rationalskepticism.org

Kazaman wrote:Meanwhile, I'm still awaiting the return of dear old Hnau, whom I've noticed has visited this thread at least twice yet not responded.

Haha I'm flattered that you noticed my absence; it makes me feel so special. But you needn't be alarmed; I remain quite committed to our lovely little discourse.

purplerat wrote:So if it were a religion you had no particular issue with you would have no problem with it? Or what if it were one race being officially recognized and given special rights and privileges (lets say "Black") but no such recognition, rights or privileges for non-blacks? If you truly are ok with the government arbitrarily giving special rights and privileges to one group over others then you really have no integrity on the matter of equal rights or civil liberties so why bother discussing such matters at all?

I have already stated that I have no problem in theory with the one religion I "have no particular issue with", namely Christianity, being supported by the state. Anyhow, the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual conduct may be "arbitrary" from a purely abstract scientific standpoint, (aside from the obvious factor of reproduction) but as I mentioned before, science has naught to do with morals. And it's obviously far easier to chose your religion or your romantic partner than it is to chose your race, so you really can't compare them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:No but you are creating an image of an irrational homophobe.

Well I've been called worse things, so I shan't complain. But it's just kind of sadly funny how I'm perceived. The other day I was chatting with someone online about this same subject, and we discovered that we both agreed on the undesirability of same-sex marriage. But then she made some nasty reference to "fags", and I suggested that it was better not to use such slurs, whereupon she said "fuck you" and disconnected.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It is impossible however to oppose the Jewish etnicity and not Jewish people.

Very true. And if there was such a thing as a homosexual ethnicity, it would be naughty of me to oppose it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yet you are arguing that you should get to decide who gets married and who shouldn't.

Because marriage is part of the common inheritance of humanity, and we don't want an embittered minority to demand the right to alter it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Like the highly suspicious coincidence of the Chruch becoming accepting of black people as citizens when the abolishionist movement started?

The abolitionist movement was largely started by the Church herself, so that's an odd accusation. Ever since Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts, we have been "accepting of black people", although sadly certain people in certain times and certain places have failed to live up to this.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Following the same line of logic, why did God never clearly and authoritavely speak out against slavery?

Because he permits it, under certain conditions.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Yet this is what you keep doing by arguing that homosexuals are immoral whent they act on their attraction, when in a consenting relationship.

Heterosexuals are just as immoral when they act on their own sinful attractions in consenting relationships, so it's hardly a one-sided condemnation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again why? Because the bible says so? What makes felatio between two men immoral while a woman giving a blowjob to a man isn't?

Haha well according to traditional Catholic thought both are equally acts of "sodomy".

Thomas Eshuis wrote:We're not the one obsessed by the acts of heterosexuals in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I am growing rather tired of this accusation... nothing would make me happier than for all discussion of homoeroticism to vanish into oblivion. The only reason we seem to be talking about such acts so much is that their fans are demanding we affirm them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Then how is that different from ssm? How does government recognition of ssm endorse homosexuality as a whole when the same isn't true for Islam?

purplerat wrote:I don't see how one could possibly make a distinction between the two rationally - if you oppose same sex marriage because of "Christian values" it takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to accept an Islamic marriage. The state isn't endorsing homosexuality in a same sex marriage any more then they would Islam in a Muslim marriage.
A Catholic church would no more allow two Muslims to marry in a Catholic church and Catholic wedding ceremony than they would allow two homosexuals to do so. So why make a distinction when it comes to what happens outside of the church/religious ceremony? Either it's a marriage which adheres to your religious values or it's not.

There are plenty of aspects of non-Christian religions which the Church considers true, and marriage is one of these. When the Church recognizes Muslim marriages as valid in the eyes of God, she is not saying Islam is true on the whole, she is simply acknowledging the fact that the two faiths overlap on this particular issue. Although an individual Muslim is not necessarily culpable, being a Muslim is objectively a sinful thing, since he is failing in his duty to enter the Church. But that does not mean that every single action he commits as a Muslim is wrong. If he feeds a poor man, he is doing a good deed, and if he marries a wife, he is likewise doing a good deed. So a Muslim marriage, despite its occurring within the confines of a false religion, IS "a marriage which adheres to my religious values". And I want the state to endorse Muslim marriages, just like I want it to endorse Muslim charity.

A Muslim couple could convert to Christianity and remain married, and thus their marriage would become a fully Christian marriage. But if a homosexual couple were to convert to (traditional) Christianity, their union has no such potential, for the very first thing they would have to do would be repent and separate. Saying the Church would not bless a marriage between two Muslims rather pointless; no devout Muslims would WANT such a thing to happen. It would be ridiculous. But the Church certainly would bless a marriage between a Catholic and a Muslim - as she did for my own cousin. This is entirely different from the case of homosexuals, and I can assure you that there are many thousands of them who would dearly love for their marriages to be solemnized by a Catholic priest.

Kazaman wrote:Well, at least you aren't shy. I likewise find it highly suspicious that the non "gay-affirming" Church and scriptures were raised in highly homophobic times and places. It seems like a bit of populism was involved even then. That was not, however, how I envisioned the question. I was implying that you have given absolutely no reason for anyone, even yourself were you to decide to form opinions sensibly, to agree with you or your faction. Why is homosexuality so immoral to you?

I don't know if it would be fair to describe ancient Mediterranean culture as "homophobic". But anyhow, I'm not even trying to get you to agree with my faction. I'm simply trying to show that, given our positions are what they are, we are behaving sensibly.

Kazaman wrote:
Now, you seem to have misread what I said, because I did not claim celibacy or abstinence necessarily stripped anyone of humanity, but that the Vatican's stance (and yours, naturally) strips homosexuals of their humanity. It does so by painting them as lost souls who need guidance and help, who have, as you said, some sort of "condition" which needs curing. It does so without justification.This disgraceful and deplorable attitude is what creates the toxic and divisive culture which I described and I challenge you, again, to justify your opinion in some substantive way, especially in the face of its consequences.

My stance would be that all human beings on Earth are "lost souls who need guidance and help" and every single one of them has a "condition which needs curing", namely sin. Does this strip them of their humanity? Well yes, in a way it does, because whenever we sin we lose something of the image of God wherein mankind was created. But embracing sin will never allow us to regain our lost humanity; we can only attain it by rejecting sin. I really don't see how this doctrine can be interpreted as "toxic and divisive", because all humans are in this together.

Kazaman wrote:You clearly cannot fathom what I mean by shame. This is a regret for something which cannot be changed. This is a shame for feeling. A shame for wanting to love. A shame for wanting companionship. A shame, yes, for physical attraction. They feel fearful and ashamed because they know that people will hate them if they act on their love and attraction; their family, their friends, their peers. They feel ashamed because they hear and read, every day, casual conversation of whether their love and attraction is considered moral. They read and hear condemnations of their love and attraction. They feel like they are broken, perverted, pathetic, disturbed. They blame it on themselves. Have you ever felt shame like that? Have you ever had your friends abandon you because you wanted to be open and honest with them? Have you ever felt that you could never truly be close to your family? Have you ever been scared that you might be left to live without a family? How dare you dismiss that and then have the nerve to call yourself compassionate.

I've never felt it to such a degree, no. But I've certainly felt plenty of shame and guilt in my life. Contrary to popular belief, we Christians don't consider ourselves perfect. And we think that the best way to get rid of those feelings is to stop doing the things which cause them.

But alternatively, of course, one could do what you did and say

I can assure you, lastly, that although I have had physical sexual relations and held romantic relationships unashamedly with men, I have committed no immoral act.

Now I certainly don't recommend the second option. But it remains a possibility. And in either case, I don't think it's fair to complain about the shame you feel.

Kazaman wrote:Upon further reflection, you seem to imply here that homosexuals could, if they wanted, abandon their affections and lead what I'm sure you consider to be the only respectable path of a married life as a heterosexual. The mere thought that you might believe that is outrageous and absurdly hilarious and I dearly hope that is not the case.

Well given that sexual orientation is generally not a binary cage but a sliding scale, I'm sure that there are plenty of "bisexuals" currently with same-sex partners who could conceivably find happiness with spouses of the opposite sex. But I certainly don't suggest that anyone should marry someone he's not attracted to. That would be mean.