As usual, when one of these posts gets started, I must announce that I’ll be selling popcorn and snacks in the lobby…

Because that’s what you’re saying when you say people choose to be gay.

Some people believe in Jesus. Some people believe in Hinduism. Other people believe there is no God.

I’m content to let everyone have their religious beliefs and let the chips fall where they may.

Likewise, I’m content to let everyone have their sexuality and let the chips fall where they may.

That being said…some people’s religious beliefs eschew homosexuality in the same way that other people’s religious beliefs eschew eating pork.

To those people who hold that worldview, homosexuality is a choice.

I don’t think this blog should become a place where we mock any religion…whether it be for their dietary laws or their sexual laws.

But that’s just my opinion.

I don’t think this blog should become a place where we mock any religion…

Unfortuantely, that pretty much rules out any discussion. Just about any statement could be seen as “mocking” SOME religion.

Just about any statement could be seen as “mocking” SOME religion.

Really?

Huh. I guess I never thought of it that way.

As usual, when one of these posts gets started, I must announce that I’ll be selling popcorn and snacks in the lobby…

ooh, ooh! can i have the drink concession? I promise to make it worse by selling hard likker & beer.

Where is there mocking of a religion in Ivy’s commentary on my post? I don’t see it anywhere.

Wow. I don’t get where you think I was mocking religion, Kat. I thought I had made clear in previous comments that that’s one of the things I don’t understand and am trying to understand about the religion we both share, Kat, Christianity.

That being said…some people’s religious beliefs eschew homosexuality in the same way that other people’s religious beliefs eschew eating pork.

To those people who hold that worldview, homosexuality is a choice.

I don’t think this blog should become a place where we mock any religion…whether it be for their dietary laws or their sexual laws.

I’m fine not mocking anyone’s religion when it comes to matters of diet or whatever. But when people believe erroneous things about other people, and that belief causes them to do harmful things to those other people, I personally don’t care whether it’s their religion or a drug-induced hallucination that causes them to believe that way. They’re just wrong. Why make it about religion?

…when people believe erroneous things about other people, and that belief causes them to do harmful things to those other people, I personally don’t care whether it’s their religion or a drug-induced hallucination that causes them to believe that way. They’re just wrong.

Exactly.

Do you think he really wanted to live his life that way? Because that’s what you’re saying when you say people choose to be gay.

That sounds to me like mocking a position by devaluing it.

I honestly don’t know whether people choose to be gay or are born gay. Sometimes I suspect it’s a bit of both in the same way that being fat is rooted in both genetics (born) and lifestyle (chosen) but is so ingrained by a certain point (say, 8 or 9 years old) that there is often little if any point in debating the issue.

You may be forced into making a choice–whether dietary or sexual–by your early physical and emotional programming.

I don’t know for sure.

But it seems like the common school of thought around here has become an attack on a version of Christianity.

I’ve been stuck in the middle of this debate in my own personal life for the last 17 years.

I can tell you one thing I do believe for certain about all kinds of choices…

Yes. People do make choices which have painful consequences. They make them all the time.

They choose to take drugs. They choose to cheat on their spouses. They choose to quit good jobs in favour of less viable jobs which then don’t pan out. They choose to invest money in shaky companies. They choose to go to war against a certain country.

It is possible to make a bad choice that causes pain.

If you are among the people who are firmly entrenched in the camp that being gay is a choice then that is how you view those scenarios you mentioned, Ivy.

I don’t get where you think I was mocking religion, Kat.

It seemed snide to me, but that may just be the way I read it. It seemed to be saying “you’re stupid if you think this.”

Again, that could have just been my inferrence.

But when people believe erroneous things about other people, and that belief causes them to do harmful things to those other people, I personally don’t care whether it’s their religion or a drug-induced hallucination that causes them to believe that way. They’re just wrong.

Where we differ is that I would not say their BELIEF was wrong, but their ACTIONS were.

Yea, but what about the guy who is fabulous? And, because he is, he becomes Teh Decorator in town, gets a TV show on HGTV, hangs out with Supermodels and has a condo in Palm beach?

I could totally see choosing that.

I was trying to make a convincing argument. I don’t think anyone who disagrees with me on that is stupid, just wrong. I suspect many people who are the hard-line “gay people choose to be gay” people have never been close to anyone who struggled very hard AGAINST being gay.

But it was never my intent to make fun of anyone’s religion.

I don’t think this blog should become a place where we mock any religion…

Me either.

I’m already working that side of the street, sister. I don’t need the competition.

he becomes Teh Decorator

Did Mack just use “Teh”…and in appropriate context, too?

But it was never my intent to make fun of anyone’s religion.

Sorry I misread it.

Not as old a dog as you thought.

It’s fun being hip.

One step away from the supermodels and condos,you are.

Katherine,

I don’t think this blog should become a place where we mock any religion…whether it be for their dietary laws or their sexual laws.
But that’s just my opinion.

Why should be religion by exempt from criticism?

It is definitely my intent to make fun of religion, and make no apology for it.

I can say that with all due respect, because no respect is in fact due.

Reign it in, ROR. Respect is, in fact, due to the people on this blog. That’s one of the guidelines for participation here.

I’m definitely with you on valuing reason over religion; I’m just not with you if you value reason over relationships.

ROR, I think Kat was speaking as “Editor” of MCB, not of life in general.

But Kat can correct me if I’m wrong.

Reason, I avoid structured religion myself, and I have no problem stating that, and, further, I even seem to enjoy watching Bill Maher skewer it on HBO.

That said, your comment above just makes you look like you want a fight. To mock people just because you can is a little petty, no?

That sounds to me like mocking a position by devaluing it.

Isn’t that what debate is, Kat? I see you devalue others’ positions all the time! Ironic that this is when you decide that it’s time to stop.

I’ve been stuck in the middle of this debate in my own personal life for the last 17 years…

…But it seems like the common school of thought around here has become an attack on a version of Christianity.

I’m living this, Kat. My daughter will live it for the rest of her life. It was the church’s handling of the situation with my ex-husband that has caused an immense amount of pain in the lives of my family.

I am a Christian, and I can tell you that the church has handled this wrong. If stating a fact is considered mocking, then so be it.

It’s religion I have no respect for. That statement was not intended to be a personal attack.

I’ll give Ned credit for taking the criticism and defending his faith, rather than whining about how it should be taboo to mock religion.

Kat,

There are three major considerations about homosexuality and Christianity:

1) Is homesexual behavior a sin?
2) Are people born with a sexual orientation?
3) How do Christians interact with homosexuals?

Now, I’m going to backtrack a little. Number 2 is irrelevant to numbers 1 and 3. No matter the answer of the 2nd question, if there is Truth concerning questions 1 and 3, they are Truth regardless of the the answer to 2, or what we think of the fairness of it all.

So, that’s my roundabout way of saying that I don’t consider the “born that way” discussion to even be about (Christian) religion at all. Now, when the discussion slips into “Why would God make someone that way?…”, then it’s a religious discussion, sort of.

God made me with a nature to have a need to sleep with 3 supermodels at one time. I was born that way, because I don’t ever remember NOT having that need. That has nothing do with the rightness or wrongness of acting on that orientation.

But, I probably should stay out of this and sell popcorn. Or amuse myself trifling with ROR. But, I think I’ll just go outside and enjoy this beautiful day.

God made me with a nature to have a need to sleep with 3 supermodels at one time. I was born that way, because I don’t ever remember NOT having that need.

Wow, Slarti! You and me both.

I’m living this, Kat. My daughter will live it for the rest of her life. It was the church’s handling of the situation with my ex-husband that has caused an immense amount of pain in the lives of my family.

Well, I’m living it too. You don’t have the monopoly on Gay Loved Ones Harmed by Zealotry.

Isn’t that what debate is, Kat?

It depends on whether or not you ascribe to the Oxonian philosophy of debate or not.

I see you devalue others’ positions all the time! Ironic that this is when you decide that it’s time to stop.

Links, please.

ROR, I think Kat was speaking as “Editor” of MCB, not of life in general.

Actually, no. I was speaking as a participant in multiple recent conversations about the nature of religion. I’ve seen enough of ROR’s snide comments to Ned over the last few weeks.

I’ll give Ned credit for taking the criticism and defending his faith, rather than whining about how it should be taboo to mock religion.

Ned obviously has more patience for engaging you and your tactics than I do right now.

I’m definitely with you on valuing reason over religion; I’m just not with you if you value reason over relationships.

What she said.

*SNORK*

I love you Kate.

3) How do Christians interact with homosexuals?

Doesn’t that question presuppose that homosexuals cannot be Christians?

Because, frankly, I don’t believe that.

You don’t have the monopoly on Gay Loved Ones Harmed by Zealotry.

A snide remark like that is all one needs to know to see where your compassion lies.

I’m definitely with you on valuing reason over religion; I’m just not with you if you value reason over relationships

I’ve addressed that here.

That said, your comment above just makes you look like you want a fight. To mock people just because you can is a little petty, no?

Politics is not a mutual admiration society. Religion, and yes I mean all religion, has tangible negative consequences. There should be no social pressure to overlook them. I am not saying that all of the consequences are negative.

I’ll try that link again, (like anyone cares)
here

A snide remark like that is all one needs to know to see where your compassion lies.

Ginger, you need to step off right now. You are messing in a dangerous area with me and I’m having a hard time restraining myself.

It’s probably best if you and I do not directly discuss the issue of religion and homosexuality with one another.

The html keeps getting mangled, sorry folks.

http://reasonoverreligion.blogspot.com/2007/09/am-i-elitist.html

Ginger, you need to step off right now. You are messing in a dangerous area with me and I’m having a hard time restraining myself.

Kat, first of all, you don’t tell me what to do. I am an adult. Secondly, you’ve already stepped over the line with me. I’m done discussing ANY issues with you from here on out.

ROR - The link worked the first time. I read it. I’m a non-believer/atheist/whatever who struggles personally with the value of taking that kind of approach, but I certainly don’t disagree with your efforts. It’s long been my hypothesis that much of the progress made on any issue is aided by having extremists who, in their extremism, make the more moderate activists seem easier to agree with. It’s why, for example, I roll my eyes at PeTA but want them never to stop what they’re doing.

So, having clarified that you weren’t intending a personal attack anyway, rock on.

Dear Kat and Ginger,

Please step away from the argument for a moment and calm down a notch or two. I’d hate to have to punch you both in the nose for violating MCB’s “be nice or we will delete your shit” rules.

Nothing but love,

Ivy

Dear Kat and Ginger,

What Ivy said.

and…

From what I’ve read yuo two aren’t arch-enemies or anything. This sure seems to me to be a silly thing to make an enemy over. If you disagree then, by all means, make an enemy, but I’d encourage you to stop, calm down, and make a rational decision if it’s really worth it first.

Woot, Dolphin’s gonna join my nose-punching goon squad! This kicks ass.

[…] at Music City Bloggers, we’re debating choice and levels of wrongness, among other things. Meanwhile over at the Onion, they get it half-right — well, mostly […]

From what I’ve read yuo two aren’t arch-enemies or anything.

I never thought we were.

If you disagree then, by all means, make an enemy, but I’d encourage you to stop, calm down, and make a rational decision if it’s really worth it first.

I’m not trying to make an enemy. But I’m also not going to pretend that my life isn’t as valuable as hers and the pain I’ve suffered isn’t as real as hers.

Just because I rarely discuss it doesn’t mean I don’t deal with it on a daily basis.

When I debate theological or political issues I leave emotion out of it. Which is all I’m trying to do here. And for that I’m “lacking in compassion”. Or whatever.

I don’t make people’s pain into a competition of who is hurting more than who…my intention was to state that I am living in this issue as well as she. Since that was replied to with such an incredibly mean-spirited statement, it has been made clear to me that I am definitely not seen as a friend.

Katherine:

But Ned’s “snide” comments to me don’t bother you at all.

So much drama in the MCB, it’s kinda hard being Ivy, the HBIC….

Y’all…it’s Friiiiday. I ain’t got shit to do. I’m gonna get you hiiiigh.

Okay, not really, because smoking pot is illegal and I’d never do anything illegal. But for God’s (or, in ROR’s case, whatever term s/he digs in place of God) sake, please don’t tear down the whole site while I’m out eating dinner to celebrate Megs’ all “E” report card or while I’m out shopping because Ulta just opened in M’boro and I have a coupon for free shit.

Just sayin’.

it has been made clear to me that I am definitely not seen as a friend.

That’s an awfully large inferrence to make on your part. And one that would have been incorrect.

Your statement to me appeared to me to be a form of “I have a bigger dog in this fight”, which is a game I don’t care to play.

And then to talk about my level of compassion in a derisive way was also not something I cared for.

I am different from you and Slarti. I even wrote a blog post about it echoing his blog post about it.

I don’t operate by saying “*Hugs*” to people on the internet when they’re having a bad day.

That doesn’t mean that people who do are bad or wrong, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t care deeply about the person who is having a bad day.

I just don’t react to things the same way you do. Yet you’re constantly calling for referenda on my kindness and compassionateness….which to me is the same thing as calling for a referendum on my religion.

I take great offence to that.

Um OK I don’t want to un-make any friends here, but this struck me so I have to comment:

That being said…some people’s religious beliefs eschew homosexuality in the same way that other people’s religious beliefs eschew eating pork.

But the people who eschew eating pork don’t say “Nobody should be allowed to eat pork. There should be a law that prohibits everyone from eating pork!” like the people who eschew homosexuality say (ok, not everyone, but that’s the general Christian consensus, right?).

Anyway, I don’t really think the two are comparable.

) Is homesexual behavior a sin?
2) Are people born with a sexual orientation?
3) How do Christians interact with homosexuals?

“Doesn’t that question presuppose that homosexuals cannot be Christians?”

Remember, I’ve purposefully not answered ANY of the questions. (My example was not submitted as a proof, but as an example of how our natures are not the determinating factor in rightness or wrongness - and I’d like to add to some of you…Sheeesh!)

Back to your question: some Christians feel that way, I do not, because if natures disqualified some for Christ’s love, none of us would qualify. But I worded the question the way I did because it’s an issue in some sectors of Chrisitanity. And for that matter, Islam.

Is it even possible to discuss this dispassionately?

Almost makes me long for an abortion discussion.

I wish nothing but health, happiness, and prosperity to all the folks (including Ned) that comment at MCB.

However, I don’t respect your religion, and I don’t care if your offended.

I meant to say…Christians should interact with homosexuals the same way we do with any other sinner (meaning everybody else on the planet)…love them as they are, minister as needed and let God do the rest.

I can’t change anybody in my life who is a homosexual anymore than I can change anybody I love that is a thief, a liar, or whatever besetting sin they might have.

“However, I don’t respect your religion, and I don’t care if your offended”

Fair enough. I’m not offended in the least.

However, I don’t respect your religion, and I don’t care if your offended.

Just wondering, is there ANY religion you can get behind, ROR? Buddhism? Church of Satan? Anything?

I promise this is a “just wondering” kinda thing and not a snarky kinda thing.

it’s an issue in some sectors of Chrisitanity.

I personally don’t think it should be. I think when we try to bring any one of those three questions into the faith we take our eyes off the ball.

Is it even possible to discuss this dispassionately?

Well, I try. But it seems that coming from me dispassion=not compassionate.

Ginger,

Here’s some irony. Kat has her way (logical, a little dry, somewhat dispassionate). I married a woman like that. My son is like that. It’s obvious that people are, ahem, born that way.

It takes all kinds, and I think the Nashville blogging world is better because of the diversity in style. Sometimes, we misunderstand one another because of these style differences.

So I hope, in a quiet moment, you’ll reconsider. Many of us care too deeply for both of you to see you torn assunder.

badbadivy:

No, but thank you for asking. My criticism of religion is not rooted intrinsically in meanness or spite. It is an ethical stance. I am not even saying my ethical stance is immune to criticism. Unfortunately, religion claims exactly that.

Here’s the problem:

Me: “My book says that women who learn to read should be stoned to death.”
You: “That’s barbaric! It’s bad for women, who have natural rights guaranteed by my constitution! It’s unfair! It’s cruel! Think about it!”
Me: “So what? You believe that Moses talked to an invisible man in space through a burning bush, and you’re telling me that I can’t believe what I want because it doesn’t make sense? Who are you to tell me I’m nuts? Go to hell, infidel.”

“Go to hell, infidel.”

I think we’ve just found my band’s next CD title.

Um OK I don’t want to un-make any friends here,

If you haven’t unmade a friend in me with your completely unreasonable take on the smoking ban, you never will. ;-p (Note: that was my attempt to be broadly humourous. It probably failed.)

but this struck me so I have to comment:

Anyway, I don’t really think the two are comparable.

First off, I am completely against using the law to enforce any religious code. There are many Christians like me.

I don’t really think there IS a general consensus about homosexuality within Christianity. From where I sit deep in the trenches of the faith, I see a variety of takes on the issue.

Unfortunately for both the outside and the inside of the faith those who believe homosexuality should be A Special Crime are the most vocal.

Stealing a phrase from Aunt B.’s blog a couple of days ago, I think there are a good many people who have decided to game the infrastructure of Christianity to acheive their own earthly ends.

For those who wish to attain political power they’ve tried to make Christianity into a War On Abortion And Gays. Which is not at all what Christianity is….as most of us vocally preach on an almost daily basis.

We’re continually having to shout down the false teachers while still attempting to adhere to a larger code.

3) How do Christians interact with homosexuals?

Probably in the butt. They seem to like that.

Ron…you is bad. heh heh

That is something my old man would say in a moment like this. Or my son.

ROR, thanks for the response, I “get” where you’re coming from now. “Go to hell, infidel” cracks me up mightily, btw.

Try being Jewish these days.

The genocide planners are hard at work.

Denounced in some quarters, applauded in others.

Tobacco is an anti-depressant which schizophrenics seem to like a lot.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/08/post_439.html

Pot is also an anti-depressant. Another of nature’s own miracles. Of course it has to be illegal. Hard competition for the medical cartel.

Any viewpoint can find a ready mind, if that mind is willing to put up with logical inconsistency in order to bow to deep-rooted fears. An example:

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Church sign generator!

Mmmmwwwuuuhahahaha