It seems that the only issue more divisive than gay marriage or perhaps homosexuality in general is abortion. One reason why Republicans have won the support of Evangelicals the past few election cycles is there stance on those two issues (an overwhelming majority). I know many die-hard Christians whom vote for a candidate based on his or her view of abortion and gay marriage. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, typical Christian logic regarding gay marriage has puzzled me to no end. Just recently, I ran into this following article and read through the majority of comments following the article. I'll give you a chance to read it (and them, if you so choose):
http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples
The two Christian die-hard in the comments section are one "LogicalBrandon" (yes, he preceded his name with "logical". Isn't that special?) and "RayCherry" (he's not quite as bad).
Here's one comment from LogicalBrandon:
"Since when does everyone else have to agree with some group's or individual's choices? If homosexuals want tolerance then they should practice some of it themselves by not forcing other people to accept their lifestyles. Heterosexuals are not obligated to accept the homosexual lifestyle; homosexuals have obviously not accepted the heterosexual lifestyle and I'm okay with that. Just don't expect everyone to bow to your belief system because world doesn't work that way. People are free to agree *or* disagree with homosexuals but that doesn't mean you should berate them, call them bigots, racist, homophobe or whatever word you want to use to try demonizing them just because they disagree with you. That is NOT tolerance. Practice what you preach."
First off, Mr. Logical seems rather certain that homosexuality is a choice. Okay, I suppose that's his right, although I don't understand why someone would choose that orientation in knowing all the judgment, hate, anger, violence and discrimination that could potentially come their way due to it.
He then says that homosexuals haven't accepted the heterosexual lifestyle, so how can they expect heterosexuals to accept the homosexual lifestyle. He then hides behind the notion that homosexuals are hypocrites in this regard, because they accuse others of being intolerant of them when they're just as intolerant of others not being tolerant of them.
This isn't logic, I'm sorry to say. Where has it been documented that homosexuals don't accept the heterosexual lifestyle? Just because they're not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, doesn't mean they don't accept and respect those whom are. Again, this may go back to the notion that homosexuality is a choice, but I think it's just an excuse. There's a difference between being tolerant of other's opinions and being tolerant of other's intolerance. It's about equality. Should women have been tolerant of others not respecting them enough to vote? Should they have been tolerant of sexism? "Oh, that's okay. You can insult my being because of my gender. I'd be just as bad as you if I didn't respect you and your discrimination toward me." Should blacks have been tolerant of racism? "I don't agree with it, but if you think slavery is cool, that's cool. You burn our houses down? Hey, it'd be hypocritical of me to speak out against you and show intolerance."
LogicalBrandon continued with his lecture in "logic":
"Chick-fil-A is allowed to deny anyone they wish to their retreats because the retreats obviously have a religious foundation to them. If they feel anyone doesn't or can't provide value that reflects *those* values then they can deny whomever they wish. Why can't the LBGT community *respect* that decision? Again, they are under no obligation to agree with your lifestyle. The LBGT community seems to have trouble understanding that.
Also note that it is your *lifestyle* that is in question here, not you as a person. You may view those 2 things as the same thing but that would be flawed logic. Heterosexuals do not hate homosexuals, despite what the LBGT community says in return when demonizing people who don't agree with their choices, but they do disagree with the homosexual lifestyle....and they have every right to do so without being demonized for their freedom to disagree.
The people who have bigotry are the people who expect everyone else to agree with all their beliefs and choices and call them bigots in return when they don't get their way. Why not berate people for not agreeing with your choice in food? Because people are allowed to disagree so why is the topic about marriage so different?"
Again, it's about equality. The gay and lesbian community should respect a company excluding them from their retreats because of their orientation? Should women or minorities respect companies whom excluded them from retreats? Should they have respected the laws at the time when neither were allowed to vote? This is about being treated as a human being with equal rights.
Mr. Logic claims that it's homosexuals' "lifestyle" that is in question and not them as people. Once again, should Arabs feel comforted by the fact someone tells them, "It's not you as a person that is in question. It's your religion" or "I have nothing against you as a person, but your darker skin tone makes me worry some. I hope you don't take that personally. It's not you. It's just your skin color."
Brandon then goes on to cast those "intolerant" of the intolerant as the true bigots. He then compares the debate over homosexuality with a debate over food choice. Really? So, if someone weren't accepting of blacks, we could compare those outspoken against racists with berating people over their preference of food? Again...we're talking about living beings here. We're not talking about food, which humans consume.
Logic Man then goes and says this - "My friend prefers Ford Mustangs but I prefer Corvettes. We still like each other as friends but we obviously don't accept each other's decision to buy our respective favorite cars. He wouldn't be caught dead in a Corvette (same as WinShape saying they don't want homosexuals to join their group) and I won't force him to ride in it (which is like homosexuals accepting WinHopes decision even though they aren't doing that). But it is the decision we disagree with. We still accept each other as people."
Yes, he's now comparing he and his friend disagreeing on car preference to disagreeing with a homosexual's "lifestyle". It's about giving people equal rights. He doesn't seem to understand that, Mr. Logical and all. People can disagree with one another's preference in vehicle. They are free to buy whatever vehicle they'd like. Gays are not allowed to live their life as they'd prefer in some states. They're not allowed to marry in most states. It's not about them "preferring" members of the same sex. It's about them receiving equal rights. Logical Boy is quite mixed up when it comes to the very concept of logic.
He then says, "And that is where you are wrong. God would not make people a certain way and then also consider that type of person unable to get into Heaven because of the way He made them. We have Free Will. We have choices to make. Not all of us make the right one. Don't compare the highest order of species on this planet with the lowest. We aren't animals. We can distinguish right from wrong. They can't."
No logic needed here. Brandon knows for a fact that homosexuality is a choice, because God wouldn't make people whom are innately sinful (gays...supposedly, because ::gasp::, it's an abomination). Yeah, it's all a choice. Someone should ask Brandon what morning it was that he awoke and decided to be sexually attracted to women. It reminds me of when I was 6 years old. I had this wild dream about a girl I was shy around and woke up saying, "I'm straight! I like girls!" I don't think so. I've known for as long as I can remember that I'm sexually attracted to women and not to men.
He also stated "I'm not fighting for myself. I'm fighting for society as a whole, futile as it may be." Thank you for that, Sir Logic. Fight this battle of intolerance for yourself. You're not representing me nor many others.
He continued on - "If you read the Holy BIble you would see it does state it is sinful, which is why God wouldn't make a person be born that way if they never had a chance to get to Heaven. Therefore it is a choice of free will."
So, if a person is born gay, he or she wouldn't be allowed to get into heaven, because it's supposedly sinful? Eh... Has Brandon not sinned, so to speak? Isn't it the belief that if one asks for forgiveness for their sins and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, that he or she will be saved? Soooo...why, even if one wants to believe homosexuality to be a sin, would a gay person be prevented from entering heaven due to said sin? Again, on the logic front, Brandon fails.
I'll finish with what I feel to be Logic Man's most asinine comment of all:
"You already have equal treatment. You have basic human rights just as anyone else does. Based on the premise you are not born homosexuals (otherwise you wouldn't be able to get into Heaven because God doesn't allow homosexuals through the gates, read Corinthians) then you have to make a choice to be homosexual. Why should making a specific choice give you special treatment? As I said in one of my posts, maybe the guy who likes having sex with dogs should be given the opportunity to marry one. It's his choice right? Who are we to say he doesn't love the dog despite bestiality being illegal? Obviously I'm not debating homosexuality's legality or comparing it to bestialty directly but some people will still take that from this message and complain about that rather than debate the general analogy itself."
Is that supposed to be a joke? Homosexuals have equal treatment? Basic human rights like anyone? Yes, equal treatment. In some states, it's disallowed for a person to visit a loved one in the hospital. In most states, two people whom are in love can't legally marry. Oh, yes, this goes for heterosexuals as well... I know of many heterosexuals whom are mugged, beaten and killed for their orientation. I know some that get fired for their orientation. I know some whom have been kicked out of the military for opening up about their orientation. I know some whom have been disowned by their parents due to their orientation. Yeah, equal rights...
Also, he goes into the notion that gays CANNOT get into heaven and it says this in Corinthians. Once again, how is this logical? If homosexuality is a sin, every person is sinful, Jesus died to wipe humans of their sins and in order to enter heaven and be with him, they must ask for his forgiveness and believe him to be their savior, why is the sin of homosexuality any different from another sin? (I'm not saying it is a sin. I'm just attempting to think like Brandon does). Does it not state in The Bible that to God, all sins are equal? How is it then logical for God to reject people whom are gay, yet accept people whom have lied, cheated, stole, committed adultery, etc.? Explain this to me, Mr. Logic...
He then asks why people can't marry animals since it's a choice, just like homosexuality (according to him), but then says he's not comparing homosexuality to beastiality. Eh, didn't he just compare marrying a member of the same sex to marrying an animal? Yes, he is quite sound in logic, isn't he? He should be the professor of a Critical Thinking course. I'm thinking he'd fail his own class.
Like I said at the outset, I typically have issues understanding Christian "logic" against homosexuality. If we want to believe the story they present to us in The Bible and these die-hard's interpretations of it are accurate, shouldn't they then listen to what Jesus said? "Let one without sin cast the first stone." Even if they want to claim homosexuality as a sin, what makes that sin any worse than the sins they've committed through the years? Shouldn't they be working on themselves, to learn from those very mistakes and improve themselves, so they don't commit the same sins again as opposed to laying claim that others are sinful and won't be saved? Shouldn't they accept and love others as they are? Not judge? I'm not gay. I'm not a minority. I'm not a woman. I'm not Muslim. But, I believe in equal rights for all of these individuals. We should all be allowed to vote, be allowed to go to school and/or work, be allowed to fall in love and get married, be allowed to be ourselves and live our lives without persecution on what we were born with. Even if one wants to contend that homosexuality is a choice, that still doesn't mean these individuals should be persecuted. If two people love one another, why should anyone stop them from doing so? Why should I be judging them when I'm imperfect? When I've made so many mistakes in my lifetime? What makes me all high and mighty to cast judgment upon them? I'm not. They're living, breathing people, just like Brandon, just like me, just like everyone else. They're not cars. They're not food. They're human beings and deserve to be treated as such, which it appears Brandon and many others are reluctant on doing and hide behind the notion that others are intolerant of their views. That uneven logic won't get anywhere in Critical Reasoning course, let alone human civil rights' battles.
http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples
The two Christian die-hard in the comments section are one "LogicalBrandon" (yes, he preceded his name with "logical". Isn't that special?) and "RayCherry" (he's not quite as bad).
Here's one comment from LogicalBrandon:
"Since when does everyone else have to agree with some group's or individual's choices? If homosexuals want tolerance then they should practice some of it themselves by not forcing other people to accept their lifestyles. Heterosexuals are not obligated to accept the homosexual lifestyle; homosexuals have obviously not accepted the heterosexual lifestyle and I'm okay with that. Just don't expect everyone to bow to your belief system because world doesn't work that way. People are free to agree *or* disagree with homosexuals but that doesn't mean you should berate them, call them bigots, racist, homophobe or whatever word you want to use to try demonizing them just because they disagree with you. That is NOT tolerance. Practice what you preach."
First off, Mr. Logical seems rather certain that homosexuality is a choice. Okay, I suppose that's his right, although I don't understand why someone would choose that orientation in knowing all the judgment, hate, anger, violence and discrimination that could potentially come their way due to it.
He then says that homosexuals haven't accepted the heterosexual lifestyle, so how can they expect heterosexuals to accept the homosexual lifestyle. He then hides behind the notion that homosexuals are hypocrites in this regard, because they accuse others of being intolerant of them when they're just as intolerant of others not being tolerant of them.
This isn't logic, I'm sorry to say. Where has it been documented that homosexuals don't accept the heterosexual lifestyle? Just because they're not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, doesn't mean they don't accept and respect those whom are. Again, this may go back to the notion that homosexuality is a choice, but I think it's just an excuse. There's a difference between being tolerant of other's opinions and being tolerant of other's intolerance. It's about equality. Should women have been tolerant of others not respecting them enough to vote? Should they have been tolerant of sexism? "Oh, that's okay. You can insult my being because of my gender. I'd be just as bad as you if I didn't respect you and your discrimination toward me." Should blacks have been tolerant of racism? "I don't agree with it, but if you think slavery is cool, that's cool. You burn our houses down? Hey, it'd be hypocritical of me to speak out against you and show intolerance."
LogicalBrandon continued with his lecture in "logic":
"Chick-fil-A is allowed to deny anyone they wish to their retreats because the retreats obviously have a religious foundation to them. If they feel anyone doesn't or can't provide value that reflects *those* values then they can deny whomever they wish. Why can't the LBGT community *respect* that decision? Again, they are under no obligation to agree with your lifestyle. The LBGT community seems to have trouble understanding that.
Also note that it is your *lifestyle* that is in question here, not you as a person. You may view those 2 things as the same thing but that would be flawed logic. Heterosexuals do not hate homosexuals, despite what the LBGT community says in return when demonizing people who don't agree with their choices, but they do disagree with the homosexual lifestyle....and they have every right to do so without being demonized for their freedom to disagree.
The people who have bigotry are the people who expect everyone else to agree with all their beliefs and choices and call them bigots in return when they don't get their way. Why not berate people for not agreeing with your choice in food? Because people are allowed to disagree so why is the topic about marriage so different?"
Again, it's about equality. The gay and lesbian community should respect a company excluding them from their retreats because of their orientation? Should women or minorities respect companies whom excluded them from retreats? Should they have respected the laws at the time when neither were allowed to vote? This is about being treated as a human being with equal rights.
Mr. Logic claims that it's homosexuals' "lifestyle" that is in question and not them as people. Once again, should Arabs feel comforted by the fact someone tells them, "It's not you as a person that is in question. It's your religion" or "I have nothing against you as a person, but your darker skin tone makes me worry some. I hope you don't take that personally. It's not you. It's just your skin color."
Brandon then goes on to cast those "intolerant" of the intolerant as the true bigots. He then compares the debate over homosexuality with a debate over food choice. Really? So, if someone weren't accepting of blacks, we could compare those outspoken against racists with berating people over their preference of food? Again...we're talking about living beings here. We're not talking about food, which humans consume.
Logic Man then goes and says this - "My friend prefers Ford Mustangs but I prefer Corvettes. We still like each other as friends but we obviously don't accept each other's decision to buy our respective favorite cars. He wouldn't be caught dead in a Corvette (same as WinShape saying they don't want homosexuals to join their group) and I won't force him to ride in it (which is like homosexuals accepting WinHopes decision even though they aren't doing that). But it is the decision we disagree with. We still accept each other as people."
Yes, he's now comparing he and his friend disagreeing on car preference to disagreeing with a homosexual's "lifestyle". It's about giving people equal rights. He doesn't seem to understand that, Mr. Logical and all. People can disagree with one another's preference in vehicle. They are free to buy whatever vehicle they'd like. Gays are not allowed to live their life as they'd prefer in some states. They're not allowed to marry in most states. It's not about them "preferring" members of the same sex. It's about them receiving equal rights. Logical Boy is quite mixed up when it comes to the very concept of logic.
He then says, "And that is where you are wrong. God would not make people a certain way and then also consider that type of person unable to get into Heaven because of the way He made them. We have Free Will. We have choices to make. Not all of us make the right one. Don't compare the highest order of species on this planet with the lowest. We aren't animals. We can distinguish right from wrong. They can't."
No logic needed here. Brandon knows for a fact that homosexuality is a choice, because God wouldn't make people whom are innately sinful (gays...supposedly, because ::gasp::, it's an abomination). Yeah, it's all a choice. Someone should ask Brandon what morning it was that he awoke and decided to be sexually attracted to women. It reminds me of when I was 6 years old. I had this wild dream about a girl I was shy around and woke up saying, "I'm straight! I like girls!" I don't think so. I've known for as long as I can remember that I'm sexually attracted to women and not to men.
He also stated "I'm not fighting for myself. I'm fighting for society as a whole, futile as it may be." Thank you for that, Sir Logic. Fight this battle of intolerance for yourself. You're not representing me nor many others.
He continued on - "If you read the Holy BIble you would see it does state it is sinful, which is why God wouldn't make a person be born that way if they never had a chance to get to Heaven. Therefore it is a choice of free will."
So, if a person is born gay, he or she wouldn't be allowed to get into heaven, because it's supposedly sinful? Eh... Has Brandon not sinned, so to speak? Isn't it the belief that if one asks for forgiveness for their sins and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, that he or she will be saved? Soooo...why, even if one wants to believe homosexuality to be a sin, would a gay person be prevented from entering heaven due to said sin? Again, on the logic front, Brandon fails.
I'll finish with what I feel to be Logic Man's most asinine comment of all:
"You already have equal treatment. You have basic human rights just as anyone else does. Based on the premise you are not born homosexuals (otherwise you wouldn't be able to get into Heaven because God doesn't allow homosexuals through the gates, read Corinthians) then you have to make a choice to be homosexual. Why should making a specific choice give you special treatment? As I said in one of my posts, maybe the guy who likes having sex with dogs should be given the opportunity to marry one. It's his choice right? Who are we to say he doesn't love the dog despite bestiality being illegal? Obviously I'm not debating homosexuality's legality or comparing it to bestialty directly but some people will still take that from this message and complain about that rather than debate the general analogy itself."
Is that supposed to be a joke? Homosexuals have equal treatment? Basic human rights like anyone? Yes, equal treatment. In some states, it's disallowed for a person to visit a loved one in the hospital. In most states, two people whom are in love can't legally marry. Oh, yes, this goes for heterosexuals as well... I know of many heterosexuals whom are mugged, beaten and killed for their orientation. I know some that get fired for their orientation. I know some whom have been kicked out of the military for opening up about their orientation. I know some whom have been disowned by their parents due to their orientation. Yeah, equal rights...
Also, he goes into the notion that gays CANNOT get into heaven and it says this in Corinthians. Once again, how is this logical? If homosexuality is a sin, every person is sinful, Jesus died to wipe humans of their sins and in order to enter heaven and be with him, they must ask for his forgiveness and believe him to be their savior, why is the sin of homosexuality any different from another sin? (I'm not saying it is a sin. I'm just attempting to think like Brandon does). Does it not state in The Bible that to God, all sins are equal? How is it then logical for God to reject people whom are gay, yet accept people whom have lied, cheated, stole, committed adultery, etc.? Explain this to me, Mr. Logic...
He then asks why people can't marry animals since it's a choice, just like homosexuality (according to him), but then says he's not comparing homosexuality to beastiality. Eh, didn't he just compare marrying a member of the same sex to marrying an animal? Yes, he is quite sound in logic, isn't he? He should be the professor of a Critical Thinking course. I'm thinking he'd fail his own class.
Like I said at the outset, I typically have issues understanding Christian "logic" against homosexuality. If we want to believe the story they present to us in The Bible and these die-hard's interpretations of it are accurate, shouldn't they then listen to what Jesus said? "Let one without sin cast the first stone." Even if they want to claim homosexuality as a sin, what makes that sin any worse than the sins they've committed through the years? Shouldn't they be working on themselves, to learn from those very mistakes and improve themselves, so they don't commit the same sins again as opposed to laying claim that others are sinful and won't be saved? Shouldn't they accept and love others as they are? Not judge? I'm not gay. I'm not a minority. I'm not a woman. I'm not Muslim. But, I believe in equal rights for all of these individuals. We should all be allowed to vote, be allowed to go to school and/or work, be allowed to fall in love and get married, be allowed to be ourselves and live our lives without persecution on what we were born with. Even if one wants to contend that homosexuality is a choice, that still doesn't mean these individuals should be persecuted. If two people love one another, why should anyone stop them from doing so? Why should I be judging them when I'm imperfect? When I've made so many mistakes in my lifetime? What makes me all high and mighty to cast judgment upon them? I'm not. They're living, breathing people, just like Brandon, just like me, just like everyone else. They're not cars. They're not food. They're human beings and deserve to be treated as such, which it appears Brandon and many others are reluctant on doing and hide behind the notion that others are intolerant of their views. That uneven logic won't get anywhere in Critical Reasoning course, let alone human civil rights' battles.
Comments
Post a Comment