Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Jailbait]

I get this rationale (though I don't agree with it), the Bible tells you that homosexuality is bad so you think homosexuality is bad. Fine. I have no issues with that (other than various reasons I think it is goofy, but those are just my opinions), you are entitled to believe anything you want. However, I continue to see people post comments and articles about the government infringing on the rights of religious freedoms. For instance, the recent case in which the Bakers in Oregon were fined 135k for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple. Christians are outraged by this.

So, could someone please enlighten me on the following: If you are not okay with the government passing laws to restrict YOUR practices based on the beliefs of OTHERS (Oregon Cake issue), why are you okay with the government passing laws to restrict the practices of OTHERS based on YOUR beliefs (gay marriage). In fact, you expect it. Is this not hypocritical?

I've yet to get a rational answer for this and would really like one from someone.

[jimwalton]

First of all, restricting same-sex marriage is not infringing on the religious freedoms of LGBT couples.

Second, the bakers in Oregon were wrong, and I speak as a Christian. When you have a business, you have to abide by business laws. Business discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.

I don't think the government should pass laws restricting free religious practice (separation of church and state). But the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage is not an issue of freedom to practice one's religion. Marriage is a social construct, not a religious freedom.

Therefore it's not hypocritical, given your parameters, to seek freedom for religious practice and also to have the opinion that same sex marriage is an offense against God's nature.

[Fear of Emptiness]

> First of all, restricting same-sex marriage is not infringing on the religious freedoms of LGBT couples.

But it is infringing on their right to be treated equally under the law, based on the religious beliefs of others. So it's the opposite side of the same coin.

[Jailbait]

> First of all, restricting same-sex marriage is not infringing on the religious freedoms of LGBT couples.

The definition of religion is beliefs dictated by doctrine. It's just a belief, you just have a book to tell you what to believe. A gay person wanting to marry another gay person has the belief that it is okay. You have the belief, based on your book, that it isn't. Ergo, restricting their beliefs because they are different than yours is actually infringing on their right to practice their beliefs.

> Therefore it's not hypocritical, given your parameters, to seek freedom for religious practice and also to have the opinion that same sex marriage is an offense against God's nature.

No, you are right, it isn't hypocritical to "seek freedom for religious practice and also to have the opinion that same sex marriage is an offense against God's nature". What is, however, hypocritical, is to then go and restrict those same freedoms you seek for others because of your "opinion".

[jimwalton]

You argued yourself out of your own position. Religion, by your own definition, is more than just beliefs; it's a regulation set of dogma set forth by an institution. LGBT people obviously believe various things, but those are not the same as institutional dogma. Ergo, a practicing homosexual who believes what they are doing is right falls into a different class of characteristics than religious dogma. It's not the same thing. Thank you for making that clear.

[Jailbait]

No, religion is not "more" than beliefs, it is just "beliefs" that are handed down from someone else. That doesn't make them worth more, in fact, one could argue they were worth less simply because it's a belief that is grounded on the thoughts of other people and not your own.

As I stated above, a belief in something is just a belief. Religion is a belief, it's simply a belief that you have because a book or preacher told you what to believe. You may believe that homosexuality is immoral because a book or preacher told you so. A homosexual could just as rationally, if not more-so, argue that it is not immoral because it exists in nature throughout all species.

Your argument can't hold up because Islam is also a "regulation set of dogma set forth by an institution" and your logic would require you to follow it's practices with as much dedication as Christianity.

[jimwalton]

Your argument only holds if...

1. Homosexuality can be defined as religion, and
2. Religious belief is just hocus-pocus nonsense.

With those definitions, reasonable discourse is pretty much impossible, especially in a discussion with a Christian. Your presupposition is that Christianity is nonsense, ergo, any conversation with a Christian is nonsense, and anything a Christian says is nonsense. How does this lead to constructive dialogue?

[Jailbait]

What? I have no idea what you are talking about...

> Homosexuality can be defined as religion, and...

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Are you claiming that the only beliefs that can be true are beliefs based on religion (which in itself is a belief)? Ergo, only beliefs based on beliefs are true? Science would choose to differ.

> Religious belief is just hocus-pocus nonsense.

This is moot. You yourself just called it a "belief". If it was KNOWN to be true, it wouldn't be a belief, it would be knowledge. Unless your religion requires no faith, it is a belief. All beliefs are subjective to the person that believes them, so it may be hocus-pocus nonsense, it may not be. We can't know given the current information we have available to us. The only thing we can do us choose to believe what we choose. No one can claim to have the only answer.

My presupposition is not that Christianity is nonsense. I do believe in Christ and I do believe in God, just not the god of your Bible. What I think is nonsense is that you are having trouble with acknowledging the right of other people to believe something different than you do. You claim that I am putting a damper on constructive dialogue by stating all people have a right to believe in what they choose. Yet, you claim that only your beliefs are true and others should not believe any different, exactly how does this allow for any constructive dialogue. You just blamed me for doing exactly what you are doing:

> Your presupposition is that (other beliefs are) nonsense, ergo, any conversation with a (non-Christians are) nonsense, and anything a (non-Christian) says is nonsense.

I have no issues with your beliefs, in fact, I believe alot of what you do. The difference between us is that I can recognize that my beliefs are subjective and other people may come to their own truth. I do not believe I can take what I believe and force others to abide by my rules.

[jimwalton]

There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding here, so some clarification would no doubt be beneficial. By my reading of what you said, you seemed to be equating someone's acceptance of homosexual orientation and lifestyle (belief in the acceptability of particular choices) as the equivalent of religious faith (belief in the truth and implications of spiritual realities). While they both involved belief, they obviously conform to various definitions and arenas of belief. I don't see belief as able to be simply and unilaterally defined, but as nuanced in adherence to its context. I don't at all equate acceptance of LGBT orientation and lifestyle as the same kind of belief as theism.

I am by no means concluding that the only beliefs that can be true beliefs are based on religion. That's nonsense. Science, as you pointed out, is a valid example, as is math and a hundred other things.

Religion is not just a proverbial leap in the dark. Christian faith (possibly different from other faith systems) is always based on evidence and stems from evidence. While religious truth can't be KNOWN to be true, there is enough evidence to show that (1) belief in God is rational and warranted, and (2) inferring to the most logical conclusion takes us clearly in a theistic direction.

Contrary to what seems to have come across, I have no problem acknowledging the right of other people to believe something different than I do. It's a basic human right to have the freedom to believe what you want to believe. By the same token, I don't subscribe to the equality of beliefs. Just because I or anyone else believes something doesn't make it true. Beliefs by themselves are worthless (just because I sincerely believe I can fly doesn't mean I should jump off a tall building). Beliefs have to be grounded in truth, or they are merely opinions. But people have a right to believe what they want. I am quite convinced, having examined the evidence for years, that my religious beliefs are true; I wouldn't hold to them if I wasn't convinced based on the evidence. It's on that basis that I feel that, while others have the right to believe differently, many beliefs are not true. Constructive dialogue finds its impetus in following the truth wherever it leads, not in denying it just to hold to an opinion.

> The difference between us is that I can recognize that my beliefs are subjective and other people may come to their own truth.

I believe that truth is truth; there's an undeniable objectivity to it. 2 + 2 never equals 5. The color blue on the spectrum is always blue and nothing else. Truth is very narrow, and it's objective. There are laws in the universe. While my beliefs are subjective, and other people are free to believe what they want to believe, there is such a thing as truth, and the object is to find it and hold to it. There isn't a different truth for me than there is for you. There is a body of truth, and there are opinions and beliefs. Beliefs can't be called truth until they conform to reality. Anyone is welcome to hold to an opinion—it's their right—, but once the truth is known, some opinions are discovered to have been true and others false.

> I do not believe I can take what I believe and force others to abide by my rules.

I agree, to some extent. The exercise of law is exactly that: taking a belief and forcing others to abide by it. By law we outlaw murder, rape, and theft, as well as speeding, disturbing the peace, and parking in the wrong place. Morally we jointly believe that genocide is wrong, sexual abuse is wrong, and child abuse is wrong, and we believe that strongly enough that we force others to abide by those rules. And we are right in doing so. By the same token, I don't have a right to make anyone wear the same style clothes I do, follow the religious convictions I follow, or conform to my political opinions.