Gay is wrong, but not this other stuff?

[MystyGlyttyr]

This may be as good a place to ask this, as it's something I've been pondering for a few days, since this issue has come up in California and all the radio people are talking about it. It's honestly something I just can't make myself understand in any kind of logical way so maybe someone can explain it to me, so, here goes...

So many people say gay marriage is wrong because of what it says in the Bible and that's against their religion. Okay, cool, I can go with that. But the Bible also says working on the Sabbath is wrong, and eating shellfish, if I'm understanding Leviticus right (no reason to assume I am, heh), and taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. I mean, some parts of the Bible even seem to condone human slavery if it's people from somewhere else. Not to mention various other little odds and ends. So how do they justify accepting those things but not gay people? (Well, not necessarily taking the Lord's name in vain, cuz even I always apologize to Him whenever I drop that bomb, even though I don't practice much else religiously anymore )

Despite how it sounds, and I know it does sound...this is not a smartass question. I really don't understand how one thing can be bad because of the Bible and not another. Am I not catching some kind of subtext in the whole gay marriage/Bible argument?

[Sylvia727]

The short answer is because they believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Everything else you mentioned has become unnecessary by the passing of time. If you want the long answer, maybe someone else can help you, because all of the answers I've ever gotten have boiled down to "homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order".

[tropicsgoddess]

The short answer is because they believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Everything else you mentioned has become unnecessary by the passing of time. If you want the long answer, maybe someone else can help you, because all of the answers I've ever gotten have boiled down to "homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order".

I agree with your post, Sylvia. In the bible they say that god created man, then created woman as his helper and companion. To reverse that order to them is a sin.

[guywithashovel]

This may be as good a place to ask this, as it's something I've been pondering for a few days, since this issue has come up in California and all the radio people are talking about it. It's honestly something I just can't make myself understand in any kind of logical way so maybe someone can explain it to me, so, here goes...

So many people say gay marriage is wrong because of what it says in the Bible and that's against their religion. Okay, cool, I can go with that. But the Bible also says working on the Sabbath is wrong, and eating shellfish, if I'm understanding Leviticus right (no reason to assume I am, heh), and taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. I mean, some parts of the Bible even seem to condone human slavery if it's people from somewhere else. Not to mention various other little odds and ends. So how do they justify accepting those things but not gay people? (Well, not necessarily taking the Lord's name in vain, cuz even I always apologize to Him whenever I drop that bomb, even though I don't practice much else religiously anymore )

This has come up on some other message boards I frequent. The people who defend the notion that homosexuality is a sin usually point to the fact that other books in the Bible indicate that homosexuality is a in, and that's why it's wrong while all those other things are now okay. Honestly, I don't see why that makes a difference, because Leviticus STILL says that eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath are sins.

Also, the people who say that homosexuality is a sin because it is "unnatural" have a really weak argument. If things are wrong because they are unnatural, then we all need to get rid of our central heating, air conditioning, eyeglasses, computers, iPods, iPhones, and Blackberries (the electronic device, not the fruit). Heck, if nature had its way, we would all be living in little hunter-gatherer groups with barely enough to eat, hardly any clothes, and we would be living about 20-30 years. Is that what these people want? However, this analogy goes right over the heads of the people it is intended for, because many of them are creationists who think hunter-gatherer groups never existed, despite the fact that people have been found living that way in modern times.

[Rapscallion]

Most of the leaders of said groups aren't really that bothered by homosexuality, not nearly as much as their followers.

Why?

A small (ergo harder to fight back) group that is markedly different in one way gets demonised and thus the herd instinct is to round on them as a cohesive unit under the leaders' control.

The leaders of the anti-gay crowds are happy that there are gays. Gives them a good way to control people.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

Being gay is wrong, because they don't like homosexuality

Eating shellfish is fine because they like shellfish.

Working on Sundays is fine because that means there's somewhere to go out to lunch after church.

Etc, etc.

Short answer: hypocrisy.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Religion is a numbers game. In other words, he who dies with the most 'toys' wins.

How do you jack up your numbers to get that statistical advantage? Well, there's always converts, but those can be difficult to come by and they're not as malleable if they're 'outsiders', since they've been exposed to the world and already come with their own sets of opinions/beliefs. A few devouts will cling to it, but for a lot of them the 'shininess' eventually wears off and they fall back into pre-religious-conversion lives.

Ergo, it's a helluva lot easier to start from scratch and literally breed your own bunch. How many of us when we were kids grew up believing everything our parents told us (only to find out later that they were sometimes wrong - sometimes *very* wrong? Kinda makes you feel like you were lied to, doesn't it) was the gospel truth?

But, if you were a child who was purposely kept isolated from the world at large, and never exposed to any sort of media or information other than what your select group decided was appropriate, odds are that you'd stay pretty solid in whatever you were taught. Not for nothing does that Biblical verse "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" exist. Some kids do rebel, but the rest of them retain that training for life and will instinctively lean towards it in a pinch, even if they don't always actively practice it.

This is why the Catholic Church opposes birth control (The NFP is a total joke - there's a reason why doctors have a saying that goes "What do you call someone who uses NFP? Daddy/Mommy."). This is why dominionists from extremist Christian sects oppose birth control. Or any other sect around the world that's been entrenched in the belief that "more is better." Aside from the inherent misogyny of not wanting women to be in control of their own lives, they want as many 'armies' as possible, because then they'll outnumber what they see as "the enemy." (Which can be any group - take your pick: childfree, homosexuals, different racial groups, etc.)

Homosexuality doesn't produce children - unless, of course, the couple adopts or goes in vitro. And being that the parts don't exactly fit together the way a penis and vagina do, and that there's a huge taboo about incorporating the anus into sex, the religious side sees homosexuality as perversion and therefore wrong.

Misogyny also has something to do with it. In most if not all cultures, men are still seen as the dominant, but in America it can be especially insidious. Think of how little boys who cry are relentlessly picked on, or girls who want to climb trees instead of play with dolls are ostracized. For all our advances, we still have pretty firm ideas of what gender roles should encompass, and female is universally seen as the default for weakness and inferiority, while men are not allowed to show any emotion other than anger (and women who show anger are seen as 'hysterical' and 'rude' even when their anger and behavioral displays of it are exactly the same as a man's!).

Ergo, because in a male homosexual relationship one partner is usually the "penetrator" and the other is the "penetrated," this is viewed by the religions as men - who are supposed to be in their eyes the rightful power and act like it - these are men who are *willingly* giving up that power. Submission in the religion's view is to be the woman's responsibility, not the man's. With lesbians, this is seen as women rejecting their god-ordained role as submittors to men and therefore rebellion, which = sin.

Guaranteed, the rest of that stuff about not eating shellfish (mmm, sinful shrimp scampi! Me wants!) or wearing mixed polyester blends and so forth, none of that matters to the religious side. Most of them pretty much accept that these rules were applicable specifically for the Jewish peoples in old times for particular reasons (e.g., the shellfish thing and the pork thing (in Islam) is because food sanitation practices weren't exactly lemon-fresh back in those desert society days).

But the homosexual bit? All about the numbers and "winning the 'game'", baby.

[AdminAssistant]

Working on Sundays is fine because that means there's somewhere to go out to lunch after church.

I had a friend who would throw a HISSY if he had a Sunday rehearsal. One day I called him on the fact that he went out to eat and went shopping on Sundays. He said that was different. Hmmmm.

I think a major problem is a lack of understanding and experience. My parents were iffy on gay rights, until they met my gay friends. Dad's still uncomfortable, and Mom's not exactly on the pride bandwagon, but they do agree that everyone deserves the same rights. It helps when they have that face to put with the issue. It's a hearts and minds battle...

[Slytovhand]

I'll just ditto Seshat - hypocrisy.

I know, doesn't add 1 iota to the debate, but hey, at least it's accurate

In all truth, Leviticus and anything else Old Testament 'law-wise' was supposed to get shown the door when JC made the new covenant - end of story. But that gets conveniently forgotten. I suppose the easy way to view it would be, "What would Jesus do?". Tends not to work that way, though.

[Seshat]

I suppose the easy way to view it would be, "What would Jesus do?"

Make friends with the prostitutes, undesirables, and chronically ill. Heal the chronically ill, help the undesirables and prostitutes look after themselves better, and teach love and understanding and compassion.


.... oh yeah, I forgot. That's hard work.

[Boozy]

Being gay is wrong, because they don't like homosexuality

Eating shellfish is fine because they like shellfish.

Bingo.

And to go a step further: A straight homophobic man doesn't like gay sex, and in all likelihood will not be persuaded to try it. But a straight homophobic man who doesn't like shellfish might try it out once or twice. For this person to see themselves as a righteous person, the "Homosexuality is wrong" law must be held in greater esteem than the "Eating shellfsh is wrong" law. And people will go to any lengths to justify to themselves that that are good people.

[Evandril]

Just as a side example... A while back (before bush's term as President), had some xtain officer who worked in a missle silo, where they'd have to pull shifts with just one other officer, isolated for a good amount of time. He raised a stink, and refused to work with a female officer, because that would be 'leading him into temptation'. Of course, his job was to *launch* a NUCLEAR missle, but I guess the 'thou shalt not kill' part wasn't as important to him. (bush was one of the ones defending him, btw...and backed a movement to get 'pagans' out of the military as well)

As you said, they pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to listen to.

[smileyeagle1021]

Other than hypocracy I think the big thing is that people don't truly understand their religion. People don't understand that EVERYONE is a sinner... sinning is part of everyday life. What they don't understand is that their religion teaches that they can be forgiven of those sins, that God loves us despite the sin, much as parents love their children no matter what the child does. They just don't understand that part of the teachings that say that everyone is a child of God and will recieve his love. Whether this is willful ignorance on the individuals part or that they've been mislead by a leader trying to gain more control depends on the person, but it basically boils down to ignorance.

[Flyndaran]

Other than hypocracy I think the big thing is that people don't truly understand their religion. ....

I'm sorry but I have to call foul on that one.
Relgion is like language. You can't say everyone is speaking it wrong. By definition, the majority dicates what the modern languages and religions are.
You may adhere to a minority belief, but that does not make you any more correct than any other minority belief of a larger organization.

[Boozy]

I would tend to agree.

Arguments about what is "true" Christianity, or "true" Islam, or "true" any religion are a bit pointless, no? There's no black-and-white truth involved. It's all faith based. It's whatever people believe it is.