Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Right & Wrong
User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by morbo3000 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:53 am

TheEditor wrote:Just an observation, I don't think Singalphile was saying that you were being dishonest or emotive, but that some supporters of the pro-gay marriage camp engage in dishonest and emotive speech. I won't speak for Singalphile, but that's how I took it, and frankly, that has been my experience in many cases. Too often when people are trying to win a debate, they couch things a certain way so as to make any answer but the one they want to hear, sound grievous, similar to the old saying "Answer council's question Yes, or No; Have you stopped beating your wife?" By capturing terms and language one can make a case for just about anything, and make those that are opposed, or even remotely reluctant, appear to be small-minded and on "the wrong side of history."

Regards, Brenden.
That's fair. I wanted to clarify that I wasn't motivated by those things he identified, whether he saw them in me, or in others. By the same token, I don't presume the same on him.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by Singalphile » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:03 am

TheEditor's correct, insofar as my prelude was intended as an introduction to why I was asking the questions. I did not have you in mind. However, I will say that a couple of your terms might fall into those categories I mentioned, such as "hate speech" and "marriage equality", which I asked about, and perhaps even "discrimination".

Other examples: The harkening to Jim Crow laws and race-based discrimination, which are, to me, obviously not remotely comparable. The talk of "not allowing" people to get married, whereas no one is actually not allowed to get married (except perhaps death-row inmates or something like that). "Bigot". I could go on with more time, I think.

It can be like politics, where the goal is to demonize the opponent and stir up anger or patriotic ferver or what-have-you.

I'm not ascribing that goal to you. My purpose is to try to understand if and how I might be misunderstanding the terms or overlooking something. To me, the policy debate is entirely about whether or not "marriage" should be redefined and licensed (as far as the government is concerned) so that gender is removed from the equation. (Though at this point, I'm also concerned about what sort of punishment is intended for those who disapprove or do not want to celebrate that change.) It appears to be a completely different debate from the other side's point of view. I want to understand that.

I am glad to be able to ask you some questions, and I hope you have the time/interest in giving your thoughts, though you don't have to, course. They are not rhetorical questions. I may have more, but I do not want or expect to debate.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by morbo3000 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:38 pm

Singalphile wrote:TheEditor's correct, insofar as my prelude was intended as an introduction to why I was asking the questions. I did not have you in mind.
Glad to hear it.
However, I will say that a couple of your terms might fall into those categories I mentioned, such as "hate speech" and "marriage equality", which I asked about, and perhaps even "discrimination".
I will have some time tonight that I can answer some of these questions.
Other examples: The harkening to Jim Crow laws and race-based discrimination, which are, to me, obviously not remotely comparable. The talk of "not allowing" people to get married, whereas no one is actually not allowed to get married (except perhaps death-row inmates or something like that). "Bigot". I could go on with more time, I think. It can be like politics, where the goal is to demonize the opponent and stir up anger or patriotic ferver or what-have-you.
It would be helpful if you could link to some news stories or examples.

- Jeff
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by Singalphile » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:33 pm

morbo3000 wrote:It would be helpful if you could link to some news stories or examples.
That would make for some very unpleasant reading. I'd rather not. You can ignore that paragraph, if you like. If and when you have the time and inclination, I'd just be interested on your thoughts on those initial three questions. If you get too busy or just want to link to an article that you think represents your view, then that's fine, too. I won't respond unless you have any questions or want me to respond, so thank you in advance!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by Homer » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:59 pm

It seems to me the biggest problem is with the homosexuals attempt to gain approval for their sin. And it seems obvious their work to hijack the definition of marriage is a large part of that effort. They could gain all the legal benefits by other means such as laws regarding domestic partnerships or whatever they wish to call it.

Across all cultures down through history marriage has referred to the male/female union. Although God allowed polygamy in the past, I have no doubt He had good reasons for it. And it is not an unnatural union; it produces children, something no homosexual union can do. How anyone can claim the scriptures allow for homosexual unions is beyond me. Even at the present time it is much easier to argue from the bible for polygamy, and I do not see how the government can constitutionally allow for homosexual "marriage" and forbid polygamy (which I am not arguing for).

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by Singalphile » Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:54 am

Homer wrote:It seems to me the biggest problem is with the homosexuals attempt to gain approval for their sin. And it seems obvious their work to hijack the definition of marriage is a large part of that effort. They could gain all the legal benefits by other means such as laws regarding domestic partnerships or whatever they wish to call it.

Across all cultures down through history marriage has referred to the male/female union. Although God allowed polygamy in the past, I have no doubt He had good reasons for it. And it is not an unnatural union; it produces children, something no homosexual union can do. How anyone can claim the scriptures allow for homosexual unions is beyond me. Even at the present time it is much easier to argue from the bible for polygamy, and I do not see how the government can constitutionally allow for homosexual "marriage" and forbid polygamy (which I am not arguing for).
Agreed. I would think that compromise could be reached. Perhaps governments should drop the word "marriage" altogether and just issue "civil union" licenses. The license would allow for whatever benefits that family members have, and you wouldn't have the government being in charge of the definition of marriage. Change up the tax laws a bit, and that would be that. Marriage ceremonies would be left up to individuals/communities.

Regarding polygamy: I have wondered if there was/is any culture that defines one marriage as anything other than a husband and a wife, even if they did/do allow a person to be in multiple marriages at once (i.e., polygamy).
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by morbo3000 » Sat May 02, 2015 6:11 pm

Homer wrote: The gays have accomplished "language capture", that is, they have taken words and redefined them to their advantage. Certainly they are in the process of doing so with "marriage."
Words change meanings. Sometimes gradually, sometimes intentionally.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/post ... nings.aspx

I have a student at the High School I substitute teach for. Beginning last year, I noticed him adding female accessories to his clothes. Over the summer, he let his hair grow out. This year, I've seen him in long skirts. And according to other students, he prefers the name Alexis now.

It is -really- hard to mentally make a name change from male->female. We have a friend who is going the whole way in the opposite direction. She is identifying as a man now, and changed her name to Adam. It is such a hardcore e-wiring of my mentally circuitry to address them with their new gender-swapped name, that it's nearly impossible.

And yet, I have to respect their decision to change their identity and name.

This is how I approach terms like LGBT instead of homosexual, and "marriage equality" instead of same-sex marriage. It is granting people the dignity to choose the terms they use to identify themselves, rather than let others determine them. "Homosexual" as a term narrowly defines a person by their sexual attractions. Which is different than their self- identification, relational attractions, and romantic relationships. Heterosexual correctly labels my sexual behavior. But my identity isn't my sexuality. I can flesh this out more if I need to.

Similarly "Marriage Equality," instead of same-sex marriage. This term encapsulates the legal fight for "equal rights," and not "special rights." The "Marriage Equality" movement, which is now made up of more "straight" people than gays, is seeking that legal definition: "Equal rights." Conservatives call it "special rights." That's ultimately going to be up to the courts to decide. In the meantime, each side can use the language that they believe represents their legal position.

For more on this see:
https://markability.wordpress.com/2015/ ... ual-terms/
Any opposition to their agenda is "hate".
I tried to find examples of this, and couldn't because there is so much rhetoric in the google results. I know that opponents of marriage equality are sometimes incorrectly labeled as "hate." But not always.

I'll go back to my original statement which was that
My gay friends are not offended, nor feel hated by people who, on religious principles, believe that same gender sex is a sin. And they are able to distinguish between people who, while proclaiming Christian faith, genuinely are hateful, and people who proclaim christian faith but disagree. In other words, they don't lump together "Christians" as hateful.
Disagreement is not hate.

The one thing I would add though, is that gays are a historically marginalized people who have always been the target of derogatory comments at best, and violence at worst. You can't go through a day in a high school without someone accusing someone of being "gay." In a high school math class, a rather obnoxious girl in the back row was jokingly spouting off borderline inappropriate things. She wasn't disruptive. Or ill-willed. It was a casual class. With that same humorous tone, I caught her starting to say "...you know statistically, that means x out of everyone of you in this room.." I stopped her right there for being offensive. With a glint in her eye she said "It was just math." But it wasn't. She was targeting a group of people as being different, and that people would not want to be associated with. I don't call that "hate speech." But I also don't think calling it out and not allowing it is being politically correct. Gays have been historically persecuted. That persecution is still going on. Christians disagreeing on marriage equality is not persecution.
Singalphile: Perhaps governments should drop the word "marriage" altogether and just issue "civil union" licenses. The license would allow for whatever benefits that family members have, and you wouldn't have the government being in charge of the definition of marriage. Change up the tax laws a bit, and that would be that. Marriage ceremonies would be left up to individuals/communities.
I totally agree with you. I have been a pastor twice, but am no longer "ordained" or "licensed" or whatever credential is given by a religious institution. A friend has asked me to perform their marriage ceremony. I did a bunch of research and discovered in Washington State, you don't need a credential. Not even a fake one, like you can get online. From a purely legal standpoint, I am probably performing a civil union that the couple calls a marriage. But as a spiritual leader performing the ceremony as a religious "sacrament" so to speak, it is more than a civil union. It is sacred. So, marriage and civil union are already becoming fuzzy terms, completely independently of the marriage equality, same-sex marriage debates.

I am happy to continue the conversation. Obviously though, don't hold your breath for answers. It may take awhile. But I'll answer eventually.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by Homer » Sun May 03, 2015 4:34 pm

Morbo3000,

You wrote:
"Homosexual" as a term narrowly defines a person by their sexual attractions. Which is different than their self- identification, relational attractions, and romantic relationships.
So a high school boy, at least in California, could inform his school officials that his sexual identity was female and demand to use the female restrooms, but then retain sexual attraction to girls which is separate from his "self-identification". Then if he "hits" on the girls in the restroom he can say that's his right as a transgender lesbian? I.e. he identifies as a female lesbian. :? Liberalism has gone absolutely nuts.

On a more serious note, I think of Jesus words "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder". This, it seems to me, puts a sacramental spin on marriage. God is involved. It seems to me that a Christian has to believe that God never contemplated His joining together male to male or female to female. Certainly He intended the marriage to reproduce, having intentionally made them male and female to produce that result. The plumbing is there to do so and so is the built-in desire for sex. And this is something the homosexual pair can never accomplish. And I can not believe that God has joined together any homosexual pair; they are not married in His eyes. How is it man has become so wise in just the last few years?

How can it be a right to have homosexual marriage and forbid polygamy under our constitution?

dizerner

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by dizerner » Sun May 03, 2015 5:38 pm

The government should not define marriage at all. The church should keep it as it is for them, a covenant before God, and not impose Christian morality on a secular society. When so many marriages, often Christian, end in divorce anyway, how can people not see we have a bigger problem than merely defining marriage in this morally ironic state of affairs. I don't see it as the churches job to keep sinners from sinning (an impossible task), but to focus on being a good witness in themselves.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Do I Hate Gays; Do You?

Post by Paidion » Sun May 03, 2015 11:27 pm

Dizerner wrote:The government should not define marriage at all. The church should keep it as it is for them, a covenant before God, and not impose Christian morality on a secular society. When so many marriages, often Christian, end in divorce anyway, how can people not see we have a bigger problem than merely defining marriage in this morally ironic state of affairs. I don't see it as the churches job to keep sinners from sinning (an impossible task), but to focus on being a good witness in themselves.
If that's the case, Dizerner, then the word "marriage" should be used and owned only by any Christian man and woman whom the Lord has joined together, and thus have truly become one. All other unions of two people should be identified by some secular term.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”