September 25, 2008
-
Gay Marriage and Morality
I received this message from jwestgyrus:
“Most polls have opposition to gay marriage, or gay lifestyle at about70-80% on moral grounds . One would assume it’s largely based onreligious convictions. Polls also show that 97% of all peopleregardless of religious belief engage in premarital sex. Here is the link: Link
I’m one of the 3% of people who waited for marriage to have sex. Ialso have no interest in using my personal beliefs to institutebehavior modifications or legislate morality because I think itshypocrisy. So, given those facts, is it hypocritical to opposehomosexuality while engaging in premarital sex?”
Is it hypocritical to oppose homosexuality while engaging in premarital sex?
Comments (166)
Anybody that brings up morality (especially religious morality) to denounce and even propose legal restrictions on homosexuals AND is simultaneously practicing pre-marital sex would be a hypocrite.
No, not at all. Both are sins, but homosexuality is called an abomination before God. Just remember Sodom if you don’t think God takes this sin seriously.
Yes! It’s not like one is worse than the other, although Christians tend to treat it that way.
If you’re using religion as your basis of morality, then yes, assuming that religion opposes to both. But if it’s just your personal beliefs and morals that aren’t tied down to religion (whether you’re religious or not), then no. Homosexuality and premarital sex aren’t one in the same.
everyone is a hypocrite.
we are all ‘sinners’.
Its judging either way…
@paoguy118 - God seems pretty clear in his opposition to premarital sex too.
@paoguy118 - Then why did God created that abomination?
Yes, I do think it’s hypocritical, both are sins according to that book.
yep. but when is hypocrisy anything new?
@paoguy118 - God takes ALL sin seriously.
No doubt.
I think it’s hypocritical to use religion to justify oppression.
Pretty much yeah, though I think in society we’re more lax on premarital sex (as you said, 97% of all people, regardless of religious beliefs engage in it).
But how do you like those numbers? 97% of people engage in premarital sex, take that all you Christians who take part in putting these people (me as well) down for this.
I think it is a bit hypocriticial.
For me it would be, yes.
hypocricy is the spice of life.
@In_Reason_I_Trust – I agree… it would be very hypocritical.
@sean808080 - Yes. Not only hypocritical, but downright atrocious.
I find it interesting that people think you shouldn’t legeslate morality. In truth, you can, should, and by very definition MUST legislate morality. After all, morality is about the only thing you CAN legislate as laws are predominantly moral judgements on what the populace should and should not be permitted to do…AKA… MORALS! The question, then, becomes WHOSE morality should be legislated. THAT is where the fighting begins, because concious of it or not, most people realize this on a basic level.
That 70-80% is way high, and I seriously doubt the accuracy of that number. It’s estimated between 5-10% of people are gay or bisexual.
Having said that, yes it is hypocritical
It’s always been my opinion that if you are using religion to make a point, you’ve really got to be following that religion to a tee for it to be a valid point.
Even then, I don’t believe it’s valid because I like to believe that the myth of separation of church and state will be possible one day.
Goddamn creationists!
Yes, it’s hypocritical. Jesus said to take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbor’s. But you know, you might still be honest about what you are doing wrong first and still be able to call something out for what it is. E.g., if you know premarital sex is wrong and you’re doing it then work on that before you make a big public stand on homosexuality and make an ass out of yourself, but if someone asks or if it comes down to voting, etc., it’s not right to lie and say something is all right when it ain’t.
Well…if you trust in that sick book, then yes, both are sins.
However, just because something is “sin” does NOT make it a grounds to make it illegal. Who are they hurting besides themselves? Answer: NOBODY!!!
It’s time for all people to be equal under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.
good thing i’m down with homosexuality … no hypocrisy for me!!
Yeah. I judge both.
Yep. I know plenty of people in my family who oppose gay marriage and/or homosexuality but they aren’t married and going around having pre-marital sex.
I’m also curious where they took this poll, Utah? Texas? Alabama? Arkansas?
No. They’re two different sins. What on earth do they have to do with one another? I don’t get it.
He didn’t. God is not the author of confusion.
Yes, is hypocritical to oppose homosexuality while engaging in premarital sex, and I say that as a religious person who wants to go into full time minisry.
Yes, it is hypocritical. There’s a lot of hypocrisy to go around these days. And while God’s Word does have harsh things to say to hypocrites, it also calls those who have no moral standards whatsoever “fools”.
Yes it is. One rule is the same as another. All rules are equal.
didn’t the Bible say something about “sin is sin” and it’s all equal in the eyes of god?
I’m a bisexual atheist, so what do I know? I’m clearly immoral and ignorant.
Gay marriage: I’m for it, or at least civil unions. I might not be gay; but I don’t think I have the right or “moral obligation” to limit the legal rights of couples who want that kind of commitment.
I’m also a Christian. I even live in the Bible belt. And, let’s face it; we’re ALL hypocrites because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I’m of the mind that it’s more important for me to be focusing on MY sins and making MYself right with God than pointing fingers at the people around me for their supposed sins. Plus, I’m pretty sure the most important commandment from Jesus was to “love your neighbor as yourself.” And, if my neighbors were (and trust me, they are!) busy pointing out the sins of those around them, I wouldn’t be feeling very loved.
Pre-Marital sex should be a prerequisite for marriage. So should living with your fiance’ before getting married. That’ll prevent a lot of marriages ending in divorce! Lol…
If a man loves another man, or a woman loves another woman I think it’s great. Love is love and it shouldn’t matter how or why or who.
@baranorewen - Amen to that. Someday the Establishment Clause might actually be put fully into practice. We can only hope.
@lynnygblair - Amen to that as well.
@paoguy118 - God said why He was going to wipe out Sodom, and it had nothing to do with homosexuality. Remember, His condemnation fell on Sodom before the men of the city fell on the Angels.
And I seriously doubt that only 3% of people wait till marriage to have sex. I am among that number, but I think that a lot of people don’t have sex before marriage — even if they don’t necessarily resolve to do so.
selective morality is deplorable
I would say no… you can be against gay marriage and still have premarital sex. I don’t really see how the two are linked. Gay marriage has nothing to do with premarital sex… well unless its gays having premarital sex. I guess it has to do with beliefs and people assume if you are against gay marriage you are going to be against premarital sex?
Good thing for me I am not against gay marriage and I have no problem with premarital sex. There is nothing for me to worry about.
All sins are seen as the same in God’s eyes….at least that is what has been preached to me…therefore I think that God should be the ultimate judge and we shouldn’t judge others sin/ We are all human and sinful. Judging others of their sin, therefore would make you hypocritical. Just opposing homosexuality, does not, imo.
@weight_loss_memoirs - All sin is equal in the eyes of God, according to your belief.
That’s what it has to do with one another.
This is interesting. I lived in a house with a group of Christian, sorority sisters who lauded the bible as the word of God, and condemned homosexuality/homosexuals as sin and sinful. And yet when it came to making out with one another, discussions of anal sex (and acceptance of it as exploratory, normal sex between a man and woman)…and pre-marital sex, it was all good in their eyes, in their selective interpretation of the bible. Just put on a cute, little cross, prance around in Victoria Secret undies, hold a bible, and you’re sure to go to heaven!
ugh i hate people against gays
If your concept of morality involves the uncritical acceptance of the folkways of an early Iron Age middle eastern society, then I suppose that you can make the case that delegitimating same sex relationships is moral. Neither Jesus nore the rabbis who were his contemporaries thought that way, however.
The Rabbis in particular were deeply shocked by what they found to be moral failures in the Torah. They developed the principle that Torah Rules should be understood by applying the highest moral principles of the Torah to understanding it. In effect the Rabbis developed a dispensational view of the Torah, which explained the moral failures of the Torah by the barbaric morality of the time. The Rabbis taught, in effect, that Moses gave some of the Torah rules because they were the best people could do in his day, but the Rabbis thought Jews in the time of Jesus could do better.
This approach was adopted by Jesus when he taught “Moses allowed the right of divorce because of people of that time expected it, but I say that it is morally wrong”.
So what would Jesus have said about gay marriages? Well he did say something about a marriage involving a cleaving together of a man and a woman, but he never said that this was the only relationship that could be a marriage. And besides, Jesus did seem to have some sort of thing going with the beloved Disciple.
ChristiansIn eff
if you oppose it on the grounds of morality, yes.
All sins are not the same because of the effects they have on you and the people around you. But in the sense that all sin is separation from God, they are all the same.
Well you have to remember the human/primate condition.
No matter who you are, you’re always better than someone.
not really, because one cannot compare both. but don’t never understood why people bothered whether or not another person was homosexual.
I believe in homosexual marriage & pre-marital sex. In fact I INSIST on pre-marital sex; how else can you tell if you are sexually compatible … besides, post-marital sex is a myth!
@RaVnR - lol
Big assumption on the reasoning to why people oppose what they do. Given that religion is the only basis for their dislike then yes it is hypocritical to accept one but not the other. Such is life though, rarely can anyone be perfectly consistent.
Yes. Before you judge someone…make sure your own hands are clean.
Why do people care so much about something that doesn’t affect them anyway? If Jane and Sarah get married, there is still enough love for Joe and Sally to get married too. It doesn’t affect you…. get over it.
it is hypocritical and its wrong in the case of being against gay marriage
Yes, it is hypocritical to oppose homosexuality whilst engaging in extra-marital sex. If one refers to the Old Testament, there are extreme penalties for both. Sin is sin and both fall short of the target. There are no degrees of sin when you look closely at the scriptures. You are either on target or off target. Good thing that God is God and man is man, otherwise we would be in a real pickle. If we all got what we deserved (for sinning) then there would be very few of us left alive, eh?
Hurray for premarital sex…hurray for homosexuality!….i can not throw stones at anyone, considering the glass house i live in
Yes.
hypocrisy or not, i’m not comfortable with mixing politics and religion. if this is one of those extremist muslim lands, would i think it’s right to outlaw women having jobs? i’d like to be able to live my life as a Christian and live it openly, so i’ll extend the same respect and courtesy to those who share different beliefs.
besides, i don’t think homosexuality is a choice. i know that i can’t explain why i’m attracted to women. it’s not because the bible told me so, i mean, look at angelina jolie! if you think about it, the bible even turns a blind eye to human rights violations. it not only states that it’s ok to have slaves, it’s even ok to beat them down so long as you don’t kill them.
ultimately, a sin is a sin is a sin in the eyes of God. man views sins in varying degrees, which is why robbers get a shorter sentence than murderers. do we even really want to bother putting in laws against homosexuality? i don’t think it’s worth the hassle. besides, i’d rather not judge.
Based on Judeo-Christianish legalistic religion, it would be hypocritical to bash homosexual marriage if you are engaging in heterosexual premarital sex. You would be considered a lawbreaker.
I hate these arguments. And I hate how people use “religion” as to why gay people shouldn’t be together.. as much as everyone likes to think, not everyone is the same damn religion.
This isn’t the first case of people disregarding one “rule” of the bible, but still passing judgment on people who disregard or violate a different one. I mean the bible says you’re not supposed to wear blended cloth or eat shellfish.. yet no one cares about that. Why is it that gays are so discriminated against for simply trying to live, when those who were a cotton and polyester shirt aren’t? They’re all “bad” in god’s eyes according to the bible.
Religion, especially Catholicism, is full of so much contradiction
not just yes, but h*ll, yes!!!!
Hmm I don’t think that can be considered hypocritical. Maybe engaging in HOMOSEXUAL premarital sex and also opposing homosexuality would be hypocritical.
There are different sets of beliefs around both of those and people can support one and oppose the other for very different reasons. If someone opposes one and not the other, giving reasons for opposition as being that one is a “sin”, then that could be like a rapist calling a murderer a criminal.
Personally, I am all for homosexuality and premarital sex, so no hypocrisy here.
BTW I’m all for both homosexuality and pre-marital sex.
I think you do a disservice to yourself and your wife/husband if you wait.
@paoguy118 - …homosexuality is called an abomination before God. Just remember Sodom if you don’t think God takes this sin seriously.
Then by that reasoning, we should have seen God-induced natural disasters striking the San Francisco Bay.
Maybe God changed his mind. (As he did throughout the New Testament)
Probably.
Though I think it’s even more hypocritical to oppose gay marriage and still claim freedom of religion.
@Legendairy - I find it interesting that people think you shouldn’t legeslate morality. In truth, you can, should, and by very definition MUST legislate morality.
Of course the laws of our state and country was written with at least a partial appeal to our moral sense. But beyond the morality of religion and culture, there are well-reasoned real-world arguments for the legislation.
When it is said that we shouldn’t legislate morality, what’s meant is that if the sole basis of law is moral belief (without any real-world reaons), then that law shouldn’t be legislated.
We live in a pluralistic society. There must be real reasons for the laws of our society. The morality of a subculture shouldn’t be imposed on society at large.
I never realized how many Christians/against-gay-rights people there were on Xanga. Wow, who knew?
Also, I don’t think this is like Dante’s Inferno (where sins are more or less categorized and then given an appropriate ‘circle’). A sin is a sin is a sin… now what your definition of that sin may be, is only your guess.
If they’re condemning homosexuality/gay marriage based on religious beliefs that condone neither premarital sex or homosexuality (such as Christianity or Islam) then it’s completely hypocritical. Otherwise, it’s just some rather skewed belief system that makes little sense.
@QwiXilver - Thank you.
I think it’s hypocritical because we are taught that no sin is bigger than the other. Also I feel that it is wrong to judge the lifestyles of others. No one person is perfect and without sin.
As the saying goes, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”Can anyone really throw stones without taking the risk of breaking their own house?
@mangotini - i agree
Isn’t a sin, a sin? Aren’t one and all just the same? I didn’t know that there were “levels” of sinning… Can someone please give me a graph for that? That way I can see how terrible of a person I really am.
I was Catholic growing up and the church’s belief is that homosexuality is “ok” as long as you don’t act out on it, but they are completely opposed to premarital sex. So, they assume no one single is having premarital sex, so it’s fine to oppose same sex marriage.
Most Religious people are going to let it known that they oppose same sex marriage and it’s their right. I completely support same sex marriage because regarldess of how I was raised I can’t condemn something that I believe people are born with. I believe they should have the same rights as straight people. What is a gay person suppose to be alone and celibate for the rest of their life? It makes no sense. You think they should force themselves to be straight?
There are gay people who are religious and understand that their churches believe they are sinning, but they are just being themselves.
It depends…
If you’re using ” the bible does not allow it” or anything similiar as an argument, but you’re doing another thing that contradicts religion, I do believe that is hypocrisy.
But, if your argument for being against gay marriage does not happen to also be against premarital sex, than it would not be hypocrisy.
if the bible is used as moral justification it cannot only be used in that manner when it suits the individual making the claim. in other words, you can’t justify picking one of the listed sins and not another with the bible. besides, how many times is it demonstrated through the many parables that judgment of others is just as frowned upon by god as any other sin?
@paoguy118 - huh i must have missed the list of sin levels, or was that put out by your specific group? sin is sin or sin is not sin. hard to justify as, well it’s only a minor sin, right? or are white lies not lies and therefore not sins?
I think everyone should have sex before marriage and have a same sex encounter at least once. Oooh baby.
I think that they’re too different things and it’s difficult to compare them, but in a religious sense, yes, it’s hypocritical. If you consider yourself a Christian, how can you support some of its tenets and not others?
Definitely. A sin is a sin no matter what it is.
Dan, does your spacebar not work?
Yes & yes…it’s always immoral when it’s someone else doing it…whatever “it” might be.
Yes
I just don’t understand that mentality as well. It’s not ok to have two people, whom love each other, get married because of same sex BUT its ok for pre-marital sex, teen pregnancies, alcoholism, adultery, etc… Churches preach love but turn to hate when it comes to homosexuality. I’ve been witness to churches escorting a gay couple out of the church. They have a soul too! The wages of sin are death… what is the difference here?
Bangin’ a dude, a chick before marriage, or a domesticated animal is all what it is…BANGIN’
that’s true. good question.
i don’t think anything should be regulated legally based on religious grounds…we’re a nation of free religious beliefs…some people don’t see either as being a sin, so who’s to tell them that it is?
That’s a tough question. I do believe both are wrong but sin is all the same to God. On the other hand sin is not all the same to people. I suppose I would say it’s not because between a man and a woman is the way God planned for things. Sure it is perverting the order of things to have it before marraige but at least they arn’t stepping outside nature. I am happy to say I am in the 3% along with you.
yes.
yes. and those hypocrites can suck my d!k anytime - most especially before marriage.
yeah, pretty hypocritical.
I really just don’t get it. I sometimes feel like it’s the fort from when you were ten years old. No girls allowed. There wasn’t any real reason behind it other than girls are icky. It wouldn’t have really brought harm upon anyone. Things aren’t good unless they’re exclusive, and a lot of people seem to want the “Married Club” to be a straights only ordeal, because homosexuals are icky just like girls in 5th grade.
My personal question to those who oppose gay marriage is, “What harm will come to you if homosexuals are allowed to marry?”
Yes, it’s very hypocritical to pick and chose.
@awokenfatality - “Then why did God created that abomination?”
He didn’t. Depraved people did.
To answer Dan’s question, anyone has the right to do anything he/she wants as long as it does not harm anyone else. Just because you have that right, however, does not mean that you have any right to shove or force it into someone else’s life. What you do is up to you – just keep it in your house and stop trying to make me accept it in mine.
Yes.
@JessicaAshley7 - ”He [God] didn’t [create gays]. Depraved people did.”
In the Christian worldview, each of us are creations of God. God is certainly smart enough to know exactly what he’s creating and how he’s creating it.
Seperate from this, if homosexuality is really such an abomination, then God allowed it by not stepping in and alleviating the problem.
Just because you have that right, however, does not mean that you have any right to shove or force it into someone else’s life. What you do is up to you – just keep it in your house and stop trying to make me accept it in mine.
Really? Gays and lesbians are actively harrassing you and needling you to accept their lifestyle? I find it hard to believe.
“Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone,” or whatever, no? Only god is to judge.
@OurUnspokenTrust - My personal question to those who oppose gay marriage is, “What harm will come to you if homosexuals are allowed to marry?”
Some of the more extreme Christaisn believe that the homosexual agenda has brought natural and man-made disasters onto the United States.
In reference to 9/11, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell said this:
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
A number of Christian groups and preacher blamed Hurricane Katrina on the homosexual decadence of New Orleans.
I can see where someone would think so. But I don’t think so. I personally think gay people or whatever is wrong because the “puzzle pieces” don’t fit. I don’t hate them though, I don’t through rocks at them or call them names, I just don’t agree, but I definitely have some gay friends.
@Shirlann - Check again. God requires loving him as the most important commandment (according to Rabbi Jesus), and loving neighbor second.
Yep. Are there really only 3% people that wait? Wow.
Shenanigans! It doesn’t take a long search of the Gallup website to find out that that opposition to homosexuality figure ain’t right! Homosexuality is the last item on the list presented in the video, and it’s split right down the middle as of this year.
Given the misinformed moral bent of the question, I will give an unqualified “yes, it is hypocritical” as my answer, despite the poor phrasing of the question that leaves room for speculation as to who exactly we are talking about.
Yes.
I just put up an editorial I wrote for my school paper on marriage and love. Read it if you get a chance.
@OurUnspokenTrust -
@huginn - Srsly? You’re going to quote Falwell as blaming disasters on homosexual decadence and leave it at that? I think a better quote would be:
“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
which sums up the argument against staying out of each other’s bedrooms. Otherwise, it sounds like a “save my skin” argument, when it’s really more of a “save my soul” argument.
Well with that kind of comment it’s not homosexuals the straight homophobes should fear, it’s the bisexuals that pass on all the gay diseases to women! Shesh
probably.
but it’s just never okay to oppose homosexuality.
Depends on your reasoning.
“Gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it is. Now, let me tell you about the AMAZING, protected sex that my boyfriend and I had last night!” That means HYPOCRITE in huge letters.
“Gay marriage is wrong because I just don’t agree with it. It doesn’t have anything to do with the bible. Now, let me tell you about the amazing sex I had.” Not so much.
Now THAT is one heckuva question.
No. They’re two different issues.
If only fundamentalist christians could rule over us with an iron fist, then I’m sure things would all be well.
And yes its way hypoctitical, but so are many things, and in some regards, most of us all!
@JessicaAshley7 - But according to the bible, he created everything. So if he created everything, then he created homosexuality.
Sure is.
Marriage is now and has always been a contract.
@awokenfatality - “But according to the bible, he created everything. So if he created everything, then he created homosexuality.”
Actually, that’s not accurate. What the Bible says is this: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) He also created plants, animals, and people. He gave people free will to do whatever they chose to do, as evidenced by their ability to disobey him. We were the ones who created all strife, grief, and other evil things that exist in our lives today.
@huginn - “In the Christian worldview, each of us are creations of God. God is certainly smart enough to know exactly what he’s creating and how he’s creating it.”
God gave us free will. Of course he knew that we would use that to our own detriment. Even knowing that, he did it anyway, which tells me that it was very important to him that we be able to choose our own lives and destinies. Furthermore, God does not punish us for doing the wrong he enabled us to commit. Because the universe has a natural set of laws governing us, we face the consequences of bad actions. For example, if you jump out the window of a skyscraper, the natural law of gravity will kill you. The same goes for immoral and wrong decisions we make in our lives.
“Seperate from this, if homosexuality is really such an abomination, then God allowed it by not stepping in and alleviating the problem.”
Of course God allowed it. It would violate our free will otherwise. Homosexuality is a choice, not an accident. It is wrong if we choose to do it but God alleviated that problem when Jesus died on the cross, allowing us to be fully covered for our sins, if we so choose. If we don’t, then it’s our own fault for what happens to us. Again, if your mom keeps telling you not to play in the street but you keep doing it anyway, it’s not her fault when you get run over.
“Really? Gays and lesbians are actively harrassing you and needling you to accept their lifestyle? I find it hard to believe.”
Then you either don’t keep up to date with world events or are willfully suspending intelligent observation.
It’s interesting to bring up these two issues, especially since they are not related. That being said how does that make it hypocritical?
@JessicaAshley7 - But man was created as an image of God himself, so in creating homosexually he created that small part in him that is gay.
Mind you my dear, that they are even closer to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, but something that you are born as.
By the way, gravity isn’t a law, it’s a theory.
@pointnexus - Because according to Christians, they are both sins, also, both have to do with sex.
yes it is, your putting down homosexuality because of your ”moral and religious beliefs” but then again you practice premaritial sex. your definetly a hypocrite.
@sean808080 - amen to that.
yes
yes
I would think that it would depend on why you’re opposing homosexuality, and why you think that it’s okay to engage in premarital sex (assuming that you think that it’s okay and you’re a willing participant in said sexual activities).
Is it hypocritical to oppose homosexuality while engaging in premarital sex?
I don’t think it is hypocritical at all… we are human beings… animals. Animals find suitable mates to begett viable offspring to promote our race. That is the natural order of things. Two men or two women cannot have children and therefore redundant… and on top of that pretty repulsive. I know that it doesn’t affect my life in anyway, or at least not directly. But I guess we do need homosexuals to keep the fashion industry alive and lesbians to keep Harley Davidson in business
*Bow*
Possibly, it seems to make sense that it would be hypocritical.
I think you need to learn how to type a little better, and props for not engaging in homosexuality and premarital sex
@awokenfatality - ”But man was created as an image of God himself, so in creating homosexually he created that small part in him that is gay.”
The point is that we were created with free will. God created Adam in his image and He created Eve to be like Adam. A man and a woman were made to be sexual with one another, not with others like them. Homosexuality did not exist until after sin entered the world (i.e. Adam and Eve decided, of their own free will, to disobey for the first time).
Furthermore, by even suggesting that some part of God is gay, you are trying to enflame the situation. To assign such human qualities as homosexuality to him is ridiculous. He is perfect, a superior being who is above his creations, and whose inifinite mind is far beyond our comprehension. In that infinite wisdom, God created the model of a perfect universe and, according to that model, homosexuality is an abomination.
“Mind you my dear, that they are even closer to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, but something that you are born as.”
The articles in the following links refute that point, as do the studies published by the scientists who initially theorized about a “gay gene.”
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
http://www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000186.cfm
“By the way, gravity isn’t a law, it’s a theory.”
Newton’s 2nd law of motion has been fact for over three hundred years. I don’t think scientists have suddenly decided to call it a theory.
I think some just use morals to their convenience.
@awokenfatality - I just had a test on this gravity is a law futhermore when a scientfic theory is intoduced and it can not be disproved it because a law.
I guess I’m one of those 3%. A sin is a sin, whether one is worse than the other is not for us to decide, least that’s what I believe.
As far as the homosexuality goes; I’m a homophobic person, I didn’t choose this way, its just my nature. But I’m also for freedom of doing anything you want (with knowing the consequences, if any). So if you decide to be homo and you know its a sin (that is if you believe in God), then by all means, do what you want. I’m not going to be like “Oh my God, you’re gay! Repent now!”
So is it hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Only God knows if there’s worse sin’s in life than homosexuality. Though I think that the worse sin is that people are judging homo’s just because they are homo’s.
yep, its totally hypocritical
@weirdbean - But what if they were chairs? What would you do then?
1) The typical argument, from my experience, is that whatever type of sex people have should be legal….but that in a democracy we get to choose as society what we are going to recognize and encourage. Therefore there are certain rights granted to married couples, extended to them because that is good for society. Since many Christians believe that homosexual love is not the same as heterosexual love, it makes sense, on a legal level, for people with those beliefs to resist giving benefits to homosexuals. It’s not about condemning their lifestyles, it’s about not encouraging their lifestyles.
No, this is not the rhetoric that a lot of people use; but I think there’s room to differentiate between homophobia and a reasoned anti-gay-marriage position…as long as you’re just not looking for a religious kook to hate.
2) What IS hypocritical is the emphasis placed on gay marriage among people who are in support of no-fault divorce. The Bible seems to have a lot more to say about the permanence of marriage than about homosexuality. When the former is smiled at and the latter is condemned, THEN I begin to think that this isn’t about religious-based morality but is rather about reinforcing one way of life by labeling others as somehow particularly monstrous or evil.
As a Christian attempting to reason through the issues with charity, obedience, and love, I don’t know where I fall re. #1. But #2 I hate, and I’d rather vote for gay rights than support that sort of culture of hypocrisy.
Re. the separation of church and state:
1) If one takes seriously any religion or philosophy of life (and the line between the two is sometimes fuzzy), it tends to affect the way one sees the world. If I were to believe (as many Scientologists do) that medical treatment was immoral, I would not vote (for instance) for a bill requiring every American to have monthly checkups as part of a nationwide health care system. There is nothing wrong with this; we live in a pluralistic democracy and such beliefs should be considered as a part of national policy.
Saying “when will we finally stop having religious nutjobs participate in our political process from their religious perspectives?” is exactly the same as saying “when will we finally stop having pagans corrupt our nation’s moral fabric?” Neither is about separation of Church and State, both are about the desire for one’s own views to be those acted upon.
The real problem is not people making views based on religious conviction, but people making decisions that violate the human rights of others. If homosexuals have a “natural right” to marriage than they should absolutely recieve benefits–convince others of the fact and vote accordingly. But don’t whine and bitch about the fact that those who disagree with you about the existence of God and the nature of humanity vote differently than you’d want them to on the basis of different premises.
Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
If you are arguing on “Christain” principles, then by all means, YES. You can not argue christian principles if you yourself are not abiding by the 10 Commandments.
I’ve heard of this study, and I’m inclined to doubt its accuracy. After all, the guy who performed the study was aiming from the beginning to prove a point, so one can’t help but wonder under what conditions the study was conducted.
@paoguy118 - Sin is sin! one isn’t viewed anymore worse that any other. I recently went to dinner with my pastor and a group after a church function, some ordered shrimp others ordered pork, a few in the group were way over weight, It hit me that two of the couples at the table were married more that one time. How can you justify all that? What makes there sin ok and the sexual sin of a homosexual couple any different?
No, but it is hypocritical to oppose homosexuality and claim to, um, love people the way they are…
@Chestertonian_Rambler - ’Saying “when will we finally stop having
religious nutjobs participate in our political process from their
religious perspectives?” is exactly the same as saying “when will we
finally stop having pagans corrupt our nation’s moral fabric?”‘
No, actually, it’s very different…
The nutjobs in question often want to enact legislation enforcing their beliefs. “Pagans” (I’ll go out on a limb here and assume this means atheists in particular, and agnostics and non-Christian religious folk too) sometimes do so as well, but more often than not the legislation or policies entail a different view, one of “leave me the hell alone!”
@LeaderOfTheKnightsWhoSayNI - If the people were chairs? I would figure out ways to kidnap them of course. Or I would set my potted plants on them. Or use flamethrowers to get rid of them. I don’t know. Of all the random questions that aren’t really random but that seem random and stupid, that was a weird question.
@huginn - That sounds good on the surface but ultimatly nearly EVERY law is based soly in morals. Is it moral to kill? Under what circumstances? If a high enough percentage of the population thought it should be moral to kill someone for being ugly and wrote up a bill, then the bill would pass into law. Laws on stealing, what businesses can and can’t do, what we as individuals can and cannot do… it is ALL morality. It is all ethics.
Transversely, if someone disagrees with a law, it is likely that the individual believes the law is not moral on some level. The reason our country was created as a democratic republic was so that the morals held by the majority would be adhered to. If a subculture’s morals reign supreme then it is likely that the majority didn’t show up at the polls or see to it that they were represented by other means. It’s a good system but it only works if people do thier part… but evey system has it’s weaknesses.
Why yes…they are both sins in the bible.Both of them are equal,one is not more of a sin then the other.Why do people try to make it that way? read the bible and you will find out…
@jseaglin - Your right,sin is sin and we all fall short,nobody is perfect.That is why without the grace of God and His forgiveness we wouldn’t know His unconditional love.
@Legendairy - That sounds good on the surface but ultimatly nearly EVERY law is based soly in morals.
Then it is wonderful how Christian morality gave the slavery of Africans and later, the Jim Crow laws of the south.
Is it moral to kill? Under what circumstances?
Every society, even non-Christian ones, has made it a high crime to murder. There is good, non-religious non-cultural, reason behind the measure.
Religion, life and people are built on hypocrisy.
@JimiRy - Point of clarification:
When I meant it was “exactly the same” I should’ve said it was “fundamentally the same.” Yes, both tend to have very different political effects; yet in terms of rhetoric and the metapolitical effect they are remarkably similar. They both are, at best, steam-venting and, at worst, dangerous ways of thinking in that they assume anyone with a different religious conviction shouldn’t be given a voice.
Re. my use of “pagan,” I choose it to parallel “religious nutjobs.” That is, in the back of the mind of a Christian extremist, there’s this idea that everyone who doesn’t share his beliefs is a “pagan,” just like those people who did human sacrifice and all that stuff. Same with New Atheism, only its “religious nutjobs” like the guys who live in communes and shoot intruders on sight.
Neither reflects the mainstream, and neither form of rhetoric is condusive to the religious pluralism that (imo) is the “true” “separation of Church and state.”
@Chestertonian_Rambler - Ah, I see. Then we find ourselves in agreement, my friend. All too often I find myself on the wrong end of a big religious mouth, so to speak. But you are correct, people of all faiths (or lack thereof) really should chill the hell out.
@Chestertonian_Rambler - Also, I find your profile picture inspiring and good.
Hypocrisy is judging someone or speaking out against something even if you do that same thing yourself. It has nothing to do with beliefs, but one’s actions. So if one person has premarital sex and speaks out against it, he is a hypocrite. But having premarital sex and speaking out against homosexuality is not hypocritical, unless they believe that premarital sex is wrong too.
In so many of your posts, I often wonder why you word things in such a poor way; blurring lines or building off of false assumptions / false grounds in such a way that the majority of the people commenting don’t even recognize the important distinctions… It’s really frustrating.
@huginn - It is a common misconception that it was Christian values that brought slavery and racism. In our own Declaration of Independance, one of the main reasons we broke away from England was to have the FREEDOM for states to pass anti-slavery laws. As soon as we gained our independance, many states did. This was in accordance with the Christian values you speak of. In the South, many plantation owners chose to part ways with those values on account of their obvious source of income. (not all but the vast majority) It was, therefore, not Christian morals but, rather, those of plantaion owners. Now, I will grant you that many of them claimed to be Christian but just as you would surely contend that Muslim terrorists are not practicing the true fundamentals of Islam, these plantation owners were not taking all their morals from their faith.
As for killing, I never said that murder was a Christian value (actually, I never even addressed Christianity until this comment as you brought it up.) I asked what circumstances morally justify it as that answer does change from culture to culture. Sacrificing an unbelieving human being to one’s deity would go against our morals in most countries but it is not so in some places. Killing for religious purposes, for ethnic purposes, and the list goes on. My point is that if the majority of the people here adopted such a veiw that it could be passed into law. Slavery is a perfect example of my point. Prohibition and it’s removal are two more examples. The morals that reign in this country are those of the majority that make their voices heard. Therefore, legislating morality is only a question of WHOSE morality. In the US, it goes to the masses. In some countries, the ruling party has the say. Regardless, legeslation is almost invariably tied to morals. That’s all I was saying.
The term “God” was made up so that people had something to believe in. “God” is just an idea, not a tangible item, it is an idea. An idea created so that humanity can have something to justify and rectify what they do. Give them hope. “God” is an excuse for our own beliefs. So if in your opinion “God” doesn’t approve, you’re just trying to justify what you think is right. I’m not entirely saying that religion is a bad thing but if you are just using it to make your own beliefs true, you need to man up and just say “I don’t think its right” not “God doesn’t approve.” The world would be such a better place if we stopped using religion to rectify ourselves and just state our ideas. If there is a “God” I don’t think he should be sexist, racist, or anything else. “God” is supposed to love all. It’s humans that hate.
@Simbathe2nd - “I suppose I would say it’s not because
between a man and a woman is the way God planned for things. Sure it is
perverting the order of things to have it before marraige but at least
they arn’t stepping outside nature.“
And I’m sure you don’t do any things that go against “nature” yourself?
And, I apologize but, for many of the gays and lesbians in my life, interest in the opposite sex is what comes unnaturally for them.
Some people like apples and others like oranges, some like both or are indifferent or only like one and HATE the other. Just because you like apples and find oranges unappealing doesn’t mean it is unnatural to like oranges.
And just because gays can’t procreate doesn’t make their love invalid.
Homosexuality is definitely a worse sin than premarital sex. My opinion: neither is right but one is a perversion of lust and the other one is bad judgement/impatience. Both are declared as sins before God (1 Corinthians 6, I think). The Bible is very clear on both. It states that those sins (among others) will prevent you from entering the Kingdom of God.
@xthread - I was mearly stating what the Bible has already laid out. It wasn’t my opinion it was God’s. If you don’t believe in God than there is nothing I can say to change your mind so all I can say is I’m sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
yeah. it’s completely hypocritical!
@weirdbean - wierd, but not random.
@GodArt - TRUE!
yes…
YES it is.
I really have NO idea.
Yes. Most definitely. But having being forced to study the bible from an early age I’ve realised a lot of it is hypocritical and contradicts itself in many ways.
Yes. According to the bible, all sin is equal. So how can you judge homosexuals when you yourself are sinning? It’s ridiculous.
And I’m not saying I’ve never judged anyone before. That would be a lie. I’m a sinner, too. I’m not proud of it. But that’s life.
As religion goes, there should not be gay marriage in religion, unless the religion allows it.
I see homosexuality as a regular vice; drinking, gambling, substance abuse, and doing stuff to yourself or others that are considered “outside of the socially accepted practices”. Are premarital sex and homosexual sex the same? yes. (according to religion) because sex is sex, but it is commonly referred to fornication: oral sex, anal penetration: these are practices shared by hetero and homosexuals in premarital (and sometimes extramarital) affairs.
I believe it as hypocritical to be a Christian and judge others, when it is said that we should love others, and try and help them. I also, however believe people who do not subscribe to a religion are hypocritical when they try and push general secular/humanist values on religious people.
based on the way you worded your question, it’s a lot easier to say yes, yes it is.
@Zettista - Wrong. They are both based on lust, making them sins (if you believe in ”sin”) of equal weight. And homosexuals btw do not engage in sex just out of lust…there is such a thing called love that is the impetus for why most people do what they do. Lust isn’t everything.
Especially while engaging in premarital homosexual sex
.
You can’t pick and choose which part of the bible you are going to abide by so yes, it is hypocrisy.
Technically. I don’t oppose it, so no worries.
Yes, I think it’s hypocritical.