Gay Reparations

[grasping the after wind]

Can we move the Dahmer discussion somewhere else? Gay people aren't cannibals just because one guy who was gay and couldn't deal with it ate people. I don't really see what his situation has to do with whether or not it is a good idea that gay people get reparations.

I'm sorry I brought the name up. I didn't intend to start a kind of Dahmer seminar. Next time I will check the sexual orientation of the serial killer I am using to illustrate a point and make sure he/ she is straight before I go further.

 

[AvisG]

As strange as it may sound, Dahmer did not do what he did out of purely evil desires. He feared being alone, being unloved, and he had an unrealistic, idealized view of love in his head that no human could fulfill. Combine that with being a gay man at a time when it still wasn't safe to be openly gay in many parts of the country, and that goes a long way towards explain Dahmer's behavior other than to think of him as a monster.

And FWIW, Dahmer did come in time to realize the gravity of what he had done, and he sought baptism in the Church of Christ.

Oh, I know. Poor Jeffrey was just an excitable boy.

 

[Daniel C]

Not typical gay behavior anymore than Ted Bundy was a typical heterosexual.

In the Bible it is.

Romans Chapter 1 talks about the reprobate mind making a clear description of homosexuals.

Also in the book of Genesis chapter 19 sodomites were going to break down the door of a house where Abrahams nephew (Lot) was staying to commit rape on assumed men. So the Bible portrays them as violent predators,rejected by God.

 

[FireDragon76]

On the other hand, across all time periods and virtually all cultures, homosexuality has been condemned as a perversion.

This isn't really true. Many cultures have tolerated it to varying degrees.

 

[dzheremi]

It's easy to understand why people would demonize gays if you thought homosexuality was wrong, though. I just thinks that's evidence of how dangerous Christianity can be, and why it needs to be taken out of the public square. If our yardstick for justice is God's will, that's a dangerously arbitrary standard subject to the vagueries of interpretation.

The bolded section should not be argued on CHRISTIAN Forums.

I'm not an "I'll tell the mods on you" type of person, but seriously, this is a bit of an abuse of others' charity.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the Bible it is.

Romans Chapter 1 talks about the reprobate mind making a clear description of homosexuals.

Also in the book of Genesis chapter 19 sodomites were going to break down the door of a house where Abrahams nephew (Lot) was staying to commit rape on assumed men. So the Bible portrays them as violent predators,rejected by God.

Well, that doesn't at all prove to me anything. I no longer identify as a Christian, so the Bible has zero authority for me.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's easy to understand why people would demonize gays if you thought homosexuality was wrong, though. I just thinks that's evidence of how dangerous Christianity can be, and why it needs to be taken out of the public square. If our yardstick for justice is God's will, that's a dangerously arbitrary standard subject to the vagueries of interpretation.

You do realize that Christianity is not unique as a religion in saying that sodomy and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are inappropriate conduct do you not? Any philosophy or religion can be useed as an excuse to dop bad things but that does not mean it is inherently dangerous. Jesus expressly forbid his followers from harming others even others that were considered enemies. Any harm done by Christians then is on those individuals not on Christianity as a religion. If Jesus had told people to do what some Christians have done that has harmed others then the fault would lie with Christianity.

 

[FireDragon76]

You do realize that Christianity is not unique as a religion in saying that sodomy and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are inappropriate conduct do you not? Any philosophy or religion can be useed as an excuse to dop bad things but that does not mean it is inherently dangerous. Jesus expressly forbid his followers from harming others even others that were considered enemies. Any harm done by Christians then is on those individuals not on Christianity as a religion. If Jesus had told people to do what some Christians have done that has harmed others then the fault would lie with Christianity.

Outside of Abrahamic religions, I can't think of many that specifically condemn homosexuality. The Buddhist Vinaya only forbids male prostitutes from joining the order of mendicants, but there is nothing against laypeople being gay. To my knowledge, Hindus did not have laws against homosexuality until the British imposed them on them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The bolded section should not be argued on CHRISTIAN Forums.

I'm not an "I'll tell the mods on you" type of person, but seriously, this is a bit of an abuse of others' charity.

It also flies in the face of freedom of speech. Every opinion should be welcome in the public square where it can be debated and either accepted or rejected on its merits.

 

[AvisG]

This isn't really true. Many cultures have tolerated it to varying degrees.

Come on, you're not talking to some dummy here. I've done my homework. "Varying degrees," indeed - such as a recognized form of asserting dominance and humiliating the passive partner, as was commonly done with slaves. "Tolerated" in the sense of "thinking it was normal" or "thinking it was beneficial" - well, few and far between. Even leading gay scholars acknowledge that the OT and NT passages cannot be explained away - they reflect a societal condemnation of both the homosexual orientation and homosexual practices.

Look, I'm sympathetic to the fact that this seems to be the dominant concern of your life. I don't disagree that gays have suffered great injustices and still do. I'm just not prepared to drink the Gay Kool Aid the movement is peddling.

 

[Silmarien]

If one is going to attempt to solve a problem one must not discount any aspect of why that problem exists. If there is more than one motivating factor one must deal with all of them and not just the one. That is why I think it is important. Fear is a motivating factor but if we are incorrect in saying it is the only motivating factor we will have a much harder time making things better. I am a straight mean that does not find other men physically attractive. I have no fear of admitting that there are physically attractive men. I just am not attracted to them myself. I don't get what gay men and straight women seem to be attracted by but obviously there is something there. I expect gay men and straight women don't get what I am attracted by either.

You'd be surprised. There are apparently some fun studies out there that suggest that all women are at least a little bit bisexual. It matches up to my experience--I'm straight, but I do find other women attractive. Wouldn't want to date one, but the idea that women can be sexually appealing is hardly mystifying.

I have no problem with the idea that there might be motivating factors aside from fear, though. I just don't like it when people get bent out of shape over the word "homophobia."

 

[FireDragon76]

It also flies in the face of freedom of speech. Every opinion should be welcome in the public square where it can be debated and either accepted or rejected on its merits.

I don't believe in banning speech but I definitely am tired of privileging the attitudes of religiously-motivated bigots.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Outside of Abrahamic religions, I can't think of many that specifically condemn homosexuality. The Buddhist Vinaya only forbids male prostitutes from joining the Sangha, but there is nothing against laypeople being gay. To my knowledge, Hindus did not have laws against homosexuality until the British imposed them on them.

You specifically said Christianity. Not Abrahamic religions. Is Buddhism dangerous because some Buddhist might take offence and do harm to a male prostitute for attempting to join the Sangha? Hinduism has some very nasty things to say about certain classes of people. Is it dangerous because of some of its adherents take intolerance to extremes?

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Is that the form of reparations under consideration here?

What else is there? Apologies (gesture) and money (reparations). That's all there is.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Let's have cyber-bullying and mansplaining reparations, too.

People compare their plights (even African slaves in America) to the Holocaust. Speaking specifically within the framework of state-paid, reparation-worthy situations:
The difference is slaves were privately owned, and the German government had ovens built to cook slaughtered "undesireables."

 

[Daniel C]

Well, that doesn't at all prove to me anything. I no longer identify as a Christian, so the Bible has zero authority for me.

Well if you're not a Christian I wouldn't expect you to view the Bible as authoritative so thanks for that clarification. On the other hand I quoted scripture and you claim it's not Christian policy,well with the greatest respect I am of the opinion (as a Christian) people of the faith shouldn't let heathens influence our policy. That scripture about the nature of homosexuals is real and accurate and we Christians should pay attention to it.

I also noticed a post where you said Christians should be removed from the public square as a ''danger'' for homophobia. Well what about the danger that comes from abuse homosexuals cause to children at a far higher level than any other group-should they have all access to children stopped like teaching jobs and hospital workers,basically anywhere they could come into contact with children? I would support that to protect children from sodomites.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You'd be surprised. There are apparently some fun studies out there that suggest that all women are at least a little bit bisexual. It matches up to my experience--I'm straight, but I do find other women attractive. Wouldn't want to date one, but the idea that women can be sexually appealing is hardly mystifying.

I have no problem with the idea that there might be motivating factors aside from fear, though. I just don't like it when people get bent out of shape over the word "homophobia."

I can understand why a woman would be sexually attracted to a woman. I don't get why they would be sexually attracted to a man. I think there are people that don't like the word homophobia because they feel it is too often used inappropriately and used as a bludgeon to shame people into compliance with a political position.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't believe in banning speech but I definitely am tired of privileging the attitudes of religious bigots.

Then don't privilege them.

 

[FireDragon76]

I also noticed a post where you said Christians should be removed from the public square as a ''danger'' for homophobia. Well what about the danger that comes from abuse homosexuals cause to children at a far higher level than any other group-should they have all access to children stopped like teaching jobs and hospital workers,basically anywhere they could come into contact with children? I would support that to protect children from sodomites.

Give up. You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself, proving my point.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

As strange as it may sound, Dahmer did not do what he did out of purely evil desires. He feared being alone, being unloved, and he had an unrealistic, idealized view of love in his head that no human could fulfill. Combine that with being a gay man at a time when it still wasn't safe to be openly gay in many parts of the country, and that goes a long way towards explain Dahmer's behavior other than to think of him as a monster.

It also goes a long way toward defining utter balderdash.