Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Stevil]

Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.

Some are yes, some are no. Not sure by that last sentence whether I'm OK with them or not. If not, I don't see it as very meaningful as some are a very low bar.

It's hard to define in all ways that which you might not be OK with the situation. I am trying to not focus on your inner voice, but more on your actions. Yes I am setting the bar low but that is because I don't know you and do not know how far your dissapproval goes. It would certainly be easier if you would volunter information rather than make me play 21 questions. Out of the list of things above which ones are no for you and please give in context with regards to the original questions. I know I am asking a lot of you but it would be great if you could explain why you think these items are not OK. I mean, especially if you would vote toward a law forcing against the behaviour, society is governed by laws, it would be nice to know why things are made illegal.
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

I really shouldn't have put the last sentence as it was destined for confussion.

Lets say discriminate would meant that you think these people should be treated in all ways equally to people in the same situation who were from opposite gender. e.g. same rights to be have feelings of love, same rights to be displaying affection, same rights to be celebrating love (e.g. marriage, child adoption), same rights to hold job positions (e.g. early childcare provider, school teacher, doctor, preist, any position in the army)

By this, yes, I would discriminate, but you're merely defining your view as correct with this definition, thereby bypassing the actual debate. Again, not very meaningful.

I am actually framing up discrimination because you asked me to. I have only included a subset and things I would actually consider a ow bar but I assume you would not be happy with the marriage and probably not with the child adoption parts. Personally I don't feel it is acceptable for these people to be discriminated within any situation what-so-ever. My view is correct for me, your view is correct for you but please be concious that your view has victims and hence negative consequences for these people. Do you really think it is too much for them to be simply asking for equal rights?

[LegendarySandwich]

Do you really think it is too much for them to be simply asking for equal rights?

Gays having equal rights?! What, are you crazy!? That's simply immoral!! I mean, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! What will happen when they learn that...gasp...GAYS ARE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS AND HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE?!?!? WHAT IF THEY WANT TO MARRY SOMEONE FROM THEIR OWN SEX UPON HEARING THIS?!?!?

UNACCEPTABLE. I refuse to teach my kids Satanic values such as equality for all. I mean, come on! This is America!!! We were founded on Christian values, such as discrimination against certain groups of people based on traits they can't change.

[Stevil]

...based on traits they can't change.

What if they could change those traits? Lets say they swing both ways, what's the big deal if they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender?
Do they need to choose to fit within "normal" parameters if they had a choice?

[LegendarySandwich]

...based on traits they can't change.

What if they could change those traits? Lets say they swing both ways, what's the big deal if they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender?
Do they need to choose to fit within "normal" parameters if they had a choice?

I agree, I just said "traits they can't change" to make the position seem more stupid (not unfairly, because that's how stupid it actually is).

[Stevil]

...based on traits they can't change.

What if they could change those traits? Lets say they swing both ways, what's the big deal if they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender?
Do they need to choose to fit within "normal" parameters if they had a choice?

I agree, I just said "traits they can't change" to make the position seem more stupid (not unfairly, because that's how stupid it actually is).

That's cool, I didn't want to assume. It was an excuse I used when I was 20 and quite homophobic. I thought if they didn't have a choice then they were in a bind and I was conflicted as to my stance on the position, but if they did have a choice then I thought it was odd and wrong for them to choose the same gender.

[LegendarySandwich]

That's cool, I didn't want to assume. It was an excuse I used when I was 20 and quite homophobic. I thought if they didn't have a choice then they were in a bind and I was conflicted as to my stance on the position, but if they did have a choice then I thought it was odd and wrong for them to choose the same gender.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual, although it wouldn't be immoral even if they did. To justify their hatred, they have to come up with lame-ass excuses like this (not trying to insult you here).

[Stevil]

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual

The only pitfalls are that they can't naturally have children plus the scorn they may receive from sections of society, but other than that it makes just as much sense one way or the other.

[LegendarySandwich]

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual

The only pitfalls are that they can't naturally have children plus the scorn they may receive from sections of society, but other than that it makes just as much sense one way or the other.

Those are pretty big pitfalls. I'm not gay, but I'd imagine that many of them would want to have became straight due to the two reasons above.

[Stevil]

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual

The only pitfalls are that they can't naturally have children plus the scorn they may receive from sections of society, but other than that it makes just as much sense one way or the other.

Those are pretty big pitfalls. I'm not gay, but I'd imagine that many of them would want to have became straight due to the two reasons above.

Yes, I would imagine that too. I am hoping that society can remove the second one though. I like tolerance.

[LegendarySandwich]

Yeah, tolerance = good. A lot of people don't like the word "tolerance", but I think it works perfectly. I can live with you even if I don't like it if you can live with me even if you don't like it. Tolerating each other.

[Voter]

It is about love. Sex is a part of that love.

You're preaching to the choir.

You could use this exact argument to say that the segregation of whites and blacks in the first half of the 20th century wasn't discrimination. I don't buy it.

But I bet you don't lose sleep over the fact that Mormons and others who desire polygamy are being discriminated against. There isn't a P in GLBT.

I guess my point is that, depending on the definition, and certainly by the definitions being proposed here, almost everyone discriminates against some groups. Hence it loses its sting as an accusation, and opens the accuser up to charges of hypocrisy.

[Voter]

Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.

Some are yes, some are no. Not sure by that last sentence whether I'm OK with them or not. If not, I don't see it as very meaningful as some are a very low bar.
[/quote]
It's hard to define in all ways that which you might not be OK with the situation. I am trying to not focus on your inner voice, but more on your actions.[/quote]
Passing judgment behind their backs speaks to inner voice. That's why I'm being careful in answering. I've worked with gay people, for example, and never made any negative comments, expressions, etc. So, I'm "OK" with parts of your list.  But, I believe it to be sin, so I'm not OK by other parts.

Yes I am setting the bar low but that is because I don't know you and do not know how far your dissapproval goes. It would certainly be easier if you would volunter information rather than make me play 21 questions. Out of the list of things above which ones are no for you and please give in context with regards to the original questions. I know I am asking a lot of you but it would be great if you could explain why you think these items are not OK. I mean, especially if you would vote toward a law forcing against the behaviour, society is governed by laws, it would be nice to know why things are made illegal.

Again, there is ambiguity. I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage. To me, there's a difference between the two. However, my opponents frequently see voting against granting a right as the same as voting for removal of a right.

[Voter]

Do you really think it is too much for them to be simply asking for equal rights?

No. That's what's going on now through the legislative process.

[LegendarySandwich]

But I bet you don't lose sleep over the fact that Mormons and others who desire polygamy are being discriminated against. There isn't a P in GLBT.

I actually support the right for people to practice polygamy and despise discrimination against it. So the next time you want to assume something about me, make sure it's actually factual.

I guess my point is that, depending on the definition, and certainly by the definitions being proposed here, almost everyone discriminates against some groups. Hence it loses its sting as an accusation, and opens the accuser up to charges of hypocrisy.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

However, my opponents frequently see voting against granting a right as the same as voting for removal of a right.

There may be a difference between the two, but they're both discrimination.

No. That's what's going on now through the legislative process.

And yet you still oppose it?

[Voter]

But I bet you don't lose sleep over the fact that Mormons and others who desire polygamy are being discriminated against. There isn't a P in GLBT.

I actually support the right for people to practice polygamy and despise discrimination against it. So the next time you want to assume something about me, make sure it's actually factual.

I'm still thinking that you spend much less time and effort combating that discrimination, but if that's not the case, kudos to you for being more consistent than most gay-rights supporters.

I guess my point is that, depending on the definition, and certainly by the definitions being proposed here, almost everyone discriminates against some groups. Hence it loses its sting as an accusation, and opens the accuser up to charges of hypocrisy.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

However, my opponents frequently see voting against granting a right as the same as voting for removal of a right.

There may be a difference between the two, but they're both discrimination.

Yes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

No. That's what's going on now through the legislative process.

And yet you still oppose it?[/quote][/quote]
Yes - that's part of the legislative process.