Why do humans use oppression(Homosexual marrage)?

[Biochemist]

In this case it looks like religion is calling to oppress thy neighbor instead of love thy neighbor. Such a great lesson in the hypocrisy of religion.

I don't understand this sentence. Religion does not "call" anyone. People believe things and occasionally act on them. What do you mean?

[Fishteacher73]

So it seems that to boil this down, the only fallicy that anyone can come up with is that certain texts have deemed homosexuality as immoral. That the basis of morality is defined by a external standard that has been essentaially arbitrarily chosen.

 

Anyone know why it would be deemed inapropriate by god? Many christian taboos have at least some archaic validity. What is/was wrong with such practices that would anger god?

[Queso]

well, when i've asked people who are so against it-and religious-why? they simply told me something like:

well, it's not right.

or:

it's just wrong.

 

it seems as though nobody really knows, they just go with the flow.

[rockytriton]

I think the main thing is whether or not you care. I'm not a homosexual, neither is anyone that I care about, so I don't really care about their rights. If I was, or if someone that I really cared about was, then I probably would care more. There are too many important things to care about in this world, this is just one more thing to care about and I already have enough as it is.

[Biochemist]

So it seems that to boil this down, the only fallicy that anyone can come up with is that certain texts have deemed homosexuality as immoral....What is/was wrong with such practices that would anger god?

Good question. Let me give this a shot. First lf all, I agree that from a non-Christian perspective, the Bible is arbitrary. I don't personally believe in the Bible on an arbitrary basis, but that is a different discussion.

 

1) I agree that the only basis to make homosexualtiy (or any particular sexual behavior) immoral is a religious reference text.

 

2) I can really only talk about this from a Christian point of view, but it might be applicable to other religions as well.

 

3) There is a list of sexual behaviors that are identified as Biblically wrong. They include, homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, and probably others. In fact (Biblically) even thinking about these things is wrong as well, and is "as wrong" as practicing them. Thus, these behaviors are not particularly scaled in terms of degree of "wrong". Ergo, homosexual folks (practicing or not) are no more immoral than the rest of us.

 

4) Most of Christian dogma relates to getting our minds thinking correctly about God.

 

5) One of the things God does to get our minds aligned is establish a number of frameworks that give us handles to relate to Him. One of the primary frameworks is the family. The spouse/parent/child framework is used to describe the relationship between peers (e.g., brothers and sisters in Christ), the relationship of us to God (e.g., "Our Father...) and the relationship of Christ to the church (The church is the "bride" of the Christ). God also uses the family framework to describe spiritual birth (as in being born into His family or grafted into His family) and to describe the nature of the longevity of the spiritual relationship (i.e., a permanent commitment). All of the sexual "wrongs" are at odds with the committed spouse/child/parent framework. God really doesn't like folks messing with His core frameworks.

 

6) I think the contemporary Christian anti-homosexual focus in the media (and among less thoughtful Christians) is a backlash against the drive to make homosexuality a "normal" part of culture. I do think that most of my Christian peers weight homosexality as somehow more serious than other (even more common) hetersexual sins, but I think that is just because they haven't really thought about it.

 

7) As a point of balance here, sexual immorality (of any sort) is always secondary in importance to idolatry (of any sort). That is, the first commandment (Love the Lord your God...) was first for a reason. In contemporary American culture, materialism is the most common idolatry analog. Trust in technology/science may also count as idolatry, but I think the import of that is dwarfed by materialism. I find it troublesome that the church focuses so much energy against individual behaviors that are somewhat rare, and does a poor job of rooting out the more endemic problems.

[C1ay]

I don't understand this sentence. Religion does not "call" anyone. People believe things and occasionally act on them. What do you mean?

It is only the religious I know that claim that homosexuals are immoral and should be denied the same rights other lawful adults have. These same religious people will tell you out of one side of t heir mouth that you should love thy neighbor and not count his nature against him while spewing out the other side that homosexuals are immoral and should be denied this and that.

[Biochemist]

...These same religious people will tell you out of one side of t heir mouth that you should love thy neighbor and not count his nature against him while spewing out the other side that homosexuals are immoral and should be denied this and that.

I am sorry you have had that experience.

[ledbassest]

Another question is why do some of the people i know dislike the idea of homosexualality but are neither religious nor fully "moral" themselves? they confuse me. can anyone answer me this with a responce other than they are homophobic. i think it goes further than that. but what is it? ;)

[Queso]

this is easy. they are stupid and closed-minded and are following what their friends say. NOT THINKING FOR THEMSELVES.

or, simply, it just grosses them out. which is extremely ignorent. but we all have pet peeves i guess.

[Fishteacher73]

3) There is a list of sexual behaviors that are identified as Biblically wrong. They include, homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, and probably others. In fact (Biblically) even thinking about these things is wrong as well, and is "as wrong" as practicing them. Thus, these behaviors are not particularly scaled in terms of degree of "wrong". Ergo, homosexual folks (practicing or not) are no more immoral than the rest of us.

 

 

I concede that most of the sexual behaviors that you list are detrimental to society. One can see a logical basis for these tenets to be adhered to. The problem arises that homosexuality has no detrimental outcome. Two people consenting adult people love each other. Where is the sin in that?

 

Many of the taboos presented in the ancient religions stemed from legitimate circumstances. Don't eat pork...trichinosis. Don't mix dairy and meat....E. coli, etc. I can find no real harm to society or the individual in homosexuality. I see no prescident for this to be a taboo.

 

Possibly the family structure (propogation) could be a small issue, but how many orphans are there? We see nothing wrong with allowing a heterosexual couple that may be biologically unable to concieve. Why is this any different?

[Queso]

Why is this any different?

i guess the only difference is phsychological. maybe the orphanages(sp?) don't want to put a kid with gay parents because of his "best interest"

for example, a lot of kids would make fun of him and what-not.

which is really sad, and i don't agree with any of that at all.

you're right fish, there is no real difference. and we should just accept it, as a country. there is nothing wrong with it at all.

[Fishteacher73]

Many state do allow for gay adoptions, but usually there is a clause that allows the biological parent (for some unknow reason) to nix the deal.

[ledbassest]

the biggist problem with america allowing for homosexual couples to marry and adopt is our so called seperation of religion and state. also some think that if they ban homosexuals then they will turn straght.

[Biochemist]

I concede that most of the sexual behaviors that you list are detrimental to society.

FsT- You are a thoughtful guy, but it looks like you ignored the point of my last post. I did not suggest that the behaviors listed were detrimental to society, although they might be. I suggested that they were detrimental to understanding our purpose and relationship to God.

Two people consenting adult people love each other. Where is the sin in that?

People can consent to lots of things. Consent does not intrinsically make things right.

[Biochemist]

Another question is why do some of the people i know dislike the idea of homosexualality but are neither religious nor fully "moral" themselves? ...

Luckily, morality for me is not based on my performance. If it was, I would have been forced to lower the standard substantially to make it achievable.

[Biochemist]

this is easy. they are stupid and closed-minded and are following what their friends say. NOT THINKING FOR THEMSELVES.

Orb- This does not seem like a particularly thoughtful statement. Some folks have thought about these issues in great depth, and THINK that some things are actually wrong. You are certainly welcome to disagree, but it it a little cavalier to regard everyone the that camp as thoughtless.

[Queso]

it was a simple way to put something that can be as complex and thoughtful as you want it to be. and i didn't feel like getting all linguistic to show my anger towards oppression in this discussion.