Why am I still a bigot?

[gnostic]

I think homosexuality is a sin. Nothing will change that. You may say Paul was just saying lustful gays are sinning, but it can also mean it's the same as lust.

However, I don't think it's a reason to discriminate. On an individual basis like housing, jobs, and services. Events are a different matter.

I simply don't hate and call for cooperation. Why am I still a bigot? Are you just trying to feel superior?

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that own a small business, and you were looking for new employee to join your staff, and you found out one person in interview was gay, would you still consider employing him?

And if you had already employed someone, who have worked professionally and productively, but found out 5 years later he was gay, would your view of him changed? Would you fire him?

If you "no" to 1st scenario and "yes" in the 2nd scenario, then most likely, you are biased against gay people.

If you have a friend who is gay or lesbian, but only just found out about it, would you treat him or her differently before finding out? Or would it not matter at all?

 

[LukeS]

Why are you a bigot? I think its the "new consensus" no harm, no bad, and harm is defined petty narrowly as gross physical harm.

Or, apart from that, you can harm yourself and others consensually.

If you don't agree, you're in the "out group".

Evidence for harm, lets say of divorce on the kids - its there as potential policy influencing material. ( I'm not an expert on the issue). But because there is no direct physical harm - which is basically all the new consensus measures, its regarded as properly free from harm and therefore completely ok.

Like with the coastline paradox, the larger the measuring stick, the smaller the coastline. The more gross the measure of harm, the less harm there appears to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is, my friend. He's the only one you can trust.

Facts tell you to trust them. They're well dressed (often in clean white lab coats or fancy
vestments). They're all sincere & serious, using big technical words. Common people will
say to trust them. And if you don't they'll call you "intellectually dishonest", "ignorant", &
"dangerous". But facts are opinions which puff themselves up with certainty, cromulence,
& sanctimony. Just look at the old 'fact' that eating cholesterol is bad for you....turns out it
had no scientific basis. Or you could force a witch to confess by "dunking".

Some facts aren't such posers, but are humble & useful...thoroughly wash your hands before
eating to avoid disease. I give them more weight than others. But all facts are subject to revision.
So I don't trust Jesus, Zeus, Muhammed, Thor, Obama, God, Paul Krugman, Allah, Lakshmi,
Trump, Ganesha, or even that Revoltingest guy.

 

[Curious George]

Facts tell you to trust them. They're well dressed (often in clean white lab coats) They're all sincere & serious, using big technical words. Common people will say to trust them. And if you don't they'll call you "intellectually dishonest", "ignorant", & "dangerous". But facts are opinions which puff themselves up with certainty, cromulence, & sanctimony. Just look at the old 'fact' that eating cholesterol is bad for you....turns out it had no scientific basis. Or you could force a witch to confess by "dunking". Some facts aren't such posers, but are humble & useful...thoroughly wash your hands before eating. I give them more weight than others. But all facts are subject to revision. So I don't trust Jesus, Zeus, Muhammed, Thor, Obama, God, Paul Krugman, Allah, Lakshmi, Trump, Ganesha, or even that Revoltingest guy.

Reliability instills confidence. Given the lattermost of your list, I understand your predicament.

Hopefully it was clear that I was meeting your joke in kind. If not, let me state: I am only joking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe my God has asked us not to use tobacco, alcoholic beverages and tea or coffee, and that if I do so, I am sinning. If I were to tell you that I don't hate (or even slightly dislike) everyone in the world who uses tobacco, alcoholic beverages and tea or coffee, would you tend not to believe me? I certainly hope not!

I think the differences between the LDS Church and other Christian churches is relevant here. The inherent contradiction present for many Christians ("I don't hate gay people... I just think it would be perfectly right and just for God to torture gay people in Hell forever for being gay") isn't necessarily there for Mormons.

That being said, I notice that the LDS Church has spent way more effort and resources over the years against homosexuality than against coffee, and I've never heard of any representative of the LDS Church advocating violence against coffee drinkers as they have for gay people:

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist. While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done. After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, 'I hit my companion.' 'Oh, is that all,' I said in great relief. 'But I floored him,' he said. After learning a little more, my response was 'Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.' I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

So I would not automatically assume that an observant Mormon hated gay people, but I wouldn't automatically discount the possibility.

 

[roger1440]

According to God homosexuality is a sin as well as fornication. You can't justify it by refusing to believe Paul.

What is "sin"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The bible was once, still is in some cases, used as an advocacy for slavery.

Report: North Carolina Church Importing Human Slaves From Brazil

 

[Revoltingest]

Reliability instills confidence. Given the lattermost of your list, I understand your predicament.

Hopefully it was clear that I was meeting your joke in kind. If not, let me state: I am only joking.

We're good!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one is saying that your attractions are a choice. The choice is whether or not to act on them. The argument that homosexuals shouldn't act in their desires is because of views of biological compatibility, the purpose of sex and the purpose and meaning of marriage.

Why should any of that matter?

Why shouldn't anybody that has legal desires not pursue them?

Why aren't homosexuals biologically compatible? Because they can't have children without outside help?

What evolution uses sex for need not be what any individual uses it for. Evolution attached pleasure to the act. That's the commonest reason people have sex, not because they want another baby.

The meaning of marriage is whatever each individual gives it.

These all relate to a church that would love to micromanage every life if it had the chance, the same one presently trying to remove the options of abortion and same sex marriage. Why should anybody other than those convinced to believe in heaven and hell care what the church has decided?

 

[Revoltingest]

We've no shortage of children.
I say there are too many.
Government should encourage homosexual unions.
Discount tickets to the Smithsonian museums, eh?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see it that way as well.

I would also restate what you wrote that if a religion says 5 things are a sin and you have the same attitude toward all of them, you are not a bigot.

... or you're bigoted toward all five.

... or if 4 of the "sins" have justifiable reasons behind them and 1 is based in prejudice, you'd still be bigoted to just one thing.

(The last one is a lot like when religious people lump homosexuality in with bestiality and pedophilia)

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think homosexuality is a sin. Nothing will change that.

Nope. On the other hand, how many other abominations do you avoid as well?

Why am I still a bigot?

There is no rational basis for your thought, that's why. Even if a gay person beat you, that does not make ALL gays bad, just the jerk who beat you up. At least, I know that's why some around the ol' net are against gays.

I mean, I had an abusive father, been assaulted and harrassed by men/boys, but I don't go around (with effort, I might add) thinking that everyone with the ol' XY is out to get me. It's called "logic" and "truth".

Paul was a great man, but ultimately only human.

Yeah, note that most verses against gays come from either Moses (aka: Religious Terrorist with Bad Sense of Direction) or Paul (Trojan Horse). Surely there's a reason hardly anyone else really cares half as much.

(cough) it's called they gay, tho, lol (cough)

(PS: and before anyone whines, it's a joke based on the fact studies show homophobes go PING at gay porn, so chill)

if you disagree with left liberals on their views you are always going to be branded a bigot

I don't call people a bigot if they have a rational reason. Phobes of any type don't, so they are.

Many really want to have children, but they never will.

Give it time. Even artificial womb technology is coming together nicely, so ....

Child molestation and pedophilia are not just disgusting but also evil because it represents an adult forcing a child to do something without that child having the ability to consent. Why do you equate homosexuals to these other groups?

I get a deep chill down my spine when I see just how clueless many people are about the concept of consent. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

However, I believe anyone (religious, atheist, gay, straight) should be allowed to opt out of events they don't agree with

That's why we have RSVP, right? I mean, there are loads of hetero people I think shouldn't have ever gotten married or had kids, so ...

How is acknowledging sin make them less than human? If anything it's a confirmation that they are human

But will you go to a wedding of other sinners?

I believe it's a sin because it doesn't Gods plan. For every man there is a woman.

No, there isn't. Even a basic census can tell you that.

More than that woman was a gift to man, because God loved Adam that much.

Adam had to find out he couldn't "match up" with nonhumans somehow. Want to put that image in your head? Why does Adam have to be, ahem, "disappointed" after ALL the other animals before God is like, Oh, yeah, right ...?

Like wise Adam was a gift to Eve because He loved her that much.

Lilith kinda got the short end of the stick, though. And Adam got Eve screwed in more than the obvious sense, so just how happy should she BE with that "gift"?

Participating in gay acts is like asking for the receipt.

Because no hetero has ever left change on the dresser? I mean, are you for real?

I think you're over-reacting.

When irrational behavior and statements can lead to suicide, it's not overreacting.

It's ALWAYS used to refer to the supposed sins of others, which is no one's business but theirs.

But we should legislate away THEIR sin while keeping all the others?

And what, you equating everyone who disagrees with you to West Borough is some how enlightened?

Jesus said that those who just gawked were as guilty of adultery as the ones who actually had sex. Westboro just does in the open what your soul says in secret.

Also, adopting etc. is not the same.

Cue all the angry infertile people who adopted kids ...

To me, personally, it's like...a male and a female is the normal way

My normal way is to hate all the sexualities. I like being a virgin. To me, all those who have even hetero sex should just find something more productive to do.

Quite true, Lewis, I just find that I have to point out the hypocrisy more so to Leftists because they seem more under the delusion that their way is right, and thus any means and tactics are necessary.

Meh. I just feel that whichever side has more evidence, wins. Hence why I can like posts from a variety of different people.

This doesn't mean it's a sin. The first mitzvah given to Adam and Eve was to reproduce.

And the first punishment was to make them regret it.

As I said before, I've rarely if ever come across some seriously antigay sentiment in this country

I have an internet friend who lives (I hope) in Phoenix, AZ. He's been suicidal quite often because it's a cesspool of misogyny and basically every phobia.

Jesus is truth. There is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved.

Isn't Jesus the one who let some guy rest his head on Jesus' lap at dinnertime? Isn't the "Beloved Disciple" a guy? Asking for a friend ...

 

[Rival]

Give it time. Even artificial womb technology is coming together nicely, so ....

What gives humans the right to mess around though? I'm of the opinion that the human body is sacrosanct and, unless it needs it, shouldn't be messed with. I had one friend who had a beef with tatoos because she believed the body to be sacred and should not be harmed by such. I suppose you could call it a sort of mystic paganish view, I'm not sure. Nature isn't a toy for humans to bend at will. If you are not born with a womb because you are a dude then you don't get to have a womb.

Cue all the angry infertile people who adopted kids ...

They were defective though and could have kids if not for this. A male and female raising kids is the way nature made it, so if they adopt it's fine. Gay people, no matter what, could not have kids ever and kids require both sexes of parents, the way Nature made it. There is even a gay guy who agrees with me.

(Not sure if that's a xian site or something, so below is an article from the Washington Post)

Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families

It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.

As for normal, anyone can see that a male and female are naturally meant for each other, God or no. Humans generally require sexual intercourse to feel a certain biological satisfaction, which males take from the sex act itself and females from having children. I don't take kindly to the sacrilege being called sex nowadays. For me, the sex act (PinV) is sacred itself, and lowering that to anything else is...sad. Many on here will disagree, so I suppose it's best not to argue over opinion. Especially when nothing is sacred these days.

 

[PureX]

What gives humans the right to mess around though? I'm of the opinion that the human body is sacrosanct and, unless it needs it, shouldn't be messed with. I had one friend who had a beef with tatoos because she believed the body to be sacred and should not be harmed by such. I suppose you could call it a sort of mystic paganish view, I'm not sure. Nature isn't a toy for humans to bend at will. If you are not born with a womb because you are a dude then you don't get to have a womb.

They were defective though and could have kids if not for this. A male and female raising kids is the way nature made it, so if they adopt it's fine. Gay people, no matter what, could not have kids ever and kids require both sexes of parents, the way Nature made it.

As for normal, anyone can see that a male and female are naturally meant for each other, God or no. Humans generally require sexual intercourse to feel a certain biological satisfaction, which males take from the sex act itself and females from having children. I don't take kindly to the sacrilege being called sex nowadays. For me, the sex act (PinV) is sacred itself, and lowering that to anything else is...sad. Many on here will disagree, so I suppose it's best not to argue over opinion. Especially when nothing is sacred these days.

Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed by your assumption that makind's genital design and function is more important to mankind's behavior than is our happiness, our desire, our autonomy, and our right to self-determination. You are also falsely assuming that because you believe that your opinion on the purpose of human sexuality is "the truth", that you then have the right and even the obligation to ignore everyone else's opinions on the matter and to make them to comply with yours, either by coercion, or by threat, whichever is necessary.

Just as I do not assume that because I have opposable thumbs, I am duty-bound to spend my life engaged in handicrafts, I do not assume that because I have a penis, I am duty-bound to engage in vaginal intercourse with females for the purpose of procreation. Because I also have a mind, as well as the opposable thumbs, and the penis, that enables me to imagine a great many possible options in life, for me to choose from, and to establish for myself what ideals I will hold myself to, and how I will expend my time and energy in this life. And I can't think of one single reason why I should forfeit these personal gifts so that you can dictate my behaviors and ideals, to me.

Can you?

 

[Rival]

Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed by your assumption that makind's genital design and function is more important to mankind's behavior than is our happiness, our desire, our autonomy, and our right to self-determination.

You are, in a way, right. Happiness is not high on my list of human priorities, neither is desire etc. I'm more bothered about humans fulfilling their functions. I think the fundamental problem we are experiencing (we as in tout le monde) is that we don't all agree on what that function is. So, especially here in the west, we think the highest ideal is to make everyone as happy as possible. This simply isn't my view. I'm not saying people shouldn't be happy, but it is my view that what will make people happy is very different from others. Also, humans are never happy; they are continually dissatisfied with whatever they do. They always want more and more. It never ends and it just causes suffering in the end. For me, it's almost more about learning to be content, not necessarily happy. In my view, happiness is in freedom from passion (in the original sense of the word), by practising self-discipline, high virtue etc. It's a bit Stoic, but not completely.

(All bolds are original)

From here

In many respects, it bears a remarkable similarity to the ethical teaching of Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563 - 483 B.C.) and Buddhism, which is grounded in the four noble truths: 1) all life has suffering; 2) suffering is rooted in passion and desire; 3) happiness is freedom from the passions; 4) moral restraint and self-discipline is the means by which one becomes free from suffering.

An important aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s ethical and moral well-being by having a will which is in agreement with Nature, and by practising the four cardinal virtues (derived from the teachings of Plato): wisdom ("sophia"), courage ("andreia"), justice ("dikaiosyne") and temperance ("sophrosyne").

To some extent, Stoicism assumes Determinism in that it holds that we will in any case do as the necessity of the world compels us, but it holds that we should not merely obey the law, but assent to our own obedience and follow the law consciously and deliberately, as only a rational being can.

You are also falsely assuming that because you believe that your opinion on the purpose of human sexuality is "the truth", that you then have the right and even the obligation to ignore everyone else's opinions on the matter and to make them to comply with yours, either by coercion, or by threat, whichever is necessary.

I don't remember threatening anyone.

Unless I'm missing something, males and females are the only groups within humans that can successfully procreate and complete the lifecycle. Again, as a holistic thinker this is, of course, my view. And, being human, of course I think my view is the correct one!

 

[DavidFirth]

What is "sin"?

Your target defines it well. "Missing the mark."

 

[DavidFirth]

Facts tell you to trust them. They're well dressed (often in clean white lab coats or fancy
vestments). They're all sincere & serious, using big technical words. Common people will
say to trust them. And if you don't they'll call you "intellectually dishonest", "ignorant", &
"dangerous". But facts are opinions which puff themselves up with certainty, cromulence,
& sanctimony. Just look at the old 'fact' that eating cholesterol is bad for you....turns out it
had no scientific basis. Or you could force a witch to confess by "dunking".

Some facts aren't such posers, but are humble & useful...thoroughly wash your hands before
eating to avoid disease. I give them more weight than others. But all facts are subject to revision.
So I don't trust Jesus, Zeus, Muhammed, Thor, Obama, God, Paul Krugman, Allah, Lakshmi,
Trump, Ganesha, or even that Revoltingest guy.

If you read Jesus I think you'll see He is very different from all the others.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Fear of what, exactly?

Going to hell, I presume.

 

[PureX]

You are, in a way, right. Happiness is not high on my list of human priorities, neither is desire etc. I'm more bothered about humans fulfilling their functions.

Has it ever occurred to you that this is WHY you are "bothered" by this? That it's because you have rejected their joy, desire, and autonomy as part of the "function" of your fellow humans, and that they clearly have not, that you now feel the need to persuade them, or even to force them to deny themselves, if necessary? Can you see that you are trying to force the reality of mankind to comply with your UNrealistic expectations and understanding of it? Instead of accepting humanity for what it is, and learning to love and forgive your fellow humans because of who they are, rather that in spite of who they are?

I think the fundamental problem we are experiencing (we as in tout le monde) is that we don't all agree on what that function is. So, especially here in the west, we think the highest ideal is to make everyone as happy as possible.

No, I don't think that's our goal at all. I think our goal is to allow as much individual liberty and autonomy as we can, for people to choose their own "function", while maintaining the security and well-being of human society as a whole. We aren't trying to make people happy, we're trying to allow them the opportunity to determine and enable their own happiness. It's this 'allowance' that you can't seem to cognate and abide.

This simply isn't my view. I'm not saying people shouldn't be happy, but it is my view that what will make people happy is very different from others.

Yes. I know. You think you know what will make other people good, and happy, in spite of what they think will make themselves good, and happy. So you think you need to dictate the ideals and "functions" that they should abide by, so that they will be good and happy people. And by this thinking, you have reduced other human beings to your "lessers", and presumed unto yourself knowledge of them that you don't actually possess. Knowledge of their "function", and of what will ultimately make them good and happy people. You have presumed unto yourself the position of being their "master". (And you don't understand why they would resent this? Why they oppose this? Why they would reject your presumption of being their master?)

It's almost more about learning to be content, not necessarily happy. For me, happiness is in freedom from passion (in the original sense of the word), by practising self-discipline, high virtue etc. It's a bit Stoic, but not completely.

So, not being happy, yourself, you have decided that others should not pursue their happiness, either? That sounds horrible!

Can I make a suggestion? Perhaps you could try and find your own happiness in the happiness of others.

From here

In many respects, it bears a remarkable similarity to the ethical teaching of Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563 - 483 B.C.) and Buddhism, which is grounded in the four noble truths: 1) all life has suffering; 2) suffering is rooted in passion and desire; 3) happiness is freedom from the passions; 4) moral restraint and self-discipline is the means by which one becomes free from suffering.

An important aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s ethical and moral well-being by having a will which is in agreement with Nature, and by practising the four cardinal virtues (derived from the teachings of Plato): wisdom ("sophia"), courage ("andreia"), justice ("dikaiosyne") and temperance ("sophrosyne").

To some extent, Stoicism assumes Determinism in that it holds that we will in any case do as the necessity of the world compels us, but it holds that we should not merely obey the law, but assent to our own obedience and follow the law consciously and deliberately, as only a rational being can.

Stoicism has it's functional value, but by itself, it's a very sad and anti-social philosophy. And I personally think it's as cowardly as it thinks itself "courageous". The point, however, is that regardless of what philosophy you've chosen to live by, for yourself, it's only yours. It should have no bearing on how everyone else chooses to think, or live. And you should understand this.

Unless I'm missing something, males and females are the only groups within humans that can successfully procreate and complete the lifecycle.

That really has very little to do with human sexuality, as humans use sexual interaction for far more important purposes than just procreation. The fact that you don't recognize this, astonishes and saddens me.

Again, as a holistic thinker this is, of course, my view. And, being human, of course I think my view is the correct one!

Yeah, that's the part you really need to outgrow.

 

[Rival]

Yeah, that's the part you really need to outgrow.

I was having a joke.

But really, we are never going to agree. And frankly, I'm tiring of the discussion because it's going nowhere.

That really has very little to do with human sexuality, as humans use sexual interaction for far more important purposes than just procreation. The fact that you don't recognize this, astonishes and saddens me.

I am actually a smut novelist. I truly understand the value of sex for happiness. I just define it differently. But equally, to remove procreation from sex is a mistake, since the two are inexplicably intertwined.

So, not being happy, yourself, you have decided that others should not pursue their happiness, either? That sounds horrible!

Can I make a suggestion? Perhaps you could try and find your own happiness in the happiness of others.

You misunderstand. I'm not looking to be happy. Happiness is fleeting. I expect to be content with what I have. I expect others to stop thinking that one day everything is going to be just as they want it and we'll all be living like care bears. Right now, I'm living in a reality that totally denies all of my beliefs. It doesn't make me happy, but, aside from debating on RF, I live my life day to day not really thinking or caring about it. I have other considerations to take into account.

Yes. I know. You think you know what will make other people good, and happy, in spite of what they think will make themselves good, and happy. So you think you need to dictate the ideals and "functions" that they should abide by, so that they will be good and happy people. And by this thinking, you have reduced other human beings to your "lessers", and presumed unto yourself knowledge of them that you don't actually possess. Knowledge of their "function", and of what will ultimately make them good and happy people. You have presumed unto yourself the position of being their "master". (And you don't understand why they would resent this? Why they oppose this? Why they would reject your presumption of being their master?)

I may come across this way, but I certainly don't think this way. I just wish people would stop seeking this 'happiness' that no-one ever really is. What I see making most people 'happy' in the long run does not really make people happy at all. Then humans invent things to, say, make life easier, more enjoyable, etc. only to find that it hasn't really made them any happier after all. We now live in a metal, digital world where stress levels are high, our teeth are rotten, our children are obese and our animals and rainforests suffer. We focus on the material instead of the immaterial and those things beyond us. We have lost our awe of the beyond. Humans have become very anthropocentric and it may have made our lives easier (lazier, more stressed, obese and selfish) but ultimately it is destroying us.

No, I don't think that's our goal at all. I think our goal is to allow as much individual liberty and autonomy as we can, for people to choose their own "function", while maintaining the security and well-being of human society as a whole. We aren't trying to make people happy, we're trying to allow them the opportunity to determine and enable their own happiness.

Blah happiness blah.

Has it ever occurred to you that this is WHY you are "bothered" by this? That it's because you have rejected the joy, desire, and autonomy as part of the "function" of your fellow humans, and that they clearly have not, that you now feel the need to persuade them, or even to force them, if necessary? That you are trying to force the reality of mankind to comply with your UNrealistic expectations and understanding of it? Instead of accepting humanity for what it is, and learning to love and forgive your fellow humans because of who they are, rather that in spite of who they are?

I haven't rejected it, I just believe that true happiness, joy etc. comes from different sources most people seems to think it does. I don't think my expectations are unrealistic at all.

I have a hard time loving. I was raised by a sociopath. It might explain some of my views. In the words of my mother on the Japanese tsunami 'It's just Mother Nature's way of keeping the population down.' And it really is.

By the way, uh, sorry I responded backwards.