|
Still too far to go ... even as a straight guy, I thought when I was a teen we were making progress against senseless hatred. Seems things are pretty much the same now, almost 20 years later.
I'm not so sure we haven't made progress. I can give you a list of nations that have passed same-sex marriage laws (wether partial or full) since then.
Same-sex marriageBelgium
Canada
Denmark
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Portugal
Performed in some jurisdictions
Mexico: DF
United States: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, VT, Coquille
Civil unions and
registered partnerships
Andorra
Austria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Greenland
Hungary
Iceland
Luxembourg
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Slovenia
Switzerland
Wallis and Futuna
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Yeah, we've come far by certain standards. But the fact that there are still laws against it is depressing. And kids will still use 'gay' (or worse names)as an insult without fear of much reproach from their peers.
Yeah, we've come far by certain standards. But the fact that there are still laws against it is depressing. And kids will still use 'gay' (or worse names)as an insult without fear of much reproach from their peers.
When I was growing up in the 80s, we had a few kids who told non-stop n-word jokes. In high school in the mid-90s, the arrival of the first black students warranted the attention of sheriff's deputies and spawned a considerable new birth of racist humor. There may or may not have been a cross burning (I've heard both ways) but the small town omerta would never admit to it regardless.
In the same town in the Noughties, a girl I tutored was one half of an interracial couple and they apparently didn't get any trouble. But a year or two prior I was in the room when a boy at the same high school heard a lesson about the Klan and proceeded then to joke about getting his gun and going out and shooting a bunch of n-words. Two seats down from him was the lone black girl in the room.
At this rate my town will come around fully about 2040, decades after the problem is proclaimed solved.
|
Yeah, we've come far by certain standards. But the fact that there are still laws against it is depressing. And kids will still use 'gay' (or worse names)as an insult without fear of much reproach from their peers.When I was growing up in the 80s, we had a few kids who told non-stop n-word jokes. In high school in the mid-90s, the arrival of the first black students warranted the attention of sheriff's deputies and spawned a considerable new birth of racist humor. There may or may not have been a cross burning (I've heard both ways) but the small town omerta would never admit to it regardless.
In the same town in the Noughties, a girl I tutored was one half of an interracial couple and they apparently didn't get any trouble. But a year or two prior I was in the room when a boy at the same high school heard a lesson about the Klan and proceeded then to joke about getting his gun and going out and shooting a bunch of n-words. Two seats down from him was the lone black girl in the room.
At this rate my town will come around fully about 2040, decades after the problem is proclaimed solved.
Stories like that make me wonder what is the cause of such attitudes. I never experienced or saw any bigotry or prejudice until after high school.
Your very lucky CJ.
I was a high school graduate in 89 my experiance was when a black guy in our school was out and proud and set himself up to be a target because of it.
Supposedly he was expelled for bringing porn on to school and into class but everyone knew it was a set-up by the teachers cause the look on hos face when the teacher for no reason "confronted" him about it told us all it wasn't his. I looked at the teacher and saw him looking waay to smug. Needless to say he was expelled and the school board voted to not let him attend any schools in the county.
no one knows what happened to him.
It made the rest of us guys find girlfriends real quick. I know of at least 5 or six guys I played around with on a regular basis in high school but we wern't dumb enough to let anyone else know after what happened to ron.
My first cousin disowned his first child at the age of 14 because the boy was gay and my cousin was devoutly christian at the time so he wasn't gonna have that kind of perversion in his house. After my cousin divorced his nutty ass wife they were able to reconcile but the hurt was still there. The bad part was the rest of the family didnt know because wiffey was ashamed and kept it hidden from our side so we didn't know to be able to help the boy.
It'sstill here and it's still real but it's getting alot better. I have nothing but hope for the future reguardless of the poltics.
We have gone from being locked up to fighting for marriage equality in just a few short decades. I look at how many schools now have Gay/Straight alliances and feel a true sense of hope for the furture. In my high school days you even get called "gay" and those really were fighting words.
We have a long way to go but look at and marvel at how far we have come.
It's true still a long way to go, but we're getting there.
Especially when you consider, situations like the raid on Stonewall and the arrests that occurred after the first Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
Australia has a very active and healthy Gay and Lesbian community, my uncle and his partner are elder statesmen of the community (both are political active and my uncles partner was president of ACON). Their views on gay marriage are interesting, they are more interested in civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage rather than marriage (this has been largely achieved but there are one or two things that need to be sorted). I think their attitude has a lot to do with the fact that they are both atheists and don't see the need for the religious hoopla, (the party and a ceremony yes but the other stuff no) they understand that other people see the symbolism as important and support them in pursuing the full changes to the marriage laws.
Stories like that make me wonder what is the cause of such attitudes. I never experienced or saw any bigotry or prejudice until after high school.
They learn it at home for the most part. American racists are very self-conscious about ensuring their kids pick up the right values, since they know society at large has shifted from being of their party to just not caring very much. We've got a ways to go before we live in an anti-racist society.
Another boy was unafraid to put in writing that he more or less supported Nazi Germany's treatment of homosexuals. And this was a "nice" kid. Never got in any trouble, friendly, respectful.
Maybe 2040 is overestimating people. I've been guilty of it before. I ought to know better. I live here.
|
|
Yeah, we've come far by certain standards. But the fact that there are still laws against it is depressing. And kids will still use 'gay' (or worse names)as an insult without fear of much reproach from their peers.
Did you expect them to go about refering to you as:
Piece of firewood!
Happy Person!
That would have undermined the integrity of english literature.
Serves you right for associating in bright Cavalcade.
|
|
It's true still a long way to go, but we're getting there.Especially when you consider, situations like the raid on Stonewall and the arrests that occurred after the first Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
Australia has a very active and healthy Gay and Lesbian community, my uncle and his partner are elder statesmen of the community (both are political active and my uncles partner was president of ACON). Their views on gay marriage are interesting, they are more interested in civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage rather than marriage (this has been largely achieved but there are one or two things that need to be sorted). I think their attitude has a lot to do with the fact that they are both atheists and don't see the need for the religious hoopla, (the party and a ceremony yes but the other stuff no) they understand that other people see the symbolism as important and support them in pursuing the full changes to the marriage laws.
Yay! Down with Church and State!
|
Homophobia is pure hatred. The biggots like to try to hide behind their religion, but in the end thats all it is.
The worst are the closet case politicians who advocate an anti-gay agenda, but are willing to smoke meth and hire a gay hooker on the weekend.
I reserve a very special personal hatred for them.
You know what my favorite phrase from the Bible is?
Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself.
You know what my favorite phrase from the Bible is?
Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself.
It's also the most misused, most misquoted, and most often taken out of context.
I don't think bigotry will ever dissappear, but it is being pushed back. And thats a good thing. With intolerance comes the inability to see grey areas, and that's a terrible thing in a world with some genuinely complex issues.
What scares me is that people like James Dobson, and George Rekers, have psychology degrees when thier motives are based entirely in religion yet using psueo-science to achieve their ends. That really bugs me as a big science nerd. Thier as bad as homeopaths.
It is a tendency today to measure the quality of the democracy in a country by how gay-friendly the country is. Such as: Israel is the only middle-east country that allows for pride parades.
This glosses over a very central issue: the current fight against prejudice and bigotry is fought according to collectivist principles. The goal is adding gay people (or any other group) to the list of groups that people can't discriminate. Give it ten years or so, and there will be a huge movement for fat rights. Remember where you heard it first.
Doing it this way is basically saying: You're not okay because you're a human being, you're okay because you belong to a group the establishment is currently favouring. More and more groups will belong, but those who do not belong will be further and further demonized. They'll just have to take all the crap people want to throw somewhere.
The establishment has been good enough to allow gay people to enjoy some mainstreamness. Given enough of a crisis, this will disappear instantly. All it will take is that blaming gay people for something will be politically convenient in some way. Compare with muslims after 9/11 if you wish.
So what should be done? Well the laws need to be changed to be neutral. However, true progress is not about laws. It's about understanding and world-view. There will always be bigots and fanatics, and these people will always cause suffering. What is needed is a true focus on the individual. As soon as someone is part of a group more than a human being, there is fertile ground for group-think and all sorts of putrid little hatreds and suspicions. The problem is that politicians think in terms of groups, and find it lucrative to act accordingly.
So, the next time you hear a politician talking about ANY group of people that people haven't chosen to be part of, be it blacks, whites, yellows, elderly, children, gays, men, women, understand that that politician wants to reduce people, individuals to mere members of a group. If you vote for that guy, you'll be treated only as part of some group or other.
I agree to an extent that of course you can take such things to extremes, the politically correct parade already do that, hell they tried to get Santa not to say ho ho ho, because it has gangster rap implications.
But there is a difference between beleiving in equality and having some rudimentary legislature to prohibit most forms of baseless discrimination. Note the baseless, you should be discriminated against in a job interview if you are less qualified, you should never get a job because you are black/gay/mormon, that's even more insulting IMO, it implies that you can't be qualified to do the job.
But that's extreme anti-discrimination, and its a far shot from legalising gay civil unions; not marriage, if the Church doesn't want you that's their perrogative, but the state shouldn't care if your married under god, allah or nothing but love. Also, most overweight people have a lot more resposibility for their condition than tall people, or gay people or black people. So while I agree that true change is in the people of a society, I do think some, reasonable legislation to stymy institutional baseless discrimination is a good thing, and a step forward.
I should be clear: I think it's a bloody disgrace that gay people can't marry in the eyes of states and legislations everywhere. It's as if people think they have a right to be upset because of the sex lives of other couples. And all those little towns, workplaces and so on where people make a point of cracking jokes about gays, what they're really doing is faking a feeling of community by defining and demonizing another group. All in all, a very sad state of things.
However, I still feel I must stress that things usually called affirmative action is just as discriminating as what the PC crowd is angry about. It's not acceptable that someone who, say, wants a university education, won't get that because of his race, but would have gotten it if he was of another race. Every sort of affirmative action results in similar problems.
I am not entirely opposed to affirmative action, though. It is something that's useful for opening up a field. However, after that has been done, the only effective method is letting the change happen. Because it will, as it always has. Once people start accepting the idea of female cops, the change is already on its way. One day, perhaps a good while in the future, but still, it will no longer be an issue at all.
Forcing that change, though, gives no greater actual support, protection or acceptance.
However, I still feel I must stress that things usually called affirmative action is just as discriminating as what the PC crowd is angry about. It's not acceptable that someone who, say, wants a university education, won't get that because of his race, but would have gotten it if he was of another race. Every sort of affirmative action results in similar problems.Forcing that change, though, gives no greater actual support, protection or acceptance.
What if the government doesn't dictate that the university set aside places in courses for disadvantaged groups but makes funding available for extra places for disadvantaged groups?
On the whole affirmative action can alienate the very people you need to educate into accepting the changes you want to make.
Tomorrow (May 18th) on Oprah, country musician Chely Wright talks about her recent decision to Come Out. Her insight into the industry reaction to her decision should be interesting.
|
|
I agree to an extent that of course you can take such things to extremes, the politically correct parade already do that, hell they tried to get Santa not to say ho ho ho, because it has gangster rap implications.
But there is a difference between beleiving in equality and having some rudimentary legislature to prohibit most forms of baseless discrimination. Note the baseless, you should be discriminated against in a job interview if you are less qualified, you should never get a job because you are black/gay/mormon, that's even more insulting IMO, it implies that you can't be qualified to do the job.
But that's extreme anti-discrimination, and its a far shot from legalising gay civil unions; not marriage, if the Church doesn't want you that's their perrogative, but the state shouldn't care if your married under god, allah or nothing but love. Also, most overweight people have a lot more resposibility for their condition than tall people, or gay people or black people. So while I agree that true change is in the people of a society, I do think some, reasonable legislation to stymy institutional baseless discrimination is a good thing, and a step forward.
So if I am understanding you correctly a person, who happens to be gay, has no responsibility for their actions? But a fat person always does?
|
|
Considering String Theory invalidates religion and evolution, time to face facts. The need for Sex is caused by singularity exposure. Considering every disease we know of is a consequence of singularity exposure, Id say responsibility for anything anyone 'suffers from' falls short of anything we are prepared to do to fix it.
So if I am understanding you correctly a person, who happens to be gay, has no responsibility for their actions? But a fat person always does?
No, that's far more extreme and black and white, I did qualify it with most, and more. Not entire. But, if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay. Just like a black person shouln't be held accountable for thier choice to be black, or tall person for their choice to be tall. It's not a choice.
Most people don't choose to be fat, but it's something you can change, that's detrimental to your health and well-being. So their really not comparative issues, notice I say healthy weight above. I am not pro-skinny, or crach dieting, or weight-loss for superficial reasons done in harmful ways. I am however, pro-health. An adult does have a certain responsibility for their own body. Not that you should be fired for having a few extra pounds if it doesn't interfere with your job, just that weight is not at all in the same ballpark as race, or height or sexuality.
...if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay....
OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.
|
|
...if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay....OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.
So...we are rewriting Christian Hostory to spin a new church for the 2000+ era: Its all about not giving in to Sin...but forgiving you if you do?
Homosexuality is (a) a Mental disorder...fixed by lobotamy, (b) a sexually transmitted disease...cured by a vaccine, (c) a life choice...cured by a bullet, or (d) Satan's voice in your head...cured by exorcism?
...if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay....OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.So...we are rewriting Christian Hostory to spin a new church for the 2000+ era: Its all about not giving in to Sin...but forgiving you if you do?
Homosexuality is (a) a Mental disorder...fixed by lobotamy, (b) a sexually transmitted disease...cured by a vaccine, (c) a life choice...cured by a bullet, or (d) Satan's voice in your head...cured by exorcism?
I didn't say I agreed with the RC's pov -- I don't. I was just (attempting) to point out a flaw with that particular analogy vs. Roman Catholic doctrine.
OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.
So why aren't they anti-fat as well? After all, "gluttony" is a Deadly Sin, but "homosexual activity" isn't (just "lust" in general). Seems like their theology is logic-Lite there.
|
|
I didn't say I agreed with the RC's pov -- I don't. I was just (attempting) to point out a flaw with that particular analogy vs. Roman Catholic doctrine....if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay....OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.So...we are rewriting Christian Hostory to spin a new church for the 2000+ era: Its all about not giving in to Sin...but forgiving you if you do?
Homosexuality is (a) a Mental disorder...fixed by lobotamy, (b) a sexually transmitted disease...cured by a vaccine, (c) a life choice...cured by a bullet, or (d) Satan's voice in your head...cured by exorcism?
Oh I wasnt sinking my teeth into you...I agree that we need to do away with everything that doesnt have everyone's direct and regular approval. including Church and State.
OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.So why aren't they anti-fat as well? After all, "gluttony" is a Deadly Sin, but "homosexual activity" isn't (just "lust" in general). Seems like their theology is logic-Lite there.
{shrugs} To say nothing of molesting kids. I dunno, I stopped drinking their Flavor Aid over a decade ago. :)
|
|
OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.So why aren't they anti-fat as well? After all, "gluttony" is a Deadly Sin, but "homosexual activity" isn't (just "lust" in general). Seems like their theology is logic-Lite there.
I've seen a babylonian wall carving where the high priest buggers a baby...so what one Theocracy finds acceptable and another doesnt is purely a cultural trend.
what one Theocracy finds acceptable and another doesnt is purely a cultural trend.
I'm talking about internal consistency in the SAME religious group in the same time period, however -- not comparing different sets of them.
...if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay....OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.
And I really don't think gay people should force their way into getting marriage in the eyes of the Church, the Church has a right to its own values unless it actually has policies of gay-bashing, as much as I disagree with the Churchs stance.
But I don't see any reason why a gay couple shouldn't have all the legal rights of union as a straight couple, and vice versa. It should be equal, the religion, or lack thereof involved should have no affect on the legal status of a union.
If acting upon your homosexuality is wrong, that implies that people who are homosexual have impulses to do wrong things, and are therefore more wrong or sinful than straight people. That stance is built around the idea that it is a mental illness, or a choice. Which it isn't, it actually isn't, no more than being straight or many other things. It's a genuine difference on a psychological level.
And thus acting on it is no more or less wrong than heterosexual intercourse. And if acting on any, non harmful sexual urge between consentual adults is a sin, then I'll just keep sinning, thank you. Then again, how bad of a sin is sex outside of marriage supposed to be? And aren't periods considered shameful by the bible? I imagine as it becomes less acceptable to discriminate against gay people, the church will slowly marginalise its denouncement of them, the mainstream church, their are creationists, their will always be racists and homophobes, but the Roman Catholic church is a political organisation, if public opinion turns, other sins will suddenly become much more important.
and let's not even go near Avarice..
I agree that we need to do away with everything that doesnt have everyone's direct and regular approval. including Church and State.
So... basically... you're saying "If anyone doesn't like it we scrap the whole thing"? Yeah, something tells me that'll never work. Humans can't even agree on what entertainment is good or bad, if we rely completely on an "all or nothing" viewpoint towards the things that are actually important we'll never get anything done.
|
|
...if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay....OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.And I really don't think gay people should force their way into getting marriage in the eyes of the Church, the Church has a right to its own values unless it actually has policies of gay-bashing, as much as I disagree with the Churchs stance.
But I don't see any reason why a gay couple shouldn't have all the legal rights of union as a straight couple, and vice versa. It should be equal, the religion, or lack thereof involved should have no affect on the legal status of a union.
If acting upon your homosexuality is wrong, that implies that people who are homosexual have impulses to do wrong things, and are therefore more wrong or sinful than straight people. That stance is built around the idea that it is a mental illness, or a choice. Which it isn't, it actually isn't, no more than being straight or many other things. It's a genuine difference on a psychological level.
And thus acting on it is no more or less wrong than heterosexual intercourse. And if acting on any, non harmful sexual urge between consentual adults is a sin, then I'll just keep sinning, thank you. Then again, how bad of a sin is sex outside of marriage supposed to be? And aren't periods considered shameful by the bible? I imagine as it becomes less acceptable to discriminate against gay people, the church will slowly marginalise its denouncement of them, the mainstream church, their are creationists, their will always be racists and homophobes, but the Roman Catholic church is a political organisation, if public opinion turns,...
Besides...a church has an IP right to Church Weddings. If it doesnt want Homosexuals to be married in their church...they say no - this is for our cult members only.
what one Theocracy finds acceptable and another doesnt is purely a cultural trend.I'm talking about internal consistency in the SAME religious group in the same time period, however -- not comparing different sets of them.
Religions evolve, and change, and while most exhibit conservative traits, they usually push the stuff that's considered really abhorrent by their host society to the background. This occurs even in the same religion when observed in different regions. Roman Catholics in Ireland are downright pagan, just with the trappings of Catholicism, being afraid of faeries and suspicious of wraths is just publicly ignored, but has always been a part of Irish religion, hell look up a Shiela na Gig. And their on churches.
|
|
I agree that we need to do away with everything that doesnt have everyone's direct and regular approval. including Church and State.So... basically... you're saying "If anyone doesn't like it we scrap the whole thing"? Yeah, something tells me that'll never work. Humans can't even agree on what entertainment is good or bad, if we rely completely on an "all or nothing" viewpoint towards the things that are actually important we'll never get anything done.
au contrare...when we do agree, we achieve something great. It gives consensus a value beyond measure. Any Tyrant can stick a barrel down a throat and declare: We do this or you die! Consensus means when we do move - we all move together.
I know a lot of politicians who believe as you do that Consesnus is unworkable - not one of them believes that human rights and equality is for all.
I know a lot of politicians who believe as you do that Consesnus is unworkable.
Eh, you have an EXTREMELY higher opinion of humanity than I do, it seems. It has nothing to do with human rights or equality and everything to do with the fact that for the most part humans are MORONS.
Besides...a church has an IP right to Church Weddings. If it doesnt want Homosexuals to be married in their church...they say no - this is for our cult members only.
Yup, not the phrasing I would have used, but that's okay. Them's your religious kicks. If you start the church of nobody below 5' 5", and don't let small people or most women get married in the eyes of your 7' miscellaneous diety, that's fine too. Your church, and as long as its not actively hurting people, your rules.
But marriage in the eyes of the state, call it civil union or whatever, needs to be thoroughly divorced from any individual religion. The most religion friendly state, would be a state that isn't sponsored by anyone, allowing it to be impartial to the various religious organisations and instititions. That seems fair to me. You can gather, build churches, have believes, just don't try and have law or science change to suit your fundamentally unprovable beleives, because then in my opinion you are doing active harm.
Consensus means when we do move - we all move together.
And until we do, we drift in limbo for God-knows-how-long. I think I'd prefer the arguing.
Which is why we have airlocks on space ships.Consensus means when we do move - we all move together.And until we do, we drift in limbo for God-knows-how-long. I think I'd prefer the arguing.
I'm not sure I follow. The thing that comes to mind is Jubal Early getting spaced.
"Well... here I am."
I agree with Orthos that all or nothing standpoints don't work, hell their the worst thing. Balck & White leads to self-righteous, and I'd put money on self-righteous people doing alot or more damage and killing at least indirectly than serial killers ever have over the course of history.
Moderation and compromise are your friends, if tempered by facts and logic, then we can build a stable, more fair society for everyone.
I just hope we're not mostly total morons.
|
|
Besides...a church has an IP right to Church Weddings. If it doesnt want Homosexuals to be married in their church...they say no - this is for our cult members only.Yup, not the phrasing I would have used, but that's okay. Them's your religious kicks. If you start the church of nobody below 5' 5", and don't let small people or most women get married in the eyes of your 7' miscellaneous diety, that's fine too. Your church, and as long as its not actively hurting people, your rules.
But marriage in the eyes of the state, call it civil union or whatever, needs to be thoroughly divorced from any individual religion. The most religion friendly state, would be a state that isn't sponsored by anyone, allowing it to be impartial to the various religious organisations and instititions. That seems fair to me. You can gather, build churches, have believes, just don't try and have law or science change to suit your fundamentally unprovable beleives, because then in my opinion you are doing active harm.
So if I say OK...tomorrow I will be collecting donations from anyone who wants to buy in - Funds will be used to build a church (The Church of the Rainbow Connection - sorry muppet joke) for use of the Homosexual community, every one is going to be cool with that.
|
|
OK, but the Roman Catholic church (and possibly other strains of Christianity) takes your analogy the other way: Church teachings say that being gay isn't a sin, only acting upon it.So why aren't they anti-fat as well? After all, "gluttony" is a Deadly Sin, but "homosexual activity" isn't (just "lust" in general). Seems like their theology is logic-Lite there.
Lust and Gluttony are "Sins" the Church teachings do not differentiate between being "gay" or anything else that is of LUST.
EDIT: I am not trying to say that anyone is in a state of sin. It is not upto me to tell you what to do or say.
|
|
So if I am understanding you correctly a person, who happens to be gay, has no responsibility for their actions? But a fat person always does?No, that's far more extreme and black and white, I did qualify it with most, and more. Not entire. But, if your born overweight, you do have to try and keep healthy, and most overweight people are not naturally so, nor are they among the subset of the population who can't attain a healthy weight. If your gay, your not responsible, for being gay. Just like a black person shouln't be held accountable for thier choice to be black, or tall person for their choice to be tall. It's not a choice.
Most people don't choose to be fat, but it's something you can change, that's detrimental to your health and well-being. So their really not comparative issues, notice I say healthy weight above. I am not pro-skinny, or crach dieting, or weight-loss for superficial reasons done in harmful ways. I am however, pro-health. An adult does have a certain responsibility for their own body. Not that you should be fired for having a few extra pounds if it doesn't interfere with your job, just that weight is not at all in the same ballpark as race, or height or sexuality.
I wish I could have gotten back to this sooner. I was not trying to cause a flame war here people. I wanted clarification.
Thank you for your response, sorry if mine ended up as overly aggressive. I have seen to my mind too many justifications for various things that end up in the same response. I was born that way/ The devil made me do it. I do not buy either one. Yes some people have leanings one way or the other, I will not tell them they should or should not do anything or not. I have enough trouble making my own choices to have to make choices for someone else. We all have to take personal responsibility for our choices and our own actions.
About the whole acting upon it is a sin thing; I don't buy it.
If God wanted it to be a sin, why wasn't it included in the commandments?