might understand, and the other is shunned. The intolerance toward homosexuality is obviously not directly linked to "sin".
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:31:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 2:08:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 2:07:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:35:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.

You are overlooking the already normalized adultery that happens every time a Christian re-marries when their divorces had nothing to do with infidelity.

I am completely against it as is my faith. The fact that we are already suffering from the plague doesn't mean we should add AIDS to it.

They are two completely different issues which rely on the same justification, yet one is adamantly condemned and the other is perpetuated by the church.

Proof please.

I believe you are Catholic, no? The Catholic church will remarry if the marriage is annulled. Basically, a church board has to get together and void a marriage (pretend it didn't happen) so that someone can be remarried. Allowing remarriage is by no means strictly a Catholic phenomena either. The Church of England, Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the United Reformed Church, and many small denominations also allow remarriage. I'll be happy to provide specifics if need be.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:44:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 2:24:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 1:41:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:33:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2015 10:50:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:46:32 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I just want to ask a couple of questions:
1.) Why do religious people seem to be more "intolerant" of gays and transgenders than non-religious people? (I'm not saying all religious people are, but from a majority standpoint).

From what I know of Christianity, there are fairly strong words and stories which are interpreted to be against homosexuals (Sodom and Gomorrah).

2.) Is there any basis for "intolerance" of gays and transgenders?

From a secular viewpoint - no. Their burdens may differ from ours (heterosexuals), but they are human (just like us) nonetheless and deserve our empathy as much as any other human.

3.) Is intolerance against gays justified by using religion?

Only if the same intolerance is applied to all "sins". However, I have never seen any believer deem their preferred vices as worse than the vices of others - so religious intolerance toward homosexuality is reflective of a double standard, at least as I see it.

I haven't found this to be the case at all.

Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

Such folks as you describe are not permitted to lead a prayer, teach a class, or do anything else of a public nature. Of course, they can show up for worship services. Nobody can deny them that right. The same is true of practicing homosexuals.

Except the church will participate in a remarriage but not (generally) same-sex marriage.

I've scarcely seen such a thing. In fact, I'll say that I've never seen a church wedding ceremony under the conditions you describe. And I'm certain the church does not toss happy wedding showers for such couples.

I HAVE known of such a thing in the Baptist Church, but as it turned out, the groom had "prayed about it", and it seems that all was A-OK with God on the subject.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 2:48:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 2:31:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 2:08:48 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 2:07:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:35:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:23:57 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:53:38 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/23/2015 11:48:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Compare the religious view of homosexual marriage and contrast it against adultery. Re-marrying after a divorce for reasons other than infidelity is adultery, according to Jesus, but we see no outrage at Christians being remarried multiple times. There are no attempts to deny those 'adulterous' unions by believers. If both acts take believers away from god, then they should both be treated with the same disdain - they are not.

There are plenty of Christians who are dismayed about the state of even opposite sex marriage. I being one of them.

Being dismayed and seeking to deny those actions are two completely different things. Consider this argument against gay marriage:

It offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

We generally don't see such blatant pleas against 'adulterous' unions, but is adultery any less a "sin" than homosexuality? We could exchange "same-sex" for "adultery" and the argument would make just as much sense (at least from a religious view). For the sake of consistency, Christians should either accept both or completely reject both, and stop being hypocritical about it.

What do you think the whole Bill Clinton thing was about? People weren't outraged at him having sex with Hillary in the oval office (although I would say that it is an inappropriate location).

He brought shame to the Presidency because of adultery. He wasn't arguing that what he did should be normalized and even celebrated throughout society.

Likewise the issue with Reagan was whether he was lying under oath.

It is the actions not the people you are supposed to hate.

You are overlooking the already normalized adultery that happens every time a Christian re-marries when their divorces had nothing to do with infidelity.

I am completely against it as is my faith. The fact that we are already suffering from the plague doesn't mean we should add AIDS to it.

They are two completely different issues which rely on the same justification, yet one is adamantly condemned and the other is perpetuated by the church.

Proof please.

I believe you are Catholic, no? The Catholic church will remarry if the marriage is annulled. Basically, a church board has to get together and void a marriage (pretend it didn't happen) so that someone can be remarried.

It is a judicial decision on whether the Marriage (which is a contract) was valid in the first place. Annulments are regularly rejected.

Allowing remarriage is by no means strictly a Catholic phenomena either.

Thus it is not a re-marriage so to speak, because the previous attempt to enter into a valid marriage never occurred.