homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » Tolerance (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Tolerance
never_ask_why333
Geek
Member # 6340

Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 15:48      Profile for never_ask_why333     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Stereo excellent rebuttal! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

I am always amused by the way that these poor oppressed extreme right wing characters suffering persecution and oppression from the rest of us always like to lay claim, as Red 5 has done to "traditional family values". I suppose this means he and the little woman live in the Little House on the Prairie, where the scent of a freshly baked apple pie drifts from a neat kitchen to the outside where two scrubbed Norman Rockwell children play happily in the sunshine. The rest of us of course all live in crack houses, devoid of love and compassion, as irresponsible personally as we are politically. [Wink]

What a twit!

that made me laugh. but just for fun, I have to ask:

but for those who don't neccessarily share the traditional values and live on a prarie, nor live in a crackhouse....where does that put us?

ahaha, just had to say it. [Razz]

--------------------
I haven't forgotten
and I won't forget
I just haven't gotten
around to it yet

You can call me Eternity :)

Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 16:02      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You missed Calli's point: there is no in-between. In the minds of the idealogues, it's just one or the other.

/me fantasizes about going home to her crackhouse, kicking back with her guinea pig and trading insults with her brother

One more hour and I can call it quits for today...

Just out of curiousity, what are traditional family values? I'd like the answer in a nice, bullet point list. With definitions and citations if possible. And be careful of the TV references. I grew up without television because my parents didn't want to compete with all the crap the media spits out. As an adult, I don't own one because I don't want to deal with the crap the media spits out either.

For the record, I'm pretty tolerant. I'll listen. I might not agree, or like what I'm hearing, but I will listen and I only judge a person when that judgement is demanded of me. I'm also very hesitant to damn an entire group for the actions of a minority within that group. Which is why I don't throw all right-wingers in the same pot.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 16:18      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Precisely Xan it's an emotional feelgood phrase that has no real meaning other than patting your own back, and by implication insulting your political opponents. As such I view any politician that uses it with distrust and not a little contempt.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Too Cool To Quit
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 2217

Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 16:33      Profile for Too Cool To Quit     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And this kind of stuff really offends those people who actually have to (unwillingly) return home to a crack house each night, (especially bad when they have a quite a bit of a crack habit themselves)

But everyone always forgets about that demographic.

(What better to have in the same sentence as the word demographic besides a bunch of generalizations and stereotypes?)

Posts: 1097 | From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 16:39      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
In the minds of the idealogues, it's just one or the other.

Do you mean to say that this is not the case? [shake head] [shake head]

And for the record, Xanth, how much companionship does a Guiness Pig provide? (Misspelling intentional.)

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 17:07      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't speak for a Guiness Pig (though that does provide me with some rather alarming images) but guinea pigs sit in your lap and purr and cuddle and they're just nice. Especially since you can keep them in cages and they're generally less demanding than cats or dogs. For one thing, guinea pigs don't plant themselves right on top of the book you're trying to read.

They do, however, have this annoying tendency to start squeaking as soon as they think they hear you in the kitchen.

I was trying to clarify Calli's point for NAW and maybe make someone giggle while I was at it.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 17:51      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Red Five:
...to be against two people of the same sex getting together in love makes us bigots and homophobes....

Yup. Got it in one.

quote:
Tolerance is a two-way street, folks. I'll show you my tolerance if you show me yours.
I'm sorry for being so intolerant of your intolerance, you've helped me see the error of my ways.
I'm off to start a campaign, I'll call it "Tolerance of the intolerant NOW !"
Wanna join?

quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Just out of curiosity, what are traditional family values?

In Red5's case, something like this I expect.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10669 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
never_ask_why333
Geek
Member # 6340

Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 19:09      Profile for never_ask_why333     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You missed Calli's point: there is no in-between. In the minds of the idealogues, it's just one or the other.

that, in and of its self, was the joke. and me being a smartass (sorry bout that).

but I'm fairly sure I got the point, thanks anyway though [Wink]

--------------------
I haven't forgotten
and I won't forget
I just haven't gotten
around to it yet

You can call me Eternity :)

Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stereo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 748

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 20:04      Profile for Stereo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Stereo excellent rebuttal! [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause]

Thanks! [blush]

If not that I was getting late for my dance course, I would have refined my argumentation by saying that less than a hundred years ago, a man had all rights to beat his wife or force her to have sex, or that children could be sent to work in difficult, if not downright dangerous, conditions just because it was an accepted belief that women and children had no right nor value by themselves. Luckily, the idea that they too were human and had to be respected a such slowly grew in the popular mentality. But I'm sure there were people to disagree with that change, and argue that the family was put to danger by recognising women as legal persons, or to point the changes in children work ideas as a threat to the economy.

And today, the idea that a woman "was asking for it" is no longer an excuse for a rape (in many parts of the world, anyway). Considering that even 10 years ago, coming forward as a rape victim only meant showing one's shame to the face of the world... (And that's for a female victim; for a raped man or boy, it was even worse.) I'm happy that mentality shifts happens.

Ah well, time to go to bed, so sorry if I seem to go nowhere. My point is that changes in social values will always be perceived as bad to those who benefitted from the past situation; and good for those who suffered from it. As for those in neither category, they often follow the ideas of those in power - who usually are of the first category.

P.S.: Calli, I sometimes wish we wouldn't share the same ideas on the major subjects. My arguing skills needs some honing, and you'd be a formidable opponent. But then, it would means that I might have to face defeat and change my opinions... Isn't that a case of "be careful of what you wish for"? [Big Grin]

--------------------
Eppur, si muove!

Galileo Galilei

Posts: 2289 | From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 06, 2006 20:20      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TFD I don't want a case-by-case definition. I'm going to be stubbornly scientific about this. What are traditional family values and what makes them traditional and what about being traditional is so desireable? WTF are values anyways? Before people argue can we at least clarify what we're talking about?

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 01:20      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
None of the more right wing members of the forum seem ready to step up to the plate. Perhaps they are still licking their wounds, after the last election result and the recent unwelcome intrusion of the cold light of reality into the debate on US foreign policy. So I will act as devil's advocate.

I would imagine that right-wingers would argue that their traditional values of independence, self reliance, and personal responsibility are the soundest foundations for building a happy family, and when combined with a clear cut Christian moral framework produce the best chance of bringing up children to be well balanced adults and good contributing members of society.

Hmm... that doesn't read too bad, except when you start to unpick it, it involves claiming virtues exclusively for your political persuasion that rightly belong to everyone, and ignores other virtues like tolerance and compassion that also have a significant role to play in creating a happy family and a just society.

From a personal point of view I was brought up in the '50s and early '60s, an era that these types like to hark back to, and my memory of it as a child is that many of the values I was being fed by teachers and other adults related to a world that no longer existed (if it ever did) even then, and the rules themselves were also riven with hypocrisy and contradiction. Children have a very strong bullshit detectors and an instinctive sense of what is fair, so I see little lasting harm in bringing them up like this, except that your children may grow up to pity you, despise the idiotically rigid values you stand for!

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 07:53      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why hate someone for their religion, skin colour, sexuality, or age, when you can wait for them to open their mouth and talk, and hate them for so many valid reasons?
Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 07:57      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On a serious note.

I've always been willing to have the debate about homosexual marriage. I say if two people love eachother, who the hell am I to tell them they can't marry eachother? It's not as though it affects my life any. I'll get upset if they try and make homosexual marriage mandatory.

What annoys me, however, are the anti-gay marriage advocates who break out the 'slippery slope' argument. It holds no ground, no merit, and no sense. They say, "well if we let two people of the same sex get married, we're throwing away the sanctity of marriage, so then we open the door to marrying goats, and sheep, and trees, etc."

That's just silly.

Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stereo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 748

Member Rated:
5
Icon 12 posted December 07, 2006 08:04      Profile for Stereo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
What annoys me, however, are the anti-gay marriage advocates who break out the 'slippery slope' argument. It holds no ground, no merit, and no sense. They say, "well if we let two people of the same sex get married, we're throwing away the sanctity of marriage, so then we open the door to marrying goats, and sheep, and trees, etc."

And curiously, they don't ask for the divorce laws to be revisited. If something threatens a marriage, it's divorce! [Big Grin]

--------------------
Eppur, si muove!

Galileo Galilei

Posts: 2289 | From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 08:06      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
What annoys me, however, are the anti-gay marriage advocates who break out the 'slippery slope' argument. It holds no ground, no merit, and no sense. They say, "well if we let two people of the same sex get married, we're throwing away the sanctity of marriage, so then we open the door to marrying goats, and sheep, and trees, etc."

And curiously, they don't ask for the divorce laws to be revisited. If something threatens a marriage, it's divorce! [Big Grin]
Yea, I'd suggest the sanctity of marriage went out the window when the divorce rate exceeded 50%.
Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
The-Tech
Geek
Member # 2506

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 10:05      Profile for The-Tech     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:

If you want to mix tolerance and freedom of speech, then ponder the following. Should we allow some people to tell others that black are under-humans? That the Nazis were right to kill the Jews? They would just be stating their opinion, aren't they?

Absolutely ! Hate speech is ignorance based on bad facts and logical fallacies! One way to fight it is to show it for it is and you cant do that if it's suppressed. Hell that only brings up "They want to stop the truth" argument. Screw 'em don't ignore them don't stop them just pounce on them and mentally bitch slap into next Tuesday.


Dave

--------------------
God not only plays dice with the universe,
he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen
--- Stephen Hawking

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject -- Winston Churchill

Posts: 128 | From: Third Stone from the Sun | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
The-Tech
Geek
Member # 2506

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 10:12      Profile for The-Tech     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
TFD I don't want a case-by-case definition. I'm going to be stubbornly scientific about this. What are traditional family values and what makes them traditional and what about being traditional is so desireable?

They don't exist. "Traditional family values" is one of those self described qualities that people or groups roll out when they want support for their personal opinions. The definition changes depending on the desired outcome ... here are a few more
"Patriotism"
"Big Corporations"
"Professionalism"

Yes some of these items have agreed upon definitions but many people use them to facetiously.

Dave

--------------------
God not only plays dice with the universe,
he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen
--- Stephen Hawking

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject -- Winston Churchill

Posts: 128 | From: Third Stone from the Sun | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 15:28      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
I would imagine that right-wingers would argue that their traditional values of independence, self reliance, and personal responsibility are the soundest foundations for building a happy family, and when combined with a clear cut Christian moral framework produce the best chance of bringing up children to be well balanced adults and good contributing members of society.

The trouble is, you're just explaining vagueness with more vagueness. What's a Christian moral framework and why's it better than, say, a Jewish one? And what evidence is there that this is how to make kids turn out right?

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
nerdwithnofriends
Uber Geek
Member # 3773

Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 16:19      Profile for nerdwithnofriends     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
I would imagine that right-wingers would argue that their traditional values of independence, self reliance, and personal responsibility are the soundest foundations for building a happy family, and when combined with a clear cut Christian moral framework produce the best chance of bringing up children to be well balanced adults and good contributing members of society.

The trouble is, you're just explaining vagueness with more vagueness. What's a Christian moral framework and why's it better than, say, a Jewish one? And what evidence is there that this is how to make kids turn out right?
Firstly, I don't think there's much difference between Jewish and Christian values - this is a 'judeochristian' country, some say.

Xan, here's my idea on the way they think: you can't prove that "Christian" (i.e. defined in the bible/protestant) values are the 'right way' to do something, but you can't prove that they're bad, either. Basically an 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentallity'- it got us where we are today, why change, etc etc.

The issue then becomes, if you've never given 'other' (non-tradidional) values a chance, how can you lambast them? It's the same old issue; nobody's trying to tell you what you can and cannot do, so long as what you want to do doesn't negatively impact others. Opposing gay marriage is fine; opposing gay marriage and trying to pass legislation against it is not, because you're trying to force someone to conform to your values for what is quite honestly a trivial issue.

If you want defined "Traditional" values, I suggest you look up court rulings and precedents in the united states prior to the 1960s, and the statements that accompany them; I think that'll give you a pretty good idea as to what they are, and it's as close as you're going to get to a scientific definition.

--------------------
"The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower." - Robert M. Pirsig

Posts: 948 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted December 07, 2006 19:19      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
On a serious note.

I've always been willing to have the debate about homosexual marriage. I say if two people love eachother, who the hell am I to tell them they can't marry eachother? It's not as though it affects my life any. I'll get upset if they try and make homosexual marriage mandatory.

Modern marriage appears to be the creation of religious institutions, as a covenant between a man, a woman and god, as such "gay marriage" makes a mockery of religion, and I think that is why it upsets so many.

I have no problem with civil unions, since such unions do have a benefit in society in that couples have the capability of caring for each other.

quote:
[QBWhat annoys me, however, are the anti-gay marriage advocates who break out the 'slippery slope' argument. It holds no ground, no merit, and no sense. They say, "well if we let two people of the same sex get married, we're throwing away the sanctity of marriage, so then we open the door to marrying goats, and sheep, and trees, etc."
[/QB]

The individuals who feel there is a slippery slope to marrying goats and sheep, etcetera, appear to have some sexual attraction to the beasts that is beyond most of us. Why thesespeople continue to perpetrate this backwoods, barnyard-animal-loving stereotype of their lifestyle is at the very least self-defeating. So let us not forget, it is they who have (ahem) left the barn door open.

CP

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 08, 2006 13:11      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
Modern marriage appears to be the creation of religious institutions, as a covenant between a man, a woman and god, as such "gay marriage" makes a mockery of religion...

... which is why I'm so in favour of it ! [Wink]

But seriously, if marriage is a religious institution, surely the issue of gay marriage should be left to the churches to decide, not The State.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10669 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 08, 2006 17:03      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Churches appear to hate homosexuals... strangely I cannot find any comment from Jesus on the matter!

I am told that Islam disapproves of homosexuality too - yet in many historical Islamic countries homosexuality was apparently at the very least "blind eyed"

The Greeks seem to have actively encouraged it amongst young men to divert them from the "evils of women" and the Romans appeared not to care... thought they stole most of their ideas from the Greeks anyway

In the UK we have had a very strange attitude to it... illegal until recently but mostly tolerated "behind closed doors" (as long as it doesn't frighten the horses - bonus points for recognising the reference...) with a strangley reverse homophobic mainstream that loved "camp" comedians like Kenneth Williams, Frankie Howerd, Larry Grayson et al.

To be honest all the "queer" guys I ever met were just really nice guys - some were camp, some were closet and some were out and out "out". Why should I care? Nice people are nice and nasty people are not, I have never found sexual orientation to affect that metric...

And before anyone else brings it up... yes I have had offers or at least polite inquiries from that quarter in the past, certainly when I was younger (like in my 20s) - I have always replied politely but firmly that although the interest was flatterering my interests lie purely with the females of the species!

Once I was even complimented on that response - "Oh well at least you didn't punch me or say f*ck off you queer" [Big Grin]

I also have the strange 'honour' of being friends with a guy who used to be a woman and married to a client of mine - but to be honest they are both lot happier now... The client met someone else and she/he is a hell of a lot happier in their "new" self than they ever were as a woman... Also without prior history/knowlege you would not realise he was formerly a she. Unfortunately for them the same cannot always be said of he/she transexuals....

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1936 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 09, 2006 10:53      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
Churches appear to hate homosexuals... strangely I cannot find any comment from Jesus on the matter!

It is indeed sad that things appear thus. [Frown]

My attempt to speak on behalf of the 'official' teaching and position of the Roman Catholic Church on the topic is as follows:

The Church does not hate nor encourage hatred toward homosexuals, despite the actions and words of some ill-advised and ill-behaved who number themselves amoung its members.

Quite the opposite to hating people with homosexual leanings or desires, the Church has special ministries and programs to help them change/avoid/refrain from homosexual practices, which the Church does believe and teach to be unnatural and therefore disdainful. (The practice, not the persons)

The Christian marriage as currently practiced is a 1)continuation of the very ancient Hebrew sacrament, 2)is held to receive its blessing from the Church (God's visible representation or body in our understanding), and 3) is for the purpose of procreation. Thus, to encourage or allow or recognize the 'marrying' of two people of the same sex would put those Christians doing so in the position of being infidels - unfaithful and breaking covenant with their God. One could hardly expect that those trying to be faithful would yield on this issue of gay marriage within the Church. Neither do we wish for governments to do so. There exists in every land, including this one, "common law" marriage which effectively leaves both the Church and the State outside of such unions. Frankly, I cannot help but think this would be the best way for such persons to resolve the issue if they are sincere about such a relationship. They are thereby free from encumbrances from either authority, and live accordingly.

Folks wishing to act outside the teachings of the Church are certainly free to do so, but why must they then think that the Church, the deposit of the faith, change to suit their whims? Surely, if the Christian God is real, we are made in His image and not the other way 'round. Perhaps the better road for any who find themselves unwilling to make the ongoing effort to avoid behaviors labelled as sin buy the Church would be better served by absenting themselves from the process rather than attempting to diminish it for others.

As for OT vs NT commentary or words of Jesus: What is recorded in the NT is held to be a miniscule fraction of all He said or did in His years on Earth as a man, "else all the libraries and books of the world could not contain them." Jesus' own recorded words, "I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it", should suffice to explain His position on the OT law in terms of conduct, etc.

A more personal viewpoint and summary: It is not right for one claiming to "follow the Book" to act directly against any that he/she believes to be sinning, unless said actions are dangerous to others in a very immediate way. You've all heard the expression that believers are to "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Heck of a good idea, nearly impossible to live up to (in my experience, at least).

So to offer examples, I would not lift one finger to stop someone in their homosexual or other sexual behaviors unless it were a matter of rape or other unwanted abuse. If a friend or relative were to become 'married' to a same gender person, I would not in any way affirm that 'marriage', but, other than that, would do all within my power to love and affirm those persons in their personhood.

I apologize for the length of the post and hope that my points are clear enough.

gg

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 09, 2006 11:07      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
Churches appear to hate homosexuals... strangely I cannot find any comment from Jesus on the matter!


In one of the letters to one group of people jesus lists homosexuality amunst other things as why they are doing bad. Sorry that I don't have the time (read: feel like) looking up the exact verse. I agree with you. Why does the church blow this one sin out of proportion. why do they not get as upset when someone does other things jesus told us not to.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 09, 2006 12:41      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
In one of the letters to one group of people jesus lists homosexuality amunst other things as why they are doing bad. Sorry that I don't have the time (read: feel like) looking up the exact verse. I agree with you. Why does the church blow this one sin out of proportion. why do they not get as upset when someone does other things jesus told us not to.

Jesus did not write letters. That was Paul. The Church puts no special emphasis on sexual sins of any sort other than to observe that they are the most common due to the nature of humankind and our temptation towards all forms of lust, gluttony and greed.

The emphasis you imply, Ash, (unless I misunderstand your question), is brought about by people whose agenda it is to bring such items to the front pages of the media attention and keep the focus there, together with media outlets hungry and willing for anything that will sell more advertizing revenues for them. The Church finds no solace nor comfort either in the fact of humanity's fallen state nor in having to repeatedly defend positions of Doctrine that have been consistently held for over 4 millenia.

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam