Society is forced to be accepting of gays & transgenders.

originally posted by: SisterDelirium
The belief that acting on those passions are inherently moral

People don't believe that. This is dishonest to claim so.

You can judge gays based on their passions all you want, I won't condemn you for that.

But by claiming that same sex love is morally wrong, you even put in the same basket the gays who remain abstinent. I hope you'll have the honesty to realize that.

originally posted by: SisterDelirium
Christians with traditional lifestyles/values are treated with a smirk/groan.

We can discuss the issues Christians are facing in a different thread.



You really look like you are trying to make this into a "but I'm a victim too!" debate and I refuse to get dragged there. If you want to truly share and exchange about the moral implication of same sex love, we can do it.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Same sex love is:

- not an intention
- not a decision
- not an action


Therefore it's not in the realm of morality.


I can't make it more simple and more clear than that. People refusing to understand this are by definition bigoted. It's not a judgement from me. It's what the word bigot means in this context.

From an Orthodox Christian worldview, same sex relationships are not proper by definition. The people in those relationships, however, are not deserving of any less dignity or love as a result. There are plenty of things that are not proper from an Orthodox Christian worldview, but the value of a human person never diminishes as a result.

originally posted by: SisterDelirium

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Same sex love is:

- not an intention
- not a decision
- not an action


Therefore it's not in the realm of morality.


I can't make it more simple and more clear than that. People refusing to understand this are by definition bigoted. It's not a judgement from me. It's what the word bigot means in this context.

From an Orthodox Christian worldview, same sex relationships are not proper by definition. The people in those relationships, however, are not deserving of any less dignity or love as a result. There are plenty of things that are not proper from an Orthodox Christian worldview, but the value of a human person never diminishes as a result.

I'm totally OK with you calling same sex love as unorthodox though

originally posted by: SisterDelirium
I'm from the school of thought that believes people have to die to themselves (the ego) and their passions to live a spiritually rewarding existence. Also, that the highest forms of love are self-giving (sacrificing selfish interests in service to a greater good) rather than selfish (interested in personal pleasure and ego fulfillment).

I believe the same. And living that life taught me that being judgmental of others is contrary to living a spiritually rewarding existence. It's the ego that judges, because when it is defeated, the barriers between you and the world cease to exist.

People don't believe that. This is dishonest to claim so. You can judge gays based on their passions all you want, I won't condemn you for that.

I'm not judging individuals. I'm saying that, in my worldview and according to the moral principles of my community, I do not consider acting on passions necessarily good.

But by claiming that same sex love is morally wrong, you even put in the same basket the gays who remain abstinent. I hope you'll have the honesty to realize that.

You are really stretching. If you look at what I said, earlier, I said that I don't see experiencing a "passion" as wrong, nor do I see "love" as wrong. The problem comes from acting on the passion and actively participating in homosexual sex. I have said nothing to suggest that same-sex attraction ins inherently immoral. I even stated the moral neutrality of simply feeling attracted.

We can discuss the issues Christians are facing in a different thread.

I'm simply stating that there's a very persistent/prevalent attitude that it's okay to slam Christianity, when really, slamming others stifles anything resembling constructive dialogue between opposing groups.

You really look like you are trying to make this into a "but I'm a victim too!" debate and I refuse to get dragged there. If you want to truly share and exchange about the moral implication of same sex love, we can do it.

Maybe that's your perception, but no. I don't feel victimized. There's a difference between feeling annoyed by people who call you a bigot for disagreeing and feeling personally victimized by those people. I feel mildly annoyed when someone calls Christians stupid, mocks my personal beliefs, or suggests I'm a Jim Crow-style bigot...or Hitler.

I'm certainly not a victim. I live in a first world country where I'm free to practice my religion and raise/educate my kids as I see fit. I'm also decidedly upper-middle class with a college education. I'd have to work really hard to think of any way in which I'm a victim...unless we're talking fashion, because I never was into that anyway.

The whole thread and the frustration seems to come from people who really just want the activists to dial back the rhetoric a little and acknowledge that disagreement doesn't equal hate.

As for love, love is moral. Attraction is morally neutral. It's what you do that matters. End of story.

In your world acting on attraction is vitally important for human happiness, in mine, it's the opposite. So what? We're both free to do what we do and think what we think.

originally posted by: SisterDelirium
I'm not judging individuals. I'm saying that, in my worldview and according to the moral principles of my community, I do not consider acting on passions necessarily good.

It's completely irrelevant to the judgement made on people based on their sexual preference.


The only thing you need to understand and remember is this:

Does same-sex attraction prevent anyone from living a moral and spiritually fulfilling life?


The answer is a huge no. I would go as far as saying that heterosexual preference don't guarantee a moral life neither.


So truly, people can say that they don't like the excesses of some gays (like I can say I don't like the excesses of some heteros).



But anyone making a moral judgment on same sex attraction (which is unfortunately a VERY common judgement) is making a mistake.



I know you won't admit to be wrong, but still you made that judgement earlier so as far as I'm concerned this exchange can't be fruitful so I'm just going to say thank you for sharing your opinions with me.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: SisterDelirium
I'm from the school of thought that believes people have to die to themselves (the ego) and their passions to live a spiritually rewarding existence. Also, that the highest forms of love are self-giving (sacrificing selfish interests in service to a greater good) rather than selfish (interested in personal pleasure and ego fulfillment).

I believe the same. And living that life taught me that being judgmental of others is contrary to living a spiritually rewarding existence. It's the ego that judges, because when it is defeated, the barriers between you and the world cease to exist.

I'm not judging others. If I were judging others, I'd say XYZ people are going to hell or that gays are bad people. I'm not. I don't know who is going to hell. And since "gays" covers a very large number of individuals across the globe, it would be stupid to even think I could judge them. In an earlier thread I said that I'm sure many of them make the world a brighter place.

The only thing I'm talking about is disagreement with a particular behavior. I disagree with homosexual acts, not homosexual people, in the same way I disagree with smoking, drinking to excess, swearing, lying, eating too much, and acting in a lazy way. The person is separate from their behavior, because we all engage in behaviors that are not intrinsically good or healthy.

But, I don't think there should be laws to change these behaviors. I just want to be free to see these behaviors something I disagree with without being told I'm something I'm not.

Not that it's earth-shattering or world-ending to be called a bigot. It is, again, just mildly annoying.

a reply to: celinem

I say we don't have to agree with their lifestyles if they don't have to agree with ours. This p.c. bs culture has got to stop, it is exactly what tears people apart and destroys common God given sense, well that and the morons we have running the show.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: SisterDelirium

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Same sex love is:

- not an intention
- not a decision
- not an action


Therefore it's not in the realm of morality.


I can't make it more simple and more clear than that. People refusing to understand this are by definition bigoted. It's not a judgement from me. It's what the word bigot means in this context.

From an Orthodox Christian worldview, same sex relationships are not proper by definition. The people in those relationships, however, are not deserving of any less dignity or love as a result. There are plenty of things that are not proper from an Orthodox Christian worldview, but the value of a human person never diminishes as a result.

I'm totally OK with you calling same sex love as unorthodox though

Actually, I think Andy Warhol was Orthodox. Very talented and apparently gay, from what I've heard.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

It's completely irrelevant to the judgement made on people based on their sexual preference.

But, I'm not judging them?

The only thing you need to understand and remember is this: Does same-sex attraction prevent anyone from living a moral and spiritually fulfilling life? The answer is a huge no. I would go as far as saying that heterosexual preference don't guarantee a moral life neither.

Pretty sure I've already said as much, earlier in the thread. And I've already expressed disagreement with serial monogamy on the part of heterosexuals.

So truly, people can say that they don't like the excesses of some gays (like I can say I don't like the excesses of some heteros). But anyone making a moral judgment on same sex attraction (which is unfortunately a VERY common judgement) is making a mistake.

It may be a common one, but it's not one I've personally made. The only think I've said is that I disagree with homosexual sex acts as being intrinsically moral/good. This statement has nothing to do with whether I feel individuals who participate in those acts are intrinsically moral/good, because I've already clearly stated that human value never diminishes.

I know you won't admit to be wrong, but still you made that judgement earlier so as far as I'm concerned this exchange can't be fruitful so I'm just going to say thank you for sharing your opinions with me.

Well, I have to be honest, I don't feel a need to apologize or admit error where I don't perceive one to exist. At any rate, I thank you for a relatively civil discussion of the matter even if it is impossible for us to reach a point of full, mutual agreement.

a reply to: kita0dtita

Yeah, they are so ahead of us with neighborhoods in which no non-Muslims can go, areas where women can't walk without a Hijab, or otherwise they get violently beaten, sexually assaulted or raped... Not to mention the fact that Jewish people are leaving Sweden thanks to your Political Correctness because many Jewish people don't feel safe anymore in Sweden.

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes

But the same is happening in all of Europe, and it's worse in France.

The other refugees: Why Jews are leaving Europe

‘Co logne is every day’: Europe’s rape epidemic

So much for the claim "European countries are the best in the world"...

But the way things are going unfortunately the United States won't fall behind and it is in fact going the same way Europe is going...

originally posted by: SisterDelirium

originally posted by: yes4141
a reply to: SisterDelirium

But people on here constantly mock other peoples views on politics, sports, science (I know, "view" on science, ignore it) etc. I don't understand why one part of what a person thinks has special priority? Especially when that thing itself prides itself on the idea of faith and almost always has an intellectual siege mentality (Us (The true believers) vs Them (everyone else). There are the extreme of course who seem to almost relish criticism of their religion as vindication of what they do or believe.

I think it's a dangerous road to have intellectual subdivisions within a freedom of analysis, investigation, debate and speech.

No matter what people keep implying, it's not illegal (in most Western countries) for people to voice their opinion of sensitive matters whether they be religiously influenced or not. It is however illegal to abuse people or not allow them to avoid that opinion if they so wish.

I find this a strange comparison: upset about religious criticism but wanting to criticism who people can spend their lives with?

No one's view has special priority. That's precisely my point. Right now, the dominant attitude appears to be, at least media-wise, is that Christians are dumb, backward people who do stupid things like enjoying monogamous, heterosexual relationships. As a result it's en vogue to really pillory those values. If the same vitriol is expressed toward LGBTQ or racial groups, it's HATE speech.

I'm not championing Christian worldview at the moment, if anything I'm just mentioning that civility on both sides would be in order.

The frustration of the OP is real. It's very annoying to want to go along and get along, but then feel like 24/7 media is trying to drum into your head that you're evil if you don't ENDORSE a lifestyle you feel goes against your deepest values. It's not enough to simply agree to disagree. Nothing less than full assent to the rightness of gay sex will do.

If you don't want people to care what you do in the bedroom, in essence, don't put the webcam in there and broadcast ad nauseum.

Sorry but this has a serious consistency flaw. You are unhappy about people being pressured by media sources into things (whilst "the media" is hardly a concentrated amorphous blob which holds a united front!) whilst being completely okay with another 'media source' (A religious text) directly dictates you shall be punished if you do not follow its instructions!

Your webcam comment is so sexually provocative as to be almost an erotic short story.

As well as factually incorrect. What about the last several millennia of murder and torture for any sign of sexual "Misbehaviour"? Are you saying that either 1. All these people boasted about the great sex they were having against the rules or 2. No sign of evidence or facts were needed to punish them making you obviously wrong.

This is an exaggerated version of a current truth- people will criticise various types of sex regardless of being confronted by them- I don't see how you can honestly disagree with that. People base religious careers off it! They make huge amounts of money telling people that because "That goes in There instead of here after a marriage blessed by God of course- the correct God not that other God....Or that one either...".

The same sentiment could be applied to skin colour or culture. And often was/ still is: "I don't mind them but I wish they wouldn't wear their African stuff in our country!".

But my biggest confusion about your post was your apparent fear of "The Media". You choose what you read/ watch/ listen to. If it takes cultural or societal effect then it happens but you still have no reason to change your mind. I had thought that you had a religious conviction? If that's the case then why does ANY of this bother you? Opinions can't change existential truths. They can and will however change the world. Change the majority's opinion. That is what I think worries you: being an obvious minority in terms of views. You could become what all these people have been for so long.

I'm really not trying to have a go- I just found your post fascinating in a way.

a reply to: yes4141

That's a pretty superficial underling of what I've posted. I unpacked a lot of this in posts following the one you replied to. The general gist being that I'm fine with freedom, but I still disagree with the moral value of gay sex.

It's about the freedom to disagree without backlash in a pluralistic society. It's a call for the acceptance/tolerance of intellectual diversity.

Media as defined by pundits and propagandists of one sort or another, which I ignore for the most part. When it does slip into my viewing again...irritating but not trauma inducing.

No, I'm not scared of losing some majority status, no I'm not secretly gay, and no, while I am annoyed by the hype surrounding gay activism, I'm not overwhelmed or overwrought.

Anyhow, if you are in fact curious and not just saying so...feel free to read my other posts. I've said my piece and have nothing further to add.

originally posted by: wantsome
There is an agenda to push it. As there is for most immoral stuff in this country. It don't take much to know who's behind it. All you need to do is open your eyes. It's in the movies news media tv it's everywhere and who controls this stuff? There is a certain race of people with lots of money that think white people are inferior. They're whole objective is to break us down. Christians like to support these people and think their allies. We also give them billions in aid. They've also infiltrated our government. Any clue yet? I'm not saying who outright because I'll get slandered.

You have slandered someone, but I can't figure out who.

originally posted by: tayton
a reply to: celinem

Yeah I'm sick of it. Can't turn on the radio, tv without hearing about this ones rights, bathroom bull, boys wanna be girls, whining about everything non-stop, black lives, native rights, holy Jesus Murphy, cut my darn thing-a-jig off ffs, everybody just shut the hell up. Lol. Pisses me right off truly. I own a small pizza place and see it all man, TODAY a short chunky buzz cut looking chick walks in wearing a shirt that says 'no one knows I'm a lesbian' ffs. I said yeah right, she says excuse me? Like wtf? I put in 12 hr days and straight home not looking left or right. I don't know what's going on man anymore, just wanna close up shop and go hole up somewhere

Yet, on ATS, I see the majority of posts on this topic are people complaining that the topic is everywhere. It is those very people that are decorating the website with it. The irony is astounding.

a reply to: SisterDelirium


I didn't accuse you of being gay! I haven't read all through this thread so I apologise if you've already addressed things.

Isn't what you call a "backlash" just an opinion on your opinion/ reaction? Like when people say "It's just my opinion, freedom of speech!" and the obvious reply is "Yes, and this is mine about what you just said".

If it's not a continued/ sustained thing then is it not just a disagreement to accept and move on?

There is one very obvious difference between criticising a religion and someone's sexuality: one is instructional the other is personal. I completely accept most people don't go proselytising every other day but there is verse after verse instructing that people must spread the word- just like in politics that can irritate many people.

They are also not condemning people. You are certainly not aggressive or petty in any way so this isn't accusatory but to say you disagree with what two (or more) people do on a "moral" level Is condemning them.

Could I ask what the 'Moral' problem is? I just hope it isn't this "Un-natural" argument which many state. I always think of two things to that: 1. How 'natural' is the computer and internet we are communicating on? and 2. It hardly disobeys the laws of physics therefore I fail to see it as "Un-natural".

Personally, I think in the next 10 years open marriages/ swinging are going to become a far more common thing. Sex and love/ relationships will become further separated socially which for some could make their marriages far healthier. I presume that would be equally bad morally? The reason I bring this up is because many social/ cultural rules about sex are primarily common sense advice about when a child is conceived and how best to care for it- that is only relevant now if the people involved choose for it to be a possibility so I think many of those 'rules' could easily be reconsidered.

I also bring this up to make a point: things surely have to have a reason to be 'Wrong'. Even if it's following religious rules there must be a primary reason- if there wasn't then it would make the God(s) incredibly capricious and blasé about our existence which according to most religious texts isn't so. As a child I despised the statement "It just is."- adults would often use it because they simply want the child to do as they're told and can't be bothered to explain why. That or they don't know why. I never want to say that to a child and cringe when I overhear someone saying it.

Things are different now, 99.9% of Christians don't follow the Bible- not all of it. Because parts would appear ludicrous today. How that works for them as a Christian is up to them but I find it very strange.

a reply to: celinem

I think that it's highly ironic, if not hypocritical of those who claim to be accepting, tolerant and the like - to be the *exact* opposite with those who disagree with them.

No, this isn't pointed at you at all, but all those who claim to be 'loving, tolerant and accepting of others', when clearly, it's turned mafia-esque and they themselves have turned into the very thing they claim to despise.

They are political fodder....at best.

a reply to: celinem

SOS

Many of the problems we are facing today are critical life and death issues that affect us all regardless of religion, gender, gender identity, politics, skin color, nationality, shoe size, education and IQ. You get the picture...

Our dwindling drinkable water supply
Our disappearing forests, swamp-lands, aquifers and coral reefs
Disappearing species and vanishing fish
Nuclear waste. leaking facilities
Lack of honest and complete news reporting
Climate change - air quality chemical pollution
Human trafficking, genocide, human rights abuses
animal cruelty/ species extinction
drought, fire, flood, famine, natural disasters
oppressive governments including our own

AND SO I SAY....

Lets put religion aside for a moment and solve some of these problems together. We can get back to fighting over religion at a later date.

Lets put gender aside for a moment and solve some of these problems together. We can get back to fighting over gender at a later date.

Lets put sexuality and gender identity aside for a moment and solve some of these problems together. We can get back to fighting over sexuality and gender identity at a later date.

Lets put politics aside for a moment and solve some of these problems together. We can get back to fighting over politics at a later date.


Lets put skin color aside for a moment and solve some of these problems together. We can get back to fighting over skin color at a later date.


Lets put nationality aside for a moment and solve some of these problems together. We can get back to fighting over nationality at a later date, but right now, if we do not get together and address these issues, we may all die.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
And posting a rant about this but then saying you dont care if people are blah blah blah is the equivalent of seayiong

"im not racist but..."

I actually don't agree with this.

If the OP was to go onto social media and say something like.. " I'm not anti-gay, but I'm tired of the LGBT activists being on the news".. she would be crucified.. Why? She did not say anything derogatory, merely used a commonly accepted abbreviation to refer to a group of people who will ready admit to being part of said group. She probably is genuinely not anti-gay, just tired of hearing about this or that protest or this law suit etc. etc. for the umpteenth time. And has every right to say so.

We are trying so hard to be PC these days, that it actually causes more harm than good.
The saying goes "Let sleeping dogs lie", but what if the dog is sleeping on my bed? Am I suppose to just sleep on the floor now to keep the peace?
Its gotten to such a point that we can not even disagree with someone without being called racist, sexist,chauvinistic, or homophobic or a million other labels.

But I digress....

This is the "Rants forum" where else should she post her RANT?

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JimiBlack

And I want to know what you are talking about, because it sounds to me like someone who has been shamed by their peers into trying on a hat that does not fit.

THat is sometimes correct.

My real father could be called an ex-gay. When I was little, everyone was under a lot of pressure to be sexually liberated, and prove so by having all kinds of sex possible. Swinging was almost obligatory for married couples, and if you didn't have a homosexual partner in there somewhere, you would be called a sexually repressed square who doesn't know how to love. My parents had partners of both sexes and made effort to have sex with people of different ethnic backgrounds- my mom was very proud and let everyone know it when she slept with a black man.

They brought a man into their bedroom together, and they became a threesome for quite some time. More and more, the relations between the two men were more often without my mother, and he began to question his sexual preference. My parents talked and they decided he'd move in with a gay couple who were friends of theirs.

I don't know how long he was there. I remember visiting their apartment many times. Then one day he came back with his suitcases and I heard him telling my mom he was sure he was not gay. He found the lifestyle far from desireable.
Didn't try it again.

Of course, all that mess tore the marriage apart in little time and years later they both declared that they felt it was a very bad idea. But yeah, sometimes people give in to social pressure because they have been convinced it is the right thing to do and because they are threatened with social rejection.

Thank you