Young Writers Society

Now, if you have any more questions, PM me. I don't want to continue with this debate.

That's cool, I think I understand it a bit better now, but it's hard for me to think like that as it is so opposed to my beliefs.

Seeing as this is currently more of a discussion of: "What's your views on faith/beliefs?", I think I should say that I really don't mind people having a faith or a religion, providing that they have questioned it, and that it isn't used as a way of voicing prejudice and trying to influence society. In the end we live in a diverse world with an incredibly varying range of opinions, and I very much doubt we will ever reach a point where the world is unified on everything.

Hayden hasn't been preaching inequality in society on any level, and has actually expressed support of the idea that same-sex couples be treated like normal citizens and be allowed the rights to a legal marriage and a marriage in accordance to any religion that supports it.

Where the disagreement comes appears to be with the word "sin". And according to some religions, homosexuality is that. Along with many things that I don't see as being immoral or wrong; but that isn't the same as calling it illegal. By many strains of religion, anyone who isn't part of their faith is considered sinful and condemned to hell, but that isn't to say that most go around preaching it and telling people to repent in order to save their immortal souls...although a few do.

The thing that is most damaging to the wellbeing of any of the LGBT population is public/vocal disapproval, or the strong disapproval of people close to them such as family or close friends. If we can accept the fact that some people have different sexualities, and not demand that our children conform to a certain way of life that we deem righteous, and support them in whatever path they take, then I think plenty of problems will be solved.

...I think that's where my opinion lies. Although I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that children/young people are raised whilst being taught that homosexuality is a sin and that the only way to be a good person is to be asexual or have a marriage. It's perhaps a subtlety that should be considered when preaching to young people. I have known a couple of people who struggled immensely with their identity because of the religion they were raised as, and I personally had a few (although more minor) issues due to being raised as a catholic. Although I guess this can partially be covered by preaching about people having different belief systems and the importance of accepting them, even if you disagree or view it as sinful?

Calm down, everyone.

I’m calm as a clam, Curves <3

Hayden, I will address my first point regarding the use of “the gays”, I find it offensive. It separates homosexual people from heterosexual people in a manner which dehumanises them. To be candid: your town has nothing to do with this debate, and using language with the justification that it’s what your town says is flawed like you can’t believe. Language is our tool in debates and in life, and we are all focused on nuances of meaning and speech.

Secondly, to suggest that I “obviously” anything is to engage in a hypocrisy when placed after your talk about bigotry to Jordan. I, too, am offended by things which label me as what I am not. Regarding your friend; your personal anecdote added to the argument, and it was therefore for argument’s sake. It is very easy to love people who do what you disagree with, and nowhere in my posts did I suggest otherwise. You can also love people you dislike intensely, love is wonderful and ridiculous in that way. I believe you should be able to express that ridiculous, wonderful love, in any way you want without the pressure of religious labelling attached, in fact. I do not believe that sex and love are one and the same. I do, however, believe that sex is a natural and expressive part of love and affection.

You are bound by Christianity and your beliefs regarding scripture and meaning. Your take on homosexuality will always be biased in this way because it’s what you believe is right. However, no one is attacking your faith itself, only the stance it has on the current events. A lot of the problem in debates regarding religion is that some faiths like Christianity and its denominations will choose what to believe and what to relegate to allegory and “past morals”. This is an inconsistency, and there are broad inconsistencies in believes across all of the Christian denominations. There are fundamentalists, Mormons, churches with female pastors. I feel it is likely that some Christian denominations have no issue whatsoever with sexual relations between those of the same gender/sex. For those who believe that affection begets love, it is possible for sex to be the most expressive act of affection, which would make it the ultimate in expressions of love.

I don’t recall Jesus ever saying anything negative about homosexual people, to be honest, whether it is about “lying” together or “loving” one another. Feel free to provide some quotes and such if you can find anything definitive. I accept that you are prejudiced against homosexuals because of the sin you see inherent in their actions. Just as you would be prejudiced against those who partake in extramarital sex.

Plussle: To suggest that someone cannot love like anyone else is to be engaging in inequality. The Christian religion suggests that one who is homosexual cannot, ever, be a just and sinless couple in the eyes of God. That is prejudice. There is no way for the homosexual couple to have sex in a way which is not a sin in Christianity. That is prejudice.

I’m not particularly prejudiced against Christian people, no more than I am anyone else at least. I don’t identify people based on one part of themselves, as religion or sexuality is, and so I try to avoid judging people as sinners and not. As I said earlier, it’s not my place, or anyone else’s, to judge. If you’re the Pope/leader of religion that’s a different story, you’ve got the reins on everything your people are meant to believe. It’s your job in that case to make judgements and resolves, but it’s not our place as religious followers.

I will understand if you don’t respond to my responses to you, Hayden, as I am aware you’ve decided to leave the debate. I hope you get a chance to read and think about them though.

Plussle: To suggest that someone cannot love like anyone else is to be engaging in inequality. The Christian religion suggests that one who is homosexual cannot, ever, be a just and sinless couple in the eyes of God. That is prejudice. There is no way for the homosexual couple to have sex in a way which is not a sin in Christianity. That is prejudice.

The thing is, the inequality that they believe in is only really applicable to people who share their beliefs. I have no problem with being defined as a "sinner" for any of the many religious laws I have probably broken in the eyes of many religions because I don't agree that my actions are wrong, and I don't believe in the God that they believe in. To tell me that I am going to burn in hell based on this belief system has no effect on me, as I don't believe in the same afterlife that they do.

If the condemnation reached outside of a particular faith group, and aimed to repress people in society or of other beliefs, then I would have a problem with it.

I disagree with more of these religions than just their stance on sexuality, and if the people who follow them are willing to accept the beliefs of others and not force their ideals on other people (being particularly cautious in the case of young people), then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to think that.

It's almost a spin-off of the line: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

We shouldn't police peoples' minds or opinions. We should only prevent them from allowing these to cause harm to others.

EDIT: Also, Methodists are lovely and accepting of same-sex couples. And so are a lot of Anglicans, and I'm certain there are many other supportive christian faiths that I can't name... I have a bisexual friend who is an Anglican and has considered becoming a priest.

...And I very much agree with your response to "The Gays".

Plus-One wrote: So essentially if you love someone who is the same gender you have to remain asexual your entire life in order to not sin? And are forbidden from the privilige of sex because you are useless to society as you can't produce children?

This raises an interesting point in my mind. One thing that frustrates me by religious disapproval in itself is the hypocrisy of "Homosexual union (in any shape or form you may disagree with).

If one believes that homosexuality, or in the case of some in this thread, sex between man-man or woman-woman, is a sin and therefore should be forbidden (legally or by the church if segration of state and church occurs completely) the same thereby applies to all other sins that every human being is undeniably guilty of.

At the times homosexuality was persecuted as a crime, then one can argue that the equivalent should have been said about casual sex or lying that was caught red-handed which it has been, countless times. The argument of sin turns into a hypocrisy in someone equally culpable of sins, whether they are "venial sins" or "mortal sins". The anger and mutual impatience seen in this thread can traditionally be viewed as sins or evil thoughts respectively.

Note to those who are going to be argue with scripture: I'm purposely being broad to encompass as many as I can religions. No I cannot argue with you on the bible or whatever else may be quoted as evidence. Whatever your belief may be, one religion is not ultimately right even if you ardently believe in the existence of God. I say this to mutually respect any religion that is present here.

If homosexuality is a sin, a sinner should be equally graced with the open arms of forgiveness and acceptance that the religion pushes for, even if the sinner will ultimately sin again.

Did Pope John Paul II not forgive the man who was jailed for attempting to shoot him? Forgiveness, something I correlate to at least a form of respect for human nature, is the major theme in many religions. As homosexuality is equally argued to be an extension of human nature, should the same not apply?

I don't believe any religious institution has a right to impose their beliefs while cherry picking. Picking what suits you, and having prejudice against something that doesn't affects you directly strikes me as a wholly immoral and idiotic thing to do.

Just a thought.

--

Religion aside, I believe a state has no affair in the maintenance of household. That is the department of religion itself, which has many wrinkles to iron out as previously mentioned in this thread (polygamy, sex slaves, property of individuals etc etc). Religion does not belong in state affairs, therefore (for the sake of debate) any religious argument has no place in determining legal matters. Why? because if for any reason a religion were to push for a law banning civil union between any two individuals, they're imposing their beliefs upon a larger population under their belief umbrella. That causes a whole bunch of other problems. Modern governments have formed laws around basic rights and equality and should oblige to them as thoroughly as Christians refer to the bible, Hindus to the Verdas, Muslims to the Quran, heck Zoroastrianists to the Zend Avesta (sp?).

But it seems not too many people disagree with civil union. The issue arises if say, a Christian couple of a homosexual orientation wants to be married in a church. In which case I say, we must all give and get a little. If they wish to get married in a church they should be able to without a law prohibiting them, with a church they find are willing to do so.

/2¢

But it seems not too many people disagree with civil union.

Then you aren't looking hard enough. A lot of people disagree with civil unions, especially with in the LGBT* community. It is not the same as marriage. If my partner is in hospital dying, I want the right to be able to see them as family. I want to lodge joint taxes. I want marriage, not a civil union.

As far as I'm concerned, every religious argument here proves no one is reading through what has already been said. Religion has no place in marriage unless you're getting married specifically within that religion's guidelines. I'm not Christian, Christianity has no place in my love life. Nor any faith, really.

Then you aren't looking hard enough. A lot of people disagree with civil unions, especially with in the LGBT* community. It is not the same as marriage. If my partner is in hospital dying, I want the right to be able to see them as family. I want to lodge joint taxes. I want marriage, not a civil union.

Just so you know, that may differ from place to place. Civil Union over here (the UK) is identical to marriage in rights, except for the fact that you are forbidden from holding the official ceremony in a religious place, or for the service to contain religious references. Also details such as address are witheld unlike the marriage register.

I personally would push for all couples to be able to choose between marriage and civil partnership. Beyond that, I would push for marriage to be removed from the law completely, and replaced with a contract like a civil union in which people can engage and terminate as and when. If they want that contract to be recognised religiously, then they can have a religious ceremony seperate from it.

...but somehow I doubt many people subscribe to that idea

As ideal as that would be, Plus-One, I don't see that happening for a very long time. For now we just have to fight for marriage equality before we can subscribe to social fairness and equality across the board.

I completely agree.

Plus-One:

Hayden hasn't been preaching inequality in society on any level, and has actually expressed support of the idea that same-sex couples be treated like normal citizens and be allowed the rights to a legal marriage and a marriage in accordance to any religion that supports it.

Thank you for understanding!!! It seems like you're the only one who does.

Jordan:

You believe that it is immoral for two consenting adults of the same sex to do what they want, sexually, in private? How is that anything other than a form of totalitarian bigotry? It may offend you to hear me say that, but that's tough. It offends me (and I'm heterosexual) when you state that it is wrong for homosexuals to do what they want in private, sexually. But I am not going to whine about being insulted and offended. This is a debates section, I wasn't attacking you. Stop getting so angry.

Honestly, if you cannot be at least a little empathetic or compassionate for other people, I don't know if I want to debate with you at all.

I have an opinion. And that opinion is that gay sex is sinful. That doesn't mean I want to ban it or that, if I had the power, I would keep it from happening. People have the right to make whatever choices they want. I can't and won't make choices for other people. I have no right to. But I still have the right to disagree with those choices.

You keep telling me that I'm the wrong one. Well, what if you're wrong? Everyone has different opinions, and honestly, no one should be deemed as right. I've questioned myself before and understand that I may be wrong. This debate isn't "Whose opinion is right". Rather, it's "What is everyone's opinion on the subject", hence the title: "Your Views on Homosexuality".

Penguin:

Hayden, I will address my first point regarding the use of "the gays", I find it offensive. It separates homosexual people from heterosexual people in a manner which dehumanises them. To be candid: your town has nothing to do with this debate, and using language with the justification that it's what your town says is flawed like you can’t believe. Language is our tool in debates and in life, and we are all focused on nuances of meaning and speech.

I believe the mention of my locality is relevant. I've never been told that referring to gay people as "the gays" was derogatory. Even the gay/lesbian community in my school and hometown address and recognize themselves as such. I thank you, though, for bringing it to my attention that it may be offensive to some, for it has never occurred to me. I won't be using it any longer.

Regarding your friend; your personal anecdote added to the argument, and it was therefore for argument’s sake. It is very easy to love people who do what you disagree with, and nowhere in my posts did I suggest otherwise.

This was mostly directed at Jordan. I felt that Jordan was assuming that I hated gay people, so this was why I mentioned Khoshal. And then I felt that you were accusing me of merely bringing him up to sell my opinions, or something. I was trying to show that Christians can love people, no matter who they are. It may not seem like it sometimes, but that is very important to me--that people are loved regardless of sex, age, race, lifestyle, or faith.

However, no one is attacking your faith itself, only the stance it has on the current events.

I've received a lot of negativity due to my Christianity. So anything aggressive aimed at any part of my faith I see as an offence. I apologize if I've overreacted.

I don’t recall Jesus ever saying anything negative about homosexual people, to be honest, whether it is about “lying” together or “loving” one another. Feel free to provide some quotes and such if you can find anything definitive. I accept that you are prejudiced against homosexuals because of the sin you see inherent in their actions. Just as you would be prejudiced against those who partake in extramarital sex.

Jesus did not mention a lot of things specifically, such as homosexuality. He did not address many things and confessed so: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth." (John 16:12) Here, Jesus was saying that He had not told us all that we needed to know. However, He said that God's spirit would guide us into truth.

However, Jesus did not abolish the most of Moses' laws (Matthew 5:17) and told us the He still trusted in the words of Moses. He addressed the things He wanted to change (such as food restrictions, divorce, punishment for sin, new commandments, appropriate number of wives, etc.), but other than the minor changes He made, He still expects us to observe the laws of Moses.

So, to say that homosexuality is not wrong just because Christ did not specifically mention it is impractical. Through careful study of His words, we can determine that He still wishes for us to observe the majority of Moses' laws, including sexual laws.

Also, I don't think the word "prejudice" is necessarily appropriate. I would not say that I am prejudiced against gay people. Just because someone sleeps with someone of the same sex, it doesn't make me think of them any differently. Sin is never on my mind when I meet someone or talk to someone. It is Christ and how He would want me to treat them.

I have never ever, ever labeled any one particular person a "sinner" besides myself. I've never even thought of doing that to someone. I do not believe I have that right to call anyone a sinner. I am a sinner, so much more than I would ever care to confess (however, God knows my heart). I've done awful things, so I don't believe I should ever have the right of being prejudiced toward someone just because they may have sinned.

Jesus said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). I don't deserve to do the stoning and I have no right to. If anything, I deserve to be stoned.

Loose:

Religion has no place in marriage unless you're getting married specifically within that religion's guidelines.

I have said something like this before and absolutely agree.

Kamas: I completely agree with you.

To respond to Loose:

Then you aren't looking hard enough. A lot of people disagree with civil unions, especially with in the LGBT* community.

I was saying in the thread. Not the world in general. As Plus-One said, there are no legal differences between a civil union and a marriage. The difference is whatever it may matter to you and what music you want to play.

I know in France, where I come from, any couple is obligated to marry under the state and in addition can marry under any religious institution they so choose. Therefore, I restate that the only issue is raised when a couple of homosexual orientation wishes to be married in a religious context. To which I restate again, find a church willing to do so. State has no affair in religion and religion in state, therefore states should not be prohibiting these marriages because any argument is essentially rendered invalid due to the lack of religious context, or wholly discriminatory (which also has no place in state affairs).

I do fully support gay marriage, and the liberty of any individual to get married to whoever they may please. However, I feel that arguments between the LGBT community, the state and the religious (anti-LGBT) community have caused a blurring of the lines that poses an issue. It's a set up to fight against brick walls, each with hardwired opinions (opposing ones between the LGBT group and the anti-LGBT group).

Love is a form of faith in itself, faith in another, but that's another discussion. And since you are not Christian, you shouldn't be forced to oblige by what a greater deity has to say. I'm equally not of any denomination, so I fully agree with you. However, the only argument then for you lies in state affairs, which unfortunately is being bent by religious opinions that skew the actual duty of the state. Religion is extremely pertinent to this discussion because often people not only search a simple marriage but an accepting bind under whatever religion they may be part of. The only question for you lies in the state, and when (yes when, it's really only a matter of time at this point) they'll permit gay marriage then you can have whatever fancy bash you may want. If you can't wait, move to New York... or Canada.

HaydenSmith wrote:Plus-One:

Hayden hasn't been preaching inequality in society on any level, and has actually expressed support of the idea that same-sex couples be treated like normal citizens and be allowed the rights to a legal marriage and a marriage in accordance to any religion that supports it.

Thank you for understanding!!! It seems like you're the only one who does.

Jordan:

You believe that it is immoral for two consenting adults of the same sex to do what they want, sexually, in private? How is that anything other than a form of totalitarian bigotry? It may offend you to hear me say that, but that's tough. It offends me (and I'm heterosexual) when you state that it is wrong for homosexuals to do what they want in private, sexually. But I am not going to whine about being insulted and offended. This is a debates section, I wasn't attacking you. Stop getting so angry.

Honestly, if you cannot be at least a little empathetic or compassionate for other people, I don't know if I want to debate with you at all.

I have an opinion. And that opinion is that gay sex is sinful. That doesn't mean I want to ban it or that, if I had the power, I would keep it from happening. People have the right to make whatever choices they want. I can't and won't make choices for other people. I have no right to. But I still have the right to disagree with those choices.

You keep telling me that I'm the wrong one. Well, what if you're wrong? Everyone has different opinions, and honestly, no one should be deemed as right. I've questioned myself before and understand that I may be wrong. This debate isn't "Whose opinion is right". Rather, it's "What is everyone's opinion on the subject", hence the title: "Your Views on Homosexuality".

Everyone has different opinions, but not all opinions deserve respect. A racist does not deserve respect for her/his opinion, so why should a homophobic opinion deserve respect? What if I'm wrong? Well, I'm not the one with bigoted beliefs here.

JordanWilson:

bigot |ˈbigət|
noun
a person who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of their own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

Carelessly throwing around strong words without awareness of their meaning is not sustaining your argument. You aren't demanding Hayden to understand you, but rather bend a knee for which I say you should thread carefully. In a debate forum, criticize the reasoning and argument, not the person. Until then, your argument will lack the strength to hold itself up.

For the sake of discussion, please elaborate your position. And point out the flaws in the arguments you disagree with, keeping in mind their perspective to make your argument stronger. I'm curious to hear what you think.

Jordan.

You think I'm a bigot because I disagree with gay sexual relations. However, I said that if I had the power, I would not forbid it, because it is a personal choice. I am also not prejudiced against gay people, I don't find them intolerable at all, I don't hate them, I don't believe heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals, and I support gay marriage. Yet, because of one mere opinion on sex, you label me as a bigot. I'm not sure how that works.

Hey Hayden,

I would first like to ask you to please not attempt to explain scripture to me. Adding a quote and perhaps a note saying "I believe this means..." would be somewhat more diplomatic in concern with me personally. My understanding of the quotes you supply will suffice.

I'd like to point out that YOU are not receiving negativity in any of the threads you post in re: religion. Your religion certainly may receive some negativity (but that should be expected, Christianity is like any other religion and is fallible in ways). I hope you soon find a way to fully identify the difference between deconstructing an argument and dismissing a religious argument.

On what Jesus did or did not expect his people to do, I don't think either of us could say with such surety as you have. We have scripture which is (as you have probably been told many times) man made and flawed because of it. Not only that, there are many different readings of scripture in any language and faith, my study of the Bible or Qur'an or Veda would differ from your own.

Prejudice: Noun:
Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.

I would say that the notion that homosexual sex is a sin would be prejudiced. Sin is not based solely on reason, it is based on spirituality and religion. Were you, personally, not Christian, would it be likely you would have a problem with it?


I think it is important for us all to note that this particular thread is not a DEBATE. It is instead a DISCUSSION. Please keep civil and understanding that we all have different opinions for whatever reasons. We are exploring those now. No one person in this thread should feel they are being attacked or that they need to recant anything they say.

I think it would be fair to say we have exhausted the "Some Christians feel..." avenue, so unless something new comes up there I don't think we need to continue with that.